Apartment developers on run

Poor planning, unfair bylaws pushing people out of province, IPOANS president says
By BRUCE ERSKINE Business Reporter
Fri. May 9 - 6:54 AM

Unfair bylaws and poor planning are driving apartment developers out of the Halifax area and ultimately hurting tenants, says Joe Metlege, president of the Investment Properties Owners Association of Nova Scotia.

“Doing business doesn’t make sense anymore,” he said in an interview on Thursday. “At the end of the day, we’re a service business and any costs that get added to us, the more expensive it is for people to afford a place to live.”

The association, which held its 30th annual general meeting on Thursday night, represents 200 members who Mr. Metlege said control 22,000 apartment units in Halifax Regional Municipality, or half of the municipality’s apartment stock.

Mr. Metlege, who heads Jono Development Ltd., said the association wants changes to the way the municipality assesses apartment buildings for taxation purposes and changes to the provincial Residential Tenancies Act.

“We’re not looking to be extreme, we’re looking to be fair,” he said, noting that the current business climate is making local apartment owners like Killam Properties look outside the province for new opportunities.

Mr. Melege said the association would like to see a cap on apartment building assessments similar to the 2.3 per cent cap that applies to residential dwellings in the municipality.

Without such a cap, he said municipal tax increases applied to apartment buildings will have to be passed along to tenants, who he said are generally less able to meet those costs than individual homeowners.

“The lowest-income earners are hit the hardest,” he said, adding that the municipality should recognize that apartment buildings are more efficient to service than single-family homes.

“Our argument is that apartment buildings create the least financial burden on the city,” he said. “Servicing a 100-unit apartment is more economical than servicing 100 homes.”

Mr. Metlege said the association’s arguments have fallen on deaf ears at city hall.

“They don’t seem to understand or don’t want to,” he said, noting that there are a lot fewer landlords in HRM than individual residents. “It’s easier to tax a landlord.”

The association would also like to see amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act to create a more level playing field for apartment owners.

“What’s fair for the tenant should be fair for the landlord,” said Mr. Metlege, noting that under the act, tenants on month-to-month leases only need to give a landlord one month’s notice to terminate a lease, while landlords in the same situation are required to give tenants three months’ notice.

“That’s one of many issues,” he said, adding that the association has been lobbying the province for amendments to the act for 10 years. “What it comes down to is it’s easier to do nothing than to make changes.”

( berskine@herald.ca)

Technorati Tags: Joe Metlege,IPONS,B Erskine,Halifax Chronical Herald

Sheila Fougere unveils platform

By MICHAEL LIGHTSTONE Staff Reporter
Sat. May 3 - 5:30 AM

Sheila Fougere kicks off her campain for mayor at the Holiday Inn in Dartmouth. (JEFF HARPER / Staff)

Halifax councillor Sheila Fougere was in Dartmouth on Friday to unveil her mayoral campaign platform that has such planks as safer communities, improved public transit, better conditions for the city’s needy, more recreation centres and a smaller regional council.

She said the municipality is a unique place, as Canadian cities go, and she wants to lead it to continued growth and prosperity during the next four years.

Ms. Fougere, 50, said Halifax Regional Municipality should be governed in such a way that the differences of its many districts are taken into account. She said a cookie-cutter approach to bylaws and other city hall rules is not the way to go.

A better system, she said, would have the city’s six community councils consider “some of the more divisive issues” before the full regional council votes on them. Such a process would “allow for nuances in regulation and service that reflected the needs of individual communities,” she said.

Ms. Fougere said she supports a review of the size of Halifax council, now at 24 members. She figures 15 would be a more suitable number.

More than 100 people attended Ms. Fougere’s campaign kickoff at a hotel. The municipal election is set for Oct. 18.

Mayor Peter Kelly, in office since 2000, has announced he is seeking re-election. Ms. Fougere did not mention him by name Friday in a speech lasting almost 20 minutes, saying later she wanted the focus of her remarks to be about her campaign and vision for the municipality.

On city transit, she said: “I want (bus) routes that run more hours of the day and more days of the week.” She pledged to get a pilot project going that would involve a late-night shuttle in Halifax for patrons and workers leaving downtown watering holes.

On crime, Ms. Fougere, who is married to a police officer, promised to help make neighbourhoods safer.

“We need to ensure that numbers of sworn police officers and firefighters do not fall below pre-amalgamation levels,” she said. “It’s also important that their numbers grow.”

Halifax, Dartmouth, Bedford and Halifax County merged into one political unit in 1996. Ms. Fougere, first elected in 1998, said she wouldn’t push the province for de-amalgamation.

On the city’s disadvantaged, Ms. Fougere said: “I want to foster a stronger link with our provincial politicians and community partners who look after housing, social services, mental health services . . . to improve the social conditions in our communities.”

Among Ms. Fougere’s supporters at the kickoff were a few council colleagues, a former top bureaucrat from Halifax city hall, at least two New Democrat MLAs and a former provincial cabinet minister, a Conservative who introduced the one-time federal Liberal candidate to the crowd.

Ms. Fougere, who represents west-end Halifax (Connaught-Quinpool) on council, was asked why she elected to release her platform in Dartmouth. She said it was a decision based on past parochialism.

“I chose Dartmouth because I know that there are people who bear that resentment to Halifax,” Ms. Fougere told reporters. “I’m more than happy to say: ‘You know what? I’ll go wherever in this municipality (and) I’m quite comfortable with that.’ So I thought it was important not to have it in Halifax.”

