Archibald’s Wharf Rushed. Destination Louisbourg Stalled. Why?

Td;dr I’m going to discuss how the CBRM council and mayor appear to be picking and choosing favorites. And I’m going to do it using their own words. Yes, video snippets.

When you start comparing what happened with Archibald’s Wharf to the Synergy Louisbourg project, some dramatic inconsistencies appear.

Imagine an elephant hiding behind a telephone pole. It isn’t exactly very challenging to spot. All you have to do is glance in that direction. So spare me a few minutes of your time and let’s take a peek.

Other than blatant unprofessionalism, it’s still somewhat puzzling to watch councillors like Kevin Saccary use underhanded tactics against the Destination Louisbourg project.

And it was downright laborious to watch Mayor Cecil Clarke ramble on about how there is “uncertainty” due to a lack of communication with other levels of government. That was at the May 2nd, 2016 council meeting.

And it’s quite misleading. You’ll see why by the end of my first video snippet for you:

Did Mayor Clarke and the CBRM council suddenly develop a new fondness for rigorous due diligence?

That seems somewhat unlikely. If you see something that is moving along quickly, it’s often because someone in a position of authority wants it to. Archibald’s Wharf was one of those rush jobs.

On November 18th, 2014, the Cape Breton Post reported that the CBRM was in talks with CME (Canadian Maritime Engineering) to sell Archibald’s Wharf.

If you don’t know the location, it is/was a green space with two businesses, a boardwalk, a memorial, and a children’s playground in downtown North Sydney.

There was an immediate backlash from the public.

On December 19th, just one month later, council voted 10-2 to amend their recreation policy. That was step one in clearing the way to sell the property to CME. Because you can’t just sell green spaces and turn them into industrial zones that easy. If you can’t bend the rules, you change them.

And it was done despite estimates of upwards of 400 people overflowing the council meeting; a petition of 1,500 names having been submitted in opposition; and even an alternative offer of $260,000 from a business person seeking to save Archibald’s Wharf. That’s $60,000 more than CME paid for the land and buildings.

The public voice was loud and clear, but none of it mattered.

Just six months later, the council voted (9-3) in favor of the sale agreement. That was despite Councillor Eldon MacDonald telling us about getting the legal documents just the night before and falling asleep trying to get through it - up until 4:13am. Then he just couldn’t stay awake anymore.

He says they waited for the agreement for about 7 months. They received it the night before they were supposed to vote for it.

Despite the practical wisdom of Councillor MacDonald, 9 of the other councillors voted for the sales agreement without having enough time to read it thoroughly or invest enough time to fully understand it.

The constant public backlash, petition, and letters were ignored.

From the pre-Christmas surprise announcement to the re-zoning and closing of the deal, just 6 months had elapsed.

That is what you call a rush job. The CBRM wanted a private corporation to have that property on the promise of jobs. And they ignored the will of the people of North Sydney in forcing it through.

 

So how does that compare to the Destination Louisbourg project?

If the Destination Louisbourg project had been rushed through at the same rate, they would already have the Louisbourg boardwalk transformed into a crabwalk, and a new visitor center with Fortress Louisbourg ticketing in place... in the center of the town’s commercial area.

Instead, the Synergy Louisbourg group’s first detailed presentation before council was on January 14th, 2014. They were thoughtful enough to let everyone come back and re-adjust from their Christmas vacations.

A full 10 months before anyone (besides the insiders) knew of the future Archibald’s Wharf sale proposal, they made their detailed pitch to the CBRM council.

Destination Louisbourg doesn’t represent a private corporation. They have backing from Parks Canada, ACOA, Tourism Nova Scotia, and Destination Cape Breton.

They’ve presented detailed business plans, spatial plans, and even commissioned engineering plans for the boardwalk. They’ve presented to council multiple times, and they’ve secured funding from several parties.

They built a strategy around enhancing both the town of Louisbourg’s capture of tourism dollars, and an improved experience for visitors of the Fortress of Louisbourg... Cape Breton’s number one tourism attraction.

Outside of Councillor Saccary himself, they’ve had no significant public opposition of record.

And yet it’s now May 2016, and the CBRM is still stalling the project.

The mayor is contradicting his own CAO and solicitor (as we showed you in the video above).

Councillor Kevin Saccary joined a local group as a director of a newly registered “society” that essentially usurped the “Destination Louisbourg” brand from a CBRM funded/committed project. Since then he’s been tearing down the Louisbourg Synergy group in the Cape Breton Post.

