Blue Mountain - Birch Cove Lakes is a a paradise: a piece of wilderness the size of the Halifax peninsula, just 10 km from the downtown core. A mere bus ride away, it contains a series of lakes that form a complete canoe loop, and local non-profits are working to develop a trail system in the area. You can literally step into the forest behind the Kent in Bayers Lake, and lose yourself in wilderness. It's like a small piece of Kejimkujik in our backyard, and one of the many things that make Halifax a great place to live.
Most cities would give their right arm for a jewel like this: a near-urban wilderness tract that offers amazing outdoor recreational opportunities. As Tim Bousquet said in his 2009 article about the area, "It's hard to believe this place exists."
Unfortunately, this place may not exist as is much longer. Private landowners/developers are pushing to open up a significant portion of the Birch Cove Lakes to development, and the HRM is currently consulting on a facilitator's report that would allow them to do just that.
Blue Mountain and a portion of the Birch Cove Lakes are already protected as a provincial wilderness area, designated in 2009 and expanded in 2015. However, much of the remaining land is in private hands, some of it in prime lakefront or wilderness areas.
In the 2006 Regional Plan (updated in 2014), the HRM made clear its desire to create a Regional Park in Blue Mountain - Birch Cove Lakes, identified park boundaries, with the intention that private land would be acquired for inclusion in the park. Private lands within the proposed park boundaries were designated "urban reserve", meaning they were not to be developed until at least 2031.
The facilitator's report is the result of a multi-year negotiation process between the HRM and developers in an attempt to determine the boundaries of the proposed regional park, and in particular, how much private land will be purchased and added to the park. Unfortunately and unusually, the facilitator seems to have come down pretty much entirely on the side of the developers. Her conclusions would use the park boundaries as proposed by the developers, which would open up most of the remaining lakes to development, defeating one of the main purposes in creating the park in the first place. It also seems to contemplate major infrastructure to make the park more "accessible" to the public, which seems inconsistent with much of the park's status as a wilderness area. Most alarmingly, it seems to propose opening up those private lands for immediate development, which is contrary to the Regional Plan.
While the report talks a great deal about "cost" and "economic feasibility" of the park, it makes little or no reference to ecological integrity, or to water quality, biodiversity or wilderness protection, which are the primary reasons for establishing the park in the first place. It ignores the huge public benefit that a park like this provides. It also glosses over the cost to the HRM of opening up these lands for development, and the benefit to the developer of the creation of a regional park on their doorstep. It ignores the fact that HRM already has enough land available for development to meet demand for the next 28 to 35 years. There is no need to open these particular lands up for development.
Blue Mountain Birch Cove Lakes is already under development pressure, and HRM already lost recreational opportunities when a popular mountain biking and hiking area was cleared to allow for further expansion of Bayers Lake.
However, the long fight to protect Blue Mountain - Birch Cove Lakes is not over. There is a public presentation on the facilitator's report on Monday, June 20, 2016, at 7:00 p.m. at the Future Inns Aspin/Birch Room, 30 Fairfax Drive, Halifax, Nova Scotia. And we have until 3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 4, 2016 to submit your comments to the Municipal Clerk's office by fax, 902-490-4208; or by e-mail, clerks@halifax.ca.
I also urge people to contact the Mayor, and their regional councillor, to let them know that both the process and the proposal are deeply flawed, and that they need to stand up for Blue Mountain - Birch Cove Lakes, and a regional park that protects the entire area for now and for future generations. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to protect a jewel that most cities only dream of. Let's not let it slip through our grasp.
Showing posts with label Regional Plan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Regional Plan. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 14, 2016
Monday, February 1, 2016
"Halifax is on a roll, and doesn't even know it"
There's been a lot of talk lately about reasons for leaving Halifax. Allison Sparling, who recently left the city for Toronto, penned a widely discussed blog post about the reasons she, like other young people, was leaving her hometown (she wrote an equally poignant piece about things she loves about Halifax, which didn't get enough attention). Lezlie Lowe published a piece in the Herald entitled "Halifax, please let me know: Should I stay or should I go?" capturing the tug of war that many young people feel between love of this town, and the perception of a lack of economic opportunity.
Those of you that know me know that while I am a fan of Halifax, I am not a cheerleader. If anything, at times I am quite critical of some of the city's failings. But sometimes, when being critical, one loses sight of the notion that criticism should really be aimed at making things better. Sometimes it's easy to lose sight of all the good things going on around us. And sometimes it takes someone from the outside looking in to give us a dose of perspective.
A few weeks ago, I had a twitter exchange with a law school classmate, who grew up in Halifax, but now lives in Toronto. He comes back to visit a couple of times a year, and had this to say: "I don't think [Halifax] realizes it, but it's kind of on a roll right now."
He went on to talk about how the new Library fills him with hope and pride. I don't think he's alone. The Library really is a remarkable public space, and an award-winning architectural jewel that has transformed the look and feel of Spring Garden Road.
