Port Points to Ponder

This post is in response to an inquiry made by Mary Campbell about the sources I rely on in support of opinions that I have expressed about the port project and what connections I may have with Barry Sheehy. Hi Mary- Thanks for your hint on evading the 2000 character limit, which is a real pain. As a GoCapeBreton newbie, I didn't think through how to post rather than to simply comment on the posts of others A little background information, my partner Gene and became full time Gabarus residents in 2008. We subsequently met Barry and his wife and quickly became friends. Among other projects, we have assisted Barry with editing his latest book. In the constant back and forth interaction that takes place between writers and editors, we have come to know Barry very well. We both hold him in extremely high regard. He is a person of high moral character who possesses a facile and creative mind and is one who takes his devotion to important causes and projects very seriously. While I cannot speak for Albert's interests, as I have met him on only a few brief occasions, what I can do is vouch for Barry's interests and intentions since the outset of his engaging on the port development project. Ever since he was shown the Sydport site by a friend, (a lifelong Cape Bretoner), Barry saw a great potential for a major port development that could have significant upsides for the local and regional economies. Being a visionary, he also saw that if a large-scale port project were to succeed here, it would also have positive impacts on the national economy. Those observations didn’t require a degree in port design or marketing. What was required was an open mind, imagination, vision, and extensive international business contacts coupled with a lot of consultation with world class experts combined with numerous around the country and around the world treks to meet with industry leaders. If Barry and Albert were not trained port development experts at the beginning, there is little doubt that they have become so, and are regarded as such now by leaders in the industry around the world. It took a combination of Barry’s long career of varied experience in which among many other accomplishments, he was engaged as a consultant by a number of Fortune 500 U.S. firms that were in trouble. As a troubleshooter for these companies, Barry successfully identified faulty business strategies and outdated corporate attitudes that were in many cases leading some of these huge firms toward serious loss of market share and in some cases toward dissolution. In effect, Barry was a turnaround expert. When it came to looking at the potential for a major project that could boost the Cape Breton economy, he understood from the get go that the Port of Sydney was an underutilized resource, located in a community where turnaround strategies were desperately needed. When Barry expressed on HPDP's initial website that one of their goals was to in effect make transportation history; (he is sometimes prone to hyperbole); in this instance, he meant it. This is a goal shared by Michael White, president of Maersk North America, which is part of the largest, most successful shipping company in the world. His company has the largest stake in the new mega-ships. Mr. White has expressed frustration at the failure of ports in North America to modernize and to enter the 21st century by adopting the latest technologies and making investments in landside infrastructure to end the crippling bottlenecks and slowed deliveries now being seen often at both East Coast and West Coast ports in the U.S. Anyone who has looked at the sorry state of much of the transport infrastructure in the U.S. recognizes that is not up to the challenges and the enormous stress it is under at a time when repair budgets have been slashed. And the fact is, no matter how many funds are expended in connection with some of these ports, they will simply not be able to compete for a share of the mega container ship business, because port modernization is not the only problem they face. It is that many U.S. ports in major metropolitan areas have to contend with insufficient acreage, already gridlocked highways and clogged rail lines. These last two issues have resulted in some instances in a doubling of time for containers offloaded at these ports to reach their destinations than had been the case a in years past. This dilemma would be compounded if instead of offloading 8,500 TEU ships; they modify their port to unload 18-24,000 TEU vessels. Barry recognizes that the opportunity afforded by the large footprint, undeveloped Sydport site is for a state-of-the-art container port that can be linked to upgraded rail capacity to accommodate offloading of the largest container ships in the world. As many experts have told him, there is no other location on the Eastern Seaboard that is in a better position than Sydney to make this happen, for a whole host of reasons. In a sense, their efforts have already changed transportation history. There is now a wide agreement by port builders, engineers, investors and significant segments of the shipping industry that Sydney has the potential to become a hub of world commerce. If that isn't making transportation history, I don't know what is. I know, I know, it isn't built yet. But with every new partnership, every new collaborator and every major player that has thus far come to the table, the likelihood of success grows. And it should be noted, there are a number of big players with whom ongoing discussions and negotiations are underway who appear to be close to joining the project, some