10 Things to Know About Sydney's Fire Station Move

The NSCC Marconi campus is getting relocated to downtown Sydney. The new campus location will include the parcel of land currently occupied by the Sydney fire station on the Esplanade. While the need to relocate the fire station itself isn't a controversial topic, the new location chosen has raised a great deal of public concern, particularly among those who attend the Highland Arts Theatre. The CBRM intends to build the new fire station at Pitt and George Streets on a parking lot that is very convenient for theatregoers.

There are really three primary sources of discord right now:

  • Is the location chosen actually the best location for the effectiveness of the fire service?
  • Will the location adversely impact the theatre due to siren noise or loss of convenient parking?
  • The CBRM's refusal to engage in public consultation.

I read the "GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM EMERGENCY SERVICES RESPONSE CAPABILITIES ANALYSIS" report by the International Association of Fire Fighters. I'd like to share some of the notable things I learned from that report and ongoing discussion.

The report clearly recommends public consultation

Despite the CBRM's Chief Administrative Officer, Marie Walsh, suggesting that the public doesn't need to be involved in decisions related to public safety, that is not what the International Association of Fire Fighters believes. The point they make on page 3 is clear enough that I can provide it to you without any need for additional explanation:

"The fire department (both administration and frontline personnel), and the community should all have input and come to an agreement on where to place any new fire stations within the jurisdiction."

Participate in Community Discussion in the "Help The Hat" Facebook Group

The report makes its limitations clear

The report outlines other factors that can be used in making a determination of the best location. The model they use simply estimates the percentage of the streets and roads firefighters can reach within four minutes. And obviously, the objective of this model is to increase that percentage as much as possible.

"It is a starting point for determining fire station locations based on chosen demand. Other factors may play a role in final station locations that go beyond GIS capabilities such as anticipated community risk, frequency of simultaneous calls for service, level of service demanded by the community, and available land."

They elaborate further on other factors that can be considered in a more complete analysis:

"Other demand points that could be used in the analysis, if data are available, are historical incident locations, future population growth predictions, and municipal planning and zoning proposals. Historical incident data shows where demand concentrations have occurred. Future population growth predictions, in conjunction with the municipality’s planning and zoning strategies, could be used to determine areas of future demand that may occur as the community expands into new areas. Historical incident data and future growth are critical elements when deciding where to place fire stations."

The current location is "better" than the newly selected location (Pitt at George St)

In terms of the 4-minute coverage model, the current fire station location can get to 63.0% of all roads covered. That's over 15.2% more area covered quickly at the present location than the new location. Of course, keeping the existing location is obviously not an option. 

The second unchosen location option (Glenwood at George St) is also "better" than the newly selected location

In terms of the 4-minute coverage model, the Glenwood at George St. location can get to 66.0% of all roads covered. That's over 21.1% more area covered quickly than the new location.

The newly selected location degrades coverage to Membertou, King's Road, Alexandra Street, and the Newlands Avenue area

The current location and the unchosen option (Glenwood at George St) both provide much better service to these areas within the 4-minute benchmark. By moving the new station a little deeper into the downtown centre, it's effectively moved farther out of range from these other important areas with a lot of population density, multiple-story apartment complexes, and commercial development.

The CBRM only identified a single location (Pitt and George St)
When the CBRM rejects public consultation requests, it may largely because they never intended to consider any other location than the site next to the HAT.

The report is brief and sticks to its limited scope. Here are some additional general observations:

Only Councillor McDougall has pushed for public consultation
She's been shut down by Mayor Clarke, CAO Walsh, and her council colleagues including Bruckschwaiger who (at the fire services committee meeting on March 3rd) essentially expressed his dislike for public consultation. He would prefer public consultations where everyone shows up only to express their gratitude and heap praise upon them for their outstanding decision making. If he expects universal agreement and harmony in political matters, it's likely that he chose the wrong career path.

The IAFF report does not justify the CBRM's decision on location or lack of public consultation

The report essentially suggested another location was better (based on the 4-minute coverage analysis) and completely contradicts the CBRM's assertion that public consultation isn't necessary when it comes to public safety-related decisions. Perhaps they didn't read the report very closely?

Public consultation is happening anyway... in the form of protest

Although the CBRM may have selected their preferred (and only) location and rejected public consultation, all they did was create further difficulty for themselves. A protest was held at the CBRM already, and the organizers are discussing additional actions. The media had no choice but to take note and there's been coverage by the Cape Breton Post, and the CBC. The topic was also pressed again by Councillor McDougall in the fire services committee meeting. As such, by rejecting a formal process, they just provoked a protest and attracted greater media focus instead of just engaging the public in the first place. That's the reward for rejecting public input. Was it a wise decision?