Ms. Fougere said she recognizes that women are a minority on municipal councils in Nova Scotia but she said the gender imbalance isn’t a factor in her seeking the mayor’s job. She encouraged people from all walks of life to take a shot at public office at the local level, saying it would help make for a more diverse regional council.

( mlightstone@herald.ca)

COMMENTS

POST YOUR COMMENT

Ed T wrote:
I seem to remember Fougere’s first press announcement that she would run for Mayor. It was after she stomped out of a HRM council meeting, suporting the “fiscally threatening” Commonwealth Games bid to the bitter end. Seems like she had plenty of sketchy statements about Mayor Kelly then and his wise move to protect HRM finances from that nightmare. After all that steam, there’s little in her platform that differ’s from Mayor Kelly. Only fuzzy political motherhood statements. After all, they both voted for this year’s HRM tax increase. I suspect there would be little future tax relief from either of the canidates. Hopefully, a real alternative canidate emerges. If not, from what I see, it seems like Kelly is a safer bet. No wonder there was such a small crowd.

Straight from the candidates’ mouths

By AMY PUGSLEY FRASER City Hall Reporter
Mon. Apr 28 - 6:14 AM

MATTHEW CHRISTIE matthewchristieonline.com

 

                                        TIM OUTHIT bedfordleader.com

City hall reporter Amy Pugsley Fraser spoke to candidates Matthew Christie and Tim Outhit about what led them to run for municipal councillor in District 21, among other issues. This is what they said:

WAS THERE A SINGLE ISSUE OR EVENT THAT PUSHED YOU FORWARD?

Christie: There were two events that convinced me to run for council. The first was the successful Bedford Community Council Association meeting where over 250 Bedford residents expressed their desire for change. The second was the funeral for my grandmother where hundreds of Bedford residents encouraged me to put my name forward to run.

Outhit: I believe that if you want things to improve, you have to be willing to step up and take action. That’s why I joined the Ridgevale Homeowners Association shortly after moving to Bedford in 2000. Now, like many Bedford residents, I’m concerned by the slow pace of progress on a rink, soccer fields, a new library, roads, playgrounds and more efficient public transportation.

WHY ARE YOU RUNNING?

Christie: I am very passionate about Bedford and hope that I can build on the work of our previous full-time councillors to make Bedford, again, one of the top places to live in Atlantic Canada.

Outhit: We live in a terrific community, but it can be better. I am not looking for a job, rather I want to offer my experience in business, government relations, consensus-building and relationship-building to help move Bedford forward. Bedford residents want a strong voice on council — they want the kind of leadership Gary Martin gave us. I believe I can be that voice.

WHAT QUALIFIES YOU FOR THE JOB?

Christie: I have been involved in Bedford politics since the age of 10. I am currently on leave from my position as executive assistant with (Service Nova Scotia) Minister (Jamie) Muir. This has provided me with insight into the workings of municipal and provincial government. As your full-time councillor, I will demonstrate my ability to bring people together to enhance the goals of Bedford and HRM.

Outhit: I’ve learned a lot about how to get things done with government in my career (novaknowledge) and in my volunteer job as a neighbourhood association president. I can bring that experience — with my track record of action on issues like sidewalks, security patrols, better lighting, sidewalk construction, traffic lights and a community website — to help all areas in Bedford get the amenities they deserve.

WHAT DO YOU LIKE ABOUT CITY HALL?

Christie: All politics is local. I enjoy working at the grassroots level directly with the residents of Bedford to implement their ideas and policies to make our community a better place to live. I feel that the greatest impact can be made at the municipal level to directly enhance our community of Bedford.

Outhit: Issues dealt with by city hall affect all of us: traffic, policing, public transportation, property tax, and facilities construction and operation. If you can’t walk down the street at night because your area doesn’t have decent street lights, that’s a quality-of-life issue. If it takes you half an hour to drive through Bedford, that’s a basic issue. If your child can’t play hockey because there isn’t enough ice time, that’s a quality-of-life issue.

WHAT ARE YOU HEARING ON THE DOORSTEP?

Christie: People are frustrated with the lack of progress in Bedford since amalgamation. The population has doubled and our tax assessment base has increased to $1.8 billion, yet we have not moved forward with issues like seniors and recreational facilities, heavy traffic flow, public transit solutions and upgrades to our roads and walking trails. Residents expect full-time representation, as they have had in the past.

Outhit: The residents of Bedford want action on infrastructure, better public transportation, more all-age facilities, a sustainable recreation facility, another access point to the Bicentennial Highway from south Bedford, the Burnside Bypass, proactive neighbourhood policing, playgrounds and an off-leash dog park. Bedfordites are intrigued by the idea of more homeowners associations handling these issues; they like my experience on this front. Gary Martin and I discussed this model many times.

HOW MANY REGIONAL COUNCIL MEETINGS HAVE YOU BEEN TO?

Christie: I have attended several council meetings in the past few months. I stay up to date with regional issues and monitor the direction of HRM by watching the meetings on EastLink. I have also attended numerous municipal and provincial meetings in Bedford and have a strong working relationship with HRM councillors and provincial ministers and MLAs.

Outhit: I’ve attended a few meetings in person over the years and watched many Tuesday evening sessions on television. I’ve attended many more meetings (and have many contacts) with members of HRM departments and bodies such as parks and recreation, traffic authority, engineering and the police.

