Home |  Archives |  Search |  Boutique  |  Donate



Case 00640 and People’s Democracy: a tale from St Margarets Bay as a community rises up against the Ingramport development. The Three Men sat stone-faced at a long bare table at the front of the auditorium of the spanking new Black Point Fire Hall. For four hours they presided over a public hearing of 500 residents without a single comment. Then The Three Men pounced on a community and, in just three minutes, perfidiously torched its heart in defence of the right of one man to exploit. TONY SEED

SUBMISSIONS TO HRM “PUBLIC HEARING”, 28 NOVEMBER 2005
The whole concept defies logic and science JIM FRYDAY
Five minutes: who decides? TONY SEED
Phenomenal number of conflicts of interest ANNE DUNSWORTH
LULU – locally unwanted land use CYNTHIA MARTIN
What happens to the Bay should be decided by the people JUDY TAGGART
The view from the “lighthouse”; petition results: an expression of the citizens in the area KATHY GREIG
There is no right to a development agreement’ MARTIN C. WARD
What this area really needs SUZANNE TOWNSEND
This project does not serve the wishes and desires of the neighboourhood residents JIM CARWARDINE

DOCUMENTATION / BACKGROUND
(6 Dec 06) Full text of appeal against anti-democratic decision of Halifax Regional Municipality permitting rich condo development on St Margaret's Bay, or monopoly right. JIM FRYDAY et al

(3 Feb 06) The proposal is a significant alteration for the communities of Ingramport and Boutilier's Point in density, scale and impact, and contradicts and contravenes the Halifax Regional Municipality's (HRM) Municipal Planning Strategy on which approval was based. HRM received dozens of submissions from residents at the November 28/05 public hearing, which HRM has on file and recorded.

Review of Environmental Screening Assessment: June 2004 by Jacques Whitford for Destiny Developments
(Oct 05) This review includes environmental and other queries not appropriately addressed in the Environmental Screening Assessment: June 2004 by Jacques Whitford for Destiny Developments. Using the same sub-heads (without repeating the content of the assessment) this review highlights omissions and questionable assumptions found in the screening assessment such as:
community consultation and concerns are conspicuously absent including information available at the time of the report's compilation
questionable and/or unverified technical and environmental statements
the considerable potential for conflict of interest resulting from Jacques Whitford both preparing this report and its proprietary involvement with the lobster habitat technology proposed for HADD compensation. Prepared by
Michelle Adams; PhD Candidate Environmental Engineering, Dalhousie University
Dr. Paul F. Brodie; senior research scientist; DFO, ret.
Dr. Sue Douglas; Biochemist
James Fryday; Community Researcher
Dr. Phil Warman, P.Ag, Adjunct Professor, Dalhousie University and NSAC; President/CEO of Coastal BioAgresearch Ltd.
3 page ESA critique coverltr.pdf
13 page ESA critique.pdf


(05 Jan 06) A letter from Dr Paul Brodie to Minister Kerry Morash

MEDIA REPORTS
(29 Nov 05) Over 500 people crowded into the Black Point Fire Hall to discuss a controversial waterfront development at Ingramport. The public hearing was sponsored by HRM, the body that will decide the fate of the project. www.baywatch.ca

(29 Nov 05) There was impassioned talk, there were fancy acronyms such as LULU, there was even somewhat confusing talk of "detuning." BARRY DOREY

(28 Nov 05) The problem is that nobody seems to be looking at the big picture. Nobody, that is, except the neighbours and public at large, none of whom has a veto. www.baywatch.ca

(24 Nov 05) A deep throat in the city offices says once they build, it's "destiny" -- there'll be more parking and the 10 additional townhouses originally planned will soon follow in the thin-edge-of-the-wedge principle. CYNTHIA MARTIN

(10 Jun 05) Herald article june 10/05 Paul F. Brodie PhD


Comments to : shunpike@shunpiking.org Copyright New Media Services Inc. © 2006. The views expressed herein are the writers' own and do not necessarily reflect those of shunpiking magazine or New Media Publications. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content. Copyright of written and photographic and art work remains with the creators.