Newfoundland developer Paul Madden says city council does not respect its planning department.
Madden was visibly frustrated after council voted 7-3 Monday night against allowing him to proceed with a 10-unit condominium as infill development on the Charlottetown waterfront.
Couns. Kim Devine, Mitchell Tweel, Terry Bernard, David MacDonald, Cecil Villard, Melissa Hilton and Danny Redmond voted to reject Madden's application. Couns. Peter McCloskey, Rob Lantz and Stu MacFadyen believed the project should proceed.
Council rejected the project even though the city's planning department recommended that it should be approved.
"I guess council has decided that they don't respect their planning department. How would you read it?'' Madden told the media following the vote. "If your bosses don't agree with what you recommend . . . I guess they spend a lot of money on the planning department for no reason because it shows a lack of confidence in your planning.''
Devine, who chairs the planning committee, said the planning board only issues a recommendation to council. It is then up to council how the vote will go.
"Council considers planning board's recommendation and then it comes to council and what council does is considers planning board's recommendation and whatever other factors that a councillor may feel is important and makes his or her decision,'' Devine said.
The planning committee chair said she went against her own staff's recommendation because Madden knew full well the plan council did approve was a three-storey building and 36,000 square feet. The application Madden had before council Monday night went beyond that.
"We went to a public meeting in November of 2008 on increased density for that site. We had a number of people turn out to that meeting and they spoke loud and clear, they do not want dense development on that waterfront site.''
In December 2009, this council turned down increased density for that site.
The building in question would have been built between the condominium unit Madden has currently under construction on the waterfront and Founders' Hall.
Since Madden owns the property between the two buildings (to within 10 feet of Founders' Hall) it leaves a big question - what is going to happen to the current vacant land?
The city can't do anything with it because it sold that land to Madden.
There's about 160 feet between the condo project under construction and Founders' Hall.
At the moment, there are two large piles of sand sitting there.
"(The city) forced me to put it there,'' Madden said of the 20-unit condominium project that is currently under construction at 4 Prince St.
"Now they've got this big gaping hole and when you look through you see that great big Hippo (Harbour Hippo) and you see two great big mounds of sand 60 or 70 feet high.
"Is that what they want to look at on Prince Street? Is this what they want Regis and Kelly looking out at? I guess it is.''
The ABC daytime show Live with Regis and Kelly will be doing four one-hour shows from the adjacent Confederation Landing Park next month.''
Madden said eventually the city, either this council or the next one, will determine that something needs to happen to that vacant lot.
Madden said he might be prepared to enter into negotiations to sell that vacant lot to the city or CADC.
The developer's original proposal was for a 53-unit condominium project.
He scaled that down to one 20-unit and one 10-unit building. Council approved the 20 units (that project is underway) but rejected the remaining 10 units Monday night.
Madden said he's already spent more than $10 million and isn't sure if he'll bother appealing the decision.
Council votes against waterfront condo project
- Published on June 15th, 2010
- Published on July 8th, 2010
-
Dave Stewart
- Number of views : 1336
- Rate
- Top of the page
Comments
-
- bob
- - July 8th, 2010 at 19:22:08
Good work council. Why should Charlottetown sacrifice its waterfront just so Mr Madden can get richer ? This shows good foresight in maintaining what space remains on the waterfront for future generations.
-
- robbie
- - July 8th, 2010 at 19:18:06
i knew when i met kim devine that she was trouble before she even got elected. i said to friends at the time she was voted in that her riding was going to regret it. She knows nothing about development and if its NOT her idea then it gets shut down. This developer has money to spend and he wants to spend it here. let him.!!! why would the province sell the land to someone and then do everything they can to hinder development of the land that was sold to him?? I have supported Clifford for years but if he doesn't do something about kim I think i will have to change my vote. question to city hall??? if it was a local guy with the last name of oh lets say....banks, murphy, etc would it have been approved? thought so!!!! stop turning away ppl who want to invest on the island and pay hefty taxes while doing the projects. let them give us their money, goodness knows we have lost alot with polar, PNP, NOFG, beef plant...and i could go on and on. I'm sure i have gotten my point out there
-
- Bobbie
- - July 8th, 2010 at 19:12:00
What I find most disturbing is that the councillors who voted against their own committee and a company who is obviously interested in bringing development, jobs and tax dollars to the area appear to have failed to provide valid reasons for going against their committee and development in general. I find it hard to believe that the City and a Developer cannot have discussion and conditions cannot be imposed to ensure that integrity is maintained and the waterfront is accessible to all residents. I also agree - a big sand pile near what is supposed to be a tourist and resident friendly area of the City is by far too distracting and a failure to our citizens.
-
- PEI
- - July 8th, 2010 at 19:08:10
Thank goodness! As for listening to the 'planning' department, one look around Charlottetown will tell you they have no vision - why should they listen to them?
-
- Downtowner
- - July 8th, 2010 at 19:07:52
Congratulations to those councillors who put a stop to what is an unsympathetic development so close to an iconic waterfront landmark, Founders' Hall. A big thankyou to Kim Devine for responding to residents concern about cluttering an area we care about and pay taxes in. The planning department are not elected, they are selected... they will no doubt have an opportunity at some point to approve another more imaginative and suitable project for that piece of land, doing our legacy justice. We are responsible for ensuring that we leave for future generations a shoreline that is accessible for all members of our community to enjoy and be proud of. Developers' money cannot buy the type of contentment that comes with preserving our precious green space.
-
- Leo
- - July 8th, 2010 at 18:56:24
Good for City Council!!!
I don't very often agree with them and their decisions but I do on this one and they should just tell madden to go Back to Newfoundland and build his buildings there.
The last thing the Charlottetown Waterfront needs is more Condos. Cahrlottetown is becoming condo happy..if it keeps going Charlottetown will become like the Province did when it was building Golf Courses.
Madden maybe needs to learn that the Charlottetown Watrefront is NOT his own little development area and that the resindents are the people who vote for the City Councillors and NOT Madden. -
- D.J.
- - July 8th, 2010 at 18:31:10
This is election year...lets Vote Out City Council by a 7 to 3 margin.
-
- Mell
- - July 8th, 2010 at 18:22:12
Councillor Devine is nothing but a trouble maker- if it is not her development, it is a big no to anyone who wants to build these units which will be a source of tax revenue for the city- how stupid is her thinking on this. She has been instrumental in holding up or vetoing other projects in the past. The developer wants to put up something that is pleasing to the waterfront-not junk- and a source of taxes for the city and should be allowed to proceed; especially, when the city planning department has approved it- Devine should not be the head of this department; she is a trouble maker and a deterent to the city.
-
- robbie is wrong
- - July 8th, 2010 at 18:19:49
robbie from ch'town, pei is wrong on one thing here he said let them give us their money, goodness knows we have lost alot with polar, PNP, NOFG, beef plant...and i could go on and on. I'm sure i have gotten my point out there
well the fact of the matter is that the PNP is not governement money it is private money, so we haven't lost a thing with the pnp program, and i for one agree with the PNP program(not all of it but most of it!) because its the only reason pei posted economic growth and we led canada by doing that!
