[Dartmouth] Bridge Tower (30 Pelzant) | ? m | 11 FL | U/C

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Colin May

Councillors should not be meeting with any developer......it is up to staff to ensure the rules are followed and a councillor should defer to staff.
The public does not know when he met with the developer, how many times he met with or talked to or sent messages to the developer or the representatives of the developer and what was discussed.

Sudden Sam likes to get his fingers into areas that should be left to staff because he thinks he is the smartest guy in any room he occupies. He directs staff constantly. Look at the SamSticks on bike lanes, the curb extensions, the speed humps, the messed up Nantucket/Wyse intersection, the asinine proposal for closing part of Slayter St to vehicles… the list is very long.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Sudden Sam likes to get his fingers into areas that should be left to staff because he thinks he is the smartest guy in any room he occupies. He directs staff constantly. Look at the SamSticks on bike lanes, the curb extensions, the speed humps, the messed up Nantucket/Wyse intersection, the asinine proposal for closing part of Slayter St to vehicles… the list is very long.

Gee Keith, it almost sounds like you don’t like Sam.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by JET

Gee Keith, it almost sounds like you don’t like Sam.

You are correct, sir!

[New]

This is such a textbook Nova Scotia issue.

The city has been in the midst of a multi year housing crisis.

This building is adjacent to several much taller development projects underway.

No explanation why building code inspectors and the local city councilor were MIA for months while the two extra stories were under construction.

The city now demands the developer spend tens of millions to tear down already built housing units. This will no doubt bankrupt the company and this entire development will likely sit vacant for a decade or more now.

But hey they get to stick it to one of those evil developers Nova Scotia's hate so much. Slow clap.


This inability to approach issue like this rationally is one of several reasons why I have permanently left NS for greener pastures elsewhere in Canada.

[ArchAficionado]

Originally Posted by New

This is such a textbook Nova Scotia issue.

The city has been in the midst of a multi year housing crisis.

This building is adjacent to several much taller development projects underway.

No explanation why building code inspectors and the local city councilor were MIA for months while the two extra stories were under construction.

The city now demands the developer spend tens of millions to tear down already built housing units. This will no doubt bankrupt the company and this entire development will likely sit vacant for a decade or more now.

But hey they get to stick it to one of those evil developers Nova Scotia's hate so much. Slow clap.


This inability to approach issue like this rationally is one of several reasons why I have permanently left NS for greener pastures elsewhere in Canada.

Completely agree. I understand they don't want to set a precedent, but their own inaction is part of what led this issue in the first place. If city inspectors were on this site on a regular basis they easily would have been able to see the non-conforming work and issue a stop work order.

As much as I love NS, I too have left, as I can't wait my whole life for competent heads to arrive.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Is that the way it should work, though? If you embezzle money from your workplace and nobody catches it for a year, does that mean you should get to keep it and not go to jail, because somebody should have caught you?

One could say that city planning should have zoned for more floors at that site, and it would be a fair argument, but if the developer doesn't build to the agreement, and would stand to benefit from ignoring the development agreement, why should he be allowed to get away with it? A slack or inefficient or understaffed building inspection department isn't justification for letting a precedent to be set.

Does it work this way in your new non-Halifax place of residence?

[eastcoastal]

But officer, I've been speeding my whole life and no one's caught me until now. Because it's normal for me, I shouldn't have consequences.

LOL. No.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Is that the way it should work, though? If you embezzle money from your workplace and nobody catches it for a year, does that mean you should get to keep it and not go to jail, because somebody should have caught you?

We don't really know the details though, we just know what both sides are saying to the media. The developer apparently alleges the city told them some paperwork would be adjusted and it would be fine; maybe there's a paper trail for that and somebody at HRM screwed up, or maybe the developers got ahead of themselves. We will need to wait to hear what a judge says.