as equity partners. The development model being followed will rely heavily of a number of equity partners to finance the project as it moves from concept to execution. This is a business model specifically chosen to limit the exposure to taxpayers and to maximize returns to the municipality and the province without the project having had to rely on government grants and massive government loans and tax incentives. This is a widely overlooked aspect of the project. It’s important to recognize that this high level of activity and commitment by outside firms has been reached with the expenditure of relatively few taxpayer dollars to date, as Barry and Albert have continued to take on the massive responsibilities and expenses that in such large projects are ordinarily borne by major corporations or supported with large funding infusions and/or incentives provided by various levels of government. For their efforts to date, they have received mostly skepticism and in some cases outright scorn. These attitudes will never be expressed by me or by anyone else who knows Barry well. No one who knows him would ever fault his unfailing generosity or his commitment to improving the places in which he has lived. The incremental port development strategy engaged in by HPDP began with securing two marine services companies as necessary attributes to support the expansion of ship traffic in Sydney. To put things into perspective, prior to McKeil Marine choosing Sydney as its Atlantic Canada base of operations, there are examples of how necessary such services are in an active port. As I understand it, in 2014, there were cruise ships that had to cancel visiting Sydney and sail by due to bad weather, as there were at the time no tugboats operating in the harbour. Some estimates indicate that these ships having forgone docking here cost the Port of Sydney more than a million dollars in lost potential revenues. These lost opportunities and lost revenues could well have exceeded the purchase price CBRM paid for the property where the McKeil operation is located. Today, if a large ship needs assistance entering the harbour, McKeil has tugboats and local crews that stand ready, 24 hours a a day to help guide them safely to dockside. Barry and any of us who have studied the Ivany Report and other white papers about the downward trajectory of the Cape Breton's economy (and to some extent the province's as a whole), needs to be open to recognizing when and where the time might be ripe for exploring the potential of large new development initiatives to perhaps be game changers. For Barry, from the beginning, the port project has been about helping to bring the port concept into reality. It has never been about what earnings he might derive from it. As time has gone on, he and Albert have spent significant sums of their own money and time to advance the case. They of course need to look at having those expenses eventually repaid and to receive reasonable compensation, should the project go forward, that is in line with the efforts they have expended to make it happen. My interest, as a retiree with a background in research, (business, historical, medical), has been to devote significant time, (about two years, essentially full time), to look into any and all aspects of port-related statutes, regulations, shipping industry trends, patterns and business practices, port operations, and periodic reviews of world, national and regional economic conditions as they might affect a new build port project. In the process, I have studied and collected an archive of hundreds of articles and websites with relevant details touching on one or another of the above subjects. As a result I consider myself fairly well informed on the worldwide shipping industry and on port development, operations, transshipment strategies and issues around intermodal transport and how all these elements operate in the context of the efficiency, (or lack thereof), of worldwide supply chains. I have never asked for, nor accepted any payment for my research efforts, (nor has my partner Gene, who has devoted much time to these subjects as well). In the interest of full disclosure, I was asked by Barry to coordinate the transition of the HPDP website to the new Novaporte site, for which I accepted a modest honorarium. Despite occasional missteps and misjudgments on the part of the parties who have engaged in the port development effort, the project continues to gain momentum, against the odds and certainly against the expectations of those who believe it will never happen. I remain optimistic that with all of the hard work that has gone into it and despite some of the frustrations that have been encountered along the way, it will eventually pay off for our local community, our province and the nation.

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


1,924 43

43

Log In or Sign Up to add a comment.
Depth
Susan Whitaker Follow Me
Unfortunately Mr. Sheehy and Mayor Clarke along with Council created the skepticism surrounding the port. Mr. Sheehy while being interviewed on CBC's Information Morning making negative references to the citizens of CBRM, not a good way to make friends. Mr. Sheehy, Mayor Clarke and council secretly giving away a well loved and used park in North Sydney. Buying the Sydport lands, well that just takes the cake, that was wrong on so many levels. Mayor Clarke and friends living under a cone of secrecy. No sir I do not buy what you are selling. Mr. Sheehy is in my eyes an historical author nothing more. Not a mega port developer. If this was real than bigger fish would have already signed on.
