• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page

Comments

Comments

Recent comments

  • John Doe
    July 02, 2010 - 13:35

    I hope Fortis just boards these buildings up, like the rest of the buildings down there. That should make the Peg Norman's of the world happy. No modern building, no 400 plus parking spaces, no class A office space, no thousands of beautiful new retail space for restaurants and stores, no construction jobs, no spin off jobs, no new money for the city coffers...no, no, no!!! However, yes to more boarded up, run down dilapitated, graffittii ridden fire traps, and yes to the city spending millions of hard to come by dollars on a similar proposal a few step down the road. I mean it is totally unbelievable that people would rally behind the ugly monstrosity that is slated to replace the Woolworth's bldg., but are ready to fight to the death to stop Fortis from doing the same. This is not governance, this is insanity.

  • DB
    July 02, 2010 - 13:34

    Millions of dollars pumped into the economy for St John's.Mega tax dollars to fix up the pothole ridden streets of this city.Makes good sence to stop it from going ahead, wait I just woke up for the dream I was having what a bunch of old hags at city hall.

  • Justin
    July 02, 2010 - 13:34

    Is anyone surprised that our HACK politicians shut this down? We have a NL based company who wants to invest heavily in class A real estate, which we desperately need in St. John's and we have these totally incompetent people who want to put a harness on the Provinces growth. Clearly I am an advocate for building the City up, but nobody is proposing a NYC skyline here. This office space is a necessity! I am hearing that there is less than 1% vacany for Class A real estate in St. John's, which is driving lease rates close to those experienced on Bay Street in Toronto. Does this make sense to anyone? This is horrible for the business community in St. John's! You know what, I hate to say it because I am a proud NL'er, but maybe we are stupid! You would be hard pressed to find another city in Canada that would bombard a local multi-billion dollar company with red tape in an attempt to deter them from investing in a 75 million dollar project. I am all about the peserving the heritage appeal downtown, but we can have the best of both worlds. To me, our downtown right now signifies years of poverty and unemployment - I mean some of these buildings are just ridiculous looking!

    Shannie Duff, I hope you read this messsage: AT SOME POINT, NL IS GOING TO NEED NEW OFFICE SPACE. COMPANIES THAT ARE LARGE ENOUGH TO BUILD HAVE ECONOMIC THRESHOLDS FOR RETURNS AND ANYTHING UNDER 10 STORIES IS NOT VIABLE. I WORK IN THE BUSINESS WORLD AND YOU DONT (IF YOU DID, YOU WERE CLEARLY INCOMPETENT THERE TOO), SO PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THIS CITY CAN GROW WITHOUT DEVELOPING COMMERICAL EAL ESTATE?

    What I would really like answered is who are these people in the community that are concerned? Everyone I talk to, albeit mostly professionals with brains, are 100% supporting this inititiative. Oh but I must have forgot that we need to protect the view from Barter's Hill - after all those folks are huge tax payers and deserve at least that.

    This project has so much promise to create jobs for NL'ers, as well as the economic spinoffs that come with. It is a sad day!

  • Steve
    July 02, 2010 - 13:30

    Its in fact a lot of our own fault (not mine cause I didn't vote for her). Mrs Duff and the like are stuck in the past and can't get their head around St. John's becoming a modern city. These people in office will continue to butt heads with/aggravate/annoy anyone who wants to construct anything that doesn't fit in with or resemble something they remember when they were young...like the 1920's. Put them out to pasture and then the progress will have a chance

  • Graham
    July 02, 2010 - 13:30

    Cool down Justin. No one cares what you think, especially Shannie. Why don't you run for office -- you can get all your 'professional' friends to vote for you.

  • Jordan
    July 02, 2010 - 13:30

    The telly poll here as well as the polls on CBC and VOCM show that support for this proposal was evenly divided between people who wanted it built and those who didn't.

    This shows that the city council should be working with Fortis to come to up with a new plan that would see a larger majority of residents on board, instead of just letting the company walk away.

    Not everyone is going to be happy but I think had the exterior of the building been modified atleast 60% of residents would have supported the project, which should definitly be enough support for it to be built. Most people did not like that it looked like a glass box and for that reason only they didn't support it, so a design with more thought put into it should have gotten these people to support it.

    When was the lasst time the city had a $75 million proposal submitted to them, which also meant $1 million plus in taxes annually. unless this type of proposal was a common occurrence for the city it does not make sense to just let it fall through.

    It is time for them to start working down at city hall, it seems as though nothing ever gets accomplished.

  • john
    July 02, 2010 - 13:29

    That's what is wrong with Newfoundland. Don't want to see any possitive change. Guess what nothing, stay the same. Water Street downtown is a eye sore.

  • Dave in NL
    July 02, 2010 - 13:28

    Awesome Council! Nice way to turn away $75million. Brilliant.
    Wake up. There is NO historic value in the eight affected building facades on Water Street. EVERY city in Canada is at least the same age - post fire of 1892. Many countries, except Canada and the US, host structures dating thousands of years old. Who gives a pile of mud about one block of three stories of decaying architecture that is younger than some residents at Hoyles-Escasoni.
    I have visited 40 countries over the past 20 years and I can't understand first, why downtown is considered anything but a dump; and second, why new and nearly new (by world standards) cannot co-exist.
    Why don't you let development occur and focus in real issues such as why city employees receive fully funded health benefits FOR LIFE?!?! It will take four new Fortis buildings to cover the interest on the pension liability you have created.
    Again, awesome!