So Do your research before you type something in..... -
- wow
- - July 8th, 2010 at 18:11:36
honey i dont give a darn what regis and kathy look at .
-
- lorne
- - July 8th, 2010 at 17:58:49
The planning dept.appears to think the council members are no more than a rubber stamp and must kow tow to the demands of the planners. That isn't how democracy works.
If ever the council must abide by the demands of the planners, the swastika should be raised over city hall. -
- Gary
- - July 8th, 2010 at 17:32:22
Paul,
The city of Summerside recently saw its waterfront mall go up for sale by a bankrupt Irish real estate developer.
Why don't you buy it and complete the planned condos on top of the mall?
Summerside has the available property already for sale for your waterfront condo project without having to go through a harbour authority. -
- Quiet
- - July 8th, 2010 at 16:53:10
Given that the existing condos of Maddens are already there and that there will be little or no other reasonable use for this land, I question City Council's decision. Having driven down there for a look, from both sides, I really do not see how putting up this building could do anything other than improve things down there.
This is the same City Council that approved Homburg to build the towering pimple hotel downtown and the Tim Banks Hotel mile high unit. Yet they complain about a 4 level building?
Also, City Council continues to struggle to get more people to live downtown. Does downtown stop at Prince Street?
Just because this is the waterfront, that doesn't mean everyone need get paranoid. Charlottetown has done an excellent job of preserving the waterfront for access and use by Islanders. Confederation Landing Park is a beautiful facility, and the waterfront Boardwalk is a wonderfull thing for everyone. I tip my hat to the City and the CADC for this.
However, putting this building where it was proposed will not detract from public access and usgae of our waterfront in any way, and it will certainly improve the esthetics of this vacant lot. -
- did it again
- - July 8th, 2010 at 16:52:54
Way to go Council. Again you have shown the people that you will not let improvements and common sense get in the way of stupidity. Well done.
-
- matthew
- - July 8th, 2010 at 16:52:43
I think it is very clear that the whole process is flawed. By all means elected officials should have a voice. However, city councilors are, for the most part, not town planers and have limited experience in this field. If council is to reject the planning boards recommendation there should be guidelines in place so that the developer and the planing department can know WHY the plan was rejected. In essence there should be criteria council must follow to overturn a recommendation by their professional bureaucrats. That is, if certain criteria are not meet, council should not have the right to reject a proposal. This would act in two ways. For example, council could not blindly say yes to an application that did not receive a recommendation by the planing board if it did not meet certain criteria(It has happened before). This would serve as a simple check and balance.
An all encompassing rejection serves only those with underwritten agendas. Council should explain to the developer and planing department why the application was rejected so that future applications can be adjusted accordingly. Further more, we must give citizens a voice as well, but not to an end where they can dictate how a private citizen used private property. If people want parkland, this site is not the answer(unless the city buys it) It's more or less someones yard. -
- A
- - July 8th, 2010 at 16:41:21
Thank you city council for having the common sense to realize we are saturated with condo projects and excessive waterfront construction!!! Mr. Madden may be upset but he must realize the the citizens of Charlottetown don't want their waterfront to be shut off to them for private condos and the council represents municipal citizens, not his interests. It's pathetic that you ever were sold that land to construct there in the first place! The condos that were constructed there look ridiculous squeezed into where they are. Geez, make a green space to make what you've already built more attractive...it could certainly use an uplift!
-
- kim devine
- - July 8th, 2010 at 16:40:13
kim devine is embarassing to my ward, she hasnt done a thing to represent my area, and then voted down this? what is wrong with her? .... we need someone new in ward 1, young and filled with energy to get the job done. .... i will not be supporting her, next election day
-
- Fed Up
- - July 8th, 2010 at 16:10:17
Good move Charlottetown
-
- sense and nonsense
- - July 8th, 2010 at 15:49:30
Sensible statement by Mr Madden: of course council doesn't respect the planning department. That's not news. Nonsensical statement: Implying the condo will be finished in time for Regis and Kelly.
-
- What?
- - July 8th, 2010 at 15:49:19
How come they approved the concert site when dozens of residents spoke vehemently against it, but rejected the condos with only minimal public reaction. If the condos hadn't been at the same meeting as the concert site, I doubt if any public would have been there at all.
-
- Mike East
- - July 8th, 2010 at 15:12:55
The really sad part here is that anyone actually thought City Council might show some vision. I believe the developer is right - The planning dept recommended the project, yet council votes it down. Why bother having a planning dept at all? Why not just approve or disallow projects at each council meeting. It seems to be the way they want to run the city, and you would save the costs of a planning dept.
Again I agree, the two mountains of sand and all the heavy equipment moving them are not what I would think residents, or the cameras of the Regis and Kelly show would like to see.
I say keep the planning dept, and do away with some of these small minded councillors.
Clifford and the rest of them get in the news and cry and moan they want development in the city, but at every opportunity fight development. makes you wonder if they have any idea what they are doing. -
- jean
- - July 8th, 2010 at 15:11:01
cry baby cry
-
- Smurphy
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:53:14
Hmmmm
So the concert park suggested by Tourism Charlottown gets a go and this does not.
TC board includes Kevin Murphy. The office of TC is owned by Kevin Murphy. The CEO of TC was a former biz partner of Kevin Murphy. The neighboring busineses such as Wendy's and Tims are owned by Kevin's brother Danny and I het would be selling to concerts.
Kevin sells food and drink to concerts and I bet he's back again this year after not doing it last year (you figure that out).
A quality project gets the boot and the person can't do what they want with their land.
Would he be have been better of if his name was Murphy? -
- bob
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:53:03
Good work council. Why should Charlottetown sacrifice its waterfront just so Mr Madden can get richer ? This shows good foresight in maintaining what space remains on the waterfront for future generations.
-
- robbie
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:53:02
i knew when i met kim devine that she was trouble before she even got elected. i said to friends at the time she was voted in that her riding was going to regret it. She knows nothing about development and if its NOT her idea then it gets shut down. This developer has money to spend and he wants to spend it here. let him.!!! why would the province sell the land to someone and then do everything they can to hinder development of the land that was sold to him?? I have supported Clifford for years but if he doesn't do something about kim I think i will have to change my vote. question to city hall??? if it was a local guy with the last name of oh lets say....banks, murphy, etc would it have been approved? thought so!!!! stop turning away ppl who want to invest on the island and pay hefty taxes while doing the projects. let them give us their money, goodness knows we have lost alot with polar, PNP, NOFG, beef plant...and i could go on and on. I'm sure i have gotten my point out there
-
- Bobbie
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:53:01
What I find most disturbing is that the councillors who voted against their own committee and a company who is obviously interested in bringing development, jobs and tax dollars to the area appear to have failed to provide valid reasons for going against their committee and development in general. I find it hard to believe that the City and a Developer cannot have discussion and conditions cannot be imposed to ensure that integrity is maintained and the waterfront is accessible to all residents. I also agree - a big sand pile near what is supposed to be a tourist and resident friendly area of the City is by far too distracting and a failure to our citizens.