( apugsley@herald.ca)

 

Technorati Tags: A Pugsley,Halifax Chronical Herald,Bedford Election

Halifax by bad design

Jim Meek makes a very good argument for the changes to the Nova Scotia Municipalities /Development Act  and he has pointed the responsibility at those responsible for its implementation and change. Vision & forward thinking is required by more than the counsellors of HRM. All three levels of government need to be on the same page in order for Halifax to address the wrinkles in the development process…..

By JIM MEEK
Sun. Apr 27 - 8:44 AM

 

GEORGE ARMOYAN, the really smart developer who now runs a holding company, built his fortune in the suburbs of Halifax.

As far as I’m concerned, Armoyan earned his success. He assembled land when it was cheap — and cheaply taxed. Then he used it to build houses that were subsidized as a matter of public policy.

Smart business? You bet.

And Armoyan also built thousands of homes in places where people could afford to live.

But my heavens, Armoyan and other developers were certainly in the right place (Halifax) at the right time (in the ’80s and ’90s). And there’s no doubt the taxpayers of Halifax subsidized both suburban sprawl and the profits it produced.

This is surely understood by the people on Halifax’s tax reform committee, which starts public meetings this week. Yep, they should know that these hidden subsidies have amounted (over time) to hundreds of millions of dollars in Halifax.

In effect, we had a cash transfer system in place, with money going from taxpayers to new homeowners and developers.

According to a 2006 infrastructure study produced for Halifax Regional Municipality, developers in southern Ontario paid fees of up to $29,000 per house in new subdivisions.

In Halifax, the average per-lot fee for a new house is about $5,000. Pre-2002, fees were more of a joke. The infrastructure study says the application fee for putting houses on up to 10 lots was $250 — or 25 bucks per lot. And the more houses you built, the cheaper the fees got.

A concession here: Nova Scotia laws don’t allow municipalities to recover education and health costs, so the comparison with Ontario cities isn’t all that fair. I raise it, then, not to condemn Halifax, but to urge it to follow Ontario’s example.

In the Toronto area, cities and towns can charge developers for water, sewers, highways, electrical power, fire service, libraries, sports facilities, buses and other transportation services.

In Alberta and British Columbia, developers are even expected to put parks in new communities. Imagine that.

Under restrictive provincial laws, Halifax charges only for water, sewers and roads. That’s where the $5,000 per lot goes.

One industry source said the actual per-home cost for all services in new subdivisions is closer to $25,000. The subsidy is $20,000 per house. Build 1,000 of them and you’ve got yourself a $20-million subsidy.

No wonder the peninsula has lost tens of thousands of people to the burbs over the past three decades while Halifax sprawled wildly across the map.

What to do now? I figure young Rodney’s government should amend municipal laws so the city could ask developers to carry the full costs of new neighbourhoods.

Let’s put an end, Mr. Premier, to Halifax by bad design.

Or maybe that should be Halifax by no design.

This mess is really one of the hangovers from the 1996 amalgamation. The planners are still catching up, figuring out how to integrate the hodgepodge of policies from the old city and county governments.

Today, as the Halifax by Design consultants keep telling us, it’s time to clean up our act. That means putting more people on the peninsula, subsidizing (some) housing there and allowing new multi-unit developments to proceed as if Halifax really were a city.

That’s the kind of Halifax we want, one where more people can live downtown, where we can walk to work, where we stop clogging up the roads.

And where we stop handing out cash to people who build the vast new subdivisions that are the root cause of the mess.

None of this should be hard to accomplish, right?

We just need to elect someone like George Armoyan as mayor — someone, that is, who is used to getting things done.

( jmeek@herald.ca)

Technorati Tags: Halifax Chronical Herald,Jim Meek,Halifax by bad design

COMMENTS

POST YOUR COMMENT

Quiet Comment wrote:
The last time I checked the houses built in what some refere to as “Sprawl” pay taxes for the services they recieve. These taxes are a lot more than the taxes on the wood lot that existed there before the developement happened. Also note that the developer installs the roads and services not the city. If the development was built without sewer and water the homeowners must cost share with HRM when they are installed. These added services add to the value of the property so taxes go up. This is based on the value of the property which is ussually quite substantial the same as the South Enders. The fact that people may be moving away from the south end has more to do with the value of the properties there being out of reach of young families. The folks who bought there years ago are still there enjoying the expensive property they bought at reasonable cost 20 years ago. Their kids have moved to the burbs so yes there is a downturn in kids in the area. This does not mean the southend is subsidizing anyone. All the talk of how the developers should pay more is all well and good but like everything else in our society who gets to pay? The end user. The couple who want a nice home in a nice area. All of the developers costs will be sent down the line for the purchaser to pay. I agree more high density development should take place for those who choose to live in the city and want to walk to work. Give others the option of living in the burbs and commutting to work if that is what they want. Stop telling me where and how I should live.

The peninsula pays, everyone else brays

By JIM MEEK
Sat. Apr 26 - 6:36 AM

IF YOU LIVE in many parts of peninsular Halifax, this city is a ripoff.

For instance, it turns out the “old south end” isn’t the painted lady of legend after all.

Instead, peninsular Halifax plays the role of sugar daddy to the city’s rural areas and many of its suburbs.

I used two documents to figure this out.

One shows 2006 census figures by electoral district in greater Halifax.

The second document is the one that Mayor Peter Kelly and the people who work for him don’t want you to see.

