I believe that as part of driver training, drivers need to be educated on how to deal with cyclists! The driver of this car was completely ignorant about what to do in this situation and panicked. Not cool at all, and very dangerous.

I have lived in Toronto and Vancouver and have travelled to places where there are a lot of cyclists (South Korea, Amsterdam) and have not seen people react this way.

It may seem simple to us who cycle and have lived in much busier cities where cycling makes sense on the roads and streets, but some drivers seriously often do not know what to do---they NEED TO KNOW! I am hesitant to cycle in Halifax and often get reminded why.

One day I was cycling and got called a bitch really loudly by a passenger in a car. Another day I was in a truck with a guy from rural Nova Scotia and as he waited for the cyclist to ride by (it took about eight seconds and she thanked him for waiting), he called her a bitch three times. When I asked him why he was calling her a bitch, he couldn’t tell me.

To me, this is disturbing behaviour towards someone on a bike who is getting exercise and not polluting the environment. Please drivers, I am begging you to learn (anywhere you can) to share the road with cyclists so Halifax can be a progressive, safe city for all who use the streets and roads.

—Roberta, Halifax

Be that as it may, our laws discriminate against the poor. High-class hookers, call girls and call boys---including some masseurs---practice their trade in safety, as do mistresses of the rich who only remain in place because they are paid.

But if you are a poor whore, or a poor john, you are a criminal. It’s all about money and society’s hypocrisy which provides one rule for the rich and another for the poor.

Federal justice minister Nicholson claims the government wants to protect prostitutes but it did nothing for Robert Pickton’s and other sadists’ victims. Mr. Nicholson needs to know that johns abuse and sometimes murder hundreds of sex-trade workers in Canada every year and the mistreatment of prostitutes by police is a national shame.

—Bill McKinnon, Eastern Passage

Please, don’t invest money, just sit back and see this tired old crumbling city stagnate, get dirtier, its downtown become non-existent and substandard transit get more and more pathetic. There’s just so many times one can say no, before developers and forward thinkers leave this decaying place for better pastures.

—posted by halifaxmentor

—posted by mintus1

The figures clearly show that there is NO business case for this project. Deep six it now.

—posted by mapman at thecoast.ca

It begins with a lament about universities being reduced to peddling a degree as a marketable commodity---a financial investment designed to return on money spent. But we must remember our audience---this report was written to address the state of our universities in the midst of “emerging financial and demographic challenges.”

In short, this is about brass tacks. How are we going to keep these schools solvent?

O’Neill’s recommendation is to allow tuition fees to be whatever the market will bear---as opposed to the current price ceiling. He justifies his position by saying it is unfair for poor and middle-class taxpayers to subsidize the children of the wealthy who attend in disproportionate numbers. To which the author responds by suggesting that a better solution would be to subsidize education by increasing income taxes.

The problem with this solution is two-fold. Firstly, Nova Scotians already pay the highest income tax in the nation, a fact which saps our standard of living and our ability to attract and keep high earners. People respond to incentives, and this is a strong one to stay away.

Secondly, this transfer would not be simply from the rich to students. Since a large number of students come from outside of the province, paying for lower tuition with higher taxes would burden local taxpayers with the cost of educating those who come to study and then leave.

The benefits of a university education are numerous, varied and significant and, like in anything else, those who benefit should have to pay the cost.

—Gerald Walsh, Halifax

I find it absolutely ridiculous that the bylaws differ within the various boroughs of the HRM. Wasn’t the amalgamation of the four cities supposed to create some sort of unity? And the $400 annual licence fee is a blatant tax grab. Why does this municipality continue to stick it to the small business owner?

I live in Dartmouth. I would love to see Ms. Charlene Croft open an actual store, selling used books, CDs, DVDs, art, toys and kitsch. Downtown Dartmouth could certainly use the diversity. But as usual, another stupid bylaw dissuades small business growth in Nova Scotia.

—Ronald Boal, Dartmouth

But it’s really the local children who lose. The wilderness is the true habitat of children, and this most ancient of playgrounds is being stolen out from under them by urbanization and poor city planning.

As a child, my friends and I were creek-dwellers roaming the snarled paths that wove their way along the wooded stream that ran through the centre of our town. In a world built and bound about by adults and their authority, our creekside urban wilderness was our sanctuary.

