Wadif Fares Stands up for Halifax Developers

[fenwick16]

An interesting story in the allnovascotia.com about Wadif Fares (Trillium developer) who is peeved at a few Councillors who stated that developers shouldn't be allowed to make campaign contributions. He states that it is a farce to think that developers are afforded any opportunities at all. "How is it a favour to go three years to get a building through. I have to prove my project"

Good for him. I have to agree. Developers in the Halifax area have been insulted and vilified for decades by some councillors, special interest groups, some outspoken residents and portions of the local media. The developers who put up with the verbal abuse for years and continue to develop properties in the Halifax area deserve civic awards. Numerous times developers have gone bankrupt as they tried to make a living in the Halifax area despite constant opposition. Where would Halifax be without all the developers who have built the city over the past 260 years (it would literally be a shanty town).

Cheers to all the developers who have helped build the city and to the Councillors who support them instead of oppose them.

Can we change the thread title to a general title like "Support Halifax Area Developers" . Maybe people on this forum should select a yearly top local area developer and send them an award of some type. (no sarcasm is intended, I admire the Halifax area developers who have to not only risk financial ruin to develop the city but also have to risk their sanity)

PS: It would also be interesting to have people vote each year on the HRM Councillor who does the most to promote jobs and development in the HRM.

[halifaxboyns]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

An interesting story in the allnovascotia.com about Wadif Fares (Trillium developer) who is peeved at a few Councillors who stated that developers shouldn't be allowed to make campaign contributions. He states that it is a farce to think that developers are afforded any opportunities at all. "How is it a favour to go three years to get a building through. I have to prove my project"

Good for him. I have to agree. Developers in the Halifax area have been insulted and vilified for decades by some councillors, special interest groups, some outspoken residents and portions of the local media. The developers who put up with the verbal abuse for years and continue to develop properties in the Halifax area deserve civic awards. Numerous times developers have gone bankrupt as they tried to make a living in the Halifax area despite constant opposition. Where would Halifax be without all the developers who have built the city over the past 260 years (it would literally be a shanty town).

Cheers to all the developers who have helped build the city and to the Councillors who support them instead of oppose them.

Can we change the thread title to a general title like "Support Halifax Area Developers" . Maybe people on this forum should select a yearly top local area developer and send them an award of some type. (no sarcasm is intended, I admire the Halifax area developers who have to not only risk financial ruin to develop the city but also have to risk their sanity)

I would partially agree with him. It's mainly suburban builders that I have concerns with - that or other groups like outdoor/sign companies. They have huge pockets and will use that influence. Signage regulations are often the worst things to try to change. Look at what Toronto went through with it's and its still in court.

Oen of the things we have here in Calgary every few years is the Mayor's urban design awards. I'm not sure if that was a Bronco initiative or a standing thing which Nenshi will continue on with, but it's quite good at awarding good design. That's something to consider for awards...

[fenwick16]

There is the risk of wrong-doing with any group that has financial dealings with the city. I don't see how one specific group (developers) can be singled out. If there are regulations that prevent developers from contributing to campaigns then every group that has any financial dealing with the city should be prevented from making contributions whether it be food catering services, financial services, office goods suppliers, office maintenance suppliers, etc.

[beyeas]

yeah I agree with you Fenwick... it is the singling out of one group that really smells here, and I am sure that is what pissed off Fares (and rightly so). It is that that makes one realize that is driven by an agenda, rather than just being the right thing. Why developers? Why not, just to pull something out of a hat, concert promoters?

Changing the rules to make donations transparent, publicly accessible information, and with a reasonable cap is one thing (when applied generally across the board), but changing the rules for one specific group is offensive.

[DigitalNinja]

It's kind of ironic that the councilor who put forward the motion for no donations from Developers is the Sackville/Eastern shore one who I don't think has shown up for quite a few development votes.

[hoser111]

Originally Posted by DigitalNinja

It's kind of ironic that the councilor who put forward the motion for no donations from Developers is the Sackville/Eastern shore one who I don't think has shown up for quite a few development votes.