Michael MacNeil Follow Me
I agree with Susan 100%. If they have spent their own money, show us the receipts . Too many secrets, non disclosure agreements, writing unsigned editorials and back room deals to make this anyway legit, Read Mary Campbell's research on this site regarding what the two business partners were up to before they became port experts,
Tim Menk My Post Follow Me
Hi Michael- With all due respect, the focus on the idea that Barry and Albert should show their receipts is way off point. They are not elected officials; they are consultants who have chosen to take their compensation based on the port project succeeding. No matter how much they have spent in actual dollars or in kind contributions to date is less relevant than the results they have gotten so far, which are quite significant and bode well for the future of the project. I reiterate from my post, they have done all of the international travel and committed more than full time to moving the project forward using their own funds, for which they have been compensated only in part. You call attention to Mary Campbell's research on Barry and Albert's business background. I was aware of those details prior to Mary's having published the documents. To focus on that history alone does a disservice to both men who have had many substantial business successes and who have by dint of hard work become very successful in their chosen fields. While the business transactions Mary highlighted can be made to look questionable when they are viewed without any context, I have found no evidence that anything illegal or unethical was involved in any of the failed business efforts. As far as I know, no lawsuits were ever filed in connection with these business ventures. Let me put it this way; it is a case where there is smoke, but no fire. That being said, the fact is that those business failures cannot be legitimately connected with Barry and Albert's efforts on the port file. What is far more relevant is that in the present context, they have provided extraordinary performance in bringing together a viable group of developers and investors and have made great strides in securing international agreements that are laying the groundwork for the port project to succeed.
Wayne O'Toole Follow Me
And Tim...without transparency in port spending, how can citizens be sure that these travel and meetings and such have indeed not been paid out of port or CBRM funding? You stated in a prior comment about the great "expenses" these guys undertook and then state well what they spent is irrevelent. Were they not paid 168,000 for a port related study of some sort? Transparency is a huge issue and I don't see hiding data either from CBRM or your friendsas ethical one bit. Why not share what they have put in and what they stand to gain. The nost recent announcement from "the real wstare firm" said it would buikd a 1.6 billion dollar storage and shipping area "with tax payer money" so again explain howtaxpayers have no financial inter3st in this. No matter where in the oublic funds money is put forward it is wrong. Not one dime of public funding should go to this...we are already vested in well over $130,000,000 or 10% plus time in so we have made our contribution.if this is such a "glorous" port then find investors and yiur friends should be required to put cash on the table...buy shares or whatever to gain equity not have it handed to them for what is a very minimum contribution. CBRM residences have at least 10% equity for $130 mil plus so $13 million personal investment for 1% stak3 so7nds about fair...not a few flights and a couple of meet8ng and be handed soke market8ng rights. Again more data for you as I am a data guy after 25 years in the corporate world in auditing, and law, security and governance
Tim Menk My Post Follow Me
Hi Michael- Some further thoughts on your comments... No matter what my opinion is on these matters, I understand that everyone who opposes the port project has what they consider to be excellent reasons not to support the port development concept. It is a shame in my view that many of the critics have chosen to discount the prospects for success based on an assumption that the existence of multiple non-disclosure agreements indicates efforts to hide some material facts the revelation of which might prove detrimental to the project or uncover some sort of wrongdoing. I take the contrary view. The existence of so many non-disclosure agreements (a standard business practice when sensitive negotiations are underway), is a measure of how well the project is doing. It indicates the eagerness on the part of many companies to get involved in what they see is likely to be a profitable venture. This is something to be celebrated, not disparaged. It's my hope that your worst fears and suspicions will never come to pass and that the steady progress being made on the port file leads to a viable project that will inject much needed capital into our depressed economy and that will create many new jobs that are sorely needed.
Michael MacNeil Follow Me
Hi Tim- With all due respect, the focus on the idea that Barry and Albert should show their receipts is not way off point and would help them gain some support. Personally I don't think they spent a dime of their own money. I do t think either one has that much money to just go spend freely on the idea of a port in Sydney. I think the tax payers of the CBRM paid for all their expenses along withe the expenses and in some cases a handsome consultant fee for all the so callecompanies brought to the table. it indicates that they will say and do anything that is needed to get paid..
Tim Menk My Post Follow Me
Hi Michael- I regret that your skepticism is so complete that you will give no credence whatsoever to the notion that both Barry and Albert have spent any of their own money in promoting the port. And as far as making a statement about what you think may be either Barry or Albert's wherewithal to pay their own way when on port business, you simply are flat wrong. They both have ample resources and have committed substantial amounts of their presonal resources to their travel, including paying for their own multiple trips to China and various meetings in Europe and Egypt, among many other places around the world. I am sorry Michael that you feel so deeply that you are correct in your assumptions of malfeasance that you have in effect stooped to calling everyone involved in the port project and particularly Barry and Albert liars. That is way out of bounds and not only borders on libel, it meets the legal definition of libel. In all candor and with some real concern, I would advise you to be more careful in your criticisms and make sure that before you make absolute statements or allegations in absence of any evidence, you should be aware that you put yourself in possible legal jeopardy. It;s not worth taking that chance trying to make your points. I have to admit that I am baffled about your choice of words when you refer to all the "so called companies brought to the table". In saying this, you are putting forward the proposition that the firms thus far involved are in some way an illusion or not legitimate. Of the firms working on the port project, this description is inaccurate in every case. The folks at Bechtel, Canderel, Canadian Marine Engineering, McKeil Marine and CCCC would take exception to being referred to in that manner.