We could play, laugh and hide here, meet danger and darkness, learn stealth and evasion, encounter deep silence, the loneliness of wind and march to a drum whose tempo and rhythm originated far from the sanitized milieu of playdates and birthday parties.

If the previous sentence sounds foolish or esoteric to you, you probably won’t bemoan the loss of another wild green space in the city. I’m so thankful for my creek-dwelling years and I wonder how the kids who live near that park will feel the day the dozers move into their sacred habitat, to make way for the ever encroaching pavement of the public good.

Roy F. Ellis, Halifax

The Dartmouth Common was a royal grant of common land by King George III. Originally, it was some 150 acres of land set aside for common use. Over time, by various governmental bodies, the Common’s use eroded, often in the name of public purpose, each with their own identifiable and justifiable set of benefits. This left a portion of the Common set out for protection in legislation in 1986, introduced by Roland J. Thornhill, the MLA for Dartmouth South. It was subsequently rolled into the Halifax Regional Municipality Act.

In his column of June 28, indeed it is the headline of his story---Mr. Bousquet says I approved the moving of the bridge terminal on the Dartmouth Common land in 1995. This is wholly incorrect. In fact, the land belonging to the Dartmouth Sportsplex had long been exempted from the Common as defined by the Dartmouth Common Act. Mr. Bousquet fashions this a “linguistic” problem. It was not. I chaired the Commons Committee and we knew exactly what land we were charged with responsibility for. He looks back through time without having the facts and tries to interpret what happened. He is just plain wrong.

In his subsequent column, Mr. Bousquet says that I “admitted that the city’s plan was consistent with the Dartmouth Commons Act.” This is something that I did not say.

Indeed, I tried to explain that such a use was inconsistent with the laws protecting the Dartmouth Common, and therefore an amendment to the legislation was requested by HRM to permit the expansion of the transit facilities. I further explained to him that the agreement to amend the Act was on the basis of a plan presented to legislators, including design sketches.

The subsequent design of the bridge terminal approved by Council did not reflect the design given to MLAs. I believe considered concern is appropriate when what you get is not what was promised. I also believe taking the time to review the proposal and reaching a better agreement is prudent. I believe in protecting our Common; I believe the city has to be liveable and attractive and I believe what is written has to reflect what was said and actually happened.

—Darrell Dexter, Premier of Nova Scotia

Six thoughts on the recent rash of attacks on the streets of Halifax.

1) If you believe in community and profess to be a member of the Halifax community, then you also believe that these kids are our kids. They were raised in our community, they have attended our schools, they have accessed the services delivered by our systems. They are not other� from us and we cannot demand more accountability from them than we do from ourselves. We cannot respond to their behaviour with anger and hateful words when we are asking them to be more caring and empathetic. We are their role models.

2) The manner in which we are currently holding young people accountable for crime and violence is not working. I am not here to argue about the ethics of punishment, just to say that an informed focus on actually reducing youth crime and violence should lead us to understand that punishment is not the answer. In the US, where people have the potential of paying the highest price possible for their crimes, there are no studies that show that the death penalty is a deterrent to crime. Similarly, more severe punishments are shown to be ineffective at reducing almost all forms of violent crime. Accountability and punishment should not be synonymous. The solution lies elsewhere.

3) Being tough on people who commit crimes and violence entails punishment. Being tough on crime means being tough on the causes of crime on systemic levels---economic disparity, racial and sexual oppression and inequity, etc. No matter what communities we come from, and whether or not we are invested in a Halifax community, if we want to reduce crime we do well to recognize the social causes of crime and that there is no quick fix to these underlying causes. Revamping systems and rebuilding trust among those they are meant to serve and the service deliverers is long-term process and one that can, at times, feel overwhelming. When events occur that cause a reasonable sense of fear and a lack of personal safety we have a natural tendency to want a solution that is immediate. There is no such solution. We would be best served by using the energy and interest caused by such events to begin the long process of change.

4) We do not do enough to teach our kids to care. We do not teach our kids leadership and often when we do we show them the Pied Piper version of Leadership--the one where they are popular and everyone follows them. We do not teach them that sometimes leadership is lonely, that sometimes your views are unpopular, that sometimes great leadership actually means moving away from the crowd, being the one kid to walk away while everyone else is following. We do not teach these things but when our kids behave other than the way we want them to we expect them to know these things.