But it's not the only great public space we've added in the past few years. When I first moved to Halifax, I remember people complaining about the lack of winter recreation opportunities in the Downtown. The Oval, built as a temporary facility for the Canada Games in 2011, was so unexpectedly popular with the public, it became a permanent fixture that filled that winter gap. The Commons, which used to get pretty desolate in the winter time, has been transformed into a year round playground.
The Waterfront has also seen some significant improvements, with more to come. In summertime, the boardwalk is a great place to sit and read or people watch, and there are few better places to sit and sip a beer on a sunny day than the Stillwell Beer Garden.
I think the proposal for the Khyber Building offers the opportunity for a similarly exceptional public space, this time for the arts community. These types of spaces will attract more people back to our downtown core, to live, work and play. Let's make it happen.
Similarly, in a city which has sometimes gone out of its way to erase neighbourhood identities, we have seen the resurgence of great neighbourhoods like the North End (which is really made up of a number of great neighbourhoods) and Downtown Dartmouth, both of which have been recognized as being among Canada's great neighbourhoods.
Another area in which Halifax has arguably been punching above its weight is the restaurant scene. For a city of our size, we really have some top notch chefs and restaurants: Edna, Gio, Agricola Street Brasserie, Chives and Bicycle Thief to name but a few. I've taken friends, family and colleagues from Toronto and Vancouver to restaurants that are on par with what's they are used to getting in bigger cities, often at a fraction of the price.
Yes, the selection of international food still leaves something to be desired: good Indian can be hard to come by, and options like Malaysian food are practically nonexistent. But with the proliferation of Thai, Korean and other foods, it's a far cry from the days when Alfredo, Weinstein and Ho's was considered exotic.
And while the explosion of craft brewing isn't unique to Nova Scotia (and arrived here a bit later than most places), our Province has really come into its own in the last few years. When I moved to Halifax 9 years ago, there were 3 craft breweries total. I now count 10 in HRM, and 25 across the Province, with seemingly more opening all the time. It really is an embarrassment of riches.
All of these things; good public spaces, good neighbourhoods, a vibrant food and drink scene, are important elements in making our city an attractive place to live.
This isn't to say we don't still face challenges. Nova Scotia continues to struggle economically and demographically, the only province to have negative population growth over the last few years. That being said, despite perceptions, Halifax has done reasonably well, with relatively low unemployment and relatively strong median income compared to similar sized cities.
There is no question that Halifax doesn't necessarily have the breadth of opportunity that bigger cities offer: that is partly a function of size. But sometimes being in a smaller centre offers opportunities that wouldn't exist elsewhere. I have friends that have leadership roles, that run organizations, that influence public policy, in a way that would not be possible in larger centres.
Our transportation system also needs work. Although Halifax enjoys a fairly high proportion of people who take transit or walk to work compared to similar Canadian cities, we continue to resist and delay improvements to transit and active transportation infrastructure. Between the recent uptick in pedestrian/car collisions, and the misguided government response, it's obvious we have some work to do to make travel in our city easy safe and friendly for all users of our streets.
We still need to work on making our downtown core a more attractive place to live. Although the debates on downtown development are not as toxic as they were a few years back, and some exciting developments are moving ahead in the urban core, we need to make sure that we get the right kind of density in the right areas, in a way that supports a vibrant urban environment rather than taking away from it.
Finally, we have a challenge which is also an opportunity: Halifax has amazing near-urban wilderness, but we are at risk of losing it. Places like the Purcells Cove Backlands or Blue Mountain Birch Cove Lakes provide amazing wilderness recreation opportunities in location that are, in some cases, minutes from our downtown core. But more needs to be done to protect these amazing areas from development pressures which threaten to destroy the very things that make these areas attractive to live in the first place. Coalitions like Our HRM Alliance and its member groups continue to work on policies like greenbelting that could preserve these areas for future generations, but can only do so with sufficient public support.
All of which is to say that in our desire to make our city a better place to live, we shouldn't lose sight of many of the great things we already have, but also shouldn't lose focus on some of the real challenges we face: diversifying our economy, fixing our transportation system, densifying our urban areas, and preserving our amazing outdoors, among others. A city isn't made better by blind optimism, but it isn't made better by relentless pessimism either.
Halifax: you're on a bit of a roll. Let's keep things moving forward.
Those of you that know me know that while I am a fan of Halifax, I am not a cheerleader. If anything, at times I am quite critical of some of the city's failings. But sometimes, when being critical, one loses sight of the notion that criticism should really be aimed at making things better. Sometimes it's easy to lose sight of all the good things going on around us. And sometimes it takes someone from the outside looking in to give us a dose of perspective.
A few weeks ago, I had a twitter exchange with a law school classmate, who grew up in Halifax, but now lives in Toronto. He comes back to visit a couple of times a year, and had this to say: "I don't think [Halifax] realizes it, but it's kind of on a roll right now."
He went on to talk about how the new Library fills him with hope and pride. I don't think he's alone. The Library really is a remarkable public space, and an award-winning architectural jewel that has transformed the look and feel of Spring Garden Road.