-
- Downtowner
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:53:00
Congratulations to those councillors who put a stop to what is an unsympathetic development so close to an iconic waterfront landmark, Founders' Hall. A big thankyou to Kim Devine for responding to residents concern about cluttering an area we care about and pay taxes in. The planning department are not elected, they are selected... they will no doubt have an opportunity at some point to approve another more imaginative and suitable project for that piece of land, doing our legacy justice. We are responsible for ensuring that we leave for future generations a shoreline that is accessible for all members of our community to enjoy and be proud of. Developers' money cannot buy the type of contentment that comes with preserving our precious green space.
-
- PEI
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:53:00
Thank goodness! As for listening to the 'planning' department, one look around Charlottetown will tell you they have no vision - why should they listen to them?
-
- Leo
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:52:58
Good for City Council!!!
I don't very often agree with them and their decisions but I do on this one and they should just tell madden to go Back to Newfoundland and build his buildings there.
The last thing the Charlottetown Waterfront needs is more Condos. Cahrlottetown is becoming condo happy..if it keeps going Charlottetown will become like the Province did when it was building Golf Courses.
Madden maybe needs to learn that the Charlottetown Watrefront is NOT his own little development area and that the resindents are the people who vote for the City Councillors and NOT Madden. -
- D.J.
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:52:47
This is election year...lets Vote Out City Council by a 7 to 3 margin.
-
- Mell
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:52:46
Councillor Devine is nothing but a trouble maker- if it is not her development, it is a big no to anyone who wants to build these units which will be a source of tax revenue for the city- how stupid is her thinking on this. She has been instrumental in holding up or vetoing other projects in the past. The developer wants to put up something that is pleasing to the waterfront-not junk- and a source of taxes for the city and should be allowed to proceed; especially, when the city planning department has approved it- Devine should not be the head of this department; she is a trouble maker and a deterent to the city.
-
- robbie is wrong
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:52:45
robbie from ch'town, pei is wrong on one thing here he said let them give us their money, goodness knows we have lost alot with polar, PNP, NOFG, beef plant...and i could go on and on. I'm sure i have gotten my point out there
well the fact of the matter is that the PNP is not governement money it is private money, so we haven't lost a thing with the pnp program, and i for one agree with the PNP program(not all of it but most of it!) because its the only reason pei posted economic growth and we led canada by doing that!
So Do your research before you type something in..... -
- wow
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:52:44
honey i dont give a darn what regis and kathy look at .
-
- lorne
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:52:42
The planning dept.appears to think the council members are no more than a rubber stamp and must kow tow to the demands of the planners. That isn't how democracy works.
If ever the council must abide by the demands of the planners, the swastika should be raised over city hall. -
- Gary
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:52:37
Paul,
The city of Summerside recently saw its waterfront mall go up for sale by a bankrupt Irish real estate developer.
Why don't you buy it and complete the planned condos on top of the mall?
Summerside has the available property already for sale for your waterfront condo project without having to go through a harbour authority. -
- matthew
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:52:29
I think it is very clear that the whole process is flawed. By all means elected officials should have a voice. However, city councilors are, for the most part, not town planers and have limited experience in this field. If council is to reject the planning boards recommendation there should be guidelines in place so that the developer and the planing department can know WHY the plan was rejected. In essence there should be criteria council must follow to overturn a recommendation by their professional bureaucrats. That is, if certain criteria are not meet, council should not have the right to reject a proposal. This would act in two ways. For example, council could not blindly say yes to an application that did not receive a recommendation by the planing board if it did not meet certain criteria(It has happened before). This would serve as a simple check and balance.
An all encompassing rejection serves only those with underwritten agendas. Council should explain to the developer and planing department why the application was rejected so that future applications can be adjusted accordingly. Further more, we must give citizens a voice as well, but not to an end where they can dictate how a private citizen used private property. If people want parkland, this site is not the answer(unless the city buys it) It's more or less someones yard. -
- did it again
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:52:29
Way to go Council. Again you have shown the people that you will not let improvements and common sense get in the way of stupidity. Well done.
-
- Quiet
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:52:29
Given that the existing condos of Maddens are already there and that there will be little or no other reasonable use for this land, I question City Council's decision. Having driven down there for a look, from both sides, I really do not see how putting up this building could do anything other than improve things down there.
This is the same City Council that approved Homburg to build the towering pimple hotel downtown and the Tim Banks Hotel mile high unit. Yet they complain about a 4 level building?
Also, City Council continues to struggle to get more people to live downtown. Does downtown stop at Prince Street?
Just because this is the waterfront, that doesn't mean everyone need get paranoid. Charlottetown has done an excellent job of preserving the waterfront for access and use by Islanders. Confederation Landing Park is a beautiful facility, and the waterfront Boardwalk is a wonderfull thing for everyone. I tip my hat to the City and the CADC for this.
However, putting this building where it was proposed will not detract from public access and usgae of our waterfront in any way, and it will certainly improve the esthetics of this vacant lot. -
- A
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:52:27
Thank you city council for having the common sense to realize we are saturated with condo projects and excessive waterfront construction!!! Mr. Madden may be upset but he must realize the the citizens of Charlottetown don't want their waterfront to be shut off to them for private condos and the council represents municipal citizens, not his interests. It's pathetic that you ever were sold that land to construct there in the first place! The condos that were constructed there look ridiculous squeezed into where they are. Geez, make a green space to make what you've already built more attractive...it could certainly use an uplift!
-
- kim devine
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:52:26
kim devine is embarassing to my ward, she hasnt done a thing to represent my area, and then voted down this? what is wrong with her? .... we need someone new in ward 1, young and filled with energy to get the job done. .... i will not be supporting her, next election day
-
- Fed Up
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:52:20
Good move Charlottetown
-
- What?
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:52:16
How come they approved the concert site when dozens of residents spoke vehemently against it, but rejected the condos with only minimal public reaction. If the condos hadn't been at the same meeting as the concert site, I doubt if any public would have been there at all.
-
- sense and nonsense
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:52:16
Sensible statement by Mr Madden: of course council doesn't respect the planning department. That's not news. Nonsensical statement: Implying the condo will be finished in time for Regis and Kelly.
-
- jean
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:52:09
cry baby cry
-
- Mike East
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:52:09
The really sad part here is that anyone actually thought City Council might show some vision. I believe the developer is right - The planning dept recommended the project, yet council votes it down. Why bother having a planning dept at all? Why not just approve or disallow projects at each council meeting. It seems to be the way they want to run the city, and you would save the costs of a planning dept.
Again I agree, the two mountains of sand and all the heavy equipment moving them are not what I would think residents, or the cameras of the Regis and Kelly show would like to see.
I say keep the planning dept, and do away with some of these small minded councillors.
Clifford and the rest of them get in the news and cry and moan they want development in the city, but at every opportunity fight development. makes you wonder if they have any idea what they are doing. -
- Smurphy
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:52:06
Hmmmm
So the concert park suggested by Tourism Charlottown gets a go and this does not.
TC board includes Kevin Murphy. The office of TC is owned by Kevin Murphy. The CEO of TC was a former biz partner of Kevin Murphy. The neighboring busineses such as Wendy's and Tims are owned by Kevin's brother Danny and I het would be selling to concerts.
Kevin sells food and drink to concerts and I bet he's back again this year after not doing it last year (you figure that out).