madeline yakimchuk Follow Me
With all due respect, there is libel, the defence to which is the truth, and there is bullying in the form of the threat of legal action, however unwarranted. A libel case would be interesting though, perhaps it would force open some of the secrecy. Michael is smart enough to have spoken about what he thinks. He did not use the term you refer to, and bullying through the threat of legal action will not prevent others from expressing their thoughts either. Shame on you.
Michael MacNeil Follow Me
HI Tim Because you did not like my comment you accuse me of calling everybody involved with the port file a liar. I did not call anybody a liar and I also did not put forward the propositihon that any firms were an illusion or not legitimate Your words not mine I also did not name any companies, that again was you. It would be interesting to know why you picked those particular companies? Harbour port developers were granted an exclusive deal to market the port for the CBRM.. One of the reasons that they were granted this was because they claimed to have spent $1.2million of their own money. Iam a tax payer and live in the CBRM and I have a right to know why due dillegence was not performed in obtaining proof of that claim. I do not understand why they refuse to show proof, because like I said in my comment , it would certainly give them credibility in the community
Tim Menk My Post Follow Me
Hi Susan- I get it why you are skeptical and not supportive of the port project. I admit to having heard Barry's comments on CBC and being concerned at the time that the answer he gave was at the very least unhelpful in garnering support for the project. Likewise I agree that at various points in the past year that certain actions by key players have created negative perceptions of the port project. However, I disagree with your characterization that Barry Sheehy is simply a historical author. As I said in my post, he has had a long and distinguished business career as an expert in corporate turnarounds and as an author of some best selling business books as well. As to Barry's accomplishments on the port project, it is clear that we will never agree on this point. The fact remains that in one year, some of the very biggest fish in the port construction and engineering world have become part of the port project based on Barry and Albert's efforts, with more on the way. Their compensation is going to be based on the project succeeding, not on a multi-million dollar multi-year contract as has been the case with prior consultants who failed to close the deal with a single player, large or small. Only time will tell if the port project will succeed. We will have to wait and see. I, for one, hope that it succeeds, as such a large project would provide a tremendous boost for our economy and future prospects for business expansion and the creation of secure jobs rather than a continuing decline.
madeline yakimchuk Follow Me
Excellent prose. Skillfully written. A Barry defence. In fact, a Barry homage. No sources cited. You gotta be kidding, right?
Tim Menk My Post Follow Me
Hi Madeline- Nope...not kidding. I am perfectly serious. I need to cite no sources in regard to my observations and opinions. I am entitled to my view as you are entitled to yours.
madeline yakimchuk Follow Me
I understood that this post was to respond to Mary's request that you comment on your relationship with Barry, and to provide sources for your opinions on the port. You have only given your relationship status, and I would say you are starry eyed indeed.
Tim Menk My Post Follow Me
Hi Madeline- If you review my response to Mary, you will note that I cited two years worth of research into port and transportation related issues. This has consisted of several hundreds of hours of gathering studies, reports industry articles and the like, all of which I have studied in an effort to educate myself about the salient issues surrounding port development. I am not about to cite each and every one of those sources of material. If you choose not to accept that as a sufficient response,,.so be it.
madeline yakimchuk Follow Me
You opened THIS post by saying that you were going to provide sources, which I suppose, upon reading the post again, are your emotions?
madeline yakimchuk Follow Me
If you hadn't referred several times to your partner I would be embarrassed that you had recently fallen in love and were writing poetry, not prose.
Tim Menk My Post Follow Me
Really Madeline? I had hoped that this website would provide a forum for serious discussion, not sarcastic comments. If this is what you consider appropriate discourse, I have to say that we have nothing further to discuss with one another.
madeline yakimchuk Follow Me
This is a public forum. If you have nothing further to discuss you could leave.
