[Image-1]
“We see petitions on a number of occasions. If we listened or agreed with petitions then there’d never be a convention centre.”—councilor Stephen Adams
“Hand gestures are OK as long as you use all fingers.” —mayor Mike Savage
“It doesn’t meet any of our design guidelines, guys. It doesn’t meet ANY of our design guidelines.”—councillor Waye Mason
PETTY GRIEVANCES HIT WELLINGTON STREET
Halifax Regional Council thumbed its nose at the public yesterday by approving a controversial development on Wellington Street. It’s a proposal that nobody—save developer Dino Capital and the nine councillors who voted in favour of the project—seems to like. City staff have noted the problems in setback, height spacing and density in Dino’s two towers of eight and ten storeys which will sit atop a shared four-lot podium. For the first time ever the Planning Advisory Committee voted against the design, and local councillor Waye Mason has repeatedly and passionately spoken against this project.
“There’s no merit here,” he told his fellow councillors yesterday. “It goes against everything we’ve been planning on the peninsula for 30 years.”
But most importantly, thousands of residents from across the HRM—dozens of whom live in the immediate area—have told the city they don’t want this building. There have been three public hearings and a lengthy petition asking for this project not to be approved as it currently stands. Councillor Adams flippantly disregarded those comments yesterday with the quote at the top of this post. But Adams had nothing on the brazen contempt displayed by Gloria McCluskey.
The Dartmouth councillor told the public she was voting for the motion because several buildings of worse design have been stamped onto Dartmouth neighbourhoods against the wishes of herself and those communities. Now, it’s Halifax’s turn.
Late last year, McCluskey proposed a cyclist licensing motion that was widely condemned and quickly rescinded. She was mocked then, and I noticed remarks online about her age that would be disrespectful regardless of her longtime public service. Some of those same comments spat up this week over McCluskey’s proposal for an anti-whistling bylaw near King’s Wharf. I don’t live in downtown Dartmouth, but nearly every media article has commenters chiming in that the train whistles are new—and loud.
Which is to say, I don’t think Gloria has better or worse ideas than most of the people on council. She often asks hard questions and vigorously represents her district. But yesterday she was the deciding vote in a decision that impacts hundreds of Halifax residents and she chose to vote out of spite. The packed house left muttering curse words and expressing their distrust of the entire civic process. Can’t say I blame ‘em.
Two amendments were tacked onto yesterday’s motion before voting. Adams passed a motion to reduce the square footage to 140,000 (as off-handedly promised by a Dino representative during a December public hearing), and Mason tried a last-minute save to make the application comply with HRM by Design guidelines. What impact both will have on the finished apartment building remains to be seen.
STAPLE CENTRE
Most of council’s afternoon yesterday was devoted to cleaning up the remains of two public hearings held before the holiday break. Wellington Street was one, and the other was to adopt the city’s new temporary sign bylaw. The December hearing on that matter saw a large contingent of event promoters speak against the poster guidelines contained within the new law. Those would require the date the poster was put up to be clearly displayed so the city could track down anyone leaving stapled paper up too long. Waye Mason is hoping to bring forward amendments so the only visible date need be the date of the event advertised, as well as putting in a prohibition on covering a poster with another poster. In design, I think that’s to help the postering community self-regulate by making sure polls don’t become too cluttered. In any case, since this bylaw has taken a few years to come together, it was approved to get it out of the way. The proposed amendments will hopefully be coming back for council’s approval before the new law takes effect in 90 days.
ROBOTS, BUTTONS & BELLS
Taking local media to task for not giving his idea a chance, Brad Johns was happy to inform the public yesterday that well over 2,000 people attended his four-day talking Christmas tree event in Sackville. The robotic horror raised almost $6,000 in donations to Beacon House. Sackville was also mentioned on a Los Angeles news station; 30 seconds of Californian airtime which Johns’ media consultant says is worth more than the tree itself.
———
Reg Rankin was upset to learn in the media that the province has accused the Otter Lake landfill of violating environmental laws. The city was charged last February under the Environment Act after multiple surface water samples were found to be contaminated. Richard Butts, CAO, says a memo was sent out but it was “addressed inappropriately” and didn’t make it to councillors’ inboxes. “I apologize to council. We hit a wrong button.” The city will be in court next week to fight the potential $1-million fine.
———
For the first time since 2012, Halifax City Hall’s clock chimes rang out yesterday. Matt Whitman was giddy with excitement.
Overall grade: D
Related Stories
Trash rises higher
6 developments that are changing the face of Halifax
Not in my backyard
This article appears in Jan 8-14, 2015.
Jacob, could you please reference how the City has approved this development out of sprite and not for other reasons? I can’t seem to find that proof in your story…
They actually approved it out of fresca.
I’m noticing a pattern with hing frogg- every article by Jacob gets attacked and belittled by him.
Keep up the great writing, Jacob! You’re an awesome addition to the Coast team!
Hing frogg, please re-read the article before attacking its author.
“The Dartmouth councillor told the public she was voting for the motion because several buildings of worse design have been stamped onto Dartmouth neighbourhoods against the wishes of herself and those communities. Now, it’s Halifax’s turn.”
That is a spiteful statement and decision.
You really should name the councillors and their votes.