A quality project gets the boot and the person can't do what they want with their land.
Would he be have been better of if his name was Murphy? -
- bob
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:51:16
Good work council. Why should Charlottetown sacrifice its waterfront just so Mr Madden can get richer ? This shows good foresight in maintaining what space remains on the waterfront for future generations.
-
- robbie
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:51:15
i knew when i met kim devine that she was trouble before she even got elected. i said to friends at the time she was voted in that her riding was going to regret it. She knows nothing about development and if its NOT her idea then it gets shut down. This developer has money to spend and he wants to spend it here. let him.!!! why would the province sell the land to someone and then do everything they can to hinder development of the land that was sold to him?? I have supported Clifford for years but if he doesn't do something about kim I think i will have to change my vote. question to city hall??? if it was a local guy with the last name of oh lets say....banks, murphy, etc would it have been approved? thought so!!!! stop turning away ppl who want to invest on the island and pay hefty taxes while doing the projects. let them give us their money, goodness knows we have lost alot with polar, PNP, NOFG, beef plant...and i could go on and on. I'm sure i have gotten my point out there
-
- Bobbie
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:51:14
What I find most disturbing is that the councillors who voted against their own committee and a company who is obviously interested in bringing development, jobs and tax dollars to the area appear to have failed to provide valid reasons for going against their committee and development in general. I find it hard to believe that the City and a Developer cannot have discussion and conditions cannot be imposed to ensure that integrity is maintained and the waterfront is accessible to all residents. I also agree - a big sand pile near what is supposed to be a tourist and resident friendly area of the City is by far too distracting and a failure to our citizens.
-
- Downtowner
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:51:13
Congratulations to those councillors who put a stop to what is an unsympathetic development so close to an iconic waterfront landmark, Founders' Hall. A big thankyou to Kim Devine for responding to residents concern about cluttering an area we care about and pay taxes in. The planning department are not elected, they are selected... they will no doubt have an opportunity at some point to approve another more imaginative and suitable project for that piece of land, doing our legacy justice. We are responsible for ensuring that we leave for future generations a shoreline that is accessible for all members of our community to enjoy and be proud of. Developers' money cannot buy the type of contentment that comes with preserving our precious green space.
-
- PEI
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:51:13
Thank goodness! As for listening to the 'planning' department, one look around Charlottetown will tell you they have no vision - why should they listen to them?
-
- Leo
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:51:10
Good for City Council!!!
I don't very often agree with them and their decisions but I do on this one and they should just tell madden to go Back to Newfoundland and build his buildings there.
The last thing the Charlottetown Waterfront needs is more Condos. Cahrlottetown is becoming condo happy..if it keeps going Charlottetown will become like the Province did when it was building Golf Courses.
Madden maybe needs to learn that the Charlottetown Watrefront is NOT his own little development area and that the resindents are the people who vote for the City Councillors and NOT Madden. -
- D.J.
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:51:05
This is election year...lets Vote Out City Council by a 7 to 3 margin.
-
- robbie is wrong
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:51:03
robbie from ch'town, pei is wrong on one thing here he said let them give us their money, goodness knows we have lost alot with polar, PNP, NOFG, beef plant...and i could go on and on. I'm sure i have gotten my point out there
well the fact of the matter is that the PNP is not governement money it is private money, so we haven't lost a thing with the pnp program, and i for one agree with the PNP program(not all of it but most of it!) because its the only reason pei posted economic growth and we led canada by doing that!
So Do your research before you type something in..... -
- Mell
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:51:03
Councillor Devine is nothing but a trouble maker- if it is not her development, it is a big no to anyone who wants to build these units which will be a source of tax revenue for the city- how stupid is her thinking on this. She has been instrumental in holding up or vetoing other projects in the past. The developer wants to put up something that is pleasing to the waterfront-not junk- and a source of taxes for the city and should be allowed to proceed; especially, when the city planning department has approved it- Devine should not be the head of this department; she is a trouble maker and a deterent to the city.
-
- wow
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:51:01
honey i dont give a darn what regis and kathy look at .
-
- lorne
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:50:58
The planning dept.appears to think the council members are no more than a rubber stamp and must kow tow to the demands of the planners. That isn't how democracy works.
If ever the council must abide by the demands of the planners, the swastika should be raised over city hall. -
- Gary
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:50:53
Paul,
The city of Summerside recently saw its waterfront mall go up for sale by a bankrupt Irish real estate developer.
Why don't you buy it and complete the planned condos on top of the mall?
Summerside has the available property already for sale for your waterfront condo project without having to go through a harbour authority. -
- matthew
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:50:45
I think it is very clear that the whole process is flawed. By all means elected officials should have a voice. However, city councilors are, for the most part, not town planers and have limited experience in this field. If council is to reject the planning boards recommendation there should be guidelines in place so that the developer and the planing department can know WHY the plan was rejected. In essence there should be criteria council must follow to overturn a recommendation by their professional bureaucrats. That is, if certain criteria are not meet, council should not have the right to reject a proposal. This would act in two ways. For example, council could not blindly say yes to an application that did not receive a recommendation by the planing board if it did not meet certain criteria(It has happened before). This would serve as a simple check and balance.
An all encompassing rejection serves only those with underwritten agendas. Council should explain to the developer and planing department why the application was rejected so that future applications can be adjusted accordingly. Further more, we must give citizens a voice as well, but not to an end where they can dictate how a private citizen used private property. If people want parkland, this site is not the answer(unless the city buys it) It's more or less someones yard. -
- did it again
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:50:45
Way to go Council. Again you have shown the people that you will not let improvements and common sense get in the way of stupidity. Well done.
-
- Quiet
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:50:45
Given that the existing condos of Maddens are already there and that there will be little or no other reasonable use for this land, I question City Council's decision. Having driven down there for a look, from both sides, I really do not see how putting up this building could do anything other than improve things down there.
This is the same City Council that approved Homburg to build the towering pimple hotel downtown and the Tim Banks Hotel mile high unit. Yet they complain about a 4 level building?
Also, City Council continues to struggle to get more people to live downtown. Does downtown stop at Prince Street?
Just because this is the waterfront, that doesn't mean everyone need get paranoid. Charlottetown has done an excellent job of preserving the waterfront for access and use by Islanders. Confederation Landing Park is a beautiful facility, and the waterfront Boardwalk is a wonderfull thing for everyone. I tip my hat to the City and the CADC for this.
However, putting this building where it was proposed will not detract from public access and usgae of our waterfront in any way, and it will certainly improve the esthetics of this vacant lot. -
- kim devine
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:50:42
kim devine is embarassing to my ward, she hasnt done a thing to represent my area, and then voted down this? what is wrong with her? .... we need someone new in ward 1, young and filled with energy to get the job done. .... i will not be supporting her, next election day
-
- A
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:50:42
Thank you city council for having the common sense to realize we are saturated with condo projects and excessive waterfront construction!!! Mr. Madden may be upset but he must realize the the citizens of Charlottetown don't want their waterfront to be shut off to them for private condos and the council represents municipal citizens, not his interests. It's pathetic that you ever were sold that land to construct there in the first place! The condos that were constructed there look ridiculous squeezed into where they are. Geez, make a green space to make what you've already built more attractive...it could certainly use an uplift!