Generated by city staff in 2007, this document reveals the residential tax Halifax collects by electoral district.

Do the math and here’s what you get.

South-enders paid residential taxes averaging $1,466 per person in 2007, about twice the average for greater Halifax.

The comparable figure for the average Eastern Shore-Musquodoboit Valley resident was $524.

The total per capita (residential and commercial) tax take in downtown Halifax was $3,276 last year, compared to $668 in Spryfield-Herring Cove.

Yet no one blinks when some cretin suggests that that the downtown swimming pool – Centennial – should be closed. Just try closing the wave pool in Spryfield and see what happens.

The rich should pay, you say – and I half agree.

But the politics of entitlement is totally out of hand in Halifax, with rural areas making demands that are way out of proportion to their tax payouts.

Already, council has agreed to finance new recreation centres in Low-Tax-Villes. At the same time, as downtown Councillor Dawn Sloane has pointed out, it’s become virtually impossible to get money for new projects on the peninsula – except sewage treatment plants.

The wonky political calculus of amalgamation only deepens the frustration. Halifax peninsula has four councillors; the remaining 18 can easily gang up on the city slickers.

And why not?

The politics is sound, even if the principles of tax equity and good government are violated.

I know, I know – you’re saying to yourself that peninsular Halifax can look after itself.

But you’re wrong. The peninsula has been rolling with the punches so long that it doesn’t know how to fight back.

Also remember that the people who often complain most about the peninsula take the most out of the city.

According to one 2005 study, it costs more than $5,000 per household to provide municipal services in a sparsely populated rural area, compared to $1,400 per household in a densely populated part of the peninsula.

Still, the peninsula lost tens of thousands of people over the past three decades while the suburbs grew apace.

Not only that, but municipal governments historically subsidized suburban sprawl by failing to charge developers adequate fees for sidewalk, road, garbage, police, fire and other services in new neighbourhoods.

As a consequence, some developers got rich with a little too much help from taxpayers. The indirect subsidies to developers easily amount to hundreds of millions of dollars. (I will detail this story in The Sunday Herald tomorrow.)

Here’s what you have to know for now: In pre-amalgamation Halifax, developers’ fees were a joke.

The good news is that we now have a chance to put the jewel back in the crown. Halifax’s tax reform commission, which goes into full public consultation mode next week, can fix it all.

And as the Greater Halifax Partnership reported this week, a new survey shows people throughout the municipality support growth – and even tall buildings downtown.

The city core, by the way, is in a sad state – featuring ugly parking lots and boarded-up stores alongside spectacular assets like the Common, the Public Gardens and Point Pleasant Park.

This much is certain: If we let the peninsula fray around the edges, all of greater Halifax will pay.

Why? Because no one smart or educated or young will want to move here, stay here, or invest here.

As celebrity economist Richard Florida says, creative people are now the great wealth generators in North America, and they flock to attractive cities – Boston or San Francisco, Seattle or New York.

Halifax won’t succeed in this brave new world by transforming itself into a giant Beaver Bank.

So for everyone’s sake, let’s hear three cheers for the peninsula, the south end and even its much-maligned lawyers.

We need them now more than ever, whether we like it or not.

( jmeek@herald.ca)

 

 

COMMENTS

POST YOUR COMMENT

gordo wrote:
Hallelujah! I live in an old salt box a few houses from the Commons and love it. It is not a mansion and it is not in the South End. I came to Halifax 15 years ago and love the closeness of everything.Unfortunately the taxes for my little house are a bit outrageous - $2500. I await tax reform with bated breathe as the services in my neighbourhood have been around for hundreds of years while I help subsidize development and amenities in far flung “low-tax-ville”. Lord help the municipality if penisular Halifax acts like some of those people out in Bedford…..

Common not a venue wrote:
And Mr. Meek what type of Services does the Valley get for the money they pay ? Certainly The Valley does not get sidewalks, Two major parks maintained by city or outside contract workers. What About Water and Sewer ? Do south enders pay for the Wells or spetic systems a rural resident must maintain ? Then you have fire fighting Most rural communities had volunteer Departments where as there is a great cost to have fulltime Pros in the South end. Then we can look at public transportation . There is none in Rural HRM or Nova Scotia Your Idea the pennisula somehow pays for the valley is bunk. Last I checked the Valley didn’t have a neptune theatre running in the red or a metro centre or a world trade and convention centre among all the White Elephants all nova scotians get saddled paying for residing in old Halifax.

mayhar wrote:
I didn’t realize the valley was in Halifax. He said Musquodoboit Valley. If you’re going to complain, at least read what you’re complaining about.

McNeil_hfx wrote:
I suspected as much, but I had no idea it was this bad! The peninsula (and probably downtown Dartmouth too!) need to take a stand. Something must be done to turn this around. There are way too many rural/ suburban councillors driving the agenda at City Hall. If the financials of sprawl in HRM are this dire, why does the regional plan aim to direct 75% of new growth outside the regional center? Why are the new suburbs getting all the services and schools? Isn’t that just going to make it worse? Is this why Council can’t control the budget? We clearly need a third party audit of where our taxes are generated and where they are spent to help us plan better. As a regional municipality we could be a lot smarter than this, but for some reason (likely the 19 to 4 situation at city hall!), it’s not politically feasible. Looking forward to tomorrow’s column!