Tim Menk My Post Follow Me
Dear Madeline- You have mistaken my meaning in two cases. First, I made and intended no threat when I mentioned the libel standard. Besides, I am not the one who would be entitled to seek legal redress, as I was not the subject. I was in no way intending to act in a bullying manner. I was simply stating the jeopardy that can come from anyone putting forward unsubstantiated negative allegations. It is a good thing to be aware of. Secondly, when I commented that your earlier sarcastic comment inclined me not to have further exchanges with you, I think I was within bounds. If you take it that I crossed the line, I apologize. It should be clear also, that not every comment made on this website is appropriate. Some are false and others are mean-spirited. If I or anyone else chooses not to reply to one or another comment, that should not result in being asked to leave. As you said, this is a public forum. We are entitled to say what we choose. All I propose is that we should be respectful of one another and not make statements that are without foundation. That does not advance the cause of productive discourse.
madeline yakimchuk Follow Me
"I Don't Believe Them" is not an unsubstantiated negative allegation. It is a fact. "If you have nothing further to discuss you could leave." does not translate to a request to leave. It was merely an offer of help in solving a problem you seemed to have. What does not advance the cause of productive discourse is your statement that you have nothing further to discuss.
Susan Whitaker Follow Me
Tim, thank you for responding and we can agree to disagree on this topic. As I read the comments we all can agree this is a hot topic. I cannot speak for anyone else but I would like to see a project of this magnitude succeed but with the parties who are at the table at the moment I am not confident in their abilities. One very big point is Mayor Clarke and Council are working well outside the boundaries of their mandate. While they are consumed with port development our infrastructure is crumbling, they are spending monies which are for roads, water treatment, transportation etc. (Heck I have been trying to get my green bin fixed or replaced for 2 months and I can't because CBRM Waste Management doesn't have any money left). I am looking at it this way, you have been here since 2008 (welcome), I have been here since, well a lot longer than that, and in those years I have seen a lot of big business come and go, mostly go with their pockets full, so if you feel I am being rude and skeptical well we have been burnt way too many times not to be skeptical. Do I think Messrs Sheehy and Barbuski should be forthcoming with any payments or compensation which they received from CBRM to date? Yes I do. Will Mayor Clarke be forthcoming with the same? No he will not.
Tim Menk My Post Follow Me
Hi Susan- I hear you and respect your views on this issue, especially those grounded in the long sad history of how successive governments and various business and development schemes have made many promises not delivered on. I have concerns too about some aspects of how the port issue has been handled. But I can tell you that having seen what has been put in place over the past year as building blocks for a major port project, the possibility of its coming into being is very much stronger than it has ever been before. As to the mandate of the mayor and council when it comes to port development, I think there is a case to be made that the actions taken have been out of the ordinary and into areas that are usually beyond the scope of local government. However, given the dire straights that CBRM is facing, some may say that drawing outside the box is necessary. If not local action on development, absent significant support from either the provincial or federal governments, what is local government supposed to do. go down with the ship? This is not to diminish your concerns or to say that there may have been in some areas some overreach. I suppose it will either work out well and the council and mayor will be congratulated for blazing a trail for municipal independence or it will fail and they will be excoriated for wasting tax dollars. However, knowing what I know, my bet is on the project going forward. It has not been communicated very well to the general public, but there is substantial momentum with many critical pieces beginning to fall into place. There is of course no guarantee that all those pieces expected to fall into place will do so quickly or at all. We shall see. One of my friends has a motto about life that goes, "hope for the best, expect the worst and take what comes". I suppose that is the best we can expect in the end.
madeline yakimchuk Follow Me
"knowing what I know"? well, what exactly do you know that would make me believe like you do Tim... that is the question. You can write volumes on your inspirational reaction to Barry and the port work, but it is not possible to turn the ship around without facts, especially with the timing... election coming, lots of testimonials from friends but still not facts.
Wayne O'Toole Follow Me
Well lets see Tim. You claim "not a dime of taxpayer money"...lets ponder that fact. Since the inception of the "port dream" we have spent just under $130,000,000 of tax payer dollars...this is point 1. Second...land was sold for 1.2 million and a small portion (very small) was bought back for $6 million...that is a taxpayer loss of 4.8 million. CME was given a land mass that cost over $3 million for $250,000...net loss to taxpayers 2.75 million. The port has not paid almost 2 million in lease fees...another 2 million taken from tax payers. Taxpayers are funding Marlene Ushers salary of $200,000/year. Need I keep going? So the idea that taxpayers "haven't footed a dime" is complete rethoric. We have been bleeding money into that port for almost 30 years and your buddies will get a big payout for little to very minimum investment if you consider what taxpayers have already invested, unwillingly.