If we're just talking about a hypothetical where a developer builds additional floors they know are not approved, then I still think it's the financial incentives that matter. Another aspect here is that HRM height limits tend to be arbitrary and so there is no clear rationale for one building to be 9 vs. 11 floors. Presumably a judge will look at what damages were actually caused, which may be hard to articulate if there's a height limit with no rationale behind it.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

We don't really know the details though, we just know what both sides are saying to the media. The developer apparently alleges the city told them some paperwork would be adjusted and it would be fine; maybe there's a paper trail for that and somebody at HRM screwed up, or maybe the developers got ahead of themselves. We will need to wait to hear what a judge says.

If we're just talking about a hypothetical where a developer builds additional floors they know are not approved, then I still think it's the financial incentives that matter. Another aspect here is that HRM height limits tend to be arbitrary and so there is no clear rationale for one building to be 9 vs. 11 floors. Presumably a judge will look at what damages were actually caused, which may be hard to articulate if there's a height limit with no rationale behind it.

If this is the way it is, then it makes me wonder why we have development agreements and approval processes at all. Why not just eliminate all of the bureaucracy and just let developers build what they want on their land. As long as it’s built safely, to code, it should be fine? It would avoid all of these little inconvenient issues that slow down density increases. We wouldn’t even need all of these little covert verbal agreements that allegedly happened, just build it!

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

If this is the way it is, then it makes me wonder why we have development agreements and approval processes at all.

Well, my hypothetical where the developer is not found liable involves an error on HRM's part. The fix wouldn't be to throw out development agreements and approval processes, it would be to have HRM staff and politicians follow the procedures and communicate accurately instead of inaccurately in the future. But it seems the details are not public yet, I am not a lawyer, etc. etc.

If the developer is punished, I still think it makes sense in the abstract to consider the financial incentives and not poetic justice of lopping off floors if there isn't really any gain from that. Having a developer destroy housing is a loss to society. A financial penalty against them removes the profit incentive to break rules and doesn't destroy property; it's a transfer.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

Well, my hypothetical where the developer is not found liable involves an error on HRM's part. The fix wouldn't be to throw out development agreements and approval processes, it would be to have HRM staff and politicians follow the procedures and communicate accurately instead of inaccurately in the future. But it seems the details are not public yet, I am not a lawyer, etc. etc.

If the developer is punished, I still think it makes sense in the abstract to consider the financial incentives and not poetic justice of lopping off floors if there isn't really any gain from that. Having a developer destroy housing is a loss to society. A financial penalty against them removes the profit incentive to break rules and doesn't destroy property; it's a transfer.

It seems strange that it would come to this without some investigation first. Signed documents would be required for additional construction to commence, wouldn’t it? Presumably both parties would have copies as these would be very important documents. All speculation on my part, though. Maybe it is a real dog and pony show now, where verbal agreements are the norm. I have no idea, and as you say legal processes should reveal the facts. I won’t speak to it any further.

IMHO it should not be about emotions (i.e. poetic justice etc), but it has to be about procedures and processes, backed up by documentation. Allowing the build to go ahead without following planning procedures seems to indicate that the planning procedures don’t have much value and one might speculate that in the future a developer only has to budget for legal fees and fines… then they can build whatever they want. Maybe throw a few more floors on there to offset the extra costs.

Whatever happens, it should be interesting. Maybe it will result in a rebuild of planning procedures. Probably not a bad idea. Other places must perform better than good ol’ backwater Halifax, right? People are leaving in droves because we are so backwards. Time for some banjo music, I think…

[ngunda]

It’s such a hideous building there’s an argument to be made to tear the whole thing down.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by someone123

The developer apparently alleges the city told them some paperwork would be adjusted and it would be fine;

Even if there was, so what? If you don't have a permit you don't have a permit. Until that permit is in your hand you can't build. The developer should know this, and if they don't the professionals surrounding them should.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

It seems strange that it would come to this without some investigation first. Signed documents would be required for additional construction to commence, wouldn’t it? Presumably both parties would have copies as these would be very important documents. All speculation on my part, though. Maybe it is a real dog and pony show now, where verbal agreements are the norm. I have no idea, and as you say legal processes should reveal the facts. I won’t speak to it any further.