Residents say skyscrapers are OK

Finally, Finally, Finally…..  Stephen Dempsey, chief executive officer of the Greater Halifax Partnership has released the details of the survey that Bristol Omnifacts prepared for the partnership. For those of you that don’t know me , I spend most of my workweek in the downtown core of Halifax, my clients are there, I socialize there and I am fully aware of the strengths & weaknesses of the CBD … it’s been my contention for a long time that the majority of people who actually work & live in the area are strongly in favour of development. It comes down to an issue of attitude & top down decision making by city hall. Its time that Halifax invests in Halifax…. but more on that later… here is the content of Mr Dempsey’s press conference.

Poll: Most people agree development is needed
By STEVE PROCTOR Business Editor
Tue. Apr 22 - 5:19 PM

Halifax needs an extra 1.6 million square feet of space to accommodate growth downtown over the next 10 years, the Greater Halifax Partnership says. (DARREN PITTMAN / Staff)

Halifax residents aren’t anti-growth, they are not opposed to tall buildings and they would not oppose more spending to improve the vitality of the downtown core.

Stephen Dempsey, chief executive officer of the Greater Halifax Partnership, said those are some of “the surprising findings” in a 1,400-person survey on growth in the city that Bristol Omnifacts prepared for the partnership.

“Given the tone of the public discussion in recent months and the fact that there hasn’t been a new office tower built in the city for a generation, some people are assuming residents must be anti-development and opposed to tall buildings,” Mr. Dempsey said. “In fact, that’s not the case at all.”

Only four per cent of the people surveyed believe growth is bad, he told a business luncheon Monday. The majority not only support the idea of growth but believe further investment in the core would have spinoff benefits that would be good for them personally, their community and their neighbourhood.

Mr. Dempsey said most people are not opposed to tall buildings, but to bad design. He said the survey indicated that the younger the respondents were and the closer they lived to downtown, the more likely they were to support tall buildings. Older people living farther away from downtown were the most opposed to tall buildings.

According to the partnership’s figures, Mr. Dempsey said the city needs an extra 1.6 million square feet of space to accommodate growth downtown over the next 10 years, and he believes the only way to get it is to build taller, more architecturally interesting buildings.

Capping building heights has been a point of contention for months as the city moves toward approving a development strategy for the downtown. Some developers have complained that restricting building heights to 10 or 12 storeys would destroy the economics of projects and lead to a boring skyline, but heritage groups, principally the Heritage Trust of Nova Scotia, have argued that the new limits would put 120 heritage properties at risk. The trust believes the downtown core has plenty of room for mid-scale development, and tall buildings should be relegated to an area that could be developed if the Cogswell interchange is demolished.

Mr. Dempsey said older, well-organized interest groups have received a disproportionate amount of attention in the downtown debate and he suggested city officials should listen to young people, who will be vital in filling vacancies as baby boomers retire.

He said young people want to work and live downtown but “if they can’t find the economic benefits here, they will find them in a downtown somewhere else.”

Danny Chedrawe, president of Westwood Developments, called the Greater Halifax Partnership study “shameful propaganda.” He said the agency uses the numbers to link tall buildings to keeping the downtown vibrant and livable, but the two are unrelated.

Mr. Chedrawe, a supporter of mid-sized development, said one big office tower project would suck up demand for years, potentially leaving more storefronts and offices empty. And if the economics for such a project were in place, he contends, several buildings approved under the old rules would be buzzing with construction activity.

“They’re not, because the economics aren’t there,” he said.

If the city was serious about bringing more people downtown, it would improve infrastructure, develop new transportation strategies, ponder low-income housing initiatives and press the Waterfront Development Corp. to make the harbourfront more accessible, he said.

Mr. Chedrawe said he supports the HRM by Design plan as presented, not because it’s a good plan but because it’s at least a plan.

“At least there is some guidance,” he said. “It doesn’t leave us wandering around in limbo like we have been for the past number of years.”

Residents’ comments on the plan mailed to HRM by Design, P.O. Box 1749, Halifax, B3J 3A5, or e-mailed to capdistrict@halifax.ca must be received by Wednesday.

( sproctor@herald.ca)

Committee greenlights project

But Brewery Market decision deferred
By SHERRI BORDEN COLLEY Staff Reporter
Tue. Apr 22 - 5:13 AM

A 19-storey residential building slated for the corner of Brenton and South Park streets in Halifax inched one step closer to getting approval Monday night.

During a meeting at city hall, the downtown Halifax advisory committee — despite strong opposition from one member — recommended the W.M. Fares Group project go ahead.

The committee assists council by reviewing projects to ensure they fit the downtown planning strategy.

Cesar Saleh, an engineer with the Fares Group, said they were very pleased with the committee’s decision.

“We’re hoping to go forward at a public hearing toward the end of May,” Mr. Saleh said. “I thought . . . except for one (committee) member, I thought that the questioning and the decision-making goes to support our development.”

Meanwhile, a second developer who wants to build a 21-storey condo complex in downtown Halifax will have to wait until next week to find out whether the committee supports his proposal.

Halkirk has proposed a $30-million complex for the south side of their Brewery Market property. After receiving a staff report that recommended the Halkirk development, the committee ran out of time before it had a chance to discuss the project.

The 66-metre proposed height for the South Park Street development was the biggest concern for Beverly Miller, acting chairwoman of the District 12 planning advisory committee. Ms. Miller was the only member to reject a staff recommendation

The Fares Group proposal does not meet municipal regulations that restrict building height to 14 metres at the site.

