Tagged: Halifax Regional Municipality
Silver Don: How a progressive mayor might have handled OccupyNS
On his Green Interview website, Silver Donald Cameron imagines how an innovative, creative mayor might have responded to OccupyNS: He starts by quoting the late Allan O’Brien, mayor of Halifax from 1966 to 1971.
The Mayor has very little actual power – but he has the power to bring people together, to encourage action on matters that he considers important. He has the power to influence the public agenda. He has access to the press. And if you use those powers strategically, you can accomplish quite a bit.”
Cameron muses:
Imagine if Peter Kelly had that kind of awareness, that sense of direction, when he looked out the window in the middle of October. Imagine if he’d gone down there with his eyes and ears open. Who are you? Where do you come from? What do you do? When I asked those questions, I found I was talking with some very interesting people. An education graduate from St. Francis Xavier University who was playing a mad scientist in a children’s theatre. A sustainability consultant. A young boutique farmer. A Mi’maq veteran. A postal worker. A filmmaker.
Silver Donald Cameron at the Remembrance Day eviction
Okay (the Mayor might have said), let’s not talk too much about things that are clearly national or provincial. What are the things that municipal governments actually can affect? Food? Maybe we need an innovative urban agriculture policy. What do you think such a policy might look like? Homelessness? Let me get a couple of property developers and someone from the province down here, and let’s brainstorm a little. Tell me about youth unemployment. Say that again, will you – there’s an organization in Winnipeg called Build that trains street people to do energy refits? Fascinating. Let’s get someone from Winnipeg down here to talk about that. How can I reach them? (Answer )…
What if the Mayor had treated the occupiers respectfully, as though they were actually citizens whose voices deserved to be heard, whose ideas might have merit, whose concerns might reflect the concerns of other citizens? What if the city had welcomed the arrival of new ideas, new insights, a passionate commitment to a better future? What if the Mayor had paused to reflect that the young people among them were not aliens or monsters – or bums or dregs or scum, as they have been called by adult commentators who should know better? These are our own children, brought up in Dartmouth and Moser River, Blandford and Fairview. What if the Mayor had contemplated the possibility that those young people probably are the future?
What if the Mayor had acted not as a short-sighted enforcer of petty bylaws, but as the wise, patient leader of a functioning community?
If he had acted like that, Peter Kelly would have taught the occupiers that civic engagement actually works, that change is possible, that older people can and do welcome the energy of youth in the quest for a better tomorrow. Instead, he taught them the exact opposite – that their concerns are not of interest, that their involvement in politics is not welcome, that civic leaders cannot be trusted, that violence is just fine as long as it’s the police who start the brawl.
If Peter Kelly had found a fresh, positive way to engage with Occupy Nova Scotia, the news would have gone around the world – just as the news of the eviction has gone around the world. Other cities that are also trying to figure out what to do next would have taken note. Halifax would have looked like the thoughtful, creative community that it is. And Peter Kelly would have been a hero, a prime contender for higher political office had he chosen to pursue that.
Like I said, history just tossed Kelly the political opportunity of a lifetime. He blew it. And we are all diminished by his failure.
HRM’s abuse of power — feedback
Lots of reader mail on HRM’s use of force to evict Occupy Nova Scotia protesters camped out on the grassy strip known as Victoria Park. To start with, Juanita Mckenzie (writing on Facebook):
I think it was very distasteful to do this on Remembrance Day… I think the Halifax powers that be should be ashamed of themselves. If our youth don’t protest for their future what is the future going to have for them. I’m sorry I may not know exactly all the facts of the Protesters, but they were respectful of the veterans. They should have been given at least that respect back. The Powers that Be knew when they were talking to the protesters that they were planning their attack, and that is totally disgraceful and dishonest bargaining in my books. Shame on Mayor Kelly and his thugs.
C. Llyod disagreed:
The HRM did absolutely the right thing – evicting these campers – they were tolerated for too long. Let’s see now if they can actually act like protesters – or maybe go one step further and act responsibly and contribute to society, get a job, a useful education or even run for mayor.
So did Mark Pearl:
Disappointed to read today’s commentary. You fail to consider all users of public space. Protesting is one thing and camping is another.
