Quote:
Originally Posted by lurkerofpain
Surely you don't think it was Colonial Honda's surroundings to 'improve' as they wished do you? And that there couldn't have been any better use of the land that they 'improved' than to expand their already waste of space parking lots? You claim to be all for 'development' as you define it, which I understand is turning say vacant lots (parking lots?) into (typically) more and more 'luxury living' complexes. Why would you conclude that Colonial Honda having a few more places to display their cars be more desirable than older declining housing stock remaining that is by nature more affordable (and at least not such an eyesore as that horrid new parking lot!) ?
|
Steele purchased the properties, most of which were run-down slummy rental units with little hope of improvement, so they could choose to do with them what they wished. I realize that according to planning dogma, car dealerships are bad and considered the equivalent to nuclear fallout, but that is a thriving business in a convenient location for its customers and the area in question at least looks all of a piece now. I have no doubt that at some point Steele may want to develop that parcel into something else but as of now it is fine.
That is far from the biggest issue with Council at the moment. Looking back on my post from 2016 above it seems I was prescient. The outgoing Council did exactly as I predicted, immersing themselves in pandering to social issues and ignoring the big-picture needs of HRM as they veered far out of their lane. The topper was the motion quietly passed in the final minutes of the final Council meeting of this bunch, enabling an absurd "living wage" requirement for HRM contractors. So now instead of selecting the lowest bid that meets requirements for things like security guards, snow removal, landscaping et al, they will require contractors wishing to do business with HRM to pay their employees the CCPA's theoretical and nonsensical living wage rate, over $21/hr at present. It is like walking into a convenience store and giving the clerk $10 for a carton of milk because you feel sorry for them, or giving the sales rep you bought a car from an extra few grand. Not only is it totally nuts, it totally ignores the fiduciary responsibility (a term I'm sure few members of the existing free-spending Council ever heard of, much less understand) they have to the taxpayer. And I suspect few of them considered the huge implications it has for HRM's collective agreements with their own employees, all of which will quickly be whipsawed upwards as union leaders demand that the existing spread be maintained. A shameful dereliction of duty.
The best thing that could happen is for all incumbents to be defeated. However, knowing the indifference most voters have towards municipal news and the widespread ignorance of what goes on within HRM, I'm sure name recognition and nothing more will return many of this bunch yet again. Tragic.