Sorry Jacob, someone thinks you don’t have balls. I’m certain you do; and that you’re a grown man.
I am not familiar with the concept of approving something out of fresca… can you clarify that term?
I never get who votes which way unless they announce it first. I find the little red and green display they flash hard to follow. But the minutes and video will be up in a few days here: http://www.halifax.ca/council/agendasc/cag…
Dawn dear, maybe do a little research before you make sweeping assertions… I do not belittle Jacob nor every one of his stories. I may not agree with his assumptions and assertions and state that clearly.
I do not think he is a poor writer; rather a talented one. I have commented on 2-3 of his stories; conversely, I have commented on dozen of others from other writers. If I disagree or question or find the whole issue stupid doesn’t mean I don’t like Jacob or any of the other writers.
I would strongly suggest you go find your lynch mob girlfriends and have tea somewhere as your hormones are raging, but I wouldn’t want you to think I was an asshole (man).
Jacob! Maybe Dawn is single? Hormones! I’ll say nothing else…
Hing frogg, you strike me as a fifteen year old troll. Your first comment was directed at the lack of proof in this decision being made out of spite (not sprite, lolol). However, the author clearly presented proof if you’d taken the time to fully read the article.
Now you can insult me, the journalists and all other commenters all you like. I’ve made my point and you seem too eager to defend yourself against its authenticity and truthfulness.
Dawn
Okay, so who voted for it and what do we know about their reasons. Tell the full story
I am now wondering why city councillors vote on developments. Doesn’t the city have zoning categories for land, architects and civil engineers on staff? Doesn’t it have a city plan to govern these proposals? Seems strange.
Patrice, most developments do conform to the zoning and are approved by staff; never seen by Council, no vote.
In some instances Council has policies to allow bigger/more complex developments through a review process, called a ‘development agreement’. Planning staff review such proposals against some criteria Council has set out, provide a recommendation to Council, and then Council votes.
Then in some instances a proposal will come along that doesn’t conform to the plan at all. Council can consider voting to change the plan. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing; context and neighbourhoods change, planning documents don’t always keep up, it’s important to have a mechanism to change them without waiting 10 years for the next plan review. However, generally any plan changes are carefully considered (or at least, they should be). In this case, it seems like they weren’t!
Dawn, first and foremost: I’m gay-you can’t fuck me. Now, mind your own business. Knit me a sweater. I like blue.
Thanks Jacob. I don’t think the headline is congruent to the actual story but it makes an interesting story nonetheless. So glad they were allowed to express our own opinions on things…
This seems to be really just a tempest in a teacup. I’m sure the residents of Wellington St. are very irate and don’t want their property values diminished and don’t want the disruption during construction. That’s normal. People, especially older ones, have great difficulty with change. But we can’t stop progress just because a few very vocal people are opposed, have stirred up their councillors, and circulated a petition – which most people sign just because they were asked to.
The reality is that the vast majority of people are in favour of just about any new development so they aren’t going to speak out or show up at council meetings. Call them the silent majority.
Personally, I think it’s great that more housing is being built on the peninsula. It will be energy efficient and will enable more people to live close enough to walk to work. Great for the environment! High density cities are very energy efficient.
Jacob, this article is well written but I take exception with the title. As a journalist it is your job to be an unbiased reporter of events. I don’t think you should be using a word like ridiculous unless you are quoting someone – in which case it should be in quotes as “Ridiculous” Development …blah balh. Ridiculous is in your opinion. A better title for this article might have been simply: Development Approved “Out of Spite” if you want to draw attention to that particular statement. However, the title might still be misleading since it was only the deciding vote that was rendered in that spirit and, presumably, the other councillors voted yes in good faith. Maybe a suitable title would be: Disputed Development Approved.
*Sigh* One day I too shall be as eloquent! Thanks Mr. B.S.D. Tector! (I originally read that as BDSM)
Actually I think a good title would be “unaffected council ports vote to approve development against the advice of staff, wishes of citizens.
It would be nice to think you can dismiss petitions out of hand because you think people just sign because they’re asked to -but that’s your opinion, not a statement of fact. Same with your quip about “the silent majority”. You have no idea what they think. Stop talking like you do. You’re simply projecting your own opinion onto everyone else who didn’t show up to voice their opinion, presumably just as you didn’t either. We can only know the opinions of those who speak up to tell us what it is. In this case, the stakeholders didn’t want it. The city staff we pay to give us a professional opinion on such matters advised against approving it. Elected representatives who won’t be affected by its construction or existence either way (those least in a justifiable position to defend its approval) are the ones who voted to approve it. Ironically, this outcome is the favorite gripe of the councillors who represent the outlying areas of HRM: that urban councillors have no idea about the impact of their votes when it concerns changes to more rural parts of the city. It would seem to me when the shoe is on the other foot, these councillors of outlying regions either forget their own beef with this kind of decision-making, or they vote out of spite in response for having it done to them in the past (as mccluskey confesses in her own rationale). Either way this is no way to encourage more citizen and stakeholder participation in approval processes. What’s the point of any of it if against all the advice we pay for and ask for from stakeholders and citizens, the developers, the vindictive nincompoops, and the unaffected representatives just do what they want anyway?