[Halifax] The Trillium l 65 m l 19 fl l Completed - Page 6

Keith P. · #**101** Posted **Jun 10, 2008, 10:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by phrenic

Someone just got up to argue that the development would block sunlight and one of their points was "for every one young person who leaves nova scotia for better opportunities, there are 10 who leave for better sunlight."

She looks confused and disheveled.

Her name was Shotwell.

Unfortunately she wasn't shot well enough.

Liz Pacey coming up.

ETA: She rambled on and on about Schmidtville, and in particular one small building. She claimed that soemhow Schmidtville was important to shoppers on SGR, though nobody could figure out how.

I lived in that neighborhood for over 7 years and never heard of Schmidtville until I moved out. So fine, it has recently become recognized as a historic neighborhood. This development does not touch it at all. But the Schmidtville owners, she claims, would be "driven out" by this development. Ridiculous to the extreme. She also ignores the presence of existing tall buildings immediately adjacent. God help us.

terrynorthend · #**102** Posted **Jun 10, 2008, 10:12 PM**

HAHA..I just saw that..god, i can't even bear to watch..I'm fliping channels...

Keith P. · #**103** Posted **Jun 10, 2008, 10:37 PM**

Lyndon Watkins -- who is the person I believe actually created the Schmidtville idea -- seemed to argue that it was a historical reconstruction manufactured by him and others thanks to the Neighborhood Improvement Program of the 1970s. Perhaps it is like a Disney theme park, made to look like something it isn't.

He also claimed that he had 500 people in his house to look at it once, and that no other building, especially the evil modern high rise, could match that. With 420 units, I tend to think that Park Vic probably trumps him. And if he had 500 people in his house at once, I'd like to see it -- the aftermath, not the house.

ETA: It is ironic that the music being played during the break is "Crazy" by Gnarls Barkley.

someone123 · #**104** Posted **Jun 10, 2008, 10:37 PM**

I'm watching it online. I've seen at least one forumer speak and he presented some good points.

Now the home viewers get to listen to old pop music on Eastlink...

There's a lot of heritage talk but it's very poorly connected to this particular development. There are three houses on the development site but I was under the impression that they would be relocated. Currently they're on a busy street and are part of a broken streetscape. Elizabeth Pacey jumped from talking about Scottish dormers to claiming that the area would be "devastated" by this development. Why?

Keith P. · #**105** Posted **Jun 10, 2008, 11:19 PM**

It's a real shame that the people opposed can't make a rational argument. Larry Hughes must be crazy, suggesting that any new building be no more than 4 or 5 floors and be self-sustaining for energy. Then there was the guy who sounded like the prototypical south-end old-money snob and offended anyone who spoke in favor of the building suggesting they had a self-interest in doing so, conveniently ignoring his own. Then we had the French woman who was going on about Monet. That will probably impress Sloane. Cripes.

sdm · #**106** Posted **Jun 10, 2008, 11:35 PM**

Gee look whats happening, anti development halifax.

Time to move

Keith P. · #**107** Posted **Jun 10, 2008, 11:43 PM**

Well, It'll be interesting. I suppose council could take note of the fact that those opposed are the same one opposed to every other development on the peninsula. It is exactly the same bunch of squeaky wheels who were opposed to the United Gulf project. Or they could just say no and shoot down such a good project.

Dmajackson · #**108** Posted **Jun 11, 2008, 12:02 AM**

My two favorite (

) speakers had to be one who caimed hed seen a 40 year old version of this in Toronto and the second last one who argued with Peter Kelly. At the end two of the final speakers had it all right thankfully they knew this looked great and would help the area not ruin it.

someone123 · #**109** Posted **Jun 11, 2008, 12:33 AM**

Unsurprisingly, Sue Uteck called the opponents out on pretty much all of their ridiculous arguments. Good to see.

The fact is the same old people complain over and over about practically everything. The people who spoke tonight were not a random sampling of the population of HRM by any stretch.

Great comments from Councillor Younger as well.

sdm · #**110** Posted **Jun 11, 2008, 12:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123

Unsurprisingly, Sue Uteck called the opponents out on pretty much all of their ridiculous arguments. Good to see.

The fact is the same old people complain over and over about practically everything. The people who spoke tonight were not a random sampling of the population of HRM by any stretch.

Great comments from Councillor Younger as well.

Sue did a great job.

Now Sloane will ruin it.

I say move Uteck to downtown and sloane to south end and we will get our developments

Keith P. · #**111** Posted **Jun 11, 2008, 12:48 AM**

As I fully expected, Sloane grandstanded for a while and then opposed it. Hopefully it is just for effect and others will see the light.