Wayne O'Toole Follow Me
And I also ponder the statement that your friends have taken on "massive expenses" with no data to prove such. I could say something similar if I didn't have to prove it. I guess I will be sued now...but bring it on. A lawsuit like that may open exposure...bring data out that should not be hidden in "non disclosure" agreements. Now you say there should not be an issue with non disclosures and I disagree for the following reasons. We the tax payers of CBRM are the major shareholders and in any corporation youshow me one where shareholders are denied access to data within their company. This should be transparent on anything involving the selling of CBRM land, purchases of land or assets for such large amounts or any public assets changing hands. Also, a big contract like "sole marketing" should be put out to bid and not handpicked with no public consult nor should a CEO per "appointed" with no competition and worse paid with tax payer dollars when it should be done by the entity. Need I go further or are my "facts" making your story fuzzy. I ask you to provide data to support your "cheering" or it holds no wait. Hey my uncle is a stellar guy too, 38 years in business and has international contacts...but that doesn't make him better on a "data" level nor make his interests about the public.
Brenda Durdle Follow Me
This sure seems like 'pie in the sky' and he 'drank the Kool Aid'. And. . . what part of "No Rail" don't they understand?
Wayne O'Toole Follow Me
Bingo. Its also been the same song and dance for near 30 years and still no mega port. Also, the original poster talks about conjested traffic and rail moving issues...well we have a destroyed railway and even if done over we still have to ship to the same busy rails and highways in the US so hiw is that a benefit...plus we have to ship 1500 miles
Tim Menk My Post Follow Me
Dear Brenda- The issue of the rail line from Sydney to Truro is only a very small part of the port development project. I can assure you that if the port project moves forward, the rail line will be upgraded and put back into service.
Brenda Durdle Follow Me
Oh Tim. I wish it were so. I would be happy if this went forward. But as others have indicated, this is not the first time folks come with a splash, promise the moon and take all they can. It can be too easy to be a big fish in a small pond such as Cape Breton. My understanding that it would / will not be easy to get the rail to Truro active again. I hope it all comes together but, given what I have witnessed in my years, I refuse to feel guilty for my lack of optimism on this portfolio. Truth is, we shall see.
Perry MacKinnon Follow Me
I do not know any of the players in this business and yes, there seems to be some questionable practices regarding the way the mayor and company handled things but damn, with all the negativity thrown at this proposal, and the naysayers seemingly hoping the efforts will fail for fear of being proved wrong, it would seem to me that yes, things are continuing as they have for the last 30 years...with loads of pessimism and ill wishes for those trying to accomplish something positive. Maybe lighten up a bit?
madeline yakimchuk Follow Me
I think that almost everyone I have seem active on discussions about the port have been very clear that it is the current leadership for which there is a lot of naysaying. As for the port, there are credible experts who say that it is not a wise investment, not that it will never happen, but that it is not a wise investment at the moment. There is also a strong tendency for those leaders who are hiding behind closed doors to insult the local people, while spreading the idea that all who do not trust these current fellas are just a bunch of naysayers. Most of us have been pushing for transparency Perry, and that is countered with insults and accusations of being negative? Do you realize that Protocase currently employed more people than the official expectation of the port fellas? We have a lot of very positive stuff going on here on the island, and it is being ignored for a chance to travel internationally. If not the port then what is the official theme of Cecil, yet clearly there are other things happening that could be supported instead.
Joe Ward Follow Me
You all have been very busy. I'm a late arrival to a very active, and very interesting discussion. In any event, I've read through Tim's well written post and all follow up comments. :) Tim's post is largely narrative. We're essentially asked to trust that his research has validated his impressions and conclusions. And, unfortunately, that's precisely how we started off badly with the whole project. The mayor decided that baiting the public with the idea that they spent "$1.2 million of their own money" was enough to keep the public satisfied. And for many who don't concern themselves too much with such matters, that may well be true. It makes for an interesting headline. But the first step in making it more believable would have been to ask Cecil Clarke not to be the one to say it. However, I certainly don't fault Tim for having a positive opinion of his colleague, or a greater confidence in his abilities or the likelihood of a successful outcome for the container port development project. We do have posts like Mary Campbell's that are formed based on research that is shared. However, many of our discussions are largely informal, and opinion based. Tim certainly knows more about Mr. Sheehy than the citizens of Cape Breton at large. One of the key concerns has been a lack of information. When doing research, not very much turns up, spare some things that would raise an eyebrow or two as to whether he has a background fitting to take on a leadership role in such a complex project. What is publicly available doesn't substantiate it. However, Tim's close access likely gives him insights that we haven't been provided. To the extent we lack information, and that becomes problematic, it's the fault of those not providing it. When we have the role of "marketer", that implies there should be an understanding of how to persuade or communicate to a particular audience. And to the extent that hasn't been done well, one might reasonably ask: Why not?