Just recently CAO Michael Merritt refused to acknowledge the Synergy group had the go ahead to install new signage in the town. This is despite emails from his CBRM Public Works reps giving Synergy Louisbourg installation info and specifying which signs they could install...

Now, it would be wrong to suggest, despite all of the above, that the CBRM has been fully working against the project: 

The CBRM has handed over $15,000 early on, and committed to allocations of $40,000 and $400,000 contributions to date.

Still the nonsense about welcome signs, the underhandedness and wilful conflict of interest of Councillor Saccary, and the mayor’s recent ramblings suggesting that they haven’t talked to ACOA… are all putting the project at risk.

It’s been 2 years and 5 months. All this time has past on a project with a clearly defined scope, and the kind of government partners that can be counted on - for a project that appears to have strong support within the community.

And yet the CBRM keeps writing issue papers without removing the key bottlenecks to the project.

That is what you call a stall job.


Conduct the public consultation. Turn over the requested plots of land for $1. And include in the contract a requirement to secure project funding within 12 months - or the CBRM re-obtains the property for $1.

That would be immediately much better than the worthless buy back clause added into the CME agreement. That one looked like it was written as a favor to the buyer or by a lawyer running on less sleep than Eldon MacDonald the night he actually tried unsuccessfully to read until 4am.

It’s not that hard to advance the Destination Louisbourg project if the CBRM was really committed to doing so.

So what is the hold up?

The Curious Conflict of Councillor Kevin Saccary

If you follow Councillor Saccary’s actions a bit, it isn’t long before you see there’s a bit of an apparent ego there. He’s certainly a man who likes to get his hands into things and likes recognition.

I personally think he also cares for the communities he represents. I just lack the certainty that he’s able to rise above a Coronation Street-like sense of drama.

After seeing his comments in all council meetings related to Synergy and his behavior in the media, it’s become apparent to me that he’ll sacrifice professionalism for the sake of recognition.

I wrote two response articles each time he went out of his way to take shots at Synergy Louisbourg in the Cape Breton Post, here and here.

I still think his resignation is warranted, despite being entirely unlikely.

But Saccary may be a nice enough guy in his day to day activities. I’m sure that many people like him. So rather than have some of you think I’m just calling him unprofessional because I’m not a fan, let me share a collection of the terms he’s used in the CB Post to describe Synergy.

Note: If you think this is a professional way for a councillor to speak about an important economic development group in his district, please vote Saccary in October. He is certainly your representative.

Here are some of the phrases he chose to use after Mitch McNutt was hired, and after the Synergy Louisbourg group set about to replace some of the town’s signage:


"lack of integrity", "blatant conflict of interest", "We don’t need organizations like this creating negativity, in any community", "shady at best", "It's all tied in. It gets thicker as we dig", "There's no excuses"

I’m not sure the representatives at ACOA that invest so much in Cape Breton would be impressed with Councillor Saccary’s choice of words.

Nor would I expect them to be overflowing with enthusiasm to get involved with anything Kevin Saccary tries to sponsor in his district now, whether it be in Louisbourg or the charming Port Morien.

But, in my opinion, Saccary doesn’t act professionally. He’s underhanded. It was clear when he tried to burn the group down in the Cape Breton Post. It was clear when he tried to grab and squat on the Destination Louisbourg brand.

And it’s was clear again on May 2nd, 2016 when he tried to imply that Synergy Louisbourg Chairwoman Dorothy Payne was trying to be dishonest about the Park’s Canada investment in the overall project.

He added the word “muddy” to his list of favorite phrases. Then he tried to speak over Ms. Payne and discourage her from getting the opportunity to respond. Fortunately, she is well versed at dealing with an adversarial personality and took the opportunity to correct Mr. Saccary.

First I’m going to show you Mr. Saccary’s latest Coronation Street performance. And then I’ll show you why he was being fully dishonest.

We didn’t really need the video. If you look at page 96 of the 2014 document released by Synergy Louisbourg entitled “Louisbourg Tourism & Community Spatial Planning & Design Initiative” you - just like Councillor Saccary did - would see there wasn’t anything “muddy” about it at all.

Well, one thing is muddy. And that is Councillor Saccary’s intentions.

Most people are not big fans of the in-camera (aka private) council meetings. What kind of stuff is said behind closed doors, between councillors?

Is there any possibility that Saccary is continuing to misrepresent and malign Synergy Louisbourg to his colleagues?

At the May 2nd, 2016 meeting, one councillor gave us a reason to raise an eyebrow.

How should the chairwoman be addressed?