Sackville/Eastern Shore is a Federal electoral riding, not a municipal district.

[DigitalNinja]

Opps sorry, anyway it's some guy out in Sackville, I think Brad Johns.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by DigitalNinja

Opps sorry, anyway it's some guy out in Sackville, I think Brad Johns.

A.K.A. Mr. Cartoon Tie. A true paragon of intelligence on Komedy Kouncil.

It really should be no surprise to see such an asinine proposal put forward. This council looks on developers as just a slightly lower form of life than drug dealers. Sad, really.

[spaustin]

Banning contributions from developers doesn't have anything to do with "respecting" developers. It's a policy issue and a fundamental question about democracy. There are many people who benefit financially from City Hall decisions, but developers really have the most at stake and the process to approve their projects is way more political than awarding something like a catering contract. Council directly regulates them and, even if there is no actual corruption, the optics of taking money from people that you have to regulate aren't good. We've had councilors make allegations of bribery in the past (Sloane and Johns) and several veteran councilors have admitted that they were offered bribes, which really isn't surprising when you look at what's at stake! The catering company may benefit from City Hall's business, but developers and their projects don't exist without council's support. The risk and incentives when it comes to developers are way greater.

I studied campaign contributions in Canadian municipalities for my MA thesis. I went down to City Hall in Halifax, Calgary, Winnipeg and Toronto and collected all the financial returns from candidates that I could. I then went over the returns and categorised all the different contributors. Here's my results in a nutshell.

Developers and other businesses that rely on development (architects, engineers, construction companies etc) provide a big chunk of money in municipal elections. During the 2000 and 2004 elections developers provided 24% of all money raised by candidates, which was amazing when you consider that developers only provided 14% of all funds in Toronto (Calgary was the worst at 29%). Developers also tended to give more money than average. The average given per contribution was $268, the highest of all contributor types. So developers provide a large chunk of money in municipal elections and give more on average than most contributors. Who gets the money? Unlike other types of contributors, developers give virtually all of their money to incumbents. The average incumbent in Halifax received $1,849 from developers, 5.6 times more than the tiny amounts given to challengers. Why do developers favour incumbents? Incumbents have current influence over planning decisions and since municipal elections tend to be uncompetitive, they're likely to continue having influence after the campaign is over. If it was from sense of civic engagement, the lack of money to challengers and open seat candidates wouldn't exist. The way it works is get elected and then the money comes.

Halifax isn't even really that bad. In Calgary, incumbents who don't even end up facing a challenger (they're acclaimed) still raise $16,000 from devleopers. There are no also no rules in Calgary as to how these funds are handled. Trips to Europe, backyard swimming pool are all valid ways to spend it (I gather that a lot of councilors give to charity out there with leftover funds). The saving grace for Halifax is that we're small with a large council. There aren't a lot of citizens per councilor meaning low-cost campaigns are still possible. It doesn't cost much to run here. If we reduce the size of council, we might want to look at regulations, like what exists in Winnipeg and Toronto, to mitigate the resulting increase in campaign costs.

In Halifax, I don't think we have a real problem right now. I don't think our politicians are for sale for such small amounts and I don't think our developers are in the business of buying them. It's more a question of optics. It's also something that's more easily fixed before it starts. Try turning it off in Calgary now? It would be really, really difficult. If we reduce the size of council and if our city continues to grow, the financial ties between councilors and developers will only strengthen if the status-quo prevails.

[spaustin]

Two other thoughts:

I wonder, if instead of developers, say public sector unions were providing 24% of funding in Halifax and were giving thousands to incumbents whether you guys would be so blaise about this important issue. It's easy to not see these things as a problem when it's a group you support! (luckily union money doesn't amount to a hill of beans right now at the municipal level)

The whole arguement can also be flipped around. It's not always the contributor trying to influence the politician. The politician could actually be shaking down the contributor! "Contribute to my campaign or I won't approve your project." Again, I don't think that happens here, but they have had scandals like that in other jurisdictions. Food for thought.