IMHO it should not be about emotions (i.e. poetic justice etc), but it has to be about procedures and processes, backed up by documentation. Allowing the build to go ahead without following planning procedures seems to indicate that the planning procedures don’t have much value and one might speculate that in the future a developer only has to budget for legal fees and fines… then they can build whatever they want. Maybe throw a few more floors on there to offset the extra costs.

Whatever happens, it should be interesting. Maybe it will result in a rebuild of planning procedures. Probably not a bad idea. Other places must perform better than good ol’ backwater Halifax, right? People are leaving in droves because we are so backwards. Time for some banjo music, I think…

It is certainly an interesting case and one wonders if the facts will ever come out unless the developer decides to lawyer up and sue HRM, in which instance the court case testimony would be fascinating. We just don't know if what either side is saying or doing represents what actually went down. Given the facts around HRM Planning and Development sleeping on the file for 2 weeks before even going there to look at the site, it makes for interesting speculation. And of course, once Council members got up on their hind legs at a meeting and brayed about the evil developer, staff would immediately circle the wagons and start shooting to protect their own hindquarters.

My prediction is that we end up with a long, drawn-out court proceeding where lots of stuff about the HRM bureaucracy comes out.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

I cannot believe that numerous HRM planning staff weren't driving by this site and watching this building go upwards... simply from a professional interest. And Council members would have been involved in the approval too. Surely they can count? The building is big. You can't miss it. Something must be up. I'm reminded of the days when HRM would refuse a development and the PUB would later approve it. Perhaps there's a battle afoot to determine an absolute supremacy between the HRM and the province? Something else?

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

I cannot believe that numerous HRM planning staff weren't driving by this site and watching this building go upwards... simply from a professional interest. And Council members would have been involved in the approval too. Surely they can count? The building is big. You can't miss it. Something must be up. I'm reminded of the days when HRM would refuse a development and the PUB would later approve it. Perhaps there's a battle afoot to determine an absolute supremacy between the HRM and the province? Something else?

Inspections staff have been swamped ever since the building boom. When I DIY reno'd my bathroom I stressed for days about my inspection. In the end the guy was litterally there for no more than 3 minutes, checked that I had a vent pipe on my plumbing, and then ran out the door to his next stop. I highly doubt anyone has the time to do unscheduled inspections.

And at the end of the day it doesn't matter - the responsiblity is on the developer. Just because the health inspector hasn't shown up to say "no" doesn't mean the rats in your kitchen are okay.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

Even if there was, so what? If you don't have a permit you don't have a permit. Until that permit is in your hand you can't build. The developer should know this, and if they don't the professionals surrounding them should.

I guess this is the issue that I’ve been stuck on since my first ill-fated decision to comment on this issue. People are wanting HRM to bend the rules for this developer because maybe there was a misunderstanding or miscommunication on HRM’s part, but the only communication that matters are the official agreements, permits, etc. No documents, no work.

Then there’s the perception that it’s HRM’s fault for not policing them enough. Reminds me of the old Steve Martin comedy skit where he is entering a plea to the judge: “I forgot… I forgot that armed robbery was illegal…”.

I thought the responsibility was with the builder to make sure they had all the appropriate approvals, permits, and other documentation in place before work starts. In fact it would be in the company’s best interests to ensure that they don’t lose a bunch of money by building the structure incorrectly. It’s not really HRM’s job to make sure the company doesn’t lose money on the project, just to ensure that it’s built to the development agreement, and to code. An oversight of this proportion would make me wonder what other critical things may have been missed.

