The Public Record
 

New thread to gather objective data/information on individuals and organizations that have indirectly or directly affected housing starts in the HRM.

The purpose is to articulate effects of these, plausibly undemocratic/gerrymandered activities, on housing/development in Halifax.

So, we’re outing people now?

It would be useful to have a record. These things have been lost in the shuffle for almost 20 years on the forum.

A record of?

If it's people taking part in public activism such as expressing their views in public consultation sessions, mounting legal challenges, organizing petitions, or lobbying for/against certain policies or decisions then they're not being "outed". They're already out by participating in public life. It would only be outing people if it involved revealing private, particularly confidential, activity. People have a right to do all these things assuming that they're done legally and free of interest conflicts. But in a democracy we also have a right to transparency around anyone special interests influencing governments and the public decision-making process beyond confidential voting or surveys.

Useful for what?

Certainly it would be nice to have a summary of how each councilor has influenced various development projects, whether positive or negative, to remind or inform prior to the next municipal election.

I think this would be a good idea, but it doesn’t sound like what the OP is intending to accomplish.

Specifically, the thread title includes “most wanted”, which is popular lingo used in the process of rounding up criminals who are not in custody, for example.

Secondly, the post refers to gathering data and information on individuals and organizations, not discussing the performance records of our elected officials.

Then there is a standing accusation of undemocratic activity of these individuals/organizations, which sounds like a thread that’s open to false accusations and misinformation… a moderator’s nightmare, IMHO.

Just my opinion, as usual, but the whole thing feels a little cringey to me.

Yes, this would be of great value if publicized prior to the election, to inform voters of the sorry track record of many of the incumbents opposing developments and their culpability for the housing shortage. Their involvement in approving of HRM's many wasteful spending initiatives would also make for a good item for the public record.

I am less sure that a rogue's gallery of the Usual Suspects who oppose every building taller than 3 floors is of any particular value. Those people generally are only of importance to CBC Halifax and occasionally the Chronicle-Herald.

Totally understand your opinion. The cringe is supposed to be more of a joke... that being said... the results of the past 20 years of being on this forum and seeing the results are very much scary.

We have to make light of it because it's so bad. Why are certain people on speed dial of local media when they often don't even live in proximity to a development???

I'm talking about both officials in how they vote (do we know who has voted against literally every development?) as well as private citizens who seemingly have the time to go out to every meeting or speak to every news outlet (how do they have access over people's balanced opinions on, for example, this forum)... but it isn't known to the wider public.

Go check the comments on FB posts in the HFX developments page vs what happens at meetings or in the news. Many anti-development folks would lead us to believe that the majority of people hold their beliefs.

Do we actually know how often we see particular people in news articles literally copy-paste either "why" a development isn't appropriate or use particular "tactics" that are, frankly, not activism... they're often mis-using public processes that aren't designed for this concerted approach (busybody rules, anyone?)

Thus, the point is to have a place where we can see the 'bigger' picture.

It could be argued that there are 100,000+ units of housing we don't currently have, but its hard to know. I thought it was redundant until recent activities (e.g., threats to sue our local government based on projects that have gone through legal processes).

Surely the status quo demands some scrutiny. Is there a way to change the thread name?

An alternative name to a place where data/info on developments go to never seen the light (or height :D) of day and the people who were involved in their demise? Is that wrong considering this is the public record and people choose to go stop housing from being built? I mean, it seems a bit stupid not to?

But it would be noteworthy to post such articles here (as it might reveal the sheer number).

I still can't grasp why some people's opinions are weighted higher in a democracy?

Has anyone every stood in council and actually used data to describe how individuals/groups have somehow taken control of the system in various circumstances?...

Even to the extent that granted variances or new rules that were publicly decided upon are called "illegal"? That's not even an opinion, that has actually happened.

Some have even tried to refer to their previous status in government as somehow a point of influence!!!

For example, news articles that are currently spread across all the threads.

I agree Mark. Words are important. The words used leave a bad taste for me.

I expect that a moderator could change the title of the thread. Who is/are our local mod(s)?
Mark and I would appreciate the effort.

I agree. Suggestions on titles?

For active mods in this section it's mostly me and Dmajackson.

We can rename the thread if people decide on something better. Not sure what it should be and what the content of this thread would be.

It's okay to collect public quotes from people (like short passages from news articles or municipal meeting records) but sharing private info or "doxing" are not allowed on SSP and that stuff will be deleted (please use the report function on the forum if you see it). It would be good to keep the focus on the ideas and not personalities, although I think there is a bit of an exception there for people who choose to become involved in politics. There's nothing wrong with respectfully criticizing the public positions of politicians or activists on issues relevant to the forum.

Not sure if they still do it but The Coast used to do councillor scorecards. It would be interesting to see something like that but from a development perspective.

May I suggest "the usual suspects". Great movie BTW, but Its not just the usual anti development folks out there, its the lazy journalists that hide behind the tight deadline excuse to get that quote. The Local journalists should be reaching out to maybe Dave Jackson if he was willing to comment on the development situation and future. I know CBC reaches out to other interested Bloggers in the HRM such as they guys that run ShipFax and Halifax Shipping news. They are very informative without being too partisan.
Why does Waye Mason seem to be the only Halifax development voice out there.

Sorry, I didn't get the humour aspect when I first read it. It seemed more like a 'torches and pitchforks' kind of thing to me.

That said, your explanation makes it more clear, and I can see some value in it from a discussion standpoint, keeping in mind someone123's guidelines from a moderator's point of view.

For me, I would be more interested in how some members of council have performed from a development point of view, but even that is a little tricky as their job is to represent their district, and not just promote their personal beliefs, so IMHO this entire thread would need to be handled diplomatically (i.e. unlike how discussions involving bicycle lanes, etc. tend to evolve in this forum).

Also, I think an important part of a democracy is that people have a say in what happens in their city, so if a group opposes a development, it's their right to air their concerns, whether we agree with them or not. Pro-development groups should also have their say, and iMHO it's council's job to be able to sort through it all and make decisions that are for the betterment of the area and the city in general. We get frustrated when things don't go our way, but it's important to recognize that this is not undemocratic, it's actually closer to the opposite (unless there are unfair, dishonest practices happening behind the scenes, which we can not know about, nor should we speculate about).

At this point, a good amount of people have chimed in on the subject in this thread, so perhaps a new thread should be started (with a different name and a direct, thought-out "mission statement") so that the topic can be started cleanly. As for a title, I don't know, but maybe it should include something to the effect of development hurdles in Halifax, or thereabouts. It's up to you, as it's your thread. :yes:

It doesn’t take much to get certain groups of people worked up against development. Right now on FB Halifax Retales posted pictures of 4 murals that are going away with the impending demo and construction of new developments at Moffatt’s Pharmacy, Freak Lunchbox, the Blois Nickerson building (Skye) and one or two more that escape me. Personally I think they’re no great loss, having about as much artistic merit as a painting on velvet of dogs playing poker and not being a fan of building murals in general, but people seem to love them. Most seemed unaware of the development plans and so the outrage quotient is high. Questions like “Why are they tearing down the heritage buildings“, “We need to tear down the new towers instead”, “They’re destroying the city’s history “ etc seem to be among the nearly 100 comments so far, with nobody advocating any different viewpoints. It doesn’t take much to get a group of people all whipped up.