John Chesal struck a common theme among those who upset over Mayor Kelly’s action:
What galls me most about this sorry situation is the duplicity shown by the Mayor in “negotiating” with the protestors. He led them to believe they would be permitted to protest, if they would leave Grand Parade in time for Remembrance Day ceremonies. To their credit, they agreed. It now seems the Mayor had no interest in allowing the protest to continue, he just wanted to move them to a less prominent place, so he could sneak up behind them with his police force and do what he’d intended all along. This guy has no honour. His word means nothing. We now see the kind of treatment people can expect when dealing with this snivelling backstabber. It’s no wonder he holds council meetings in secret. That way, he can keep his electorate from seeing him as he really is.
A journalist friend sounds the same note:
I was glad to see Dan Arsenault press the mayor on the question of whether or not he had tricked the Occupy folks by getting them to leave the Grand Parade for the Remembrance Day ceremonies. Kelly stuck to his key message, namely that Council had made the decision Tuesday night. I presume that means “I let them think they could come back, but Council made me renege.”
Given that no one reported such a decision after Council’s Tuesday meeting, it must have been made in camera. Section 19 of Halifax’s charter allows secret meetings on matters of “public security” or to “give direction to staff.” The topics discussed are to be made public, but not the details. Public security is not defined. I also note that the Occupy people were arrested for obstruction of justice rather than violation of a bylaw.
So. It seems to me that if the demonstrators are to held accountable for violating a bylaw, His Worship and company should be accountable for their devious approach to public business.
Or is it just me?
It’s not just him. Roberta Clair writes:
Bravo Contrarian. Thank you for this article, it’s a nice start to my day.
Jay McNeil, writing on Facebook
I think the entire think has been botched from the get-go.
It was a sad day when the veterans had to go sit in a tent to negotiate with the protesters about them leaving for the Remembrance Day Service. The negotiation was great to see, but I think the protesters could have shown some more respect and met somewhere else. And I think it’s a sad day when veterans who fought to keep us free watch a peaceful assembly end in violence and arrests. The failure for officials to deal with this properly isn’t just upsetting for those who were protesting, and those who supported them. It’s disappointing, I’m sure, to the soldiers who were willing to give their lives, if need be, so that things could be done differently here.
Another journalist friend on Facebook:
Actually, one of the most inspiring elements of the story, if you ask me, was the relationship that developed between the veterans and the protesters. From the very beginning, the head of the Legion was commenting to the media about what well spoken, and (in her words) well brought up young people the activists were. The veterans offered to meet them in that tent as a sign of good will. That was their choice, and I not only respect that, I honour it. Yesterday, the protesters asked if they could lay a wreath at the service. They were given the honor of doing so… and accompanied by a veteran who volunteered to walk up with them.
Biosolids panic – rebuttal
Responding to my response to his earlier response to Lindsay Brown’s letter to HRM Councilor Jerry Blumenthal decrying council’s decision to spend $50,000 repeating decades of studies that have confirmed the safety of biosolid use in agriculture, Cliff White writes:
Halifax Harbour is certainly cleaner then it was. Well, as long as it hasn’t rained in three days, and thank god we get so little precipitation here abouts. And it would be churlish of me to mention that the sewage plants don’t meet the new federal regulations for what can be released into the ocean, so I won’t.
Let me just point out that I originally sent the list from USEPA because you had suggested there was no scientific basis for the concern people were expressing about exposure to sewage sludge. My point was, and is, that there is valid scientific concern, or governments and other institutions, across the developed world at least, wouldn’t be testing the damn stuff.
Since 1999 Centre for Disease Control in the US has been measuring 219 chemicals found in people’s blood and urine. These of account for only a small number of the many tens of thousands of chemicals in use today, many more of which likely end up in our bodies. Besides the chemicals in the sludge, of course, there are also pathogens and there are many peer-reviewed papers looking at how sludge containing these products effects the environment, people, and other animals who live in it. The reality is the debate goes on, and it’s a valid one. It isn’t just the individual products in our bodies, the chemicals, heavy metals and bacteria, but how interact with one another.