It is a shame that doorknob Kouncillor Johns and also doorstop Kouncillor Sloane muddied the issue by talking about making this "affordable" housing. When has South Park Street EVER been affordable? Absurd.

Fougere is also making good points.

sdm · #**112** Posted **Jun 11, 2008, 12:59 AM**

Murphy for it now.

Will be interesting to see what grounds heritage trust appeal it under

someone123 · #**113** Posted **Jun 11, 2008, 1:00 AM**

So did I hear that wrong or was Sloane the ONLY one to vote against it? I always thought this one was a really clear call. She's definitely out to lunch.

As for the appeal, I hope it doesn't happen but who knows? I think the HT's chances of success would be basically nil.

Dmajackson · #**114** Posted **Jun 11, 2008, 1:01 AM**

Approved!!

Stats from tonight:

Speakers - 14 pro, 16 con

Council - 22 pro, 1 con (Sloane i believe)

Judging by what was stated the developer said possible start date in Fall (assuming no appeal).

sdm · #**115** Posted **Jun 11, 2008, 1:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by someone123

So did I hear that wrong or was Sloane the ONLY one to vote against it? I always thought this one was a really clear call. She's definitely out to lunch.

As for the appeal, I hope it doesn't happen but who knows? I think the HT's chances of success would be basically nil.

Who knows, but it was a clear call as you say. Just wish we could move more through like this.

Keith P. · #**116** Posted **Jun 11, 2008, 1:11 AM**

The only one who voted against this was Sloane. But you can almost count on her trying to take credit for whatever good things eventually come out of this. Having her as the rep for the downtown, an area that is in such dire need of redevelopment, is simply nuts when she acts like this. Please god, someone replace her come election time.

Good thing that it passed. I doubt the HT has a leg to stand on in an appeal. Even the Paceys seemed mostly like they were just going thru the motions on this one.

sdm · #**117** Posted **Jun 11, 2008, 1:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The only one who voted against this was Sloane. But you can almost count on her trying to take credit for whatever good things eventually come out of this. Having her as the rep for the downtown, an area that is in such dire need of redevelopment, is simply nuts when she acts like this. Please god, someone replace her come election time.

Good thing that it passed. I doubt the HT has a leg to stand on in an appeal. Even the Paceys seemed mostly like they were just going thru the motions on this one.

Someone needs to come to the plate against her, and hopefully will however i have little faith anyone will. A true shame.

As for HT, they really didn't have anything to stand on with regards to the appeal of the twisted sisters, but still did it. Now that project is in jepordy in ever being built because of the long duration to be approved.

I wish they could just refuse an appeal based on the council vote being so in favor.

hfx_chris · #**118** Posted **Jun 11, 2008, 1:37 AM**

One thing one of the people spoke about during the hearing really made me take notice. He said young people don't know how to effect change in this bureaucratic municipality, and I do somewhat agree with him. With a few exceptions, the majority of those who spoke out tonight against were (aside from being the "usual crowd") older, more experienced working with government (read: getting what they want). The majority of those speaking for were younger, and don't have that same level of experience pulling governments strings.

Anyway, glad the vote went the way it didn't, although I would have been hugely surprised if it didn't.

spaustin · #**119** Posted **Jun 11, 2008, 1:45 AM**

I don't think it's actually fair to blame Sloane here. Politicians have two roles to play. They're elected, especially in municipal politics where there aren't political parties, to use their brains when they vote, but they're also elected to represent the views of their constituents and sometimes that has to take precedence. In this case, Sloan had a petition with over 90 of her constituents names on it. The argument for her to represent them, especially since this one was pretty much a slam dunk and her vote wouldn't matter, regardless of whatever she may have thought of the project is really very strong. I think that's what she did this evening and I think that in doing so she served her constituents well. Now if the vote was going to be close... well then the water gets a little muddier.

Jonovision · #**120** Posted **Jun 11, 2008, 2:46 AM**

I was there tonight. I spoke after Elizabeth Pacey. It was a very interesting debate thats for sure. I was a little worried since there seemed to be a lot of speakers against it. Even though most of their arguments made no sense, and I'm glad that some councilors pointed that out, and voted for the development. Although I must say I was terribly insulted by the man making comments about Toronto, and then took a stab at my education. He called me an architecture student.....I'm sorry, but if you are going to be that rude and insult someone, at least get it right! I'm a planning student, quite a big difference.

As far as sloan goes, well she's always a wildcard. And I do happen to have a friend who will be running against her in the fall election. He's a great guy and could do a lot of good for this city I think.