I’m not in the industry so I am aware that there are many complexities and procedures that I have no knowledge of, but if a dolt like myself can see this, why can’t they? One of the things that strikes me is the apparent lack of professionalism of the developer, and how ready some are to think that’s okay. I am puzzled by this.

Regardless, if it’s going to court, maybe something good will come out of it. Like maybe some critical flaws on HRM’s part, maybe some understanding of how this can happen and improvement to procedures in the future (maybe some hard fast rules that councillors can’t have one-on-one meetings with developers, in the event that this may have happened and may have led to a misunderstanding).

Maybe HRM’s strong-arm demolition approach will be changed to a financial penalty (as suggested by some posters) situation and allowance for the floor count to stay as is, for the sake of housing, expediency, and wellbeing of the neighbours, who seem to have suffered more than anybody (yet have received the least sympathy from the SSP braintrust). As I said before, let’s see what happens. Hopefully our eagle eyed members will post any info that comes out about this!

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I guess this is the issue that I’ve been stuck on since my first ill-fated decision to comment on this issue. People are wanting HRM to bend the rules for this developer because maybe there was a misunderstanding or miscommunication on HRM’s part, but the only communication that matters are the official agreements, permits, etc. No documents, no work.

This isn't what I am saying though. I'm speculating that material facts could come out in a court case. We don't yet know all the facts.

As a hypothetical, an HRM planner emailing "you'll definitely get the paperwork in order so go ahead and build 2 more floors" seems like it could have an impact, and I do have sympathy for a developer if there was that level of confusion. Not saying such a thing exists. I am sceptical that it's correct to say that communications from HRM staff or councillors cannot matter.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

This isn't what I am saying though. I'm speculating that material facts could come out in a court case. We don't yet know all the facts.

As a hypothetical, an HRM planner emailing "you'll definitely get the paperwork in order so go ahead and build 2 more floors" seems like it could have an impact, and I do have sympathy for a developer if there was that level of confusion. Not saying such a thing exists. I am sceptical that it's correct to say that communications from HRM staff or councillors cannot matter.

That’s not what I am saying either. I’m only making a general comment on what I perceive to be the general sentiment that some posters have implied through their comments. I’m not intending to single anybody out, including yourself.

Sure, I agree that communications matter, but I get the gist that most people who post here are professionals, and thus have professional standards that they have to work within. I’m sure that most of us have been in a situation where someone gave them a verbal that did not fall within the requirements of the process and had to tell the person to follow procedure to make sure the documentation was in place in case there were questions or if something went wrong, not to mention that it is simply a requirement of the job. Why should we expect this to be any different?

Here’s a hypothetical: Engineering for an 11 storey building would not be exactly the same as that for a 9 storey building. Adding 2 storeys would always require that engineering drawings be submitted and approved, signed off by all involved. We don’t know if that happened, but we should assume that it did, or should at least. My question is that if it were approved and signed off on, would HRM not have this documentation and would they even be calling for a demolition now? It’s not clear, but one would assume that somebody would have brought it up and corrective action or agreement would have happened before it came to this. Meanwhile, this has become a major problem and it indicates a major error on somebody’s part. We just don’t know the details, though we can probably make an educated guess.

So far most of the assumptions have been that it’s HRM’s fault, but I can’t help but wonder why, in the middle of a building boom, where many developers are successfully putting up buildings all over the city, is this the only case of this happening? If HRM’s system was so backward and broken, wouldn’t we be hearing about it all the time? Just that.

[Saul Goode]

Here's another hypothetical:

The evidence eventually establishes that yes, HRM is entirely faultless in the matter, and the developer arrogantly proceeded without any legitimate expectation of approval - the "forgiveness instead of permission" model.

HRM has the power to order removal of the extra floors, but that seems a ridiculous waste of new accommodations in a city that badly needs them. Why not offer to settle with the developer to allow the extra floors but have all of their rental revenue paid to the city for some defined term? If the alternative is to lose the floors forever, maybe that could work.

Just an idle thought.