If people are happy adding a few more dozen chemicals to their internal environment, that’s fine with me. But those who prefer to limit their intake should have an equal right to do so. If farmers want to use sewage sludge on their land, then the resulting products should be labelled to indicate they were produced in this way. Those who wish to add a few more of the above mentioned chemicals and such to their internal environment can do so freely, and everybody else can continue to try and avoid them.
Now there’s a thought. Does this mean the thousands of Nova Scotians who pay extra for local, organic food grown in untreated farm manure should have the benefit of warning labels to alert them to the pathogens and heavy metals that time-honored organic fertilizer contains? Here’s a slide Andrew Carpenter of Northern Tilth presented to the 2006 New England Residuals and Biosolids Conference:
So, poultry manure spread on fields has 48 times as much fecal coliform bacteria as uncomposted municipal biosolids; and 65,000 times as much as composted biosolids like those produced at HRM’s new plant. Cow manure has 125 times as much fecal coliform as untreated biosolids, and 171,000 times as much as composted biosolids.
For trace amounts of heavy metals, the picture is more mixed:
The values shown are in parts per million. NT means not tested. Biosolids and poultry manure were about on a par for most metals; cow manure slightly lower. All three were well below the levels contained in phosphate fertilizer. Remember, we are talking about metals that can be harmful in high concentrations, but which are essential to life in very small quantities. That’s why they are found in vitamin supplements:
The level of heavy metals in Rite Aid Central-Vite Multivitamin-Mineral tablets dwarfs that in biosolids and untreated manure. Of course, Rite Aid is a US brand, but Canadians can get multivitamin mineral tablets at — what do you call those places? Oh yeah, health food stores.
Further reading:
- FERTILIZERS, MANURE, OR BIOSOLIDS? – Researchers compare the benefits and risks of fertilizers and soil amendments by Steve Spicer in Water Environment & Technology Publication, Vol. 14, No. 7, July 2002, p. 32
- Biosolids verses other Plant Nutrient Sources: A Cursory Comparison of Benefits and Risks, presented by Andrew Carpenter of Northern Tilth at the New Engliand Residuals and Biosolids Conference, 2002.
- Biosolids: Targeted National Sewage Sludge Survey Report – Overview, US Environmental Protection Agency, 2009.
A Halifax resident writes her councillor
Contrarian has previously voiced astonishment that environmentalists — more accurately crackpots posing as environmentalists — would oppose a recycling project that transforms harmful municipal waste into a valuable organic fertilizer here and here. We’re also chagrinned the Halifax media’s gullibility and lack of interest in actual scientific information about the topic. Now, a North End resident has voiced similar incredulity in a letter to District 11 councillor Jerry Blumenthal:
Dear Mr. Blumenthal,
For a long time, I couldn’t understand why Haligonians keep comparing their city to tiny Moncton, but now I’m beginning to get it. And I’m not referring to Moncton’s apparently inexplicable ability to host major concerts.
Halifax has set aside $100,000 to study whether its own biosolids, produced according to a plan established at least five years ago, are safe. All of the hundreds of similar studies done in the past 80 or more years are evidently insufficient, no doubt because they didn’t benefit from the special scienctific perspective available only in HRM. And it seems there is no obligation for opponents to biosolids to produce any reputable science supporting their position. All this because staff made the mistake of mixing the material with wet compost and causing a stink in Clayton Park. We’re spending $100,000 to investigate a bad smell in Clayton Park that has come and gone.
Meanwhile, Moncton is selling its biosolids by the bag back to the citizens who generated it in the first place as a fertilizer branded “Gardner’s Gold.” Even better, they’re getting the equivalent of $40 a tonne for it, roughly four times what HRM gets from farmers still brave enough to buy its material.
At this point, convention requires me to make a bitter reference to the Great Cat Bylaw Debate, or HRM’s inability to join the rest of the province in mandating clear garbage bags, but I’m just too tired.
