1740 replies to this topic

[pseudotsuga]

Good conversation - glad there is something new and interesting for everyone to get all riled up about!

I like the renderings, thanks for posting them.

[Jon S]

TC Take.....

http://www.timescolo...0883/story.html

[Holden West]

Kudos to Dean Fortin and councillors Geoff Young, Chris Coleman, Lisa Helps, Charlayne Thornton-Joe and Marianne Alto for not voting to further stall this. Fortin and Alto receive a lot of grief in this forum so a tip of the hat to them.

Gudgeon and Isitt probably don't appreciate the extent of the work that has gone on over the past two years, including input from City staff and neighbours. Madoff's turn against this project may be from pressure from the heritage lobby.

[G-Man]

Agree it was good to see.

I think the Mayor actually took a strong leadership role in this which was really good to see.

[Mike K.]

Fortin has taken a strong stance on this project from the get-go. Now let's hope this continues through to the public hearing.

Madoff's turn against this project must be an effort to make good with the heritage crowd over the loss of the bridge. Hallmark is in the same situation where the organization's relevance (perhaps even funding?) was questioned over the bridge issue.

[Bernard]

I look at the design and I look at the location and I can not figure out how this does not fit with the Old Town.

I listen to the Hallmark society and I do not understand how they think their arguments have any merit.

On every level I can think of, I can not really think of how one could make this proposed development better. It fits perfectly sizewise, it creates a much better streetscape that feels like a continuation of Johnson Street southwards, it hides the 1970s hotel on the waterfront. It removes the focus on the Salvation army building. It adds a bunch of new public space - even though the City may own land there and have a park there, this is not public space because the City has done nothing to make the area friendly to the public.

The two things I really like about the development are how nice the whole thing looks and the creation of the plaza around the heritage buildings.

This is one of the few developments in Victoria that I have seen that actually excites me.

[G-Man]

^ I agree Bernard the opposition seems so strange.

[Mike K.]

Particularly when Hallmark's campaign uses the words "save the buildings" in its public statements. It gives the impression that Reliance wants to demolish the buildings or jeopardize them in some way.

I'll chalk up Hallmark's campaign as an effort to save face and become relevant after several years of non-engagement.

And just as an aside, was Hallmark in any way involved with the efforts to keep Roger's Chocolates from completing renovations in its Government St. store which subsequently lead to the company successfully suing the City of Victoria?

[LJ]

Does the Hallmark society carry any weight at all?

Could they delay, change, or stop the project?

Can they be overridden by council?

If they depend on public opinion to carry the day, why would any member of the public be against this project when they have no skin in the game.

Heck, they voted for the bridge and that's going to cost them millions.

[Bingo]

Madoff's turn against this project must be an effort to make good with the heritage crowd over the loss of the bridge. Hallmark is in the same situation where the organization's relevance (perhaps even funding?) was questioned over the bridge issue.

The loss of a piece of Victoria's heritage that was movable, functional and alive will forever taint their credibility.

[Jon S]

The project goes to Heritage Advisory Committee on February 14th.

[Mike K.]

Good luck to you before the committee.

The Heritage Advisory Committee is comprised of:

Ken Johnson (of Hallmark Society), Chair
Steve Barber (Senior Heritage Planner)
Helen Cain (Planner/Heritage Planner)
Richard Collier
Judith Cook
Lauren Martin (Heritage Secretary)
Barry Cosgrave
Patrick Frey
Roger Tinney (local developer, no?)
Patrick Dunae
John Adams (is this the ghost tour fellow?)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't Ken Johnson's participation on the committee create a conflict of interest considering his involvement with the Hallmark Society and it's well publicized position on this project?

[Sparky]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't Ken Johnson's participation on the committee create a conflict of interest considering his involvement with the Hallmark Society and it's well publicized position on this project?

Here is where it all bogs down doesn't it.

The president of a special interest group acting as the "chair" of a public consulting committee.

What's that smell?

[Jon S]

Here is the latest:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=BFUAB2jnzzY

[Bob Fugger]

Here is where it all bogs down doesn't it.

The president of a special interest group acting as the "chair" of a public consulting committee.

What's that smell?

There is a lot of administrative case law around bias of committee members that are quasi-judicial in nature. Google Newfoundland Telephone Company and bias. If I was to lose at this committee, I would sue to overturn the decision based on existing case law.

[LJ]

What is the power of the HAC?

Is their reccommendation in favour required before the project can go ahead, or are they just passing along their veiwpoint for council to consider?

[G-Man]

I could be wrong but I believe that they may make suggestions to the developer to improve a project in their opinion and will say whether or not as a group they approve of the project but that it would still go to public hearing however disapproval at an advisory board may make it harder for a councillor to vote in favour especially if there is not a lot of public support. If this is wrong please correct me.

[Rob Randall]

^That's my understanding of it too, G-Man. But their reports (and comments from the public) can carry a lot of weight, especially if a Councillor is on the fence regarding a tough topic.

Many times I have seen a Councillor at a public hearing say, "I sympathize with the concerns of the opponents but the comment from [name of committee or citizen] drives home the key point of why this proposal is supportable."

So you may think your opinion doesn't count but it may serve as ammunition as Council bats the issue back and forth.

[Sparky]

I am still of the opinion that it is untoward for the president of a special interest group or society to be lobbying their disapproval of a project in the press, radio, and television BEFORE a project has been formally submitted to an advisory committee, ESPECIALLY when that person is the chair of that advisory committee.

Unacceptable optics and demonstrably a conflict of interest.

[Rob Randall]

Distasteful, but I'm unaware of any rules that disallow it. Committee members are drawn from the public and they are not expected to hold their tongue like Council or Staff are.