But it's not the only great public space we've added in the past few years. When I first moved to Halifax, I remember people complaining about the lack of winter recreation opportunities in the Downtown. The Oval, built as a temporary facility for the Canada Games in 2011, was so unexpectedly popular with the public, it became a permanent fixture that filled that winter gap. The Commons, which used to get pretty desolate in the winter time, has been transformed into a year round playground.
The Waterfront has also seen some significant improvements, with more to come. In summertime, the boardwalk is a great place to sit and read or people watch, and there are few better places to sit and sip a beer on a sunny day than the Stillwell Beer Garden.
I think the proposal for the Khyber Building offers the opportunity for a similarly exceptional public space, this time for the arts community. These types of spaces will attract more people back to our downtown core, to live, work and play. Let's make it happen.
Similarly, in a city which has sometimes gone out of its way to erase neighbourhood identities, we have seen the resurgence of great neighbourhoods like the North End (which is really made up of a number of great neighbourhoods) and Downtown Dartmouth, both of which have been recognized as being among Canada's great neighbourhoods.
Another area in which Halifax has arguably been punching above its weight is the restaurant scene. For a city of our size, we really have some top notch chefs and restaurants: Edna, Gio, Agricola Street Brasserie, Chives and Bicycle Thief to name but a few. I've taken friends, family and colleagues from Toronto and Vancouver to restaurants that are on par with what's they are used to getting in bigger cities, often at a fraction of the price.
Yes, the selection of international food still leaves something to be desired: good Indian can be hard to come by, and options like Malaysian food are practically nonexistent. But with the proliferation of Thai, Korean and other foods, it's a far cry from the days when Alfredo, Weinstein and Ho's was considered exotic.
And while the explosion of craft brewing isn't unique to Nova Scotia (and arrived here a bit later than most places), our Province has really come into its own in the last few years. When I moved to Halifax 9 years ago, there were 3 craft breweries total. I now count 10 in HRM, and 25 across the Province, with seemingly more opening all the time. It really is an embarrassment of riches.
All of these things; good public spaces, good neighbourhoods, a vibrant food and drink scene, are important elements in making our city an attractive place to live.
This isn't to say we don't still face challenges. Nova Scotia continues to struggle economically and demographically, the only province to have negative population growth over the last few years. That being said, despite perceptions, Halifax has done reasonably well, with relatively low unemployment and relatively strong median income compared to similar sized cities.
There is no question that Halifax doesn't necessarily have the breadth of opportunity that bigger cities offer: that is partly a function of size. But sometimes being in a smaller centre offers opportunities that wouldn't exist elsewhere. I have friends that have leadership roles, that run organizations, that influence public policy, in a way that would not be possible in larger centres.
Our transportation system also needs work. Although Halifax enjoys a fairly high proportion of people who take transit or walk to work compared to similar Canadian cities, we continue to resist and delay improvements to transit and active transportation infrastructure. Between the recent uptick in pedestrian/car collisions, and the misguided government response, it's obvious we have some work to do to make travel in our city easy safe and friendly for all users of our streets.
We still need to work on making our downtown core a more attractive place to live. Although the debates on downtown development are not as toxic as they were a few years back, and some exciting developments are moving ahead in the urban core, we need to make sure that we get the right kind of density in the right areas, in a way that supports a vibrant urban environment rather than taking away from it.
Finally, we have a challenge which is also an opportunity: Halifax has amazing near-urban wilderness, but we are at risk of losing it. Places like the Purcells Cove Backlands or Blue Mountain Birch Cove Lakes provide amazing wilderness recreation opportunities in location that are, in some cases, minutes from our downtown core. But more needs to be done to protect these amazing areas from development pressures which threaten to destroy the very things that make these areas attractive to live in the first place. Coalitions like Our HRM Alliance and its member groups continue to work on policies like greenbelting that could preserve these areas for future generations, but can only do so with sufficient public support.
All of which is to say that in our desire to make our city a better place to live, we shouldn't lose sight of many of the great things we already have, but also shouldn't lose focus on some of the real challenges we face: diversifying our economy, fixing our transportation system, densifying our urban areas, and preserving our amazing outdoors, among others. A city isn't made better by blind optimism, but it isn't made better by relentless pessimism either.
Halifax: you're on a bit of a roll. Let's keep things moving forward.
Monday, February 24, 2014
Dear Mayor and Council: Don't Destroy the Regional Plan
I have written before on Regional Planning issues in HRM. Draft 4 of the Regional Plan is going before regional council for first reading on Tuesday, and a number of councillors have indicate their intent to seek significant amendments to the Plan. Below is a brief open letter to Mayor and Council explaining why I think this is a bad idea. Please consider contacting the Mayor and your councillor as well.