Sincerely,
Lindsay Brown
Lawyer cautions HRM: end poster harassment
Halifax Regional Municipality has retreated, tail between legs, from its unconstitutional war on music festival posters. The lawyer who faced them down wants to make sure the tail stays put.
just as the issue was going to trial, municipal prosecutors dropped charges against Evolve Festival organizer Jonas Colter, whom HRM police had pursued with unseemly vigor for advertising the alternative music event on sidewalk utility poles.
That’s a relief for Colter, who was facing $4500 in fines, but a disappointment for lawyer Gordon Allen, who believed his bro bono had a strong case on free speech grounds. Allen hoped a court judgment would deter similar police mischief in future. He has urged the municipal prosecutor’s office to advise by police of the unenforceability of the city’s restrictive poster bylaw, and warned them he will offer to represent anyone similarly charged at no cost.
“Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of a healthy, functioning society,” Allen said.
Contrarian says, “Let 10,000 posters bloom.” Posters are visual evidence of the city’s thriving arts, music, and theatre culture. The culture they reflect is a big part of what makes the city a great place to live and visit. It adds enormously to our economy and to the quality of our lives. Too bad HRM officials can’t seem to get that.
Prosecution for the poor; free pass for Harold MacKay
In response to this, Contrarian reader Corey Clamp asks:
Another question, albeit more uncomfortable: Why does it seem acceptable to most that these funds have been lost?
We often hear people talking about abuses of our social assistance system: EI fraud, welfare mothers collecting our hard earned tax dollars for nothing, etc., etc. I work in community and have witnessed some of these ‘frauds’ that others complain of (food money being used for power? Oh my!), but I also witness every day the daunting bureaucracy these individuals must face in order to get their $514 to $850 dollars/month.
We seem to worry that those without are not equipped to deal with monies of any amount, and hence must be made to feel accountable. Unfortunately, as has been demonstrated time and again, this worry is misplaced. Those with means seem quick to play footloose and fancy free with our tax dollars, and can you blame them? What happens when they lose it all? Nothing.
Absolutely nothing.
Steve Streatch and the Lobby of the Lazy
Contrarian is not the Nova Scotia blog of record, but I don’t want HRM Council’s latest act of craven irresponsibility to pass uncommented upon. Neither does Contrarian reader Lindsay Brown, who writes:
What is it about the Halifax lifestyle that produces more embarrassing stuff in just two weeks than you can put in a single opaque garbage bag? What am I missing?
The facts are simple. Nova Scotia was a pioneer in trash sorting, diversion, and recycling, thanks to visionary provincial legislation. These measures were necessary to slow the pace of landfill growth, given the horrendous obstacles to siting new dumps. After rapid early progress, HRM stalled at about 60 percent diversion. That means roughly four out of 10 items that could be diverted, composted, or recycled instead require expensive secondary sorting or end up in landfills.
The reason is no secret: Many people can’t be bothered to sort or recycle. That lobby of the lazy, led by Councillor Steve Streatch, famous for fretting that immigrants will dilute Nova Scotia’s population, persuaded a majority of HRM councillors to reject staff proposals to join many other Nova Scotia municipalities in mandating clear plastic bags for most trash (with a single opaque bag permitted for unmentionables and unviewables). Moistened finger to the wind, Mayor Peter Kelly followed the noisy band.
Someday, a future mayor and council will have no choice but to do the right thing and pass the rule it rejected this week. The financial, environmental, and most of all, political cost of siting new landfills will force their hand. In the meantime, we will waste more money and cause more damage to the environment. Thanks, boys.
Real parking czars don’t stop at tickets – updates
Extreme Contrarian friend BT writes:
I support execution for people who violate the parking ban. Humanely, of course. Deputize the plow drivers so they can haul the outlaws out of their beds on the spot and shoot them in the back of the head, Chinese-style. (“This ain’t no feather-duster I’m packing.”) Many Halifax drivers are smarter than coyotes, so after half a dozen or so shootings, the streets will be clear. Real clear, if you get my drift.
More moderate Contrarian reader JS has paid three tickets for his son’s lack of access to parking at night—the plates are still in Dad’s name.
In the case you describe as in probably many other similar situations, we are left with the choice of the devil and the deep blue sea. Surely someone could come up with a permitting system for those who have no reasonable choice. It disturbs me that there are numerous examples across the country of reasonable accommodation for winter parking yet HRM does not seem interested in any compromises.
