Tuesday night, Darrell Dexter was on CTV news, and said that his office opposes changes to the land use bylaws that make the new terminal possible. Tim Bousquet interviewed premier Darrell Dexter today about those concerns. The following is a transcript of that interview.
The Coast: What are your concerns about the Bridge Terminal?
Darrell Dexter: They wanted an amendment to the old Dartmouth Common Act… They brought a proposal to us that was very specific. They said they wanted a piece of property that ran up along Nantucket Street. My recollection is that they came complete with artist renderings, or the very least schematics that showed where they were all going to go, that sort of thing. On the basis of that, we said, we’re not really all that happy about the further erosion of Common property—because every time you put one of these uses in it, it takes away from the amount of available Common land.
Someone told me that when you were on Dartmouth city council, you approved moving the terminal over to Common land in the first place.
No. No. It didn’t move over. It moved over to the Sportsplex parking lot, from the shopping centre across the street, and as far as I know, that was some sort of deal that was struck with the Sportsplex. I don’t remember that that ever came to council….
What I see happening is that the city went to the province, and said we want to use up to six acres of Dartmouth Common and the bus terminal will run up Nantucket. The Dartmouth High community had major problems with that orientation and in response to a lot of community consultation, the orientation was changed and the footprint reduced to 3.5 acres, so they saved 2.5 acres of the Common, and moved the terminal much farther away from the school, with the new proposal—that was directly in response to complaints…
That’s not my understanding of it. My understanding is that they’re going to continue to use up the entire amount. The difference is that they’re now going to use some of it as parking lot of the Sportsplex.
Um, no. It’s running along the backside of the existing parking lot of the Sportsplex. The existing Bridge Terminal—that space will be freed up for additional Sportsplex parking.
Well, look, all I know is simply this: They came in with a proposal, and then never came back to us to say, ‘we intend to do something different from what we sold you when we asked for the amendment to the Commons Act.’ To me, it’s just that simple—they came to us with one thing, they’re now doing something else, they never bothered to consult with us in any way.
What do you see happening now?
I’m one of those who says that I believe that there has to be an appropriate transit facility, but I want to see that it conforms to the intention of the original proposal.
Does that mean that the city’s altered proposal is not acceptable to you?
What I told them was that we needed to have further discussions about this, because if there was going to be a different proposal, then that had to come back to us.
When you say “us,” does that mean that the legislature has to hear it?
Well, at first it has to come to our [premier’s] office, to see whether or not as a government we agree that this conforms and/or meets the intention for which it was intended.
My understanding of the city’s viewpoint, for what it’s worth, is that all along they’ve said, ‘yeah, ths fits under the amendment that the province…’
[interrupting] Yeah, and I have no doubt that it fits within the amendment, but that’s not the question. The question, of course, is one of relationship between the government of Nova Scotia and the government of the city. I mean, they came to us—not this government but the government—they came to the government, they came with a proposal, they made representations—in fact, people came to the Law Amendments Committee to speak to the amendment as it was proposed, and now something different is happening. And we have to be reasonably satisfied that what is happening is consistent with the proposal that was made and what’s in the best interests for that Common property. And I quite frankly, I haven’t seen it, and I’m not at this point satisfied that that’s the case.
How did this come to your awareness? How did this come on your plate? Was this brought to you by [HRM councillor] Jim Smith?
No, no. No, it was through general email correspondence that I received from people who were concerned about it.
This article appears in Jun 10-16, 2010.
He kinda sounds like he really doesn’t know what’s going on and is just making sure he holds some power, make sure that the province is still in control. Obviously, someone is pushing for this response from him, pulling strings and he’s obliging. Because he doesn’t even know what the new plans are! Politics. ugh.
I think that’s right, ralmn. And I’m fairly certain Dexter even has the history of it wrong… I have a call out to Gloria McCluskey to see.
Dexter doesn’t have a clue about this.
and he “doesn’t remember” what he did on council.
I sent back my NDP card in pieces after their first year. He managed to make me quit the party.
Bravo Zulu Lt(N)
Just as I thought.
HRM took plans to the province showing which piece of land they wanted and as Dexter says the province agreed to amend the HRM charter to allow the bus terminal to be built.
HRM then had the Common Master Plan consultant hold the first public meeting over a year ago at Hawthorne School. The idea was there would be public input and also the Sportsplex wanted to build a fielhouse and HRM wanted a bus terminal.
The map of the area showed a square piece of land alongside Nantucket for the terminal.
Just before the 2009 election Premier MacDonald nixed the fieldhouse.
HRM has an unusual defiition of ‘adjacent to Nantucket’ and Dexter is right to call them out on it. This saves a resident form going to the expense of a court challenge to the recent propsal which has the terminal adjacent to the Sportsples parking lot and the DHS soccer field.
Simply put, HRM showed the legislature the plans for a bus terminal to get the amendment and then HRM changed their mind and the stupid lawyer Ms. Donovan never warned them they could be headed for trouble.