Dear Mayor and Councillors,
As you know first reading of Draft 4 of the revised regional plan is to come before council tomorrow. I understand that some councilors plan to advance a number of amendments to the draft Plan, which include amendments to:
- have part of the Purcell’s Cove backlands re-designated from Urban Reserve to Rural Commuter;
- re-designate the entire Urban Reserve in Cherry Brook to Urban Settlement; and
- make sewer and water boundaries overlap;
Draft 4 of the Regional Plan is the result of over two years of extensive public consultation and committee work through the RP+5 process. While it is not perfect, it is a step forward from the original regional plan, and balances a number of competing interests, while making sure the Municipality is on a path to financial and environmental sustainability. The public feedback through the RP+5 Process has generally been supportive of the changes contained in Draft 4.
The proposed amendments are not minor amendments. In fact, they represent a complete abandonment of the underlying principles of the plan, including directed growth. This change of direction is being brought to council at the absolute last minute, with no meaningful public input. The proposed changes were never consulted on, and in fact fly in the face of what residents asked for in the RP+5 process.
These amendments would essentially abandon the concept of directing growth to our urban and rural growth centres in favour of allowing growth in areas where it will be expensive for the HRM to provide services. It would allow for development of areas that the community has clearly identified as wanting to preserve, such as the Purcells Cove backlands. They would represent a giant step backwards, not just from Draft 4 of the Plan, but from the 2006 Plan. To make such a significant change in direction at the last minute and contrary to public input would do irreversible damage to the public confidence in municipal decision-making processes like RP+5.
I urge you to vote against these amendments. Let us move forward with the plan the people have asked for.
Regards,
Derek Simon
Dear Mayor and Councillors,
As you know first reading of Draft 4 of the revised regional plan is to come before council tomorrow. I understand that some councilors plan to advance a number of amendments to the draft Plan, which include amendments to:
- have part of the Purcell’s Cove backlands re-designated from Urban Reserve to Rural Commuter;
- re-designate the entire Urban Reserve in Cherry Brook to Urban Settlement; and
- make sewer and water boundaries overlap;
Draft 4 of the Regional Plan is the result of over two years of extensive public consultation and committee work through the RP+5 process. While it is not perfect, it is a step forward from the original regional plan, and balances a number of competing interests, while making sure the Municipality is on a path to financial and environmental sustainability. The public feedback through the RP+5 Process has generally been supportive of the changes contained in Draft 4.
The proposed amendments are not minor amendments. In fact, they represent a complete abandonment of the underlying principles of the plan, including directed growth. This change of direction is being brought to council at the absolute last minute, with no meaningful public input. The proposed changes were never consulted on, and in fact fly in the face of what residents asked for in the RP+5 process.
These amendments would essentially abandon the concept of directing growth to our urban and rural growth centres in favour of allowing growth in areas where it will be expensive for the HRM to provide services. It would allow for development of areas that the community has clearly identified as wanting to preserve, such as the Purcells Cove backlands. They would represent a giant step backwards, not just from Draft 4 of the Plan, but from the 2006 Plan. To make such a significant change in direction at the last minute and contrary to public input would do irreversible damage to the public confidence in municipal decision-making processes like RP+5.
I urge you to vote against these amendments. Let us move forward with the plan the people have asked for.
Regards,
Derek Simon
Sunday, August 25, 2013
HRM's Sewage Debacle: Who Pays for the Pipes?
If you've been following the HRM's recent decision to spend $25 million to pipe sewage from Timberlea to Halifax, you could be forgiven for having a difficult time figuring out who, exactly, is going to be paying for all these new sewage pipes. As has been pointed out elsewhere, regional council has been provided with a series of confusing, and often conflicting explanations as to who, exactly, is paying for these new sewer pipes. The decision to tear up the Chain of Lakes trail to run sewage from a handful of new subdivisions to be treated in Halifax has been criticized by some as "bad planning". It's an example of bad accounting as well.
One of the major costs of urban sprawl in the HRM is the extension of sewer and water pipes to service new development. Not only does it cost money to build new sewer and infrastructure, it also increases the future costs to service and maintain this growing infrastructure. Water rates are often not enough to cover these ongoing costs.
Residents of the HRM are justifiably angry about recent and substantial increases to their water rates. Yet much of the debate has ignored the significant geographic growth of the water and sewer system, and the spiralling cost of maintaining ever-growing infrastructure. While HRM has a sewer and water service boundary, that boundary covers a substantial area. In addition, regional council has frequently made decisions to extend that boundary, often to provide sewer and water to specific new subdivisions.
While developers pay the cost of installing all sewer and water pipes within the subdivisions they build, these pipes then need to be connected to the larger water and wastewater systems. As a result, developers pay a complex series of sewer development charges, trunk sewer charges and capital cost contributions levied by HRM and meant to cover the costs of all new infrastructure. Unfortunately, these charges haven't proven adequate to cover the costs of new pipes, which has also contributed to rising water rates. Halifax Water is now proposing a simplified and higher regional development charge meant to replace existing charges and cover the costs of new development.
There is no question the current system is confusing, as evidenced by council's recent decision regarding the Chain of Lakes pipe. It would seem that when council originally voted to approve the extension of municipal sewer and water services to Brunello Estates and nearby subdivisions in 2007, they were told that the developers of these subdivisions themselves would pay for the pipes directly through capital cost charges in their area.
