Old Halifax

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Ziobrop

i cant speak to "substandard properties" elsewhere, but when land was expropriated in the defined re-development areas, or even properties adjacent to those areas, fair compensation was paid, and demolition tenders were put out and awarded by council. So property owners on the periphery of the area also offered their properties for sale to the city, simply to not have to worry about being in the next round.

Thanks! That helps my understanding of the process involved.

[JET]

Mark, I think that thou dost apologize too much.

A good example of very poor compensation for property is Africville, a suitcase of money and a running bulldozer sitting outside; Clairmont's book, Africville covers it quite well.

I remember having a beer in 'The Ocean Tavern', trying to remember if that was the location.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by JET

Mark, I think that thou dost apologize too much.

Sorry about that!

A good example of very poor compensation for property is Africville, a suitcase of money and a running bulldozer sitting outside; Clairmont's book, Africville covers it quite well.

Thanks, I'll see if I can find a copy.

I remember having a beer in 'The Ocean Tavern', trying to remember if that was the location.

Hey neat! In actuality I find little neighborhood taverns like that quite interesting. Just have to tread carefully sometimes, though...

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by JET

A good example of very poor compensation for property is Africville, a suitcase of money and a running bulldozer sitting outside; Clairmont's book, Africville covers it quite well.

In many if not most examples the Africville properties were not deeded nor registered. If there was any ownership documentation other than through squatters rights then expropriation would have occurred.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

In many if not most examples the Africville properties were not deeded nor registered. If there was any ownership documentation other than through squatters rights then expropriation would have occurred.

Is it considered expropriation if a guy from the City shows up with a running bulldozer and some money, and tells you to sell up. If they had no land claim, wouldn't seem like much need to offer some money to squatters?

[JET]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Sorry about that!



Thanks, I'll see if I can find a copy.



Hey neat! In actuality I find little neighborhood taverns like that quite interesting. Just have to tread carefully sometimes, though...

The funny thing about the Ocean is that I seem to remember it being on the other side of the street, and more south than the Law Courts, and remember playing asteroids there.

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

In many if not most examples the Africville properties were not deeded nor registered. If there was any ownership documentation other than through squatters rights then expropriation would have occurred.

from council minutes, where deeds existed, compensation appears to have been paid on par with those in the Central redevelopment area. for those without clear title, they were paid $500.

i found another case of land that was owned without clear title and was required for the new west street fire headquarters was expropriated, but the compensation paid was in the range of what was paid to those with clear title.

if there was any issue with title, the city had to expropriate, as that granted clear title to the land.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Ziobrop

from council minutes, where deeds existed, compensation appears to have been paid on par with those in the Central redevelopment area. for those without clear title, they were paid $500.

i found another case of land that was owned without clear title and was required for the new west street fire headquarters was expropriated, but the compensation paid was in the range of what was paid to those with clear title.

if there was any issue with title, the city had to expropriate, as that granted clear title to the land.

This is exactly correct. The more recent narrative is mythology perpetuated by those with bigger fish to fry and dollar signs in their eyes.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

This is exactly correct. The more recent narrative is mythology perpetuated by those with bigger fish to fry and dollar signs in their eyes.

Well, a lot of people didn't have clear title for a whole whack of reasons relating to, dare I say it, racism. Nonetheless, Africville had been a home to a lot of families for generations. Even if the letter of the law was being upheld, is it morally correct to say, "here's 500 bucks, now we're taking your entire home and ancestral community and destroying it"? (Guess what my answer is.) ue that

It's silly to re-litigate this issue anyway; the general consensus nowadays is basically that the city did a terrible thing, and it shouldn't have gone down like it did. Arguing to the contrary sounds more absurd with every passing year.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Well, a lot of people didn't have clear title for a whole whack of reasons relating to, dare I say it, racism. Nonetheless, Africville had been a home to a lot of families for generations. Even if the letter of the law was being upheld, is it morally correct to say, "here's 500 bucks, now we're taking your entire home and ancestral community and destroying it"? (Guess what my answer is.) ue that

It's silly to re-litigate this issue anyway; the general consensus nowadays is basically that the city did a terrible thing, and it shouldn't have gone down like it did. Arguing to the contrary sounds more absurd with every passing year.

So the city should have ignored people living in squalor?

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

So the city should have ignored people living in squalor?