-
- Fed Up
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:50:35
Good move Charlottetown
-
- What?
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:50:30
How come they approved the concert site when dozens of residents spoke vehemently against it, but rejected the condos with only minimal public reaction. If the condos hadn't been at the same meeting as the concert site, I doubt if any public would have been there at all.
-
- sense and nonsense
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:50:30
Sensible statement by Mr Madden: of course council doesn't respect the planning department. That's not news. Nonsensical statement: Implying the condo will be finished in time for Regis and Kelly.
-
- jean
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:50:22
cry baby cry
-
- Mike East
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:50:22
The really sad part here is that anyone actually thought City Council might show some vision. I believe the developer is right - The planning dept recommended the project, yet council votes it down. Why bother having a planning dept at all? Why not just approve or disallow projects at each council meeting. It seems to be the way they want to run the city, and you would save the costs of a planning dept.
Again I agree, the two mountains of sand and all the heavy equipment moving them are not what I would think residents, or the cameras of the Regis and Kelly show would like to see.
I say keep the planning dept, and do away with some of these small minded councillors.
Clifford and the rest of them get in the news and cry and moan they want development in the city, but at every opportunity fight development. makes you wonder if they have any idea what they are doing. -
- Smurphy
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:50:19
Hmmmm
So the concert park suggested by Tourism Charlottown gets a go and this does not.
TC board includes Kevin Murphy. The office of TC is owned by Kevin Murphy. The CEO of TC was a former biz partner of Kevin Murphy. The neighboring busineses such as Wendy's and Tims are owned by Kevin's brother Danny and I het would be selling to concerts.
Kevin sells food and drink to concerts and I bet he's back again this year after not doing it last year (you figure that out).
A quality project gets the boot and the person can't do what they want with their land.
Would he be have been better of if his name was Murphy? -
- bob
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:48:42
Good work council. Why should Charlottetown sacrifice its waterfront just so Mr Madden can get richer ? This shows good foresight in maintaining what space remains on the waterfront for future generations.
-
- robbie
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:48:41
i knew when i met kim devine that she was trouble before she even got elected. i said to friends at the time she was voted in that her riding was going to regret it. She knows nothing about development and if its NOT her idea then it gets shut down. This developer has money to spend and he wants to spend it here. let him.!!! why would the province sell the land to someone and then do everything they can to hinder development of the land that was sold to him?? I have supported Clifford for years but if he doesn't do something about kim I think i will have to change my vote. question to city hall??? if it was a local guy with the last name of oh lets say....banks, murphy, etc would it have been approved? thought so!!!! stop turning away ppl who want to invest on the island and pay hefty taxes while doing the projects. let them give us their money, goodness knows we have lost alot with polar, PNP, NOFG, beef plant...and i could go on and on. I'm sure i have gotten my point out there
-
- Bobbie
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:48:40
What I find most disturbing is that the councillors who voted against their own committee and a company who is obviously interested in bringing development, jobs and tax dollars to the area appear to have failed to provide valid reasons for going against their committee and development in general. I find it hard to believe that the City and a Developer cannot have discussion and conditions cannot be imposed to ensure that integrity is maintained and the waterfront is accessible to all residents. I also agree - a big sand pile near what is supposed to be a tourist and resident friendly area of the City is by far too distracting and a failure to our citizens.
-
- Downtowner
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:48:39
Congratulations to those councillors who put a stop to what is an unsympathetic development so close to an iconic waterfront landmark, Founders' Hall. A big thankyou to Kim Devine for responding to residents concern about cluttering an area we care about and pay taxes in. The planning department are not elected, they are selected... they will no doubt have an opportunity at some point to approve another more imaginative and suitable project for that piece of land, doing our legacy justice. We are responsible for ensuring that we leave for future generations a shoreline that is accessible for all members of our community to enjoy and be proud of. Developers' money cannot buy the type of contentment that comes with preserving our precious green space.
-
- PEI
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:48:39
Thank goodness! As for listening to the 'planning' department, one look around Charlottetown will tell you they have no vision - why should they listen to them?
-
- Leo
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:48:37
Good for City Council!!!
I don't very often agree with them and their decisions but I do on this one and they should just tell madden to go Back to Newfoundland and build his buildings there.
The last thing the Charlottetown Waterfront needs is more Condos. Cahrlottetown is becoming condo happy..if it keeps going Charlottetown will become like the Province did when it was building Golf Courses.
Madden maybe needs to learn that the Charlottetown Watrefront is NOT his own little development area and that the resindents are the people who vote for the City Councillors and NOT Madden. -
- D.J.
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:48:31
This is election year...lets Vote Out City Council by a 7 to 3 margin.
-
- Mell
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:48:30
Councillor Devine is nothing but a trouble maker- if it is not her development, it is a big no to anyone who wants to build these units which will be a source of tax revenue for the city- how stupid is her thinking on this. She has been instrumental in holding up or vetoing other projects in the past. The developer wants to put up something that is pleasing to the waterfront-not junk- and a source of taxes for the city and should be allowed to proceed; especially, when the city planning department has approved it- Devine should not be the head of this department; she is a trouble maker and a deterent to the city.
-
- robbie is wrong
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:48:29
robbie from ch'town, pei is wrong on one thing here he said let them give us their money, goodness knows we have lost alot with polar, PNP, NOFG, beef plant...and i could go on and on. I'm sure i have gotten my point out there
well the fact of the matter is that the PNP is not governement money it is private money, so we haven't lost a thing with the pnp program, and i for one agree with the PNP program(not all of it but most of it!) because its the only reason pei posted economic growth and we led canada by doing that!
So Do your research before you type something in..... -
- wow
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:48:28
honey i dont give a darn what regis and kathy look at .
-
- lorne
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:47:54
The planning dept.appears to think the council members are no more than a rubber stamp and must kow tow to the demands of the planners. That isn't how democracy works.
If ever the council must abide by the demands of the planners, the swastika should be raised over city hall. -
- Gary
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:47:23
Paul,
The city of Summerside recently saw its waterfront mall go up for sale by a bankrupt Irish real estate developer.
Why don't you buy it and complete the planned condos on top of the mall?
Summerside has the available property already for sale for your waterfront condo project without having to go through a harbour authority. -
- matthew
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:47:15
I think it is very clear that the whole process is flawed. By all means elected officials should have a voice. However, city councilors are, for the most part, not town planers and have limited experience in this field. If council is to reject the planning boards recommendation there should be guidelines in place so that the developer and the planing department can know WHY the plan was rejected. In essence there should be criteria council must follow to overturn a recommendation by their professional bureaucrats. That is, if certain criteria are not meet, council should not have the right to reject a proposal. This would act in two ways. For example, council could not blindly say yes to an application that did not receive a recommendation by the planing board if it did not meet certain criteria(It has happened before). This would serve as a simple check and balance.
An all encompassing rejection serves only those with underwritten agendas. Council should explain to the developer and planing department why the application was rejected so that future applications can be adjusted accordingly. Further more, we must give citizens a voice as well, but not to an end where they can dictate how a private citizen used private property. If people want parkland, this site is not the answer(unless the city buys it) It's more or less someones yard. -
- did it again
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:47:15
Way to go Council. Again you have shown the people that you will not let improvements and common sense get in the way of stupidity. Well done.