“I have trouble with staff recommending that because at the public information meeting (last year) there was considerable opposition from the people who live in Schmidtville area against a huge building going into their essentially low-rise neighbourhood,” Ms. Miller said.

“This is a neighbourhood question and a neighbourhood preservation question and just what is suitable in a particular neighbourhood.”

Schmidtville, bordered by Spring Garden Road, Dresden Row, Morris and Queen streets, forms an historic neighbourhood that dates from the late 1700s.

Other committee members did not support Ms. Miller’s motion to reject the proposal.

Municipal planning staff justified their recommendation by noting the area had become more urban since the municipal planning strategy was developed. In a report, staff said the Fares proposal for the highrise in this location is acceptable because tall buildings are already present.

The Fares Group and the advisory committee are looking for a site to relocate three Victorian houses that stand on the proposed building site.

“They are not registered heritage (buildings) but we are assessing the possibility of relocating them instead of demolishing them,” Mr. Saleh said. “And our company has offered to put the cost of demolition as well as discarding of the buildings toward the relocation.”

( sborden@herald.ca)

Technorati Tags: S Borden. The Halifax Chronical Herald,Development,Aproval

COMMENTS

POST YOUR COMMENT

Keith P. wrote:
Why is Bev Miller the chair of that committee? That is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse as she is stauntly anti-development and a foe of any new buildings in the downtown. No wonder nothing new ever gets approved in this town. To say that is a low-rise neighborhood is absurd when you have Park Vic on one side and the Charterhouse on the other.

RyanNS wrote:
What is wrong with this city? Doesn’t anyone realize the impact this will have? If we continue to allow massive, skyscrapers to overtake or city you can say goodbye to cruise ships and tourists. People love Halifax because we are stuck in a time warp and oppose any development! In all seriousness good to see this approved

haliguy wrote:
Great news!

CapeHalifax wrote:
If we have the technology to bury the several stories of parking that a structure this size if going to require, why not keep going and bury the whole thing. Our new claim to fame would be the largest subterainian dwelling in the world. I’m sure DND would rent the bottom couple of stories for its new R&D facility.

phrenic wrote:
Excellent news. Keep ‘em coming.

David fm CH wrote:
The environmentally responsbible way for a growing city to build is up. No more energy sucking suburban subdivisions!

HV wrote:
Bev Miller is out to lunch and should not be on this committee. Calling the area “essentially lowrise” is absurd. This site is surrounded on all sides by large scale buildings. This is a great proposal and should be built as soon as possible.

citizen@large wrote:
There is no legitimate reason why this building should be built beyond the height limits prescribed in the plan. The plan was created and approved for principled reasons. Why is this developer entitled to special treatment? The development community and HRM staff is out of touch with true green approaches to architecture and planning. High-rises are not legitimate sustainable approaches to planning and urban design. The Fares high-rise development is a total failure in terms of sustainability. The project will send several heritage buildings to the landfill, and leave the low-rise Schmidtville heritage neighbourhood in shadow in the afternoon hours and thereby compromise future solar energy potential. Solar energy technology will never be compatible of servicing a building of this size or design—either now or in the future. This dominating development will be another unsightly backdrop to the adjacent Public Gardens and Victoria Park. Where are the complete view impact, shadow and wind studies to identify and clarify the full impacts of this development? Nothing seems to matter any more as long as it is a high-rise development! Anything goes—who needs a plan, planning staff or a council—just build it!

awayfornow wrote:
Schmidtville, you have got to be kidding. As a 45 year native and resident of the Halifax area, this is the first time I have ever heard that area called so. We need progressive people in place that will bring development and tax base to the city. Get your heads out of the sand and out of your own back yards and look athe overall good fro the whole city!!!

phrenic wrote:
citizen@large, your posts are borderline comical as they show you have little to no factual knowledge about the specifics of these developments, nor knowledge of the complicated and often drawn-out approval process they must go through before being subject to approval. Not even knowledge of solar energy and how it is efficiently collected! If you are a Heritage Trust plant, please be advised your rants are not doing any favors for their “cause.”

Guy wrote:
Heritage preservation and commercial development depend on each other. They are talking about saving the two victorian homes that are on the site now. The only way they could afford to save those houses and to build an attractive building of high quality design and materials is to have a good ROI. Developers have to make money. Period. Otherwise, everything dies… heritage properties included.

Runesword wrote:
Might they mean Brenton Place and South Park Street?? Since South Park and Brenton Streets run parallel…

Voice of the people

Sat. Mar 22 - 4:46 AM
No half-measuresIt may not be well known, but currently, Swim Nova Scotia programs in HRM have waiting lists of 200-plus people due to the lack of access to swimming pools, and the provincial swim team cannot even get training times in HRM. This is unacceptable. Now is the time to invest in the citizens of HRM and Nova Scotia. Our province cannot even host any major national aquatic event!

Financial models exist across Canada that demonstrate the sustainability of a facility with a 50-metre pool. HRM needs to invest now to positively impact our citizens’ health and wellness in the future and to fight chronic disease.

HRM needs to provide equal access to recreational and sport opportunities for our community and region. Would we ever accept building half a rink to address the need for rinks in the metro region? Then why would we replace a 30-year-old facility (Northcliffe Pool) with virtually the same sized facility and why would we build half a pool, which offers only a fraction of the opportunities to all HRM’s citizens?

It is time that the HRM stepped up and supported a project that will have a lasting impact, not just a Band-Aid effect.