5) The people I know who are effective in working with the young people we are talking about are struggling. Not in sense that you would think. We do not struggle to do our jobs. Our work is difficult work but it is often the most rewarding work. It is a vocation---not a career. We are struggling for support. We are struggling to be seen as part of the solution. We are struggling to be included in the decision-making processes that affect the people we work for and with. We are struggling to be heard among the many voices that are crying to lock away our kids, to make them pay adult penalties, to essentially give up on these young people and label them as beyond salvation.

6) Halifax is the largest city east of Montreal. We do not have a youth centre. We do not have a place designed by and for our youth. A place with a free gym, a tutor to help you keep up when you are suspended, a nurse you can talk to about your health and well-being, a caring a positive role model available to discuss life decisions, someone to assist you in navigating complex systems. We do not have an alternative school. Nova Scotia is doing an OK job of providing for those who fit within what we have decided are the norms of our society, but we are doing little that works for those who don't. The systems that have been designed to help are bogged down in bureaucracy and policy that does not shift as quickly as youth culture does. Not for profits---staffed with people who see their work as their life's work---need to start being seen as a financially viable, effective and alternative solution to systems that are struggling to be effective and cost-efficient in their service delivery and who often do not have the trust of the people they are supposed to serve. We need people in positions of power to support us.

I want to make it very clear: I believe in holding young people accountable for their actions. I have worked with young people for close to 15 years and I have seen programs that work and ones that don't. At LOVE we have found that holding kids accountable in a caring and compassionate manner has actually had the effect of changing their attitudes, behaviours and decision making processes.

Sarah MacLaren is Executive Director of Leave Out ViolencE (LOVE).

Specifically:
1. The piece was written without contacting the Waterfront Development Corporation Limited or Halifax Regional Municipality to obtain relevant background information on the file.

2. And it contains the following factual errors:
Benjamin says the water lot infill project on the Bedford Basin waterfront has not been subject to an environmental assessment. The Bedford Phase II project was subject to environmental assessment required under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and has been approved and monitored by relevant provincial and federal regulatory bodies throughout the history of operations. Impacts on habitat have been assessed and mitigated through operational protocols and procedures.

Benjamin indicates that the infill material is “construction rubble.” This is incorrect; the infill project only exists to provide a safe disposal site for acid generating slate. This slate is a naturally occurring rock common to the geology of Halifax. When not managed and exposed to water and oxygen it produces acid runoff that can severely impact adjacent watercourses and aquatic life.

Following review by the NS Department of Environment and Environment Canada, it was determined that marine disposal of this material rendered it inert and was the preferred method to ensure that the material would not pose a risk to aquatic animals. WDCL was requested to operate the facility for this purpose.

Benjamin says the original plan for the Bedford Waterfront project was for a “marine park.” This is incorrect. The initial 1985 Bedford Waterfront Master Plan envisioned an active year-round, mixed-use urban waterfront that would be developed in stages and provide public access to the water’s edge. This conceptual plan was used as a guiding document in the development of the current plan, and ratified through extensive public consultation and the overall objective remains unchanged. Benjamin says there is no business plan for the project, when in fact there is a clear sustainable business plan for the project. WDCL operates the facility and charges the development industry tipping fees for the material. All revenues received are, and will be, reinvested in the development and management of public infrastructure. This includes boardwalks, marinas and event plazas. The central objective of the conceptual development plan is to ensure that the plan is economically viable and will see the public infrastructure developed and maintained.

Benjamin describes the project as “anti-community.” We believe the history of active community involvement in the project is evidence of the contrary. The project is consistent with, and stems from, the HRM Regional Planning Process that identified the objective of creating a suburban local centre and transit hub at the site. Members of the community have volunteered hundreds of hours in participation in the visioning and public consultation components of the ongoing project.

Benjamin concludes that the project “will do great harm to wilderness and water, with little payback for locals.” This is inaccurate. The project is specifically designed to incorporate sustainable development practices in all aspects of community design. When this project is complete it will provide, aside from the economic development benefits, signature public amenity features and a design as determined by the community. This includes public access to the water’s edge, event plazas, exhibition and performance space, playgrounds and a range of recreation opportunities, as well as opportunities for residential and commercial development.

