If Halifax’s most politically connected developers get their way, land within the city’s proposed Blue Mountain-Birch Cove Lake Wilderness Park will instead get developed as suburban neighbourhoods.
The land in question is 500 acres west of the Bicentennial Highway, owned by four groups—Annapolis Group, Armco Capital, Gateway Materials and Sisters of Charity. The largest of the four are Annapolis and Armco. Annapolis is controlled by the Jodrey family, which also owns Minas Basin Pulp and Power Company and, with assets of nearly a half-billion dollars, is listed as one of “Canada’s richest people” by Canadian Business online. Armco and its associated businesses and employees are by far the largest contributor to HRM election campaigns, regularly dropping thousands of dollars into the coffers of mayor Peter Kelly and other councillors.
About half of the 500 acres is designated “urban settlement” in the Halifax Regional Plan, which means that sometime before 2026 it can be opened up for development. The other half is designated “urban reserve,” which for these lands means that it can’t even be considered for development before 2026.
The private lands in the “urban reserve” zone are also within the boundaries of the proposed park, which additionally includes 3,336 acres of provincial land that last year was designated as protected wilderness. That designation anticipated the city buying the private lands and creating the wilderness park.
But the property owners have asked the city to instead initiate the planning process for both the urban settlement and urban reserve lands they own. Such planning violates the regional plan, but the city planning department has already paid for an engineering study outlining the costs of bringing city services like roads and sewers to the supposedly undevelopable “urban reserve” land. The proposal to allow development will come before council “in coming weeks,” says planner Roger Wells.
About 100 people showed up at a staff presentation on the issue at Keshen Goodman Library last Friday, all of them opposed to development.
“The park was the plan the city forgot about,” Raymond Plourde of the Ecology Action Centre told the group. “The moment the regional plan was passed, the park was forgotten about.” —Tim Bousquet
This article appears in Jan 14-20, 2010.
“About 100 people showed up at a staff presentation on the issue at Keshen Goodman Library last Friday, all of them opposed to development.”
Umm, almost everyone who ever shows up to any these staff presentations is “opposed to development.” They usually just show up to complain and give their wacky theories, or they’re being paid by rival developers to oppose the development.
Also remember that the Regional Plan is meant to be a flexible, “living” document and open to change and variation. There is nothing illegal or wrong with this planning proposal. Municipal staff are required to assess these proposals in good faith (why would they want to risk their careers and reputations otherwise?) and it really doesn’t matter how well-connected or how much money was contributed to HRM election campaigns. Municipal staff and Councillors are two separate entities – Councillors are elected, staff are hired based on their experience and credentials the same way (I hope) The Coast staff are hired.
It seems like you’re trying to put what seems to be an obvious 2 and 2 together here, but the reality is a much more complex mathematical equation.
And no, I don’t work for any developer!
I’ve shown up at these presentations before. Most of the people I see are just concerned citizens who either live in the area and are interested in what is going on in their backyard or are people concerned about the environment.
They’re paid by developers? Really? Wheres my cut?
“The land in question is 500 acres west of the Bicentennial Highway, owned by four groups—Annapolis Group, Armco Capital, Gateway Materials and Sisters of Charity.”
The land is owned by these groups, not the city. The city backed out of buying the land for a park. Therefore someone coming along and telling these developers “no you can’t build on the lot you OWN, it must be turned into a park” seems a little unfair. It’s their land, end of story. I don’t think you’d be too happy if you were told your house had to come down becasue someone wanted a park in its place/
Halifax is becoming such a shithole….who even cares anymore?
So, when I look at that map it shows that the urban development was never actually in the proposed park. Who ever made the plans for this wilderness reserve was smart. The swampy wetland that would be costly to develop for housing was included in the park while the area that could logically be developed was left out.
This all looks cut and dry to me. The land is privately owned, therefore the people who own it can do what ever they want with it within the law. They will most likely develop the area that is proposed for development, and leave the area that is a swamp. Afterall, I would not consider this a “pristine area” I mean, it’s located adjacent to the highway with the most commuter traffic into Halifax. Oh, and the “evil” companys will most likely do the right thing and give up the swampy shit land to the park and get amazing PR for doing so.