Halifax Water is now stating that while 10% of the cost of the new Chain of Lakes pipe will be paid by existing ratepayers, 90% of the cost will be paid by developers. But not by the developers whose subdivisions actually require the pipes. By charges levied on ALL developers in HRM. And therein lies the shoddy accounting. A developer who chooses to build in an area where infrastructure already exists, or requires minimal upgrades, will pay the same amount into the fund as the developers in Timberlea who require $25 million in new pipes. This is effectively a subsidy for bad planning.
Unfortunately, Halifax Water's proposed new regional development charge won't change that. Developers will pay a single standard charge, regardless of where a development is located relative to existing infrastructure. While the higher charges will take some of the burden of paying for growth off of ratepayers, it will put that burden onto developers in general, not those that are driving up costs by demanding more infrastructure. These costs will eventually be passed on to homebuyers, driving up the cost of ALL housing in HRM.
There are lots of valuable planning lessons we should learn from the Chain of Lakes sewage pipe debacle. One of the most important is that if we are going to make growth pay for itself, we need to find a better way of accounting for it. One way would be to ensure that development charges reflect the actual cost of servicing new developments.
One of the major costs of urban sprawl in the HRM is the extension of sewer and water pipes to service new development. Not only does it cost money to build new sewer and infrastructure, it also increases the future costs to service and maintain this growing infrastructure. Water rates are often not enough to cover these ongoing costs.
Residents of the HRM are justifiably angry about recent and substantial increases to their water rates. Yet much of the debate has ignored the significant geographic growth of the water and sewer system, and the spiralling cost of maintaining ever-growing infrastructure. While HRM has a sewer and water service boundary, that boundary covers a substantial area. In addition, regional council has frequently made decisions to extend that boundary, often to provide sewer and water to specific new subdivisions.
While developers pay the cost of installing all sewer and water pipes within the subdivisions they build, these pipes then need to be connected to the larger water and wastewater systems. As a result, developers pay a complex series of sewer development charges, trunk sewer charges and capital cost contributions levied by HRM and meant to cover the costs of all new infrastructure. Unfortunately, these charges haven't proven adequate to cover the costs of new pipes, which has also contributed to rising water rates. Halifax Water is now proposing a simplified and higher regional development charge meant to replace existing charges and cover the costs of new development.
There is no question the current system is confusing, as evidenced by council's recent decision regarding the Chain of Lakes pipe. It would seem that when council originally voted to approve the extension of municipal sewer and water services to Brunello Estates and nearby subdivisions in 2007, they were told that the developers of these subdivisions themselves would pay for the pipes directly through capital cost charges in their area.
Halifax Water is now stating that while 10% of the cost of the new Chain of Lakes pipe will be paid by existing ratepayers, 90% of the cost will be paid by developers. But not by the developers whose subdivisions actually require the pipes. By charges levied on ALL developers in HRM. And therein lies the shoddy accounting. A developer who chooses to build in an area where infrastructure already exists, or requires minimal upgrades, will pay the same amount into the fund as the developers in Timberlea who require $25 million in new pipes. This is effectively a subsidy for bad planning.
Unfortunately, Halifax Water's proposed new regional development charge won't change that. Developers will pay a single standard charge, regardless of where a development is located relative to existing infrastructure. While the higher charges will take some of the burden of paying for growth off of ratepayers, it will put that burden onto developers in general, not those that are driving up costs by demanding more infrastructure. These costs will eventually be passed on to homebuyers, driving up the cost of ALL housing in HRM.
There are lots of valuable planning lessons we should learn from the Chain of Lakes sewage pipe debacle. One of the most important is that if we are going to make growth pay for itself, we need to find a better way of accounting for it. One way would be to ensure that development charges reflect the actual cost of servicing new developments.
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
A $3 Billion Boondoggle: Regional Planning and Sprawl in Halifax
Last Tuesday, HRM regional council unanimously approved a $823 million operating and $165 million project budgets for 2013-2014, for a total of close to $1 billion in spending. Several budget items were hotly debated, including the restoration of late night ferry service to Dartmouth, a fare increase and increased spending for transit, and a residential tax increase to expand snow plowing service. One issue that was not directly addressed in the budget was the growing cost of urban sprawl in HRM.
Yet the very next day, the HRM made public a report, by Stantec Consulting, which made it clear that sprawl could cost the HRM and its residents around $2.8 billion over the next 18 years. Yes, billion with a "B". Surprisingly, there has been much less public debate around this report than there was over much smaller line items in the budget.
This report, with the lengthy name "Quantifying the Costs and Benefits to HRM, Residents and the Environment of Alternate Growth Scenarios" is actually an interesting read for anyone following issues around taxation, spending and development in the HRM. The $2.8 billion price tag actually dwarfs the budget itself. Yet nothing in the budget is likely to significantly change that cost, because that cost is tied into issues around how and where development takes place in Halifax, which is dealt with in the HRM regional plan.