Public consultation wouldn't have stopped the CBRM from choosing the location
The reality is that if the CBRM had checked a box and held a public consultation (a couple of hours in the Centre 200 concourse, the Civic Centre, the Joan Harriss Pavilion, or even the HAT itself), they would not have changed their minds.

Immense public pressure didn't work with Archibald's Wharf, and it would not have worked here. Nonetheless, the public would have had their say and could have challenged the decision-makers directly. It's just one of those celebrated aspects of democracy and responsible governance.

I could contemplate the political motivations such as how badly certain MLAs, the mayor, and the councillors may need construction to be underway with elections looming, but it's an everpresent factor in most government decisions, and par for the course.

It's certainly unfortunate that the CBRM is stubbornly dismissive of working with the public. If they really felt certain there was no other location, concerns of impact to the HAT were unwarranted, and the decision was truly the best option for public safety, then there was absolutely no reason to avoid spending a few hours with the key stakeholders available to make the case for it. They were never going to do more than that anyway.

After all, that is their job. They do work for us. And, sometimes, working for us involves working with us - even when they're fully convinced that we're just a bother and poor investment of their time.

While the outcome is likely unchangeable at this point, recognition is certainly due to all those who have raised their voices in defence of their community and the wonderful Highland Arts Theatre. The HAT is one of the most positive developments in our community. It improves the quality of our lives, creates opportunities in the arts, and inspires people to visit the downtown again. It's unfortunate to see it taken for granted and given less than the full respect, appreciation, and opportunity for input that it truly deserves.

NOTE: The views expressed above are my own and do not represent lokol (goCapeBreton.com). Read more

Posted by
Receive news by email and share your news and events for free on goCapeBreton.com
SHOW ME HOW


3,951 14
https://capebreton.lokol.me/10-things-to-know-about-sydneys-fire-station-move
Gov Political Commentary

