[Halifax] Nova Centre | 65-58-58 m | 16-15-14 fl | Completed

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I don't see how having standing at the UARB has any relevance to the matter; but that will be up to them to defend.

How did they get this "standing" position... they are regular people, why do they have a special privilege for their little joke of a group that constantly is having detrimental impact on the progression of developments, causing financial pains to developers and citizens alike.

[curnhalio]

I'm sure the costs incurred in delays far outstrip the HT's ability to pay them. At the very least HT should have to pay court costs in regard to this particular suit.

This project was expensive enough as it was TYVM, but all HT have served to do is add unnecessary expense that will have to be borne, most likely by the taxpayers funding it in the first place.

[xanaxanax]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

I hope they sweat more than I did when I got hit with a SLAP lawsuit when I was working up north. I just got the paperwork back that the person who filed it has withdrawn it...but now I've hired the lawyer to hit him with one for slander.

Do you want a pat on the back or something

[Colin May]

With a lottery win I'd be in court fighting HRM on a regular basis. The staff and council make "I dare you to sue ' decisions and are rarely challenged.
Case in point ; the rules for speaking at a public meeting in support or against a development or planning strategy change. Time for a staff presentation is unlimited. The applicant gets 10 minutes and can share it with the architect or the developer. Staff and the applicant can display an unlimited number of images. A person supporting or opposing or recommending changes to the application can speak for 5 minutes and use no more than 2 images.
When closing the applicant gets 5 minutes and the staff have no time limit and can, and do introduce new evidence.
A planning hearing is a quasi-judicial proceeding. HRM rules set out in Administrative Order 1 do not meet the definition of 'procedural fairness'.
On that ground alone any person could have challenged the Nova Centre decision,and every other decision made by council, after a public hearing.
I'm looking forward to winning the lottery because I doubt any provincial government will put a stop to HRM shenanigans.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Ziobrop

I have noticed recently the arrival of what appears to be A Putzmister tower placing system - basically a large tower concrete pump arm.

Photos from http://fillingtheholehfx.tumblr.com/

I believe most highrises to date have used buckets on the tower crane for pouring columns and slabs.

I love the name "Putzmeister"!!

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I love the name "Putzmeister"!!

"Plaster Master"

It's interesting that they've been a valuable tool in containing nuclear plant accidents:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putzmeister

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I love the name "Putzmeister"!!

[JET]

Originally Posted by curnhalio

I'm sure the costs incurred in delays far outstrip the HT's ability to pay them. At the very least HT should have to pay court costs in regard to this particular suit.

This project was expensive enough as it was TYVM, but all HT have served to do is add unnecessary expense that will have to be borne, most likely by the taxpayers funding it in the first place.

Heritage Trust might only be expected to pay costs if they lose, Ramia might be expected to pay costs if he loses; he does have more money, but that does not make things a foregone conclusion. HT did challenge the Midtown proposal and their challenge was supported. They do have a right to make a challenge, even if it is not popular with some. It's possible that Ramia will lose his suit, which would provide more credence to the Heritage Trust.

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by JET

Heritage Trust might only be expected to pay costs if they lose, Ramia might be expected to pay costs if he loses; he does have more money, but that does not make things a foregone conclusion. HT did challenge the Midtown proposal and their challenge was supported. They do have a right to make a challenge, even if it is not popular with some. It's possible that Ramia will lose his suit, which would provide more credence to the Heritage Trust.

I am not a lawyer, so I may be wrong here, but I thought that in terms of the strategy likely to be used in the suit, it was telling that they mentioned the comments about Nova Centre violating view plans. My guess is that they plan to go after very specific comments made by HT and STV that were in fact knowingly incorrect.

[Ziobrop]

I threw together a bit of an explanatory post on BuiltHalifax to complement my progress tumblelog. I hope it gives a good overview of how concrete Highrises are built.

http://halifaxbloggers.ca/builthalif...-construction/

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by JET

Heritage Trust might only be expected to pay costs if they lose, Ramia might be expected to pay costs if he loses; he does have more money, but that does not make things a foregone conclusion. HT did challenge the Midtown proposal and their challenge was supported. They do have a right to make a challenge, even if it is not popular with some. It's possible that Ramia will lose his suit, which would provide more credence to the Heritage Trust.

The Midtown case was very different than this. It was not proposed by the Province of Nova Scotia and Halifax Regional Municipality, and funded in part by the Government of Canada. It was being proposed by a divided family of bar owners and a developer who is a dentist. They chose not to appeal what seemed to be a very appealable decision.