The Regional Plan is a 25 year blueprint outlining "where, when and how future growth and development should take place in HRM." All planning strategies, policies and regulations should flow from the regional plan. The current regional plan was passed in 2006, and runs until 2031. Although we are 7 years into the plan, we are only just now completing the first 5 year review of that plan.
One of the key targets in the plan is for population/housing growth. It was expected that the HRM would add 100,000 residents over 25 years, and that 25% of this growth should take place in the urban core (the Peninsula and downtown Dartmouth), 50% in the suburbs, and 25% in rural areas. That growth was to be concentrated in a number of growth centres located throughout HRM, where it could be easily and cost effectively serviced. Those targets are actually quite modest compared to other cities (Victoria, for example, has a target of essentially 90% within existing serviced areas). But they are a starting point in combating the urban sprawl HRM has been experiencing.
Yet, in the first 5 years of the Plan, we fell short of even those modest targets. Only 16% of growth took place in the urban core, while 56% took place in the suburbs, and 28% in rural areas. Indeed, one of the main issues raised in the review is the failure to reach these targets. What the Stantec report shows is that failure to achieve our targets comes with a very real cost to the municipality, and ultimately to the taxpayer.
Stantec was asked to look at what would happen to municipal tax revenues, service costs and other costs of living in HRM if we reach our regional plan targets (the "RMPS Goal"), versus what would happen if we stay on the current path of 16% urban growth (the "Base Case"). Stantec also looked at two other scenarios: if we increased targets to 40% urban, 40% suburban and 20% rural (Scenario A); and if we increased the targets further to 50% urban, 25% suburban, and 25% rural. They also considered certain health and environmental outcomes under all 4 scenarios. Their findings are very clear, and very striking.
As Stantec states in the report summary: "Results of our analysis clearly show the benefits of concentrating new residential development." In other words, under current development patterns, the cost of providing municipal services often exceeds the amount the municipality receives in property taxes, leading to spiralling service costs, and rising taxes. It also results in higher transportation costs, utility costs and other costs for citizens. Concentrating growth (or densification) means the HRM can provide municipal services more cost effectively to residents, leading to lower spending, lower taxes, and more money for improved services. It also decreases various economic costs to residents, making living in the HRM more affordable.
The report found that if we are able to get back on track and meet our RPMS targets, this will save the HRM and its residents close to $655 million over the next 18 years. However, if we were to raise the bar and increase our targets under Scenario B, the savings are closer to $2.8 billion. This breaks down to $148 million a year, which lowers the cost of living for all residents. The municipal portion could be passed on in the form if improved services, tax relief, or both.
The report goes on to say that for nearly all services assessed, Scenario B (50% growth in the urban core) is the best option. Scenario A (40% growth in urban core) is second best, although ranks first on transit use (mainly because more people walk under scenario B). Sticking with our current RPMS targets was the third best option, and the status quo ranks dead last in almost every category. The study also found that concentration of growth under Scenario B provides better health and environmental outcomes. The study further showed that increased walking and transit use meant shorter commute times for all users of our roads.
To date, our Regional Plan has not proven up to the task of concentrating growth in the HRM, and this carries huge financial, economic, environmental and social costs. Yet some municipal staff continue to resist changes to the regional plan that would help us get back on track. Citizens of the HRM, whether they want lower taxes, better transit, less traffic, or more greenspace, should be concerned, if not outraged, that the HRM knowingly and blindly continues to follow a failing development path.
Fortunately, it is not too late to change our course. The 5 year review process is ongoing: the plan is under review by the Community Design Advisory Committee, and a revised plan will soon be coming back to the public for final consultation, before going to council for approval. Groups like Our HRM Alliance have been working hard to propose solutions that address sprawl and build a more liveable, sustainable HRM. The public can have their say by attending a CDAC meeting, speaking at a public consultation, or contacting their councilor and urging them to support measures that will increase densification.
Changing our residential growth patterns will lead to a more sustainable HRM, financially, economically, environmentally and socially, now and in the future. It is ultimately up to us, the citizens of the Halifax Regional Municipality, to make that future a reality. A better city is in our grasp.
Yet the very next day, the HRM made public a report, by Stantec Consulting, which made it clear that sprawl could cost the HRM and its residents around $2.8 billion over the next 18 years. Yes, billion with a "B". Surprisingly, there has been much less public debate around this report than there was over much smaller line items in the budget.
This report, with the lengthy name "Quantifying the Costs and Benefits to HRM, Residents and the Environment of Alternate Growth Scenarios" is actually an interesting read for anyone following issues around taxation, spending and development in the HRM. The $2.8 billion price tag actually dwarfs the budget itself. Yet nothing in the budget is likely to significantly change that cost, because that cost is tied into issues around how and where development takes place in Halifax, which is dealt with in the HRM regional plan.