-
- Quiet
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:47:15
Given that the existing condos of Maddens are already there and that there will be little or no other reasonable use for this land, I question City Council's decision. Having driven down there for a look, from both sides, I really do not see how putting up this building could do anything other than improve things down there.
This is the same City Council that approved Homburg to build the towering pimple hotel downtown and the Tim Banks Hotel mile high unit. Yet they complain about a 4 level building?
Also, City Council continues to struggle to get more people to live downtown. Does downtown stop at Prince Street?
Just because this is the waterfront, that doesn't mean everyone need get paranoid. Charlottetown has done an excellent job of preserving the waterfront for access and use by Islanders. Confederation Landing Park is a beautiful facility, and the waterfront Boardwalk is a wonderfull thing for everyone. I tip my hat to the City and the CADC for this.
However, putting this building where it was proposed will not detract from public access and usgae of our waterfront in any way, and it will certainly improve the esthetics of this vacant lot. -
- kim devine
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:47:12
kim devine is embarassing to my ward, she hasnt done a thing to represent my area, and then voted down this? what is wrong with her? .... we need someone new in ward 1, young and filled with energy to get the job done. .... i will not be supporting her, next election day
-
- A
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:47:12
Thank you city council for having the common sense to realize we are saturated with condo projects and excessive waterfront construction!!! Mr. Madden may be upset but he must realize the the citizens of Charlottetown don't want their waterfront to be shut off to them for private condos and the council represents municipal citizens, not his interests. It's pathetic that you ever were sold that land to construct there in the first place! The condos that were constructed there look ridiculous squeezed into where they are. Geez, make a green space to make what you've already built more attractive...it could certainly use an uplift!
-
- Fed Up
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:47:05
Good move Charlottetown
-
- What?
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:47:01
How come they approved the concert site when dozens of residents spoke vehemently against it, but rejected the condos with only minimal public reaction. If the condos hadn't been at the same meeting as the concert site, I doubt if any public would have been there at all.
-
- sense and nonsense
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:47:01
Sensible statement by Mr Madden: of course council doesn't respect the planning department. That's not news. Nonsensical statement: Implying the condo will be finished in time for Regis and Kelly.
-
- Mike East
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:46:54
The really sad part here is that anyone actually thought City Council might show some vision. I believe the developer is right - The planning dept recommended the project, yet council votes it down. Why bother having a planning dept at all? Why not just approve or disallow projects at each council meeting. It seems to be the way they want to run the city, and you would save the costs of a planning dept.
Again I agree, the two mountains of sand and all the heavy equipment moving them are not what I would think residents, or the cameras of the Regis and Kelly show would like to see.
I say keep the planning dept, and do away with some of these small minded councillors.
Clifford and the rest of them get in the news and cry and moan they want development in the city, but at every opportunity fight development. makes you wonder if they have any idea what they are doing. -
- jean
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:46:53
cry baby cry
-
- Smurphy
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:46:50
Hmmmm
So the concert park suggested by Tourism Charlottown gets a go and this does not.
TC board includes Kevin Murphy. The office of TC is owned by Kevin Murphy. The CEO of TC was a former biz partner of Kevin Murphy. The neighboring busineses such as Wendy's and Tims are owned by Kevin's brother Danny and I het would be selling to concerts.
Kevin sells food and drink to concerts and I bet he's back again this year after not doing it last year (you figure that out).
A quality project gets the boot and the person can't do what they want with their land.
Would he be have been better of if his name was Murphy? -
- bob
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:46:45
Good work council. Why should Charlottetown sacrifice its waterfront just so Mr Madden can get richer ? This shows good foresight in maintaining what space remains on the waterfront for future generations.
-
- robbie
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:46:44
i knew when i met kim devine that she was trouble before she even got elected. i said to friends at the time she was voted in that her riding was going to regret it. She knows nothing about development and if its NOT her idea then it gets shut down. This developer has money to spend and he wants to spend it here. let him.!!! why would the province sell the land to someone and then do everything they can to hinder development of the land that was sold to him?? I have supported Clifford for years but if he doesn't do something about kim I think i will have to change my vote. question to city hall??? if it was a local guy with the last name of oh lets say....banks, murphy, etc would it have been approved? thought so!!!! stop turning away ppl who want to invest on the island and pay hefty taxes while doing the projects. let them give us their money, goodness knows we have lost alot with polar, PNP, NOFG, beef plant...and i could go on and on. I'm sure i have gotten my point out there
-
- Bobbie
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:46:43
What I find most disturbing is that the councillors who voted against their own committee and a company who is obviously interested in bringing development, jobs and tax dollars to the area appear to have failed to provide valid reasons for going against their committee and development in general. I find it hard to believe that the City and a Developer cannot have discussion and conditions cannot be imposed to ensure that integrity is maintained and the waterfront is accessible to all residents. I also agree - a big sand pile near what is supposed to be a tourist and resident friendly area of the City is by far too distracting and a failure to our citizens.
-
- Downtowner
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:46:42
Congratulations to those councillors who put a stop to what is an unsympathetic development so close to an iconic waterfront landmark, Founders' Hall. A big thankyou to Kim Devine for responding to residents concern about cluttering an area we care about and pay taxes in. The planning department are not elected, they are selected... they will no doubt have an opportunity at some point to approve another more imaginative and suitable project for that piece of land, doing our legacy justice. We are responsible for ensuring that we leave for future generations a shoreline that is accessible for all members of our community to enjoy and be proud of. Developers' money cannot buy the type of contentment that comes with preserving our precious green space.
-
- PEI
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:46:42
Thank goodness! As for listening to the 'planning' department, one look around Charlottetown will tell you they have no vision - why should they listen to them?
-
- Leo
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:46:39
Good for City Council!!!
I don't very often agree with them and their decisions but I do on this one and they should just tell madden to go Back to Newfoundland and build his buildings there.
The last thing the Charlottetown Waterfront needs is more Condos. Cahrlottetown is becoming condo happy..if it keeps going Charlottetown will become like the Province did when it was building Golf Courses.
Madden maybe needs to learn that the Charlottetown Watrefront is NOT his own little development area and that the resindents are the people who vote for the City Councillors and NOT Madden. -
- D.J.
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:46:33
This is election year...lets Vote Out City Council by a 7 to 3 margin.
-
- Mell
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:46:31
Councillor Devine is nothing but a trouble maker- if it is not her development, it is a big no to anyone who wants to build these units which will be a source of tax revenue for the city- how stupid is her thinking on this. She has been instrumental in holding up or vetoing other projects in the past. The developer wants to put up something that is pleasing to the waterfront-not junk- and a source of taxes for the city and should be allowed to proceed; especially, when the city planning department has approved it- Devine should not be the head of this department; she is a trouble maker and a deterent to the city.