Ramia, I think, wants to punish the HT this time, and is willing to spend whatever it takes to do it. He is wealthy enough to hire not only the best lawyers but also the best strategists, tacticians, accountants, researchers, and PR pros to not only build his court case but also to win in the court of public opinion. And if he doesn't win the first time, he can bleed them dry through appeal after appeal.

If I were the Paceys and the other 25 usual anti-development suspects named, I would be very, very concerned.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The Midtown case was very different than this. It was not proposed by the Province of Nova Scotia and Halifax Regional Municipality, and funded in part by the Government of Canada. It was being proposed by a divided family of bar owners and a developer who is a dentist. They chose not to appeal what seemed to be a very appealable decision.

Ramia, I think, wants to punish the HT this time, and is willing to spend whatever it takes to do it. He is wealthy enough to hire not only the best lawyers but also the best strategists, tacticians, accountants, researchers, and PR pros to not only build his court case but also to win in the court of public opinion. And if he doesn't win the first time, he can bleed them dry through appeal after appeal.

If I were the Paceys and the other 25 usual anti-development suspects named, I would be very, very concerned.

and even with all that Ramia could still lose his suit, and won't that be interesting

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The Midtown case was very different than this. It was not proposed by the Province of Nova Scotia and Halifax Regional Municipality, and funded in part by the Government of Canada. It was being proposed by a divided family of bar owners and a developer who is a dentist. They chose not to appeal what seemed to be a very appealable decision.

Ramia, I think, wants to punish the HT this time, and is willing to spend whatever it takes to do it. He is wealthy enough to hire not only the best lawyers but also the best strategists, tacticians, accountants, researchers, and PR pros to not only build his court case but also to win in the court of public opinion. And if he doesn't win the first time, he can bleed them dry through appeal after appeal.

If I were the Paceys and the other 25 usual anti-development suspects named, I would be very, very concerned.

The Ramia suit ignores the fact that HRM Council did not formally close Grafton Street until 2 weeks ago on June 10 2014, see here :

" 13.3 Property Matter
A matter pertaining to providing instruction and direction to officers and employees of the Municipality pertaining to the acquisition / sale of land in regard to

13.3.1 Administrative Order SC-077 Respecting Closure of a Portion of Grafton Street and Conveyance to Argyle Developments – Private and Confidential Report
Motion:
That Halifax Regional Council:
1. Approve Administrative Order SC-077 to close that part of Grafton Street that is between Prince and Sackville Streets, Halifax, as contained in Attachment C of the in camera recommendation report dated June 6, 2014;

2. Declare a portion of Grafton Street as per Attachment C of the in camera recommendation report dated June 6, 2014, surplus to municipal requirements and categorize as “Economic Development” as per Administrative Order 50;

3. Authorize the Mayor and Clerk to enter into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale with Argyle Developments Inc. as per the terms and conditions set out in Table 1 of the in camera recommendation report dated June 6, 2014.

It is further recommended that the in camera recommendation report dated June 6, 2014 not be released until the sale has closed. "

His first task is to prove that HT has acted outside its broad mandate. He also has to provide details of the contracts he claims to have with 3rd parties.
A fool and his money are easy parted.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Colin May

The Ramia suit ignores the fact that HRM Council did not formally close Grafton Street until 2 weeks ago on June 10 2014, see here :

" 13.3 Property Matter
A matter pertaining to providing instruction and direction to officers and employees of the Municipality pertaining to the acquisition / sale of land in regard to

13.3.1 Administrative Order SC-077 Respecting Closure of a Portion of Grafton Street and Conveyance to Argyle Developments – Private and Confidential Report
Motion:
That Halifax Regional Council:
1. Approve Administrative Order SC-077 to close that part of Grafton Street that is between Prince and Sackville Streets, Halifax, as contained in Attachment C of the in camera recommendation report dated June 6, 2014;

2. Declare a portion of Grafton Street as per Attachment C of the in camera recommendation report dated June 6, 2014, surplus to municipal requirements and categorize as “Economic Development” as per Administrative Order 50;

3. Authorize the Mayor and Clerk to enter into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale with Argyle Developments Inc. as per the terms and conditions set out in Table 1 of the in camera recommendation report dated June 6, 2014.

It is further recommended that the in camera recommendation report dated June 6, 2014 not be released until the sale has closed. "

His first task is to prove that HT has acted outside its broad mandate. He also has to provide details of the contracts he claims to have with 3rd parties.
A fool and his money are easy parted.