Parking czar, please note – updated
Contrarian reader Jim Guild writes:
In Montreal, which gets a shitload of snow (to use a complex meteorological term), I believe they still allow parking on one half of most residential streets. On odd-numbered days, drivers can park on the side of the street where odd-numbered houses are located; on even-numbered days they can park on the other side. This means that local residents don’t have to rent parking for the winter, out-of-towners can visit overnight, Victor Syperek’s buddies can still be designated drivers for their drinking friends, and the snow ploughs can still make the roads passable.
Reader Gary Campbell disagrees:
You’re right about one thing, it is a small issue, so let it go. Hell, you are not even a resident of HRM. If it were not for you and a drunk nightclub owner, this would not be an issue at all. The so-called parking czar is indeed accountable to elected officials who have the power to change the bylaw. I noticed you mention nothing about how street parking prevents plows from opening the street to vehicles in an emergency. In the time it would take to have the offender towed, lives could be lost, but I suppose causing you some inconvenience is the greater evil. Let’s leave this issue to the residents of HRM many of whom agree with the ban.
I am, in fact, a part-time resident of HRM. The driveway my house shares with another often has one more car than parking spaces. The last car blocks everyone else in, requiring negotiations among three households (one house is a duplex) to determine who will be leaving in what order in the morning. Having one car (usually mine) park on the street avoids this.
That’s no problem when snow is falling and streets need clearing, but on clear nights when no snow plowing is underway, it’s an unnecessary imposition by overreaching officials who find it inconvenient to make distinctions between nights when a ban is needed and nights when it is not.
The safety issue is specious. Is there a single instance in the last five years when on-street parking has prevented plows from opening streets to emergency vehicles and a life has been lost as a result? I’m unaware of any. There may, however, have been cases where fear of fines encouraged the impaired to drive home when then should have left their car on the street.
I am not opposed to a parking ban. On the contrary, I favor vigorous enforcement—heavy fines, towing—during storms. But I oppose fines for that purpose when there is no snow clearing taking place.
Jim Guild’s suggestion of an alternate side rule would also solve the alleged problem.
Halifax’s parking czar relents—for now
Halifax’s unaccountable parking czar Ken Reashor used his arbitrary powers yesterday to end the Halifax peninsula parking ban 26 days earlier than expected.
The ban held sway for 84 days, from December 14 through March 4. I can’t find actual snowfall data for that period, but the table below (sources here and here) shows average snow conditions in Halifax (the only data available to officials when they impose the ban).
So in an average year, the 84-days period from December 14 through March 4 would include about 16 days with snowfall and about 68 without.
Why not target the 16 days when a ban is actually needed, with towing blitzes and much stiffer fines? Why not focus on the miscreants who actually interfere with snow removal and stop inconveniencing responsible car owners for an entire winter? It’s not as though Halifax sends trucks around on non-snowy nights to push snow back to the curb.
Ah but it’s so much more convenient for snow-removal bureaucrats to kick everyone off the streets all the time. Much more lucrative, too. Czar Reashor’s raiders issued 7,637 tickets during the ban, for a windfall revenue of $381.850, 81 percent of which presumably came on nights when no snow fell.
Czar Reashor is unaccountable in that city council can neither fire him nor tell him how to do his job. Only provincial transportation minister Bill Estabrooks can do that. Estabrooks, who represents a part of HRM where the ban is not imposed, bobs and weaves on the topic, insisting he needs direction from HRM Council and a change in legislation before protecting citizens from over-reaching bureaucrats. He’d sing a different tune if they ticketed in Timberlea.
Non-peninsular HRM councillors, who get the windfall revenue but not the aggravation, smugly stall for time. Two weeks ago, they rejected downtown councillor Dawn Marie Sloane’s proposal that council write Estabrooks asking him to ease up on the ban. Outlying councillors insisted a committee first study the issue—and report back once the 2011 ban is moot.
In the Great Scheme, this is a small issue. But it is emblematic of the arrogance that overtakes people with power: the comfortable notion that citizens must serve the convenience of officials, not the other way round.