Bette El-Hawary, executive director, Swim Nova Scotia

Secret survey?

I was recently alerted to a previously unknown HRM recreation facility public opinion survey on their website. Aware of the urgent need for a multi-use, multi-district recreation facility on the Mainland Common to serve the entire HRM western region, I was confused. Who was to know?

A secret survey? How odd. Why weren’t we informed, if in-put was truly wanted? Other examples of HRM’s lack of transparency on the Mainland Common Recreation Centre (MCRC), came to mind:

The ill-conceived (daytime hours), poorly advertised public focus groups (fall/06) ensured minimal attendance (two to four people on average), yet claimed a wide public consultation to justify HRM’s present MCRC plan. The promised November 2006 telephone survey results were withheld.

Quietly disregarding three costly studies, recommending a multi-use flagship MCRC facility as early as 1996, HRM has opted for the questionable July 2007 Asbell report, recommending an undersized facility unable to meet even our present needs.

Withholding Asbell report information, HRM moves forward, pleading, “Councillors must see it first,” although the councillors have copies. Shouldn’t a public discussion of the plans precede a council vote?

Trees fall, land is cleared on the Common, yet again, no plan is forthcoming.

Isn’t HRM guilty of the very love of secrecy that the Commonwealth Games bid team was accused of? Why the secrecy?

P.A. Kidd, Halifax

Deserve more…..

As a business owner in HRM, I am frustrated and angered over the response, or lack thereof, from our elected officials regarding the Mainland Common Recreational Centre. One would think that our regional councillors would take the time to meet and discuss plans with the many volunteers who have dedicated more than three years to the effort of having the community’s voices heard.

Build it Right has consistently been stonewalled and denied an opportunity to discuss our well-researched concerns with regard to such a large project in our community. Good business acumen should be applied equally to municipal infrastructure projects, as they significantly impact the tax burden in the areas in which they are built.

Over the years, we have met with citizens, major business interests, councillors, medical groups, political parties and environmental interests to share our vision. That vision would see the development of a facility which would meet the infrastructure needs of the fastest growing area east of Montreal, both now and in the future.

We are volunteers and concerned citizens of HRM. We are not enemies of the state; we deserve more from our elected representatives. It is time to draw back the veil of secrecy. Your electors deserve better.

Francis MacDonald, broker/owner, Guaranty GMAC Real Estate

Show me the money…….

Where is all the property tax money?

The 2007-2008 capital budget states that HRM will allocate six per cent or $12.07 million to be spent on community facilities. In the past, it was 5.2 per cent to be used for recreation and libraries.

The 2006 census data show the western region as being the fastest growing area in HRM. Our population has ballooned from 120,000 to more than 180,000. We are paying some of the highest property taxes in HRM.

Why, then, has there not been a new recreation facility, pool or rink in this area in over 30 years? The city owes this community the best to service the health and fitness needs of our children, seniors and adults. We have more than shared our tax dollars with other areas of the municipality.

Due to population growth, a 25-metre pool will not accommodate the western region of HRM. A 50-metre pool has more potential and our tax dollars will be better spent.

Let’s stop this insult! Think for a moment about how much tax revenue generated in our communities is being used outside of where you live. There have been millions and millions of tax dollars collected by HRM over these past 30 years earmarked for a new recreation facility that will meet the needs of the population in our region. So the question is: Where is the money? Most of all, show me the money!

Rhonda Beers, Halifax

‘People project’The Mainland Common Recreation Centre has been a hot topic of conversation for the residents of Halifax for many years. We are getting closer to a resolution, but more work needs to be done.

In order to get the level of financial support we need, HRM needs to allow the community to work with it in the lobbying effort – as full partners. HRM needs to empower the community to take full ownership of this project and bring the other two levels of government to the table as full funding partners.

When you have legitimate community ownership and citizen involvement, financial commitment will always follow.

Port Hawkesbury opened an $18-million civic centre in 2004 with a catchment area of 20,000 people. Summerside, P.E.I., with a population of 14,500, just opened a $30-million wellness centre. Both projects show what can happen when municipal governments turn a plan into a “people project.”

With a community of over 200,000 people in close proximity to the Mainland Common, and with easy access by the rest of Nova Scotia and Atlantic Canada, we should be just as aggressive as Summerside and Port Hawkesbury in refusing to compromise our vision – a vision based on our needs.

Doug Boudreau, Halifax

When will HRM, province learn?

The Halifax Chronical Herald
Public input vital part of public projects
By DIANA WHALEN
Sat. Mar 22 - 6:07 AM

Liberal MLA Diana Whalen (Eric Wynne / Staff)

The last HRM public meeting on the Mainland Common Recreation Centre was held in December 2005. It’s no wonder, then, that people are asking what is happening with the project because for the past month, drivers along Lacewood Drive have been watching as trees have come down and trucks and diggers are at work beside the Keshen Goodman Library.

This is the site proposed for the Mainland Common Recreation Centre, but surprisingly there have been no fanfare announcements and the community is in the dark.

The site preparation work is costing $1.8 million and yet HRM has not told the public what is included in the planned facility.

Inquiries from members of the public to HRM and to the provincial Office of Health Promotion have been met with a decided lack of information. We are told that the province and HRM are working closely, but the details can’t be revealed to the public.

The powers-that-be intend to meet with federal representatives to make their request for funding. This hasn’t taken place yet, so they contend there can be no discussion or consultation with the community.

