Quote:
Originally Posted by Horsell
It looks as if the AP garage expansion has cleared another hurdle in the approval process. The commissioner's report from the latest Public Meeting was approved by Council this past Monday. I'm not sure but there may be one other step to go through.
I can't believe that there hasn't been more objection to this, have people just given up on trying to protect what's left of that part of Water St.?
One interesting objection was from the owner of the property on the east side of Baird's cove. It wasn't so much an objection as a question why this particular proponent would be allowed to increase the height in order to "generate additional income for the owner" and whether or not in the future he would be given the same consideration to do something with his property to generate more income.
I would have to agree with him on this one, as I sure the courts would as well if it was ever challenged. The precedent will now be set to allow any property on Water St. to increase in height and bulk so as to "increase income for the owner".
|
The precedent has already been set, time and time and time again. This is always the argument that is rehashed with new developments.
Atlantic Place predates the Heritage By-Law (it was built in the early 70s). Atlantic Place already imposes itself onto its site, and the heritage district. Shouldn't remediating it be a positive thing?
It's always in the city's interest to facilitate net-profit for private industry. It's a pros-cons game, designed to optimize social benefit with a healthy compromise. But in the end, pro-development attitudes that don't stand in the way of the public interest are ultimately in the best interest of society.