Do you have a link to his lawsuit documents? Not that I'll understand them fully, but I'd like to at least read them and get a better sense of his argument.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Colin May

The Ramia suit ignores the fact that HRM Council did not formally close Grafton Street until 2 weeks ago on June 10 2014

That's because he went through multiple redesigns as a result of the public participation process to move the CC portion above ground which necessitated using what had originally been intended to be a still-open Grafton Street.

I realize the hatred of Ramia is intense among some because (a) he is a Middle-Eastern immigrant (b) he is wealthy (c) he WON the bid to build the hated CC and (d) he doesn't take shit from the usual suspects. None of that changes that he did everything the govts asked him to do and is still being put through the wringer by these obstructionists.

[fenwick16]

I noticed the following story in the Chronicle Herald. As previously reported in the local media, the Heritage Trust has filed a motion with the NS Supreme Court against the HRM's April 29th decision on approving amendments to the Nova Centre design. I read in the following CH article that an appeal can also be filed at the municipal level (as the Heritage Trust did against the 22nd Commerce Square).

What are the chances that the Heritage Trust will wait until the final day (June 30th) and file an appeal to delay the final permits from being issued? (I believe they have to find someone within the Nova Centre vicinity but I am sure they can come up with someone). I have a hunch that they will file an appeal on Monday (on behave of someone in the area) since they filed the NS Supreme Court motion on the final deadline date. (Waiting until the final deadline date allows them to stall the development to the maximum length of time.)

(source: http://www.herald.ns.ca/metro/121858...slidebox=title)
Nova Centre developer forks over $733,400 in fees to Halifax
BRETT BUNDALE CITY HALL REPORTER
Published June 26, 2014 - 5:32pm
Last Updated June 26, 2014 - 7:11pm

.
.
.
Jim Donovan, Halifax’s manager of municipal compliance, said the fees that will be charged for the above-ground work cannot be disclosed until after the permit is issued.

Yet the permit won’t be issued until the appeals period has passed at the end of the business day Monday. Any appeals the city receives would have to go before council, which would have 60 days to make a decision. The city had not received any appeals as of Thursday.

The $500-million development, which includes the new Halifax Convention Centre, a luxury hotel, financial centre, retail, residential and restaurant space, received final site plan approval two weeks ago. The convention centre part of the project is valued at $164 million, cost-shared by all three government levels.

I haven't heard of an appeal to the municipality by the Heritage Trust (just the one with the NS Supreme Court). So can we assume that the remaining permits were issued Monday and we will soon start to see this rise above Argyle Street?

I see some evidence in the picture below by Ziobrop.

(source: http://fillingtheholehfx.tumblr.com/ )

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I noticed the following story in the Chronicle Herald. As previously reported in the local media, the Heritage Trust has filed a motion with the NS Supreme Court against the HRM's April 29th decision on approving amendments to the Nova Centre design. I read in the following CH article that an appeal can also be filed at the municipal level (as the Heritage Trust did against the 22nd Commerce Square).

What are the chances that the Heritage Trust will wait until the final day (June 30th) and file an appeal to delay the final permits from being issued? (I believe they have to find someone within the Nova Centre vicinity but I am sure they can come up with someone). I have a hunch that they will file an appeal on Monday (on behave of someone in the area) since they filed the NS Supreme Court motion on the final deadline date. (Waiting until the final deadline date allows them to stall the development to the maximum length of time.)

(source: http://www.herald.ns.ca/metro/121858...slidebox=title)
Nova Centre developer forks over $733,400 in fees to Halifax
BRETT BUNDALE CITY HALL REPORTER
Published June 26, 2014 - 5:32pm
Last Updated June 26, 2014 - 7:11pm

.
.
.
Jim Donovan, Halifax’s manager of municipal compliance, said the fees that will be charged for the above-ground work cannot be disclosed until after the permit is issued.

Yet the permit won’t be issued until the appeals period has passed at the end of the business day Monday. Any appeals the city receives would have to go before council, which would have 60 days to make a decision. The city had not received any appeals as of Thursday.

The $500-million development, which includes the new Halifax Convention Centre, a luxury hotel, financial centre, retail, residential and restaurant space, received final site plan approval two weeks ago. The convention centre part of the project is valued at $164 million, cost-shared by all three government levels.

Nice catch, fenwick. Ramia's law suit might be a clever way to pre-empt them; now, if they file an appeal, it looks like they're just "getting back" at Ramia for the law suit. It colors the whole endeavor.

[Colin May]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

That's because he went through multiple redesigns as a result of the public participation process to move the CC portion above ground which necessitated using what had originally been intended to be a still-open Grafton Street.