-
- robbie is wrong
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:46:30
robbie from ch'town, pei is wrong on one thing here he said let them give us their money, goodness knows we have lost alot with polar, PNP, NOFG, beef plant...and i could go on and on. I'm sure i have gotten my point out there
well the fact of the matter is that the PNP is not governement money it is private money, so we haven't lost a thing with the pnp program, and i for one agree with the PNP program(not all of it but most of it!) because its the only reason pei posted economic growth and we led canada by doing that!
So Do your research before you type something in..... -
- wow
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:46:28
honey i dont give a darn what regis and kathy look at .
-
- lorne
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:46:26
The planning dept.appears to think the council members are no more than a rubber stamp and must kow tow to the demands of the planners. That isn't how democracy works.
If ever the council must abide by the demands of the planners, the swastika should be raised over city hall. -
- Gary
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:46:19
Paul,
The city of Summerside recently saw its waterfront mall go up for sale by a bankrupt Irish real estate developer.
Why don't you buy it and complete the planned condos on top of the mall?
Summerside has the available property already for sale for your waterfront condo project without having to go through a harbour authority. -
- matthew
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:46:11
I think it is very clear that the whole process is flawed. By all means elected officials should have a voice. However, city councilors are, for the most part, not town planers and have limited experience in this field. If council is to reject the planning boards recommendation there should be guidelines in place so that the developer and the planing department can know WHY the plan was rejected. In essence there should be criteria council must follow to overturn a recommendation by their professional bureaucrats. That is, if certain criteria are not meet, council should not have the right to reject a proposal. This would act in two ways. For example, council could not blindly say yes to an application that did not receive a recommendation by the planing board if it did not meet certain criteria(It has happened before). This would serve as a simple check and balance.
An all encompassing rejection serves only those with underwritten agendas. Council should explain to the developer and planing department why the application was rejected so that future applications can be adjusted accordingly. Further more, we must give citizens a voice as well, but not to an end where they can dictate how a private citizen used private property. If people want parkland, this site is not the answer(unless the city buys it) It's more or less someones yard. -
- did it again
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:46:11
Way to go Council. Again you have shown the people that you will not let improvements and common sense get in the way of stupidity. Well done.
-
- Quiet
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:46:11
Given that the existing condos of Maddens are already there and that there will be little or no other reasonable use for this land, I question City Council's decision. Having driven down there for a look, from both sides, I really do not see how putting up this building could do anything other than improve things down there.
This is the same City Council that approved Homburg to build the towering pimple hotel downtown and the Tim Banks Hotel mile high unit. Yet they complain about a 4 level building?
Also, City Council continues to struggle to get more people to live downtown. Does downtown stop at Prince Street?
Just because this is the waterfront, that doesn't mean everyone need get paranoid. Charlottetown has done an excellent job of preserving the waterfront for access and use by Islanders. Confederation Landing Park is a beautiful facility, and the waterfront Boardwalk is a wonderfull thing for everyone. I tip my hat to the City and the CADC for this.
However, putting this building where it was proposed will not detract from public access and usgae of our waterfront in any way, and it will certainly improve the esthetics of this vacant lot. -
- kim devine
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:46:08
kim devine is embarassing to my ward, she hasnt done a thing to represent my area, and then voted down this? what is wrong with her? .... we need someone new in ward 1, young and filled with energy to get the job done. .... i will not be supporting her, next election day
-
- A
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:46:08
Thank you city council for having the common sense to realize we are saturated with condo projects and excessive waterfront construction!!! Mr. Madden may be upset but he must realize the the citizens of Charlottetown don't want their waterfront to be shut off to them for private condos and the council represents municipal citizens, not his interests. It's pathetic that you ever were sold that land to construct there in the first place! The condos that were constructed there look ridiculous squeezed into where they are. Geez, make a green space to make what you've already built more attractive...it could certainly use an uplift!
-
- Fed Up
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:46:01
Good move Charlottetown
-
- What?
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:45:56
How come they approved the concert site when dozens of residents spoke vehemently against it, but rejected the condos with only minimal public reaction. If the condos hadn't been at the same meeting as the concert site, I doubt if any public would have been there at all.
-
- sense and nonsense
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:45:56
Sensible statement by Mr Madden: of course council doesn't respect the planning department. That's not news. Nonsensical statement: Implying the condo will be finished in time for Regis and Kelly.
-
- Mike East
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:45:48
The really sad part here is that anyone actually thought City Council might show some vision. I believe the developer is right - The planning dept recommended the project, yet council votes it down. Why bother having a planning dept at all? Why not just approve or disallow projects at each council meeting. It seems to be the way they want to run the city, and you would save the costs of a planning dept.
Again I agree, the two mountains of sand and all the heavy equipment moving them are not what I would think residents, or the cameras of the Regis and Kelly show would like to see.
I say keep the planning dept, and do away with some of these small minded councillors.
Clifford and the rest of them get in the news and cry and moan they want development in the city, but at every opportunity fight development. makes you wonder if they have any idea what they are doing. -
- jean
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:45:47
cry baby cry
-
- Smurphy
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:45:43
Hmmmm
So the concert park suggested by Tourism Charlottown gets a go and this does not.
TC board includes Kevin Murphy. The office of TC is owned by Kevin Murphy. The CEO of TC was a former biz partner of Kevin Murphy. The neighboring busineses such as Wendy's and Tims are owned by Kevin's brother Danny and I het would be selling to concerts.
Kevin sells food and drink to concerts and I bet he's back again this year after not doing it last year (you figure that out).
A quality project gets the boot and the person can't do what they want with their land.
Would he be have been better of if his name was Murphy? -
- bob
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:45:22
Good work council. Why should Charlottetown sacrifice its waterfront just so Mr Madden can get richer ? This shows good foresight in maintaining what space remains on the waterfront for future generations.
-
- robbie
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:45:21
i knew when i met kim devine that she was trouble before she even got elected. i said to friends at the time she was voted in that her riding was going to regret it. She knows nothing about development and if its NOT her idea then it gets shut down. This developer has money to spend and he wants to spend it here. let him.!!! why would the province sell the land to someone and then do everything they can to hinder development of the land that was sold to him?? I have supported Clifford for years but if he doesn't do something about kim I think i will have to change my vote. question to city hall??? if it was a local guy with the last name of oh lets say....banks, murphy, etc would it have been approved? thought so!!!! stop turning away ppl who want to invest on the island and pay hefty taxes while doing the projects. let them give us their money, goodness knows we have lost alot with polar, PNP, NOFG, beef plant...and i could go on and on. I'm sure i have gotten my point out there
-
- Bobbie
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:45:20
What I find most disturbing is that the councillors who voted against their own committee and a company who is obviously interested in bringing development, jobs and tax dollars to the area appear to have failed to provide valid reasons for going against their committee and development in general. I find it hard to believe that the City and a Developer cannot have discussion and conditions cannot be imposed to ensure that integrity is maintained and the waterfront is accessible to all residents. I also agree - a big sand pile near what is supposed to be a tourist and resident friendly area of the City is by far too distracting and a failure to our citizens.
-
- Downtowner
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:45:19
Congratulations to those councillors who put a stop to what is an unsympathetic development so close to an iconic waterfront landmark, Founders' Hall. A big thankyou to Kim Devine for responding to residents concern about cluttering an area we care about and pay taxes in. The planning department are not elected, they are selected... they will no doubt have an opportunity at some point to approve another more imaginative and suitable project for that piece of land, doing our legacy justice. We are responsible for ensuring that we leave for future generations a shoreline that is accessible for all members of our community to enjoy and be proud of. Developers' money cannot buy the type of contentment that comes with preserving our precious green space.
