The Public Record

[Empire]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Unfortunately, it seems the intended purpose of this thread is already being side-tracked!

Further posts should be limited to aggregating information/data on the way the public officials vote or speak on specific 'developments', or the quotes/actions of private individuals/orgs. that deter or promote the advancement of particular building.

Per the original post, this is meant to be 'objective data' in the sense that it's not your normative perspective, but what official fora and media have captured to act as a thread where all these disparate snippets are collected

For example: a counsellor votes against X developments; a counsellor votes in favour of X developments, so-and-so private individual said "think of the children" as a reason to not build across X proposals, or a former politician says they'll "consider all legal actions against the government" X times.

Thank you for understanding and please keep this content to such examples.

Again, not our opinions, but what has happened on the "public record". If you're quoted in such channels, feel free to include it here.

There are already established heritage focused threads (e.g., Old Halifax), so the demolition content, etc. can be posted there. Most? of these sites don't currently have proposals, so wait until the debate on the lots has ensued.

If you are new to the forum, it is definitely worth going through the subsections to find threads on content you're looking for.

I realize this is your thread and I think it is a very good idea to hold accountability as our current path is misguided. However, if "a counsellor votes in favour of X developments" and that development involves the demolition of significant architecture I think the accountability is worthy of notation.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Empire

I realize this is your thread and I think it is a very good idea to hold accountability as our current path is misguided. However, if "a counsellor votes in favour of X developments" and that development involves the demolition of significant architecture I think the accountability is worthy of notation.

Sure, that makes sense... as long as it avoids the debate on what 'significant' is and focuses on the public record of elected officials or pro/anti individuals/groups.

Another note on this: it isn't meant to be what a developer does at all. They are agents outside of this discussion. Of course they will be their own advocates. It is focused on the ecosystem around 'developments'.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Unfortunately, it seems the intended purpose of this thread is already being side-tracked!

To be fair, the comments by one of the cesspool-fillers on that other site referenced was in response to a post made here prior to the thread being re-titled and posting guidelines being applied. However, you can see a mild version of what that other site is like in his reply. At least the profanity and personal slurs were restrained compared to there, where if you do not hew to the Party line you get labeled with all sorts of nasty names.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Empire

I realize this is your thread and I think it is a very good idea to hold accountability as our current path is misguided. However, if "a counsellor votes in favour of X developments" and that development involves the demolition of significant architecture I think the accountability is worthy of notation.

Absolutely.

[kzt79]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

To be fair, the comments by one of the cesspool-fillers on that other site referenced was in response to a post made here prior to the thread being re-titled and posting guidelines being applied. However, you can see a mild version of what that other site is like in his reply. At least the profanity and personal slurs were restrained compared to there, where if you do not hew to the Party line you get labeled with all sorts of nasty names.

And to clarify, my comment above was specifically referring to (and maybe exaggerating, if only slightly!) the mindset typically displayed on that other site rather than quoting anyone here. Apologies for side tracking.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Maybe one of the mods could do a thread cleanup, or the OP could just start a new thread with a 'mission statement' and a request that people only post on-topic?

Realistically, the way this and every other internet forum works, there will always be off-topic tangents, arguments, blow-ups, sanctimonious lecturing, etc., so unless it's continually cleaned-up it will not completely become a repository for the desired stuff, but it still should generally function IMHO. As is typical, it will require some sifting by the reader unless the OP wants to keep a database on a dedicated site that he could link to in this thread, as new information is added. .

[LikeCranes]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Useful for what?

To mount a campaign of deniable harrassment??

[Nouvellecosse]

What it's useful for really depends on who it is. If it's just public office holders or people who report to one, then it's useful in deciding who you are/aren't going to vote for and perhaps informing them of your intentions. But if it's private individuals it wouldn't be useful if they lack much power, wealth or influence. But many obstructionists seem to have one or more of the three because of a connection to a business or other organization (like a lobby group). In such cases it can help one decide whether or not to do business or otherwise partner with the organization in the future (and perhaps notifying them of your decision). I don't think any of these things count as harassment as long as you're basing your decision on publicly available information and any contact you make is brief and non-confrontational.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

What it's useful for really depends on who it is. If it's just public office holders or people who report to one, then it's useful in deciding who you are/aren't going to vote for and perhaps informing them of your intentions. But if it's private individuals it wouldn't be useful if they lack much power, wealth or influence. But many obstructionists seem to have one or more of the three because of a connection to a business or other organization (like a lobby group). In such cases it can help one decide whether or not to do business or otherwise partner with the organization in the future (and perhaps notifying them of your decision). I don't think any of these things count as harassment as long as you're basing your decision on publicly available information and any contact you make is brief and non-confrontational.

There is zero intent of any sort of harassment put forward here or even contact with any individual. A report of findings may be of value to council in deciding what to take seriously.

A classic concept/reference that motivated this thread:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busybody

At some stage it becomes a bit of a farce... as we do need development and obstruction isn't currently quantified. It is currently being lost in the shuffle.

How many units would exist today, otherwise? We don't really know. Tagging publicly known influence/interventions to "floors cut off" or the stalling/cancellation of developments is completely useful to determining what is/isn't being built and how its being built (e.g., height) across the numerous threads on this forum.

Nobody is being harassed. It could be argued that the data would show that obstructionists are meddling/harassing our local government officials and planners! Activism is one thing, but come on... every project it seems like we're waiting for the same type of comments/actions. This is just a place to put them.