Joe Ward Follow Me
There is a sort of black or white fallacy at play here. I see it when there is the repeated suggestion that any criticism automatically suggests that those who deliver it are opposed to the port. There very well may be some people who are opposed for specific reasons; but it isn't universal. For my own part, I'm extremely skeptical, though pro port development. That's hard for some flat line thinkers to compute. But there's an entire spectrum ranging from "drank the Kool-Aid" on down to "there's no amount of success you can have that will impress". There's no one size fits all opinion. There is a certain smack of irony when you see people declare feedback as perhaps "pathological negativity", while failing to recognize the immense value in constructive criticism, even when you have to extract it from water cooler style informal commentary - with the skill of an objective thinker. If you simply dismiss everyone as negative, then you've missed an opportunity. And you've acted negatively in so doing. Greater transparency and accountability would be the starting point for me to gain greater confidence in the project and its key stakeholders. And to the extent that it turns out the HPDP actually are a solid team with a strong likelihood of success, then Mayor Clarke has caused them unnecessary criticism through his mistakes. Of course many experienced private industry business developers would suggest: "Duh". I.e. that's what you get when you try to work with unsophisticated municipal level government. Leverage their resources, but realize that they represent a major risk factor. HPDP would be well served in the next election if a pro-port challenging mayoral candidate actually displaces Clarke. They'll be able to continue without the political baggage and non-helpful series of major missteps that he's created and injects into the project. And if everything is on the up and up, greater transparency is only going to lead to greater buy in and public support.
Joe Ward Follow Me
A part of the issue here is that the marketing in terms of attracting various parties to the port has been successful. But the marketing communications and public relations moves have not. I feel this is an accurate assessment whether the responsible parties have been the CBRM, Port of Sydney Development Corp, or Mr. Sheehy acting on behalf of HPDP. Sheehy talked about getting the public behind them and even getting some form of booster group established. If he felt that was a necessary move, then he failed to realize that he was shooting himself in the foot with some of his other actions. You don't build confidence in the attentive segment of the public when you respond to a question from one of our most intelligent and highly respected local journalists (Steve Sutherland, Information Morning CB) with evasiveness. When asked about the $1.2 million in spending, Sheehy began with asking Sutherland if that was going to be the focus of their questions; and proceeded with a vague list of expenditures and a long winded list of places he's visited. You sort of wonder if he thought that just rhyming off all those places would make listeners forget about the question - and he may have been right. The problem with impressing a weakly interested audience (i.e. the majority) is that they aren't the ones who push the discussion. Those who take it upon themselves to create discussions like this one are the vocal minority. It's them who lead discussions, influence journalistic coverage, and persuade the public opinion who see their messages. So if Mr. Sheehy decided to not engage these kinds of discussions, is condescending towards the pubic in private emails to the mayor, or feels that he doesn't have to expound upon the very piece of info used to sell the public on his exclusivity deal (i.e. $1.2 million), then he shouldn't be surprised at the reaction in a small, but vocal and influencial group. This is not an anomaly. It's a basic tenet of marketing communications.
Joe Ward Follow Me
Mr. Sheehy is *very* intelligent. I have every confidence in that statement. If, however, he is visionary, that remains to be seen. In regards to the port project, I'm not sure the present plan would meet that criteria. As others have suggested, building a port here isn't a new idea. This isn't the first development group. It isn't the first time it was announced as a near sure thing. And it isn't even the only location whose stakeholders are convinced their location will be the one. E.g. Melford just announced via the media that its development permits were extended. However, this is where HPDP marketing has been more successful. Even the CBC billed Canderel's speaker at the port days event as shipping experts - which is obviously incorrect since their expertise is real estate development. In many cases, what I believe is that these are clear indicators that HPDP is successful in getting various significant stakeholders interested in development opportunities in the harbour. However, they appear frequently to be overstated. Bechtel is a very competent contracting firm. Ignoring CCCC's issues with the World Bank, they also seem to be able to successfully complete large scale projects. But we should never be surprised when a carpenter agrees to build a house, and a painter agrees to paint it, and a decorator agrees to decorate it... when we pay them to do so. I.e. they are contractors. And as a reminder, Bechtel was paid by the Port of Sydney Development Corporation, as was CCCC's visit(s). So it's good to see contractors entertaining RFPs or taking on small documentation projects. But let's not sell them as "investors" until they meet that criteria.
