[Image-1]

At Tuesday’s meeting of Halifax Regional Council, Jennifer Watts will be putting forward three motions relating to Colonial Honda’s plans to tear down close to two dozen north end houses for an expanded parking lot.
Watts is asking council to request the province amend its Charter so that HRM can implement interim development controls in certain areas—granting council the power to suspend or limit certain developments in an identified area (and stopping any permits or approvals being issued in that area that are contrary to the resolution).
It’s a stop-gap measure while the lengthy Centre Plan process continues, making sure no new surprises or sneaky car lots pop up.
An IDC would have potentially stopped car czar Rob Steele, who quietly purchased dozens of properties over the last few months surrounding his new Colonial Honda dealership and is now set to demolish those houses. The Steele Auto Group is within its legal rights to tear down the homes and build a parking lot for more cars, but the plan has been met with outrage from neighbouring property owners.
In the Homes Not Hondas Facebook group, Watts clarifies that this motion won’t have an impact on Steele’s current parking lot plans. Those permits have already been issued, and would be grandfathered into any new legislation (which would have to be passed at Rankin-level speeds to be in effect before the houses on Fern, McCully and May came down, anyhow).
To provide a more attractive alternative for dealerships like Honda, Watts is also asking council to request a staff report identifying zones outside the Centre Plan area that currently allow for and could be amended to allow for large-scale automotive dealerships—an attempt to keep Centre Plan lands on target for increased density and build up a “gasoline alley” for auto dealerships outside the core.
Finally, Watts is asking for a staff report addressing the requests identified in the Homes Not Hondas petition submitted at council’s May 10 meeting.
The petition of over 1,000 signatures was met with some criticism when it was first presented to council two weeks ago. Dartmouth Centre councillor Gloria McCluskey called it a “waste of time” and said it was a “political move” put together by District 8 candidate Brenden Sommerhalder in anticipation of October’s election.
Council meets at 1pm today, Tuesday, May 24 at City Hall.
Related Stories
Brenden Sommerhalder enters the race for city council
Halifax votes to keep honouring Edward Cornwallis
Centre Plan takes centre stage
HRM development’s critical masses
Jennifer Watts takes job with ISANS
An open letter to Rob Steele
This article appears in May 19-25, 2016.
Oddly, of all the houses in the demolition area, only three remain in the hands of their original owners; the rest have been legally purchased and will be legally demolished. Why are we paying attention to 3 people? Further, on Robie between North and Almon, ONLY 1 residence remains and that one is not even for sale let alone being demolished. Further, he is not even in the demolition area. I imagine it is owned by a variable of person who refuses to sell. Those who will inherit the property certainly will do that upon their death, I am certain.
My point is… Why are we making such a fuss?
Oh right! EAC…!
Perhaps you don’t understand the concept of how an urban neighborhood should look like. its not just the eac.. a lot of people who live in this area didn’t imagine their neighborhood to turn into a big parking lot. They probably imagined housing, or more local businesses or any other business that actually fits into the existing character of their neighborhood and will have a positive impact on their community. Especially in this neighborhood, where most residents chose to live there because of its own unique culture.
To Charlie… This demolition will have a huge impact on the neighbourhood surrounding May, Fern, McCully, Robie & North. It will make it noisier, less walk-able, and less liveable. It further erodes mid-level and affordable housing in the area, and it does nothing to increase housing density in the core of the city. It’s counter to good design and planning, and it’s even counter to what the auto industry itself is doing in urban centres – creating smart, efficient buildings to showcase their cars without taking up space that can be of more use as housing, shops, services, parks and public spaces. But you’re right. They’re legally allowed to make this backward-looking decision to demolish up to 20 buildings to make a surface car lot, no matter how bad an idea it is.
@1916eg: the neighborhood has always been commercial. Have a look then tell me otherwise…
@andrear:
The affordable housing to which you refer was often inhabited by crackheads and other deviants not welcome by the rest of the residential neighbors; ask the yourself.
Parked cars are not noisy generally; nor are car lots.
There will still be a sidewalk on May, on the north side of the street. I imagine they will be required to have one on the south side too, as it pre-exists.
It is already less livable as the homeowners chose to sell their property knowing Steel would tear them down, yet you offer no vitriol to those who chose to sell.
A perfect example of corporate greed and lack of ingenuity. If you buy a car don’t buy from Steele.
What makes these shitholes so special?
What’s happening doesn’t fit the definition of corporate greed. And no one thinks they are special.
Does no one use logic anymore? Why all these emotional outcries?
We complain about not having a better economic outlook yet fight to maintain corporate welfare schemes like payroll tax credits.
Holy fuck, Chuck! You got stock in Steele Honda? Why get so uppity because people want some say in what gets developed in their neighbourhood? Maybe we should all chip in and build a building shaped like giant vagina next to your house, a big wet one that glistens through your window in the morning sun.
I would welcome it Poprah! I shall then get to build a giant penis on my house; it won’t like your vagina though…
No, no stock. I’m fascinated with the nonsense of it all. The area is – with few exceptions – is completely commercial. Those who are opposed to this are unaffected yet want to stop it? Why?
The arguments posed are pointless and without merit. My counterpoints can’t be challenged.
As I said, “We complain about not having a better economic outlook yet fight to maintain corporate welfare schemes like payroll tax credits.”
I guess what I don’t understand is that if this community was so dear to these residents, why did they all sell? Apparently the money was more important than any perceived community that existed there in a commercially-zoned district. The houses were not expropriated – no one forced them to sell at gunpoint, so please explain this to me…
Ecology Centre employs 40 people who are busy doing nothing demonstrated by this whole thing in their backyard. God I hope we aren’t paying for them.
And down they come! All that fuss and nonsense for nothing…
And yes Willbest, they receive public funds…