Closed-door meetings and a lack of public information: Does this sound familiar? It has been just over a year since the Commonwealth Games bid collapsed. It appears as though HRM and the province have learned nothing from their mistakes.

The public demands and deserves no less than full accountability when their money is being spent. Recreation facilities are desperately needed in Nova Scotia, and the old-time attitude of “We know what’s best for you” coming from the two levels of government is not appropriate or acceptable in 2008.

Throughout the province, there are pressing community needs and growing frustration. A year ago, the province and HRM were each willing to put forward $300 million to fund the Commonwealth Games. We were chasing the Games because we have a serious lack of recreational facilities, and this was seen as a way to address that. In the meantime, our government has abandoned this commitment to recreation and we are back to Square 1.

One only has to look at the recent meeting in Bedford to see that people are impatient with the lack of consultation and progress on recreation needs. A basic premise of any successful project is citizen engagement, yet this is being ignored.

At the Mainland Commons, there is a chance to build a first-class facility that will serve the 200,000 people who live within a 20-minute drive.

The HRM report on the site work says that “final design details of the facility and a funding strategy are currently being reviewed with the provincial and federal governments.” Apparently, when a funding announcement is made, there will be an open house and the plans will be presented to the public. Consulting with the public after plans have been finalized behind closed doors is not good enough!

What meaningful level of input will the community have, once the funding is secured and the announcement is made? The father-knows-best attitude of both the municipal and provincial governments is patronizing and short-sighted.

Other municipalities have been open and accountable and won the support and commitment of their communities. Port Hawkesbury built an $18-million centre for its community and Bridgewater is working with the public to plan its $30-million centre; yet here in HRM, the people are not consulted.

A year after the collapse of the Commonwealth Games bid, we find the province and HRM still trying to manage public projects without public input.

Diana Whalen is the deputy leader of the Nova Scotia Liberal Party and the MLA for Halifax-Clayton Park.

Are NIMBYs really taking over?

 

 

 

 

By JIM MEEK
Sat. Mar 8 - 6:44 AM

I COULD WRITE a column about our “genius for getting to no” in my sleep. (Not a good sign, I admit.)

My somnambulistic – or sleepwalking – view is that we’re beating ourselves to death when it comes to economic activity.

A quarry on Digby Neck?

Oppose it, sure, but don’t take five years to run the sponsoring company out of town.

Clean, green, necessary windmills near Anne Murray’s cottage on the Northumberland Strait?

C’mon Anne – spread your tiny wings and fly away.

And do we really have to mount and man the barricades because some hapless promoter wants to bring Celine Dion to the Halifax Commons?

The Chronicle Herald takes a look at these issues (starting today) in a three-day series called Citizens Against Virtually Everything?

I first heard the acronym CAVE while interviewing a trio of people from the mining industry.

They were clearly upset with the decision rejecting the Digby Neck quarry, and worried about the “chill” they say this sends through the investment community.

I know, I know. To some people, this sounds like sabre-rattling or fear-mongering.

But in my past life as a consultant, I watched companies leave town in a rush after taking a close, hard look at the political and public opinion environment here.

In one case, this meant taking a billion-dollar investment out of Nova Scotia and parking it in a safer place.

This is the kind of economic loss that’s invisible to the public eye.

Still, a part of me says good riddance and Godspeed to these dearly departed companies.

If they don’t want to work in a way that respects our values, why let ‘em stay here and work against us?

That seemed to be one fundamental idea underlying the decision rejecting the Digby Neck quarry proposal.

Bob Fournier, the Dalhousie professor who chaired the review panel, says “core community values” are at the heart of government policy in Nova Scotia.

This idea, that you promote “sustainable” development based on core values, sounds good.

But who gets to wave the flag and mount the podium on behalf of those values?

In the case of the Digby Neck quarry, the local residents who wanted the project to go ahead – and to create some jobs – say their voices went unheard.

That is, they were drowned out by people with more money, more education, more time and second homes in some other part of the globe.

Well, you can see how quickly this CAVE? debate can get ugly.

In each of the three main stories we did for this series, the Come From Away (CFA) question reared its head.

An opponent of a real estate development had moved to Mahone Bay from Ontario.

Cottage people or year-round newcomers often lead the fight against wind power developments.

And more than one mining guy told me CFA landowners are more reluctant to let prospectors on their properties.

Sorry, guys, this is just too xenophobic for me.

Yes, non-native Nova Scotians do change the province and often import fresh ideas. (Thank God.)

In many cases, they’ve bought into the dream this province promotes – of a peaceable kingdom by the sea, where life is supposed to be slower, neighbours are said to be friendlier, and beauty is not a postcard but the view from the front porch.

That brings us to the tough underlying questions.

What kind of Nova Scotia do we want to build, anyway?

And how does rural Nova Scotia survive – pay its taxes, pave its roads, educate its young – in the face of outmigration and economic decline?

Frankly, this series poses these questions more than it answers them.

The trouble is, the more you know about the issues, the more elusive solutions seem to be.

From the tone and tenor of the public debate, for instance, it would seem that the NIMBYs are winning.

But government statistics – or estimates, more accurately – show most projects in rural Nova Scotia still gain regulatory seals of approval, especially if they work hard upfront to meet community and environmental standards.

So there you have it. These are complex issues, and I can’t round out this column with some ringing declaration of incontestable truth.

But at least I’m wide awake while writing this.

( jmeek@herald.ca)

Technorati Tags: Come From Aways,Meek,Development Aproval Process