Susan Whitaker Follow Me
Thank you Joe - very well said.
Dan Besse Follow Me
Tim, I thought your post was very compelling. Thank you for sharing your views. One item that we all can agree on is that Cape Breton needs to create more jobs and more revenue. These activities must bring skilled workers and resources back to the area. Hopefully, we can all focus on the potential opportunity and how to make the place we love better for all of us. The industrious and determined nature of the people of Cape Breton has been proven through the decades. It would be great to be able to focus all of this energy towards positive change in the public and private arenas.
Tim Menk My Post Follow Me
Hi Dan- Good to hear from you and know your are keeping track of happenings here. Thanks for your comment. It is much appreciated. As you know, my method of operation is to try to promote positive outcomes, despite whatever hurdles present themselves. I intend to keep going because I believe that the existential threat to Cape Breton is so great that the success of a major initiative such as Novaporte may be one of the only ways of halting the long term economic decline and alleviating the endemic high unemployment and poverty rates on the island.
madeline yakimchuk Follow Me
Cape Breton has a long history of one major industry in each of many of our communities. This is a very 20th century solution. Nowadays there are other ways to approach existential threats, more grassroots, more diverse, multifaceted and less likely to fail all at once. With all the naysaying accusations around town, personally, I find this "if not the port then what" to be so much more negative than the people who are clambering for a more modern approach through diverse development. Sure, keep the file open, but what is truly endemic here is our creativity at the grassroots level. You may have to look to communities outside of the CBRM to see it, as we have been distorted by our company town past. A true visionary will see a different future.
Brenda Durdle Follow Me
So true Madeline. Well said.
Joe Ward Follow Me
As individuals interested in the port development initiative, we should just keep in mind that promoting a positive outcome isn't limited to marketing and PR. If we think in terms of the tidy framework of SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats), it's essential to be able to recognize and acknowledge the weaknesses and threats. We don't increase the likelihood of success by ignoring them, refusing to acknowledge their existence, or giving disproportionate focus to strengths and opportunities. Instead, we need to mitigate them. You cure cancer by catching it early enough. Asking the public to give full buy in and suspend scrutiny is a modus operandi shared by cults. Not trying to be dramatic. Just want to put it into a different perspective. So let's be constructive. HPDP can start by actively lobbying for the Port of Sydney Development Corporation to get a qualified and eligible board of directors and CEO with port experience in place. It's a major risk factor that should be mitigated. They can't possibly believe that having non-qualified stakeholders in key roles is going to be advantageous. Clarke is already fully committed for as long as he remains in office; so he'll continue working as their political advocate inside the Civic Centre. They should *offer* to provide a monthly conference call to *all* CBRM councilors. It's not as if more than three of them spend any time scrutinizing anything. But it will give taxpayers confidence that their representatives are included in info sharing. If they don't agree to show a cost summary of their investments, distinguishing between actual expenditures and equivalent value of their in kind contributions, they should agree to stop promoting the value of any expenditures in the media and ask Clarke and the CBRM to do the same. In fairness, it won't change the minds of those that are skeptical overnight, nor should it. But it'll be a step in the right direction for all of us.
Tim Menk My Post Follow Me
Hi Joe- Interesting suggestions that I hope will be taken under consideration. There are certainly threats and weaknesses that have been identified by participants in port conversations on this site. Taking steps to address them ought to be a priority, but unfortunately, at many points along the way there have been missed opportunities to better inform the public of the big picture, including the possibility of negative outcomes or consequences of some actions. Sadly, I think It is likely to be too big an "ask" of the powers that be to move toward greater openness when there is an election coming in October.
Joe Ward Follow Me
Agree with you, Tim. It's unfortunate that all this activity will overlap the election. Definitely a collision of concerns - and more indication of the hazards of doing development with gov bodies. :( In fairness, my own comments are also spiked with that overlap of concerns. Overall, I still believe in trying to balance critique with some form of constructive suggestion whenever possible. In thinking about the topic, I've frequently had the feeling that both HPDP and the mayor could be in a position of much greater support had certain circumstances unfolded differently. But the project is still ongoing; so at least we all have the possibility that things may iteratively improve. Just have to keep the discussion flowing. :)

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.