Ignoring would have been better than the destructive solution that was executed, I think.

But no, you're right, the living conditions in Africville were terrible and merited attention. But that attention shouldn't have come in the form of destroying a longstanding community and forcibly relocating its residents with barely a thought to what people in the community itself desired. It's not like the residents or even leaders of the Africville community were consulted about what might be done to improve conditions. It was entirely directed and executed from city hall.

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Well, a lot of people didn't have clear title for a whole whack of reasons relating to, dare I say it, racism. Nonetheless, Africville had been a home to a lot of families for generations. Even if the letter of the law was being upheld, is it morally correct to say, "here's 500 bucks, now we're taking your entire home and ancestral community and destroying it"? (Guess what my answer is.) ue that

It's silly to re-litigate this issue anyway; the general consensus nowadays is basically that the city did a terrible thing, and it shouldn't have gone down like it did. Arguing to the contrary sounds more absurd with every passing year.

so i did that cbc thing with Nelson Carvery. I didn't really get into it, but it sounds like his suit claims actually relate to land taken by the city prior to the documented and well know expropriations. The city expropriated land in africville as early as 1907. i really need to read the suit.

Im not sure africville was racism. Though it was a predominantly black community, the same sort of thing happened to many other communities. its probably better described as classicism, or discriminating against poor people.. I think racism was just easier to understand for most, and thats why it hung on.

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Ignoring would have been better than the destructive solution that was executed, I think.

But no, you're right, the living conditions in Africville were terrible and merited attention. But that attention shouldn't have come in the form of destroying a longstanding community and forcibly relocating its residents with barely a thought to what people in the community itself desired. It's not like the residents or even leaders of the Africville community were consulted about what might be done to improve conditions. It was entirely directed and executed from city hall.

the city wanted the land for industrial development. at the time, Halifax was just the Peninsula. Spryfield, fairview and rockingham wouldn't be annexed for a few more years, and the city needed to grow its tax base where it could. The "Industrial mile" as it was known had port and rail access, close to roads. and perfect for the cities needs.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

So the city should have ignored people living in squalor?

A large number of people were, and are, living in squalor in Halifax; no one really seems to care then or now unless they have property that someone wants. It's the same the whole world over.

[Keith P.]

You will always have the poor among you.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Ziobrop

so i did that cbc thing with Nelson Carvery. I didn't really get into it, but it sounds like his suit claims actually relate to land taken by the city prior to the documented and well know expropriations. The city expropriated land in africville as early as 1907. i really need to read the suit.

Im not sure africville was racism. Though it was a predominantly black community, the same sort of thing happened to many other communities. its probably better described as classicism, or discriminating against poor people.. I think racism was just easier to understand for most, and thats why it hung on.

Oh yeah, I don't think it was destroyed intentionally because it was a black community, but I definitely think the fact that the residents were non-white and poor made it easier, at that time, for the city to do what they did, and there was definitely a paternalistic thing going on: Like, "You're all living in squalor; we'll just get rid of this place you've built and put you over in this housing project, and it'll be better, trust us."

[JET]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

You will always have the poor among you.

I have been the poor among you.

[JET]

This is off topic, but it is Old Nova Scotia related. I was listening to the News about Pictou Academy, and that there is a law that there would always be a Pictou Academy, and was interested about 'the' building. There were 4 buildings altogether. https://decostecentre.ca/whats-on/pi...photo-exhibit/ The first was built in 1818, and was replaced by the second when it was too small. The second burned, and was replaced by the third in 1938 while it was still smouldering. The 4th was built in 1940 after the 3rd burned (lasted only two years?). Interesting.

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by JET

This is off topic, but it is Old Nova Scotia related. I was listening to the News about Pictou Academy, and that there is a law that there would always be a Pictou Academy, and was interested about 'the' building. There were 4 buildings altogether. https://decostecentre.ca/whats-on/pi...photo-exhibit/ The first was built in 1818, and was replaced by the second when it was too small. The second burned, and was replaced by the third in 1938 while it was still smouldering. The 4th was built in 1940 after the 3rd burned (lasted only two years?). Interesting.

So I built a third! That one burned down, fell over, THEN sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up. And that's what you're going to get, Lad, the strongest castle errr Academy in all of Pictou!

[JET]

I was thinking the same thing... 'One day, lad, all this will be yours.' 'What, the curtains?'