Looks like Darrell just saved the taxpayers $4 million and avoided the issue of blasting rock.
Good one Preem.
I would like to hear what Gloria has to say on the matter. Dexter is really defensive too, which doesn’t make him look any better. Just more meddling by the province to make it look like they’re the ones bringing us the new terminal.
I see the comments on twitter and quite frankly Waye Mason does not have a clue.
HRM dealt with a change in the MPS which is the major planning document and also changed the Land use bylaw for a specific part of the Dartmouth Common. A change in the MPS is a major change, plannning decisions at HRM often only involve a zoning change or if you prefer the legalese, the Land Use By Law.
The decison of the council cannot be appealed because the changes were concurrent.
The section of the HRM Charter dealing with the Dartmouth Common is overridden by section 272 of the HRM Charter.
Dexter may well have grounds to believe that he and the other members of the Legislature were led to believe a specific piece of the Dartmouth Common was to be used for the bus terminal and therefore passed the legislation. What he and the others did not realise was that the reference was of no effect because of section 272.
The section dealing with the Common may as well be not be there, for it to have any effect it should have been in Part VII of the HRM Charter; the part dealing with Planning.
Dr Fever, Dexter has many supporters in the area who have spent 30 years opposing the encroachment on the open space and I have serious doubts he is trying to get any credit for the terminal. He was told one thing, he agreed with it and now HRM wants to do something different and never talked with him about it. It is clear that if HRM had approached him and the Legislature with plans for the terminal as now proposed neither he nor his party would have supported the bill.
The province should meddle some more, perhaps HRM Pension Plan would never have given $43,000,000 to Bernie Madoff and now has huge legal fees trying to get the money back.
Joeblow,
And maybe council should have meddled with his expenses…
Luthor – the Dexter expenses are chump change compared with the missing $43,000,000.
HRM pensioners will have a few questions next Thursday evening, June 24, when they gather at the Lord Nelson Hotel.
I don’t believe HRM has put out a press release re the meeting so here is the unofficial notice to any and all journalists seeking to ask pointed questions.
Speaking of expenses, when will we see the expenses of council and senior staff members ?
I beg to differ, JB. It’s a political play. He blocks it, gains political clout, then brings us the new terminal that the province approved. He wins big in the area, meanwhile, the autonomy that is afforded to the municipality is eroded and compromised. He needs a political win, and this is as good as any.
If you seriously think this is over HRM proposing one thing and doing another, you’re deluded. That’s why it’s a catch at the last minute, not while it was being planned. It stinks of a political decision.
I propose that Mr Dexter be forced to wait at least 20 minutes a day at the current bridge terminal, with all of his constituents who hate the place as much as I do, with a sandwich board that reads “I’m standing in the way of replacing this place.” and see how long he plays the obstructionist card then.
Fever, the seats in the area have been NDP for quite some time.
The HRM Charter was dealt with in 2008.
The first consultation meeting for the Common master plan took place in April 2009.
Before the June 2009 election Rodney nixed the Sportsplex expansion and then the government changed.
HRM has put very little effort into finding a solution to the issue and never even explored buying the Scotiabank outlet and starting the terminal from there.
In addition to this issue many people are pissed at HRM for paving common land on the waterfront for free parking when the understanding was that it would be returned to common use. That took place before any discussion of the master plan, which to me was just an excuse to get permission to build the bus terminal and the Sportsplex expansion.
My educated guess is certain individuals of the NDP persuasion just decided that HRM was not listening so they went the political route to the province like they, and others, did in the late 1980’s when Tory minister Rollie Thornhill represented the area and put a stop to the plans of Dartmouth Council.
That is how it works, sometimes the quiet lobby takes a different route when they think the fix is in at City Hall and trump it with a fix at province house. I don’t have a problem with that, it’s politics.
Win some,lose some. More than one way to skin a cat.
But that’s the thing, JB. Dexter has managed to alienate traditional NDP voters and members, so that’s who he needs to pander to. While I don’t have exact numbers, I’m sure that provincial NDP membership has probably dropped like a stone, so Dexter needs to find a way to prop up his numbers. A stunt like this would work; it’s the kind of tough-talk BS that he campaigned on, and the NDP’s Knights Templar in the area tipped him off as to what’s happening (and they didn’t like it, and threatened to drop support if it went ahead). It’s meddling at it’s worst. The new terminal is needed, and the reasoning to stopping it is poor.
While I admit that HRM probably tried to pull a fast one, for once, it’s good for the city. But, as always (especially when it comes to those lovely things called “Commons”) the NIMBY fucks block it and any way they can. My bigger issue with it is: the province should deal in provincial affairs, not municipal ones. And if there is indeed a legal issue, and the provincial oversight didn’t catch it, that’s a bigger waste of taxpayer money to me than any potential savings that this move may (but probably won’t) generate.
My solution to the problem? Raze the shit-hole of a school that is DHS, and put it there.
I’m with ya on the razing Fever, DHS is a shit hole.