During the meeting, Councillor Doncaster asked an excellent question.

He wanted to know the relationship between the Destination Louisbourg project and the support for the reopening of the Louisbourg-Gabarus highway linkage.

The consultant presenting then referred the answer to Dorothy Payne, the Chairwoman of Synergy Louisbourg.

As she approached the presentation desk, Doncaster perhaps didn’t realize that the microphones pick up whispers too.

In a sideways glance, he turned slightly to Councillor Saccary and said:

“There’s your First Lady”

I reached out to Councillor Doncaster to ask him what he meant by that comment and he replied shortly afterwards.

He explained that he wasn’t trying to “show her up”. He expressed his compliments to the fine job “Dorothy and her volunteers are doing”. And he explained it was a reference to someone’s wife or partner; and apologized if I felt it was intended otherwise.

I appreciate Councillor Doncaster responding. However, I sent him an email reply describing my interpretation. And the core of my response was that it’s hard to imagine that term being used in a respectful way when directed at Councillor Saccary.

Saccary’s been trying to burn them in the Cape Breton Post, usurp the “Destination Louisbourg” brand, and less than ten minutes later was doing his best to corner Ms. Payne as I showed in the video above.

In what way would she be his “First Lady”?

I’ll let you, the reader, watch the video and decide if Councillor Doncaster was being complimentary or not. My feeling is that he was making a joke to Saccary as a direct result of how Ms. Payne is spoken about, off the record.

The only ones that will know for sure are the councillors themselves.

But in the interest of transparency, when such things are said, they deserve a showcase.

Afterall, it was in the middle of an official CBRM council meeting.

Et tu, Paruch?

I’m a fan of Councillor Paruch. He along with Councillor Eldon MacDonald are among the tiny minority on council that will speak up, and call a spade a spade.

Unfortunately in addressing Ms. Payne, I think Paruch momentarily forgot which council he was on.

Councillor, please don’t forget those 9-2 and 9-3 votes on Archibald’s Wharf matters. Let’s see what he said:

When Synergy Louisbourg impresses upon council the sense of urgency to move forward after more than two years - and highlights the opportunity cost of not doing so… they are absolutely correct to do so.

While Paruch and Eldon may pay attention to the business case and earn the trust of their district, that certainly isn’t universal behavior for this council.

When both of these councillors strenuously objected to the approval of the Archibald’s Wharf sale on such short notice, who among their peers stood with them? Just one.

So Councillor Paruch needs to avoid giving the rest of council far more credit than they deserve based on their behavior and actions.

And he should avoid scolding development groups for wisely emphasizing their business case and the urgency of moving forward.

So why was one project rushed and one stalled?

I’ve shown you what Destination Louisbourg has been up against, with particular emphasis on the underhandedness of Councillor Saccary.

Archibald’s Wharf was a sale of a green space to a private commercial entity. And it was rushed through with councillors voting for a sale agreement most of them hadn’t even fully read.

It was done in the face of a major community backlash. But the CBRM agreed to the deal anyway.

Destination Louisbourg, by comparison, is an extensively planned and detailed community project with backing from multiple levels of government including ACOA and Parks Canada. They’ve had great support and almost no public opposition (beyond what Mr. Saccary manufactures).

They are over 2 years into the project and still getting maligned in the Cape Breton Post by the councillor for their district, and scolded before council.

And though usually supportive, they have Mayor Clarke now suggesting he hasn’t talked to ACOA. This despite just months before he, his solicitor, and his CAO Michael Merritt emphasized that they did... and that everything was clear.

The next council meeting is again in May. The Synergy Louisbourg project will be on the agenda again. And it’s going to be very interesting.

We’ll have an opportunity to find out just how far Saccary is willing to go.

Maybe he’ll have the strength of character to admit to and explain his opposition on the record instead of by bits and pieces in the Cape Breton Post.

In just a few days, we’ll have another opportunity find out to what extent the CBRM really does pick and choose its favorites.

Perhaps they don’t care which citizens are sitting and watching from the cheap seats. However, they might want to consider that the executive seats are watching too.

It won’t be lost on ACOA, Tourism Nova Scotia, Destination Cape Breton, or Parks Canada… as to who is delaying, jeopardizing, or interfering with the projects they are working with.