I realize the hatred of Ramia is intense among some because (a) he is a Middle-Eastern immigrant (b) he is wealthy (c) he WON the bid to build the hated CC and (d) he doesn't take shit from the usual suspects. None of that changes that he did everything the govts asked him to do and is still being put through the wringer by these obstructionists.

Any evidence to support your last paragraph assertions ?
I thought he was from a Lebanese family going back to the early 1900's.
I believe he and his supporters said the new design is better than the first design.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

That's because he went through multiple redesigns as a result of the public participation process to move the CC portion above ground which necessitated using what had originally been intended to be a still-open Grafton Street.

I realize the hatred of Ramia is intense among some because (a) he is a Middle-Eastern immigrant (b) he is wealthy (c) he WON the bid to build the hated CC and (d) he doesn't take shit from the usual suspects. None of that changes that he did everything the govts asked him to do and is still being put through the wringer by these obstructionists.

I agree. I have never met Joe Ramia but I have developed a great respect for the man and what he has had to endure in order to develop the provincially/municipally requested new convention centre. I hope that the Heritage Trust and directors will be successfully sued mainly because I think objectivity and honesty are important. I think that Joe Ramia has a strong case against the Heritage Trust since he has been repeated portrayed in the local media as an evil developer who is taking advantage of municipal and provincial residents.

The Save the View group has the following false statement on their website about the convention centre blocking view-planes from the Citadel - http://www.savetheview.ca/happening.shtml#history







The convention centre design and location did not originate with Rank Inc. (as repeatedly falsely stated by the Save the View group). The origin of the convention centre design has been available on the internet for years and is clearly described by WHW Architects in a study commission by HRM - http://www.tradecentrelimited.com/si...1_May_2007.pdf. I have posted a few screen-capture images from this document to highlight the origin of the convention centre design.








Although Rank Inc. provided the basic drawing used for Appendix B (figure 4 of this report - http://www.tradecentrelimited.com/si..._July_2009.pdf ), clearly the provision 7-(15A) in the Downtown Halifax Land Use By-Law - http://www.halifax.ca/boardscom/docu...dUseBy-Law.pdf regarding a publically sponsored convention centre originated with the municipality. Changes to the Appendix B drawing in the Land Use By-Law were based on public consultations required by the previous provincial government and outlined in this HRM staff report - http://www.halifax.ca/council/agenda...29ca92pres.pdf

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

I agree. I have never met Joe Ramia but I have developed a great respect for the man and what he has had to endure in order to develop the provincially/municipally requested new convention centre. I hope that the Heritage Trust and directors will be successfully sued mainly because I think objectivity and honesty are important. I think that Joe Ramia has a strong case against the Heritage Trust since he has been repeated portrayed in the local media as an evil developer who is taking advantage of municipal and provincial residents. I believe this is a case of libel since many statements can be attributed to Phil Pacey and Heritage Trust in the local media and therefore it is only necessary to prove that the statements are not true (if it were slander than proof must also be provided that the false statements were made) - http://www.ehow.com/how_2238562_use-...correctly.html

The Save the View group has the following false statement on their website about the convention centre blocking view-planes from the Citadel - http://www.savetheview.ca/happening.shtml#history





The convention centre design and location did not originate with Rank Inc. (as repeatedly falsely stated by the Save the View group). The origin of the convention centre design has been available on the internet for years and is clearly described by WHW Architects in a study commission by HRM - http://www.tradecentrelimited.com/si...1_May_2007.pdf. I have posted a few screen-capture images from this document to highlight the origin of the convention centre design.








Although Rank Inc. provided the basic drawing used for Appendix B (figure 4 of this report - http://www.tradecentrelimited.com/si..._July_2009.pdf ), clearly the provision 7-(15A) in the Downtown Halifax Land Use By-Law - http://www.halifax.ca/boardscom/docu...dUseBy-Law.pdf regarding a publically sponsored convention centre originated with the municipality. Changes to Appendix B of the Land Use By-Law were based on public consultations required by the previous provincial government and outlined in this HRM staff report - http://www.halifax.ca/council/agenda...29ca92pres.pdf

Fenwick, you should consider sending this email to Ramia et al. I'm not sure of the basis of his lawsuit-- media reporting on its details have, as usual, been crap-- but this is no doubt helpful.

Again, does anyone have a link to a story with more details on the lawsuit? I've seen it described as Ramia asserting HT is going "beyond its mandate".

That's a much different thing that arguing that Pacey et al are guilty of libel.