14

Log In or Sign Up to add a comment.
Depth
Brian Linden Follow Me
This municipality drives me crazy, There are several better locations for the fire station, even besides the top 3 picks. But instead, they are going to disturb a local tourist revenue generator, and cheapen a historic property, as well as further limit parking for the areas largest employer.
Joe Ward My Post Follow Me
I agree. It appears as though the choice was primarily based on just having a piece of land available, and not on a more comprehensive analysis taking into consideration many (if not all) of the factors the IAFF. It also appears as though they didn't really give much consideration whatsoever as to whether it would have any impact on the MVP of downtown Sydney: the HAT.
Fay Wambolt Follow Me
I agree Joe the location is all but done. My worries are the lack of respect and communication between the CBRM and residents. It’s funny how they want us to project a friendly welcoming environment to all visitors but in reality they are always tracing on a one way street. We really need more forward thinkers like councillor MacDougall. Instead of CBRM councillors and employees just ticking boxes with no accountability.
Joe Ward My Post Follow Me
This disregard for the public has happened repeatedly, and it will continue to happen this way with the current administration and Council in place. The HAT is just the latest casualty in the persistent pattern of disrespect for the voices of the community. Consultation is an important part of the process of municipal management, and it is never overly burdensome. Quite the contrary, rejecting calls for public consultation clearly is much more disruptive. If a municipality is fully confident in its decision, there is no need for them to do everything possible to avoid facing the public. Given that this municipality has a significant track record of getting things wrong, they'd be much better by served by listening to their community instead of bullying things through.
William Palander Follow Me
CBRM Staff, the Mayor and Council have lied to us throughout the process. It appears that as Joe Ward reminds us, the only real public consultation occurred through our one thousand strong Facebook: Help the Hat protest and it's resulting online petition against this chosen location along with our street protest which included all genders and age groups.
Joe Ward My Post Follow Me
Hi William, I was writing very late last night and neglected to include a link to the group. I've now updated the article with a link to "Help the Hat". The group has certainly been taking the lead on pressing the CBRM on this decision and refusing to have a formal public consultation process. https://www.facebook.com/groups/617703269020751/
Bob MacVay Follow Me
Joe, what is presently at the #2 location of George and Glenwood?
Joe Ward My Post Follow Me
A Need's Convenience store.
Bob MacVay Follow Me
I agree more consultation should have been allowed. How ever if the needs store is a revenue generating asset for CBRM I don't think it is an equal alternative. I think the bigger issue is the fact that they are relocating the NSCC Marconi Campus, which has 3 large parking lots to downtown Sydney with plans for a much smaller parking capacity.They are aware in advance this is going to put a strain on all parking locations, including the lot the protesters were suggesting was used exclusively by The Highland Arts folks. Also the George at Pitt location was picked by the IAFF group because it would allow for a feature most newer fire stations incorporate where the trucks, on returning, don't need to back into the station but enter from the rear on Bentinck St. and are ready to deploy immediately when required, at the exit on George St.
Joe Ward My Post Follow Me
Hi Bob, I think the worst thing that occurred here wasn't the selection of the location necessarily, but instead, it was the total disregard of the HAT and of the public who clearly had concerns and wanted a consultation. I like that you're raising some of the consequential factors, such as surrendering Needs tax revenue. Due to the Council's sloppiness, I don't have full confidence that these really were the only two locations. I suspect there are likely several other options. The province did set the precedent for removing a taxable asset by taking the Mercer's property and others, as did the CBRM with the expropriation of the Nickerson property. With the Needs store, it's uncertain if they would relocate or not. But the cost of the acquisition would eat up any tax revenue profit for a very long time. Parking is definitely an issue. The IAFF report didn't factor traffic volume at all, current or future. The Marconi is seemingly building insufficient parking capacity, and the downtown is persistently viewed as having insufficient or inconvenient parking options at the present time. I visited Centre 200 for youth hockey and despite the lot being completely full, the stands were only about 15% filled, if that. The HAT owner suggested that the lot could accommodate up to 1/3 of his seating capacity for shows. The IAFF report didn't really pick a location, although the local fire chief did have a preference for the chosen location. In the IAFF report, the *other* location scored better in their analysis for 4-minute response time to 66% of the streets in the coverage zone. Depending on the size of the lot, the inbound/outbound arrival/departure set up could still have been achieved, but I did hear someone suggest that lot was too small.
Parker Donham Follow Me
Thank you for these interesting details. I have no strong feelings about the proposed location, but the administration's ongoing contempt for public concerns is disturbing. It's reminiscent of Cecil Clarke's refusal to consult North Sydney residents during the expropriation and sale (at below market rates) of Archibald's Wharf. Public input could have greatly improved that decision, by allowing walkways that could have given tourists and others a chance to view North Sydney's active waterfront, and by preserving a highly valued and much used playground. For some reason, the municipality seems averse to land-taking. The disastrously mismanaged reconstruction of King's Road, which took four years and severely disrupted businesses along the route, failed to achieve a significant objective, straightening out the curve at Kingswood Drive, because CBRM could not complete the process of buying or expropriating a needed empty lot. It's still empty. (The reconstruction also failed in its key objective, ending chronic flooding along the route, but that's another story.) Look at how long it took to get the rail crossing at the SPAR and Lingan Road, so the new connection with Victoria Road could be opened.) There may be factors we don't know that favored the location at the Hat-adjacent parking lot, but informing the public about the complexity of purchases is part of the benefit of public consultation. "Trust us, we know best" just doesn't cut it.
Joe Ward My Post Follow Me
I agree with your take. Public consultation may not have altered the decision, but it would have respected the community and gathered additional valuable insight. I don't hold much confidence in Council's ability to make an informed decision (nor their interest in doing much due diligence). At the last Fire & Emergency Services committee meeting, Bruckschwaiger made comments that suggest that he (a) didn't know where the alternative location was, and (b) wasn't aware of the boundaries of the actual fire service area for the Sydney departments. He talked about the chosen location being advantageous for being on George Street, as a straight drive to the hospital. However, the other location is on George Street as well, closer to the hospital. But the hospital is not within the actual service boundaries for this department. The chosen location also puts important areas like Membertou, King's Road, Alexandra Street, and the residential area around Newlands Ave farther out of the 4-minute response window zone - and these locations are within the service boundary for the department.
Michael MacNeil Follow Me
Why not leave the fire station where it is and turn it into a working /classroom for a new course Nova Scotia Fire Fighting. The province can over time send every Volunteer fire fighter through the course then start over again. With the majority of these firefighters coming from different parts of the province they would need motel rooms, they would need to eat and they will probably need a place to celebrate graduation. after all that is the idea behind moving the college in the first place. Students coming into town for upgrading courses are the students that will spend money in the downtown.
Debbie Keating Follow Me
This mayor and council have no respect for public opinion, and obviously someone at the top has unilaterally steered an entire council into a decision that blatantly disrespects and jeopardizes this wonderful business development in the downtown core. The same way they ignored Glyn Williams from Guysborough when he approached council to buy Archibald’s Wharf for above market value to put his Fortress Rum brewery and keep the community property as is. Total disregard for public interest. The North end is becoming a thriving arts community with absolutely no support from present administration who lack creativity or vision. It is NOT too late to act as a community!!! Send a message to all councillors that enough is enough, challenge the mayor on his commitment for public consultation on CBC radio in December (his words), sign the petition by adding your name to the growing numbers on change.org to support the Hat, go to the council meeting on March 24th to fill the seats.....It’s time to stand together as a community to support the Highland Arts Theatre and stop this madness.

Facebook Comments

View all the LATEST
and HOTTEST posts
View

Share this comment by copying the direct link.

  • Our Sponsors

Using this website is subject to the Terms of Use that contain binding contractual terms.