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


7,315 25
https://capebreton.lokol.me/archibalds-wharf-rushed-destination-louisbourg-stalled-why
I’m going to discuss how the CBRM council and mayor appear to pick and choose favorites. And I’m going to do it using their own words. Yes, video snippets.
Gov Election Past Elections Election News & Issues Gov Political Commentary

25

Log In or Sign Up to add a comment.
Depth
Michael MacNeil Follow Me
My opinion is that the CBRM want to make sure that the second cruise ship berth gets built in Sydney, not because it is the best choice for the CBRM at this time, but it pays the exclusive partners CCCC and mainly Harbour port Developers with the Federal Infrastructure money available.They have been already sucking dry a fund left over from Harbour Dredging .that was intended for other uses.and possibly the $500,000.00 that Lisa Raitt sent down before the last election.to market the port.Nobody in these Exclusive deal's needs to publicly show any receipts,so if a decision is made with Federal Infrastructure money the companies and Individuals with exclusive rights who are really living off our Tax Dollar right now will be the first at the trough. They are not having much luck in convincing the community or the Federal and Provincial governments so why not kill or slow down other competing projects for cost sharing.This is why Waste water treatment was killed, a much needed project and a project that the Federal government would more than likely strongly support.All these actions and companies/individuals should be audited and investigated before a municipal election is allowed to happen in the CBRM. Hey if all works out to be on the level, Good luck to them all. i suggest to everyone to send an email,letter or phone call off to your elected officials,ombudsman and Auditor General.Obviously i will not be paying $250.00 to hear any of them speak and eat Lobsters at their upcoming Ports Day, but it will be interesting to see who does show up for the Free Meal on essentially our Tax Dollar....Louisbourg and North Sydney should hold a hot dog BBQ the same night and donate all proceeds to the Fort Mac Red Cross Fund.
Wayne O'Toole Follow Me
Great article Joe...and I believe Micheal hit some nails square on the head. First, some big private "buddies" want their first crack at any money that Synergy Louisbourg night get so they can fill their pockets. Saccary is likely trying to usurp not only the brand but the budget so they can get their hands on more cash. Shameless, and corruption at its very worst.
Louise Carter Follow Me
Thank You Joe for sharing the truth.Absolutely disgusted with the turn that our council has taken on the revitalization project for Louisbourg. Putting the signs front and center as a way to distract the critical issues at hand. We all know it is so much more than about signs.Time for us to put their feet to the fire and not take them away until we get the answers that we deserve. As for the remark by Councillor Doncaster lets call a spade a spade Councillor we all know who your unsavory remark was targeted for, We will be waiting with baited breath for your apology at the next council meeting.
Joe Ward My Post Follow Me
I agree. If Councillor Saccary has issues with the plan, he should have the integrity to present them honestly. Trying to misrepresent the sign installation or Parks Canada's complementary investment is fully and completely underhanded. He was aware of the plans and details of both all the way back to 2014. So he can choose his strategy going forward, but he's going to be called on it every time he acts unprofessionally from here onwards.
Harvey Lewis Follow Me
Joe , wish you had picked up on Kevin's comment about "behind the wall" This has been the attitude about Parks Canada for 50 years , and now when there is finally a chance to get them into the community, it is being railroaded by non progressive thinkers.
Joe Ward My Post Follow Me
Yes, that appears to be the entire basis for his questions. I suppose he's willing to jeopardize a major development while pandering to a "Town versus Park" theme that simply isn't helpful in any way. Rather than be critical of the project, perhaps he should offer a counter proposal that is as comprehensive as what the Synergy group has provided.
Joe Ward My Post Follow Me
Note: Synergy Louisbourg has an allocation of $600,000 listed in the "Capital Program 2016-17" slide: http://www.cbrm.ns.ca/images/agendas/2016-2017_Budget_Summary_Document.pdf This is the document released in preparation for the May 12th budget sessions.
David LeMoine Follow Me
It is surprising to read an account of our "divided" town and our Councilor that is not biased and inaccurate. Thank you for providing background and context. It is imperative that our Mayor and Council support the Louisbourg waterfront development plan and the initiatives of Destination Louisbourg NOW. We have an opportunity to grow an existing industry in a municipality desperate for tax revenue, jobs and positive news. If our Council continues to stonewall and delay apparently influenced by our honorable Councilor, to the point where this project goes off the rails or even dissolves, then they are sending the message to prospective businesses, prospective visitors, our business community, and most importantly our citizens than Louisbourg is just not worth the trouble.
Joe Ward My Post Follow Me