Case closed
Andrew, you are so right.
They will hand over the swamp, the streams etc and call it their 5% parkland and HRM will go along with it. The same thing happened in Portland Estates, difficult terrain was given to Dartmouth and all it was good for was walking next to streams. Kids played in the streets and there were no sidewalks, no play space. ZIP.
I’ve been known to demonize big developers and wealthy secretive landowning families before, but I’ll hold off on that a bit. Fact is, they are no more guilty of causing urban sprawl than the people that are looking to snap up the houses that get built in these new subdivisions. Truth be told, I’m with Liverpool – most people don’t give a shit; they want the environmentalism to kick in just *after* they buy their new house out in the boonies. The politicians know that. About the best we can hope for is decent access to the lakes that get surrounded…they are still ours, after all.
It’s basically irrelevant as to what the developers want. We can, as a society and as a municipality, impose conditions on what gets built where. Happens all the time. If people can protest a jail or cell tower or wind turbine in their neighbourhood, they can sure as hell protest new subdivisions and argue for green space instead. But when it comes right down to it, people would rather have houses, new highways, new big box stores and dead downtowns.
So it’s not really the fault of the developers.
Yeah, it’s the fault of the city. A small minority of people is going to see perceived benefits of these houses; that group is the people who will actually be living in them. The remaining 99% of the city’s population will lose the many benefits of this woodland area. Many of these benefits may be indirect: your coworker is happier or more productive because she can continue her biking routine; you get to work at the same time because traffic hasn’t increased along your route; people from here and away perceive Halifax as a more progressive and aesthetically pleasing city. There’s also some purported science correlating the presence of woodland areas to decreased air (and noise) pollution.
The point of democracy is to prevent a few people from reaping benefits at the expense of the masses. This is a failure of democracy.
I’m curious as to whether any of these units will be high- or at least medium-density, or if the plan is to spread people out more thinly so that we can eventually get rid of all the damn trees.
My point is that these developers own the land!!! They have the right to put up a subdivision there!! Why are people complaining about them? If you want that land to be included in the park get a group together and buy it yourselves and donate it to HRM with the condition that it must be used as a park for the city. I don’t get how people think… why would the HRM include land into the park proposal that they don’t own in the first place?
Andrew: yes, the developers own the land. I believe everyone is clear on that point. But no, they don’t have the right to build whatever they want. We have municipal planning, zoning, land-use by-laws, and construction regulations. Furthermore, said developers would certainly be required to submit an environmental impact statement. Point being, society needs to impose some guidance on development, or it runs amuck. Left to their own devices, people do things like the lady who decided to start infilling a portion of the LaHave River.
Also, you suggest that a group of concerned folks get together and buy up that land. Well, ummm, last I checked, isn’t it the *municipality* which is supposed to make these enlightened decisions on behalf of the citizens who pay those politicians’ wages? Not only that, the purchase price should be contingent upon the fact that you cannot build houses on it.
Your argument is predicated on a belief that a landowner can do whatever they like with their property. No, they can’t.
The point is that they don’t have to turn it into a park. It is already designated as urban reserve and development. As long as they follow protocol they get the green light. And if the public demand is so great then the HRM or DNR should buy the land for the people. Or a group of the devoted mass can raise funds and buy it themselves.
Would you go and make a proposal to make your neighbors property a public park for your community? The land isn’t yours, why would anyone make such a crazy proposal like that? Right? I bet your neighbour would be pretty pissed when he/she found out you were kicking them out of the neighbourhood too…
Also,
“the purchase price should be contingent upon the fact that you cannot build houses on it.”
You say you are a realist, but I don’t think you are very “real” about the society and economy we are in. If the developer were to sell the property at a lower cost then they would lose money. Business is based on capitalism, which is also what our economy is based on. That is bad for the economy. Like I said in an earlier post, the developer will most likely put up a subdivision in the development zoning (where the price of housing will be high because of location) and give up the property to the park in the reserve zoning because it is in a swamp (where land value would be low and more environmental planning would exist). They could probably right it off as charity too.
It is all about compromise people!