A silver lining to the Archibald Wharf fiasco?!?

We had some unexpected relatives from BC drop by last night. After some small talk, one of my cousins asked me to show him the waterfront park our municipal government had sold for $200,000. Seems people "from away" find the whole saga to be even more unbelievable than we do. Maybe if the results of a feasibility study comes back with favourable results, we could offer a walking tour of the parking lot. Tourists might pay to have a picture of the barbed wire fence behind them, rather than trying to snap a photo of the harbour through it?

Posted by
Share your news and events for free on goCapeBreton.com

2,265 11
Directory Government Municipal Gov Election Past Elections Election News & Issues


Log In or Sign Up to add a comment.
P Sheehan Follow Me
The truth is under the Council carpet and they'll keep it there . You can't buy 5 acres on most shorelines on CB for the cheap a price . It's too bad the recommendation document from the CBRM finance people, who are supposed to crunch numbers, to keep it or sell or develop it was never made public . Surely they haven't burnt the evidence yet ???
Bonnie Cox Follow Me
Well we know $200,000 can build you a single building to house washrooms on the Sydney Boardwalk....... ABC
Joe Ward Follow Me
This photo really puts the value of the property and the loss to the community, as both public green space and the tourism centre of North Sydney, in perspective. It's my understanding that Marine Atlantic sees more than 3 times the volume of passengers arriving/departing by ferry than the cruise ships at Sydney. This may constitute a gross failure of the CBRM's fiduciary responsibilities to its citizens. If they paid almost $200,000 to build a bathroom, I would challenge the CBRM to estimate how much it would cost to rebuild everything depicted here. And then explain why it was handed to a private corporate interest for next to nothing, against the will of the people of the Northside who proactively raised their voice and came together to tell the CBRM they did NOT want this public greenspace sacrificed. Louisbourg needs to watch out. They squashed the Synergy Louisbourg/Destination Louisbourg project. Do you think they are going to give any more care and attention to the remaining water front area there? And without that key piece to build a town core that captures tourism activity and dollars, the hub school project and the Louisbourg Gabarus highway project has greatly reduced chances of succeeding. Mayor Cecil Clarke, and the bulk of the current councillors need to go. Do not fall for the 100 empty promises.
P Sheehan Follow Me
Developers always win with Municipal councillors and certainly with municipal bureaucrats . How often do you read in any Maritime news that a proposed project was turned down . When it comes to selling Municipal land, chances are you only hear about it after it is sold. They never think like anyone else to sell on the open market at the best price you can get . Far too often there is a lot of smell as there is a backroom deal . So, how to get around this ? You have to pick your issue and if selling land and the handling of tax dollars is what is not being well managed , then vote them all out . Trouble is , you will be left with the same senior bureaucrats who will continue to recommend the same stupid financial deals as they are still in bed with the local movers and shakers that treat them to win them over . So how did the last 100 promises work out ???
Robert MacDonald My Post Follow Me
And to those who keep saying let it go, it's a dead issue, we are well aware of the fact that it is gone. But it's not like a used car that is sold and driven away, we witness the loss every time we drive down our main street. The majority of the residents of CBRM sat back in silence as this entire farce unfolded, so fair warning for the rest of you… the only port and only harbour that matters to our current government is that of 'The Port of Sydney'. Remember that battle cry, "If not The Port, then what!". If they want something or need it to further some hidden agenda, they can simply take it.
P Sheehan Follow Me
Robert : the issue should be kept alive. What it tells you and other taxpayers is that Council is NOT transparent and has a very poor policy and process when it comes to buying and selling or developing any municipal land. They may argue that the dollars during a negation need to be kept confidential , but that is really only during negations . The selling or buying price should be public knowledge when they list and after they buy . There should be 2 or 3 private appraisals as well as evaluations by 2 or 3 realtors . There should be financial analysis and a document that is the "business case " , and all goes to council as a package . It has to be treated like a proposal call or a tender call as the bare minimum. SO suggest you and others try to document what you want to see changed and start shoving that request under every candidates nose to get them to buy in before your election . If you have no one with a real estate background, let me know .
Robert MacDonald My Post Follow Me
First you have to view the chronological order of events from Dec.2014. With the first "rumours" of a sale, to a "leaked" plan of sale, on to the vote to re zone and then the actual sale, we had no time to react. The residents of North Sydney, who should have been given the option to be pro or against this proposal, were never included in the process. From the get go, our phone calls were ignored, emails unanswered and letters to the newspaper ignored. We contacted the ombudsman, he concluded it was a borderline in legal sense, and the ducks had been put in a row many months before the initial "rumour" was "leaked". So regardless, be it a land sale or vote to alternate dates for pickup of garbage, the political process was denied to residents of North Sydney. My point is what should have transpired never did and until anyone in that chamber, involved (other than those three honourable councillors) grow a pair and tell us the truth, they should be do the only honourable thing and go home… We can't afford to accommodate a Senate for another four years.
Joe Ward Follow Me
This is a precedent setting warning flag for the destruction of our most valuable community assets. The mayor and council showed us that they'll liquidate public assets, hand them over to deep pocketed corporate interests, and destroy green space in the heart of our downtown. This risk remains for *every* community in the CBRM for as long as Mayor Cecil Clarke and several council members keep their positions. But we can greatly reduce that risk .We start by firing Mayor Clarke, by voting for a better candidate who has real commitment to the community. And bringing in fresh new faces to council - those committed to fighting *for* their communities.
P Sheehan Follow Me
If no one runs against Clarke ,then what ?? Is he elected by the taxpayers or by the other councillors ???
Cora MacNeil Follow Me
Sell this for $200k and we are taxed to death for seeing water. Something doesn't add up. How did they ever get away with it??? Beyond.... Real crooked stuff IMO.
Mike Johnson Follow Me
And 3.5 years later, the buildings and land that would have been developed by Authentic Seacoast as a Tourist Center still sit empty. Anybody will an inking of business sense, foresight or honesty would have taken advantage of both opportunities. And now the Mayor who did not, and orchestrated the whole thing for his friends in Ontario, wants to be Premier. He has more 'in camera' meetings each year, than all previous in CBRM, and more than all other Municipalities combined. Everything that he does is 'non disclosure', 'Confidential' in secret, or manipulated. He does not believe in transparency, or due democratic process. Anybody who supports this man does not want to learn, listen or accept the reality of government in CBRM.

Facebook Comments

View all the LATEST
and HOTTEST posts

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.