Somewhat paradoxically, giving up all hope of fruition empowers one to work fully committed to what is most profoundly needed. It makes genuine fruition more likely as one gives up attachment to ego diversions and partial solutions, and to settling for corrupt paths, patterns, and companions. So give up fully, then go forward whole heartedly and cheerfully! And make profound, compassionate transformation to benefit all living beings on this beautiful earth!
My experience of St. Margaret's not being included is of being snubbed. And not just in this article.
But specific to this article - don't you see it as significant that half of the name of the riding is "St. Margarets"? That shows just how important we are to this riding. As we are important to Halifax!
Please include us here in St. Margaret's Bay. It is the right thing to do.
South Shore St Margaret's federal riding has a big part in HRM and needs to be included in this article. Particularly with the new boundary changes - which are not shown accurately in this article. Alex Godbold- NDP Candidate for South Shore-St. Margarets is amazingly excellent! He deserves to be included in this article. Alex's views on environment, economy, energy, and social action are accurate, sophisticated, and friendly to all living beings. They will help brings jobs and prosperity. Don't snub South Shore St Margarets as we are very much in Halifax.
South Shore St Margaret's is partly in HRM and needs to be included in this article. Particularly with the new boundary changes - which are not shown accurately in this article. Alex Godbold- NDP Candidate for South Shore-St. Margarets is amazingly excellent! He deserves to be included in this article. Alex's views on environment, economy, energy, and social action are accurate, sophisticated, and friendly to all living beings. They will help brings jobs and prosperity. Don't snub South Shore St Margarets as we are very much in Halifax.
$700 a month rent does seem like almost twice too much to really be "affordable." And there really does need to be provision for green space and growing things for residents and community. The core question should be much more than just how many folks can live in a space, but what quality of life one gets. Isn't destroying the Bus Stop theatre to bring more people to live by what used to be a significant cultural asset directly like "We had to destroy the village to save the village"? I'd say the same thing about destroying green space as destroying cultural assets. We absolutely cannot afford to destroy any essential part of what makes a community. That is why I'm dedicated to bringing in the process of creating Transition Towns (www.transitionbay.ca). Transition Towns look at every aspect of building resilient, vibrant, healthy, uplifted community the way the local community envision, including local based economics that actually work. We can do better.
Here is a critical ethical and legal issue not yet properly explored and publicized.
I wish to bring to your attention Clause 152(6) contained within the Halifax Regional Municipality Act when that act was approved in 1995, along with providing a bit of history on how successful the public engagement was in siting a new landfill in the 1990's, during which time this Clause was key to the process. It was a covenant of trust for those of us who were on the Community Stakeholder Committee when developing the Integrated Waste/Resource Management Strategy. This Clause is missing from the Halifax Charter and Regional Plan, and Council should consider re-instating this Clause to gain back public trust.
The text of clause 152(6), as recently provided to me by a Provincial Legislative Assistant, reads:
'Halifax County Municipality shall strive to develop and adopt through a citizen led, multi-stakeholder, consensus decision-making process, an integrated solid-waste resource management strategy for the Regional Municipality and any new strategy so adopted continues in force until altered or amended by the Council following a similar process.'
I suggest it would be extremely helpful if this wording (that change can only be made through a citizen-led, multi-stakeholder, consensus decision-making process similar to that which developed the Integrated Resource Management Strategy) were inserted into the new HRM Regional Plan at every relevant point. Since the Regional Plan is to be deliberated at HRM Council this Tuesday at Committee of the Whole, this is a very timely issue. This protection through process should also be included in all other agreements related to present and future Waste/Resource decision making.
One suggestion for wording of this is:
During the Committee of the Whole meeting to be held on December 3rd , 2013, it would be beneficial if SU-27, found on page 100 of the Regional Municipal Planning Strategy – Draft 3 document, were recommended to be amended to state (text in red is the requested amendment):
SU-27 A integrated solid waste/resource strategy review will be conducted every 5 years through a citizen-led, multi-stakeholder, consensus decision-making process. Existing Agreements between the public and waste/resource facilities operators must be considered during the review process, and these Agreements can only be amended due to a consensus achieved during this process; with the exception of standard amendments between such operators and HRM authorities concerning regular operational maintenance and workforce management issues. HRM may consider amendments to community planning strategies, land use by-laws or any other HRM by-laws to implement any of the recommendations of the integrated solid waste/resource strategy review.
If not this precise wording, then stronger wording would be even better.
Similarly worded protective clauses should be inserted into all provincial legislation governing HRM.
Please write the HRM mayor and councillors urging them to reject the development and quickly enact the overdue citizen-led new bylaws. More complete info on this travesty of public process at: http://www.heartofthebay.ca/Issues/Propose… All but one person at the public hearing opposed the development as it is, and that person was a business owner who wants the largest and worst of the new buildings. And still the issue was only deferred, not rejected. Even our MLA spoke against the project. I have been engaged with this issue now since 2007 and the situation is actually even worse than it seems from this article.
Recent Comments
But specific to this article - don't you see it as significant that half of the name of the riding is "St. Margarets"? That shows just how important we are to this riding. As we are important to Halifax!
Please include us here in St. Margaret's Bay. It is the right thing to do.
As to the inaccurate maps with your article:
The changes now in effect are shown clearly - particularly when expanded a great deal - at:
http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/elect…
The official maps of the new NS and Halifax riding boundaries are at:
http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?secti…
To find this I only had to Google "new federal riding maps."
Please, I ask you again, include St. Margaret's Bay. This is important.
I wish to bring to your attention Clause 152(6) contained within the Halifax Regional Municipality Act when that act was approved in 1995, along with providing a bit of history on how successful the public engagement was in siting a new landfill in the 1990's, during which time this Clause was key to the process. It was a covenant of trust for those of us who were on the Community Stakeholder Committee when developing the Integrated Waste/Resource Management Strategy. This Clause is missing from the Halifax Charter and Regional Plan, and Council should consider re-instating this Clause to gain back public trust.
The text of clause 152(6), as recently provided to me by a Provincial Legislative Assistant, reads:
'Halifax County Municipality shall strive to develop and adopt through a citizen led, multi-stakeholder, consensus decision-making process, an integrated solid-waste resource management strategy for the Regional Municipality and any new strategy so adopted continues in force until altered or amended by the Council following a similar process.'
I suggest it would be extremely helpful if this wording (that change can only be made through a citizen-led, multi-stakeholder, consensus decision-making process similar to that which developed the Integrated Resource Management Strategy) were inserted into the new HRM Regional Plan at every relevant point. Since the Regional Plan is to be deliberated at HRM Council this Tuesday at Committee of the Whole, this is a very timely issue. This protection through process should also be included in all other agreements related to present and future Waste/Resource decision making.
One suggestion for wording of this is:
During the Committee of the Whole meeting to be held on December 3rd , 2013, it would be beneficial if SU-27, found on page 100 of the Regional Municipal Planning Strategy – Draft 3 document, were recommended to be amended to state (text in red is the requested amendment):
SU-27 A integrated solid waste/resource strategy review will be conducted every 5 years through a citizen-led, multi-stakeholder, consensus decision-making process. Existing Agreements between the public and waste/resource facilities operators must be considered during the review process, and these Agreements can only be amended due to a consensus achieved during this process; with the exception of standard amendments between such operators and HRM authorities concerning regular operational maintenance and workforce management issues. HRM may consider amendments to community planning strategies, land use by-laws or any other HRM by-laws to implement any of the recommendations of the integrated solid waste/resource strategy review.
If not this precise wording, then stronger wording would be even better.
Similarly worded protective clauses should be inserted into all provincial legislation governing HRM.