With respect to Benjamin’s comments regarding the Paper Mill Lake area, HRM wishes to point out that this area has been contemplated for mixed-use residential/commercial development since the 1990s, as described in the Bedford Municipal Planning Strategy. Further, part of the area is the subject of a development agreement that was approved by Council more than 15 years ago.

Regarding the United Gulf land holding at the interchange of Hammonds Plains Road and Bicentennial Highway, an application has been received, and staff will be proceeding through the planning process this fall, which necessarily includes public consultation. In addition to input from the general public, the proposal will be reviewed by the Bedford Waters Advisory Board, a volunteer committee of Council, who advise Council on environmental matters. Halifax Regional Council and North West Community Council must ultimately approve any required land use policy changes and a site-specific development agreement before any development can occur.

In the future, the Waterfront Development Corporation Limited and Halifax Regional Municipality would respectfully request that your staff contact our respective offices when preparing articles relating to our projects or initiatives so that accurate information can be provided to your readers.

—Colin MacLean, president, Water Development Corporation Ltd. and Paul Dunphy, director of community development, Halifax Regional Municipality

Chris Benjamin responds: Most of what MacLean and Dunphy call factual errors are differences of opinion. The error regarding an environmental assessment is mine and for that I apologize.

I didn’t contact WDCL directly for the piece, but I did read what its public website ---including the Bedford Waterfront Design Study report---has to say about the project. My source on the project’s dependence on tipping fees, for example, is WDCL staffter Terry Drisdell, in a video presentation at halifax.ca/visionhrm/bedfordwaterfront.

He states: “Toward the end of Phase I it was realized that…the infrastructure costs and the provision of public amenities were just more than the project could bear, so there was no business case that could be made at that time to continue on to Phase II. Roundabout the same time the Department of Environment was looking for identification of an area that would be suitable for the safe disposal of pyritic slate…it was determined that the Phase II location of the Bedford waterfront was the most appropriate and practical location...And for the business plan we decided that in order to make it a feasible operation…we would charge tipping fees…Any development, any large construction projects going on in the area that generated the slate would be charged.”

It’s disheartening to see that our governments and crown corporations think assigning token community members to volunteer committees, throwing in a green space or two, and holding non-interactive public presentations of their slideshow plans, constitutes community involvement.

The market is not completely finished nor as I understand it, all the systems for heating, cooling, et cetera fully operational. As well, I have heard comments about how crowded it is.

Well, let’s face it, a lot of people who never attended the old Brewery Market probably made a point of going to the Seaport Market on the past two Saturdays out of curiosity, thus giving the impression it will be like that all the time. Let’s be patient and reserve our judgments until it is fully operational. —Shirley McLaughlin, Halifax

For this reason, Halifax Regional Municipality, Feed Nova Scotia, The Nova Scotia Association of Social Workers and the Health Association of Nova Scotia have strongly urged the government to keep the long-form census.

But the Conservatives refuse to listen to the voices of these Canadians. Instead, they plan to move to a new voluntary survey that will cost taxpayers $30 million more to administer, and which will provide seriously flawed data that will under-represent certain groups in society. A voluntary survey will inevitably mean a lower response rate from low-income Canadians, immigrants, Aboriginals and other disadvantaged groups. This will undermine the accuracy of the data and negatively impact the ability of governments, businesses and organizations to make well-informed decisions.

The Harper government prefers to base government policy on ideology rather than sound information. Rather than listening to concerns raised by provincial and municipal governments, statistical experts, business groups and community organizations, the Harper government has made ridiculous claims about privacy concerns and jail time for those who refuse to complete the census in order to justify this decision. No Canadian has ever been jailed for not completing the census. Liberals believe a reasonable compromise can be made to preserve the mandatory long-form by removing the threat of jail time from all census forms.

I have written to industry minister Tony Clement asking that the decision to eliminate the mandatory long-form be reversed. Unless the Harper government reconsiders this unfortunate plan, Liberals will seek to change the Statistics Act to restore the mandatory long census. —Geoff Regan, MP for Halifax West

In order for wind power to get better, challenges and questions need to be made against it. I know so many people who read this article and automatically condemned it; proclaiming it anti-environment and hateful. I certainly don’t think that way, and I hope more people will read this article with a sincere mindset. —Breathing Fresh Air, Halifax