Perspective: In today's CB Post, regarding the second cruiseship birth to Sydney harbour, and the status of that project, the mayor is quoted as saying: "We're now to the point, after two years in, you need to have clarity." The Synergy project is over two years in.
Michael MacNeil Follow Me
He also states that the CBRM might consider doing the second cruise ship berth on their own if the other levels of government do not jump in. He wants that second berth so bad, it is a hot issue ever since harbour Port Developers came on the scene, before that is was Container Terminals. I do not know how, but I suspect that all the current delays and fighting over at Louisbourg is connected to a pay out for the people with exclusive rights to market and develop the port before our Mayor leaves office.
Evan Perry Follow Me
My money is on Eyking announcing tomorrow the federal portion of funding for the second birth.
Michael MacNeil Follow Me
That is possible
Harvey Lewis Follow Me
I missed whether the $600,000 for Synergy was approved yesterday in the Capital budget?
Louise Carter Follow Me
Decision on monies requested by community groups have been deferred until June.
Joe Ward My Post Follow Me
They can and still should accelerate the scheduling of the public consultation regarding selling the waterfront land (both plots) for $1. That would send a signal to ACOA that a key asset is secured and can move forward. They can transfer that land prior to distributing the $400k (i.e. the funds they already voted to allocate). However, if they simply delay the project into the start of the tourism season, then they are just wilfully damaging/jeopardizing it entirely. And, based on what happened with Archibald's Wharf, the public consultation is merely a formality. The entire town of Louisbourg would have to loot and riot to change the mayor's mind if he and his obedient councillors decide they want to do the deal. Of course, in this case, there's never been any indication of opposition beyond Councillor Saccary and a few of his colleagues. The mayor will be quite distracted tomorrow when Eyking announces either (1) Feds commit 1/3 to the 2nd cruise ship berth, (2) they are moving ahead with the free trade zone approvals, or (3) CCCC convinced them to spend another 25 million re-dredging.
[comment deleted] Posted
Joe Ward My Post Follow Me
Good point. I forgot about the navigational aids. That could be the funding coming.
Mary Campbell Follow Me
Eyking is coming in his role as "chair of the International Trade Committee," which makes me lean toward the Foreign Trade Zone designation (which, as far as I can tell, is basically meaningless. The government site says all of Canada is like one big FTZ http://www.fin.gc.ca/ftz-zf/index-eng.asp). It could be the cruise ship berth, although I'd think that would be infrastructure funding, not International Trade. The other option is ownership of the harbor bed, but negotiations are ongoing with the Transport Ministry. My money is on the FTZ because it basically costs the Feds nothing but sounds good (the Harper government declared the "port" of Alberta an FTZ). Oh, and they tried making Sydport a free trade zone back in the '80s, but the Feds never modified any of the necessary laws to allow it to function as such. I wrote about it here: https://capebreton.lokol.me/port-update-or-that-time-sydport-was-a-free-trade-zone
Mary Campbell Follow Me
And...there it is: http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=1065179&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Joe Ward My Post Follow Me
So in layman's terms, import/export businesses in the designated areas get cheaper taxes and tariffs compared with non-FTZ zones? This "Quick Fact" seems a bit preemptive: "The Port of Sydney is the first port-of-call on mainland North America for vessels transiting the Suez Canal and acts as a gateway to the Great Lakes. With sea, road and air transportation, the multimodal options allow for shipping and receiving flexibility."
[comment deleted] Posted
Michael MacNeil Follow Me
Clark stated this in today's paper "We actually applied for the entirety of the CBRM geography so that if something could be developed in Louisbourg, it could have a competitive advantage and that it could be incorporated under the foreign trade zone,” he said." So I would imagine that Louisbourg seafoods will be benefiting from this. Good luck to them, they seem to be a progressive company with new ideas
Joe Ward My Post Follow Me
It seems like it was available to everyone anyway. Some discussion and info here: https://capebreton.lokol.me/cbrm-designated-as-free-trade-zone-ftz-by-federal-government
Joan O'Connor Follow Me
Well done again, Joe.
Dan Yakimchuk Follow Me
"With sea, road and air transportation, the multimodal options allow for shipping and receiving flexibility." Is there any relevance to the fact that the FTZ announcement excluded "rail" in their list of multimodal options. http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=1065179&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Mary Campbell Follow Me
Nicely spotted, Dan! You bet that's relevant!
Joe Ward My Post Follow Me
Something has changed. Check it out. Here's my 4th installment on what Councillor Kevin Saccary has been up to in Louisbourg: https://capebreton.lokol.me/is-councillor-saccary-trying-to-cover-his-tracks
seek-warrow-w
  • 1
arrow-eseek-e1 - 10 of 10 items

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.