The Regional Plan is a 25 year blueprint outlining "where, when and how future growth and development should take place in HRM." All planning strategies, policies and regulations should flow from the regional plan. The current regional plan was passed in 2006, and runs until 2031. Although we are 7 years into the plan, we are only just now completing the first 5 year review of that plan.
One of the key targets in the plan is for population/housing growth. It was expected that the HRM would add 100,000 residents over 25 years, and that 25% of this growth should take place in the urban core (the Peninsula and downtown Dartmouth), 50% in the suburbs, and 25% in rural areas. That growth was to be concentrated in a number of growth centres located throughout HRM, where it could be easily and cost effectively serviced. Those targets are actually quite modest compared to other cities (Victoria, for example, has a target of essentially 90% within existing serviced areas). But they are a starting point in combating the urban sprawl HRM has been experiencing.
Yet, in the first 5 years of the Plan, we fell short of even those modest targets. Only 16% of growth took place in the urban core, while 56% took place in the suburbs, and 28% in rural areas. Indeed, one of the main issues raised in the review is the failure to reach these targets. What the Stantec report shows is that failure to achieve our targets comes with a very real cost to the municipality, and ultimately to the taxpayer.
Stantec was asked to look at what would happen to municipal tax revenues, service costs and other costs of living in HRM if we reach our regional plan targets (the "RMPS Goal"), versus what would happen if we stay on the current path of 16% urban growth (the "Base Case"). Stantec also looked at two other scenarios: if we increased targets to 40% urban, 40% suburban and 20% rural (Scenario A); and if we increased the targets further to 50% urban, 25% suburban, and 25% rural. They also considered certain health and environmental outcomes under all 4 scenarios. Their findings are very clear, and very striking.
As Stantec states in the report summary: "Results of our analysis clearly show the benefits of concentrating new residential development." In other words, under current development patterns, the cost of providing municipal services often exceeds the amount the municipality receives in property taxes, leading to spiralling service costs, and rising taxes. It also results in higher transportation costs, utility costs and other costs for citizens. Concentrating growth (or densification) means the HRM can provide municipal services more cost effectively to residents, leading to lower spending, lower taxes, and more money for improved services. It also decreases various economic costs to residents, making living in the HRM more affordable.
The report found that if we are able to get back on track and meet our RPMS targets, this will save the HRM and its residents close to $655 million over the next 18 years. However, if we were to raise the bar and increase our targets under Scenario B, the savings are closer to $2.8 billion. This breaks down to $148 million a year, which lowers the cost of living for all residents. The municipal portion could be passed on in the form if improved services, tax relief, or both.
The report goes on to say that for nearly all services assessed, Scenario B (50% growth in the urban core) is the best option. Scenario A (40% growth in urban core) is second best, although ranks first on transit use (mainly because more people walk under scenario B). Sticking with our current RPMS targets was the third best option, and the status quo ranks dead last in almost every category. The study also found that concentration of growth under Scenario B provides better health and environmental outcomes. The study further showed that increased walking and transit use meant shorter commute times for all users of our roads.
To date, our Regional Plan has not proven up to the task of concentrating growth in the HRM, and this carries huge financial, economic, environmental and social costs. Yet some municipal staff continue to resist changes to the regional plan that would help us get back on track. Citizens of the HRM, whether they want lower taxes, better transit, less traffic, or more greenspace, should be concerned, if not outraged, that the HRM knowingly and blindly continues to follow a failing development path.
Fortunately, it is not too late to change our course. The 5 year review process is ongoing: the plan is under review by the Community Design Advisory Committee, and a revised plan will soon be coming back to the public for final consultation, before going to council for approval. Groups like Our HRM Alliance have been working hard to propose solutions that address sprawl and build a more liveable, sustainable HRM. The public can have their say by attending a CDAC meeting, speaking at a public consultation, or contacting their councilor and urging them to support measures that will increase densification.
Changing our residential growth patterns will lead to a more sustainable HRM, financially, economically, environmentally and socially, now and in the future. It is ultimately up to us, the citizens of the Halifax Regional Municipality, to make that future a reality. A better city is in our grasp.
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Election Day in Halifax: The Start of a new Era?
It's election day in Halifax, and there is only one certain outcome: Halifax will have a new mayor. It's the end of the Peter Kelly era, as the man who has held the mayor's chair for the last twelve years exits under a cloud of scandal.
The assumption seems to be that former Dartmouth-Cole Harbour MP Mike Savage is a shoo-in to replace Kelly. Most of the polling showed him with a decisive lead over his closest competitors, retired police officer Tom Martin, and business owner Fred Connors. It remains to be seen if either Martin or Connors has been able to close the gap in the last few weeks of campaigning.
Regardless of who assumes the office of mayor, they face a number of challenges. Halifax's violent crime rate is among the highest in Canada. An infrastructure deficit means taxpayers could face a significant tab (estimated by Halifax Water to be in the order of $2 billion) to fix crumbling water and sewer infrastructure in the next several years. Halifax continues to underinvest in its downtown and urban core, and the city continues to sprawl at an unsustainable rate, failing to meet even the modest goals of its own 25 year regional plan.