-
- PEI
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:45:19
Thank goodness! As for listening to the 'planning' department, one look around Charlottetown will tell you they have no vision - why should they listen to them?
-
- Leo
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:45:16
Good for City Council!!!
I don't very often agree with them and their decisions but I do on this one and they should just tell madden to go Back to Newfoundland and build his buildings there.
The last thing the Charlottetown Waterfront needs is more Condos. Cahrlottetown is becoming condo happy..if it keeps going Charlottetown will become like the Province did when it was building Golf Courses.
Madden maybe needs to learn that the Charlottetown Watrefront is NOT his own little development area and that the resindents are the people who vote for the City Councillors and NOT Madden. -
- D.J.
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:45:10
This is election year...lets Vote Out City Council by a 7 to 3 margin.
-
- robbie is wrong
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:45:08
robbie from ch'town, pei is wrong on one thing here he said let them give us their money, goodness knows we have lost alot with polar, PNP, NOFG, beef plant...and i could go on and on. I'm sure i have gotten my point out there
well the fact of the matter is that the PNP is not governement money it is private money, so we haven't lost a thing with the pnp program, and i for one agree with the PNP program(not all of it but most of it!) because its the only reason pei posted economic growth and we led canada by doing that!
So Do your research before you type something in..... -
- Mell
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:45:08
Councillor Devine is nothing but a trouble maker- if it is not her development, it is a big no to anyone who wants to build these units which will be a source of tax revenue for the city- how stupid is her thinking on this. She has been instrumental in holding up or vetoing other projects in the past. The developer wants to put up something that is pleasing to the waterfront-not junk- and a source of taxes for the city and should be allowed to proceed; especially, when the city planning department has approved it- Devine should not be the head of this department; she is a trouble maker and a deterent to the city.
-
- wow
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:45:06
honey i dont give a darn what regis and kathy look at .
-
- lorne
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:45:03
The planning dept.appears to think the council members are no more than a rubber stamp and must kow tow to the demands of the planners. That isn't how democracy works.
If ever the council must abide by the demands of the planners, the swastika should be raised over city hall. -
- Gary
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:44:58
Paul,
The city of Summerside recently saw its waterfront mall go up for sale by a bankrupt Irish real estate developer.
Why don't you buy it and complete the planned condos on top of the mall?
Summerside has the available property already for sale for your waterfront condo project without having to go through a harbour authority. -
- matthew
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:44:50
I think it is very clear that the whole process is flawed. By all means elected officials should have a voice. However, city councilors are, for the most part, not town planers and have limited experience in this field. If council is to reject the planning boards recommendation there should be guidelines in place so that the developer and the planing department can know WHY the plan was rejected. In essence there should be criteria council must follow to overturn a recommendation by their professional bureaucrats. That is, if certain criteria are not meet, council should not have the right to reject a proposal. This would act in two ways. For example, council could not blindly say yes to an application that did not receive a recommendation by the planing board if it did not meet certain criteria(It has happened before). This would serve as a simple check and balance.
An all encompassing rejection serves only those with underwritten agendas. Council should explain to the developer and planing department why the application was rejected so that future applications can be adjusted accordingly. Further more, we must give citizens a voice as well, but not to an end where they can dictate how a private citizen used private property. If people want parkland, this site is not the answer(unless the city buys it) It's more or less someones yard. -
- did it again
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:44:50
Way to go Council. Again you have shown the people that you will not let improvements and common sense get in the way of stupidity. Well done.
-
- Quiet
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:44:50
Given that the existing condos of Maddens are already there and that there will be little or no other reasonable use for this land, I question City Council's decision. Having driven down there for a look, from both sides, I really do not see how putting up this building could do anything other than improve things down there.
This is the same City Council that approved Homburg to build the towering pimple hotel downtown and the Tim Banks Hotel mile high unit. Yet they complain about a 4 level building?
Also, City Council continues to struggle to get more people to live downtown. Does downtown stop at Prince Street?
Just because this is the waterfront, that doesn't mean everyone need get paranoid. Charlottetown has done an excellent job of preserving the waterfront for access and use by Islanders. Confederation Landing Park is a beautiful facility, and the waterfront Boardwalk is a wonderfull thing for everyone. I tip my hat to the City and the CADC for this.
However, putting this building where it was proposed will not detract from public access and usgae of our waterfront in any way, and it will certainly improve the esthetics of this vacant lot. -
- kim devine
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:44:47
kim devine is embarassing to my ward, she hasnt done a thing to represent my area, and then voted down this? what is wrong with her? .... we need someone new in ward 1, young and filled with energy to get the job done. .... i will not be supporting her, next election day
-
- A
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:44:47
Thank you city council for having the common sense to realize we are saturated with condo projects and excessive waterfront construction!!! Mr. Madden may be upset but he must realize the the citizens of Charlottetown don't want their waterfront to be shut off to them for private condos and the council represents municipal citizens, not his interests. It's pathetic that you ever were sold that land to construct there in the first place! The condos that were constructed there look ridiculous squeezed into where they are. Geez, make a green space to make what you've already built more attractive...it could certainly use an uplift!
-
- Fed Up
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:44:40
Good move Charlottetown
-
- What?
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:44:36
How come they approved the concert site when dozens of residents spoke vehemently against it, but rejected the condos with only minimal public reaction. If the condos hadn't been at the same meeting as the concert site, I doubt if any public would have been there at all.
-
- sense and nonsense
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:44:36
Sensible statement by Mr Madden: of course council doesn't respect the planning department. That's not news. Nonsensical statement: Implying the condo will be finished in time for Regis and Kelly.
-
- Mike East
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:44:28
The really sad part here is that anyone actually thought City Council might show some vision. I believe the developer is right - The planning dept recommended the project, yet council votes it down. Why bother having a planning dept at all? Why not just approve or disallow projects at each council meeting. It seems to be the way they want to run the city, and you would save the costs of a planning dept.
Again I agree, the two mountains of sand and all the heavy equipment moving them are not what I would think residents, or the cameras of the Regis and Kelly show would like to see.
I say keep the planning dept, and do away with some of these small minded councillors.
Clifford and the rest of them get in the news and cry and moan they want development in the city, but at every opportunity fight development. makes you wonder if they have any idea what they are doing. -
- jean
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:44:27
cry baby cry
-
- Smurphy
- - July 8th, 2010 at 14:44:23
Hmmmm
So the concert park suggested by Tourism Charlottown gets a go and this does not.
TC board includes Kevin Murphy. The office of TC is owned by Kevin Murphy. The CEO of TC was a former biz partner of Kevin Murphy. The neighboring busineses such as Wendy's and Tims are owned by Kevin's brother Danny and I het would be selling to concerts.
Kevin sells food and drink to concerts and I bet he's back again this year after not doing it last year (you figure that out).
A quality project gets the boot and the person can't do what they want with their land.
Would he be have been better of if his name was Murphy?