However, the biggest challenge the mayor will face may be trying to get council on the same page and moving the city in the same direction. The previous council was described by many observers as "dysfunctional". Some councillors continue to put narrow parochial interests, no matter how small, ahead of the good of the municipality. Council has reversed its own decisions, and then sometimes reversed again, on more than one occasion. Council has been highly criticized for making many decisions behind closed doors in "in camera" sessions. And there is often a lack of public consultation on key issues: the costly Bayers Road/102 widening appears to be proceeding, despite a complete lack of public engagement or even a proper council hearing on the project.
Reality is that there will likely be many familiar faces on the new council. Barring a few upsets, due to the new district structure, some of the toughest races involve incumbents against incumbents. It is likely that the new council will look allot like the old one.
If Savage wins as expected, he will need to demonstrate the skills in working across political lines that he showed as an MP. If he can pull off the upset, Martin will need every bit of the street smarts he learned as a police officer. Similarly, Connors will need to show he can win over councillors with his ideas and enthusiasm.
Haligonians will need to temper their expectations with the reality that we have a weak mayoral system, which does not provide much power and authority to the mayor. He will have only one vote amongst 17 on council, and although his role as chair gives him some ability to control the agenda, that power is limited. The exercise sometimes looks a bit like herding cats. It remains to be seen if the new, smaller council size makes this task any easier.
The mayor will also have to deal with CAO Richard Butts, who in the year and a half since he joined the municipality from Toronto, seems to have carved out a large sphere of authority for himself.
Although some people have been underwhelmed by the mayoral campaign itself, I think there is one positive thing we can take from it. As an observer, I have seen a huge upsurge of new energy and new ideas around how to move this city forward. There is a sense that Halifax has tremendous potential and opportunities. There are numerous ways citizens can engage in moving the city forward, including the regional plan five year review, which is ongoing.
Regardless of who sits in the mayor's chair, or any other seat in council chamber, as citizens it is up to us over the next four years to hold their feet to the fire and ensure that we seize some of these opportunities, bring some of these new ideas to life, and see Halifax realize on its tremendous potential.
The assumption seems to be that former Dartmouth-Cole Harbour MP Mike Savage is a shoo-in to replace Kelly. Most of the polling showed him with a decisive lead over his closest competitors, retired police officer Tom Martin, and business owner Fred Connors. It remains to be seen if either Martin or Connors has been able to close the gap in the last few weeks of campaigning.
Regardless of who assumes the office of mayor, they face a number of challenges. Halifax's violent crime rate is among the highest in Canada. An infrastructure deficit means taxpayers could face a significant tab (estimated by Halifax Water to be in the order of $2 billion) to fix crumbling water and sewer infrastructure in the next several years. Halifax continues to underinvest in its downtown and urban core, and the city continues to sprawl at an unsustainable rate, failing to meet even the modest goals of its own 25 year regional plan.
However, the biggest challenge the mayor will face may be trying to get council on the same page and moving the city in the same direction. The previous council was described by many observers as "dysfunctional". Some councillors continue to put narrow parochial interests, no matter how small, ahead of the good of the municipality. Council has reversed its own decisions, and then sometimes reversed again, on more than one occasion. Council has been highly criticized for making many decisions behind closed doors in "in camera" sessions. And there is often a lack of public consultation on key issues: the costly Bayers Road/102 widening appears to be proceeding, despite a complete lack of public engagement or even a proper council hearing on the project.
Reality is that there will likely be many familiar faces on the new council. Barring a few upsets, due to the new district structure, some of the toughest races involve incumbents against incumbents. It is likely that the new council will look allot like the old one.
If Savage wins as expected, he will need to demonstrate the skills in working across political lines that he showed as an MP. If he can pull off the upset, Martin will need every bit of the street smarts he learned as a police officer. Similarly, Connors will need to show he can win over councillors with his ideas and enthusiasm.
Haligonians will need to temper their expectations with the reality that we have a weak mayoral system, which does not provide much power and authority to the mayor. He will have only one vote amongst 17 on council, and although his role as chair gives him some ability to control the agenda, that power is limited. The exercise sometimes looks a bit like herding cats. It remains to be seen if the new, smaller council size makes this task any easier.
The mayor will also have to deal with CAO Richard Butts, who in the year and a half since he joined the municipality from Toronto, seems to have carved out a large sphere of authority for himself.
Although some people have been underwhelmed by the mayoral campaign itself, I think there is one positive thing we can take from it. As an observer, I have seen a huge upsurge of new energy and new ideas around how to move this city forward. There is a sense that Halifax has tremendous potential and opportunities. There are numerous ways citizens can engage in moving the city forward, including the regional plan five year review, which is ongoing.
Regardless of who sits in the mayor's chair, or any other seat in council chamber, as citizens it is up to us over the next four years to hold their feet to the fire and ensure that we seize some of these opportunities, bring some of these new ideas to life, and see Halifax realize on its tremendous potential.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)