  • Taxpayer
    July 02, 2010 - 13:28

    Welcome back to the province Jordan. I guess all those mainland jobs were for narrow minded people too. Well got to be off now to pick up somethings at Walmart. They pay there employees better and the prices are the best too.

  • Taxpayer
    July 02, 2010 - 13:26

    Justin the only professionals are doctors, lawyers and accountants. Economists, bank managers and salesmen are not professionals as they do have a professional body. So was it a bunch of doctors, lawyers or accountants you listen to.

  • Get
    July 02, 2010 - 13:26

    Great- tax revenue lost and dilapidated building of questionable heritage value remain. Duff is surprised Fortis didn't come back with a new proposal? Has she no grasp of economics at all? The square footage from the height is required to make the project economic! Once again, St. John's has to suffer from the incompetence of it's so-called municipal leaders.

  • Taxpayer
    July 02, 2010 - 13:25

    In the comments on the editorial Pro Development suggested that business needed to line the pockets of councillors to get better decisions. It looks like based on the invective in comments here the business community feels that it is being short changed. The sad truth is that if business spent half its time playing by the rules instead of trying to make it own everyone would be far ahead. To the business community of St. John's why don't you just try to learn new tricks like obeying the rules likes the rest of us. You could also learn that you are a part of the community of St. John's and not the community.

  • Steve
    July 02, 2010 - 13:23

    The St.John's city council may have gotten played like a pawn in a chess game. They were certainly caught between a rock and a hard place so to speak.

    I don't see some of the controversy that was generated holding much water. If the downtown area of St.John's was a pristine area so to speak, containing all historical properties I could see some of the argument. A large portion of the downtown area has already been redeveloped. When you look at a number of the newer buildings that have been built over the past few years they most certainly do not blend or compliment the existing area what so ever. It is very difficult to make a modern high rise building look like the existing area.

    I think council took a huge gamble and lost. There are many fine areas of St.John's that can be designated as historical sites and protected. If you are trying to rejuvenate and modernize the downtown district it is foolhardy to think that a developer is going to build 3 or 4 story properties that blend in with the rest of the downtown area.

    It must be nice to turn away a 75-million dollar investment and a million dollars per year in lost tax revenue. Not to mention the employment or other spin offs from having more people working and visiting the downtown area. I would venture to say that almost any other community in Newfoundland & Labrador would be lining up with open arms to welcome this type of major investment.

  • Robert
    July 02, 2010 - 13:22

    Justin Burrage, your myopic view of the world is amusing. City hall did not barrage Fortis with red tape, and they certainly didn't say that they could not construct a new building. Fortis can construct whatever they want in 90% of the commercial space in St. John's. They wanted it at that particular location to give themselves a monoply on the harbour view and direct profits from other developments to theirs. Enabling that plan brings no benefit to the city - but a ton to the shareholders of Fortis at the expense of others. If there is a profit to be made in Class A space, someone will build, create jobs doing so, and provide the same tax benefit as the Fortis proposal - without cost to anyone but themselves.

  • Peter Johansen
    July 02, 2010 - 13:21

    What truly amazes me are those that put up posts alluding to this project making the downtown look worse, that is not possible. As well, almost as preposterous, are those that think allowing this project will lead to a manhattan like skyline. What is most maddening though, is the fact that a few, a very few, could lead the city's elected representatives around by the nose, and destroy a project that would have been to the benefit of every taxpayer in this city.

  • Nasty Nate
    July 02, 2010 - 13:19

    This is all Danny Millions fault! Anyone at city hall will tell you that ever since Andy Wells left he and his best frined Shanine Duf is runining that place down there and if you don't believe me ask Paul Sears.

  • Tom
    July 02, 2010 - 13:18

    Shannie Duff is saying that Fortis should look at renovating and upgrading the older Water Street buildings that were pegged for demolition. Can someone explain how ripping out electrical and plumbing and modernizing the interiors keeps those buildings heritage?

  • James II
    July 02, 2010 - 13:18

    This whole sleazy story is not about the absence of rules. It is a timeless and universal story of corruption and greed. The greed is that of powerful corporate interests who believe that rules are for smucks. When they announce a $75 million dollar project, they believe every money-grubbing politician within earshot will bow down and praise Allah. And generally they are right. Never mind that their plan is for a 15 storey monstrosity in an area zoned for four, or that it represents a further, massive visual impairment of the downtown streetscape and skyline. Never mind that it requires the destruction of an important historical façade protected under heritage rules. Never mind that it plugs one end of the oldest street in North America and creates a traffic nightmare. With few exceptions (Duff, OLeary, Galgay and possibly Hickman), most councilors would have gone for it in a flash. Many like OKeefe and Hann had already sent plenty of signals that they were on the side of big money. What stopped them? We did. The St. Johns Society of Smucks got together on-line and at public gatherings and roundly condemned this brazen attempt to throw the rule book out the window. We got online and responded to the endless queue of corporate aliases who warned us ad nausea that if we didnt knuckle under, the whole $75 million would wind up in Halifax, our downtown would become a barren wasteland, and our youth would be driven in bigger droves to more enlightened economic wonders such as Toronto and Fort McMurray. The avatars of Fortress Fortis with John Doe-ish names were unleashed to hurl their nasty invective at anyone who dared question the penthouse pronouncements from the Royal Tower. But the Smucks persisted and, for now at least, have persevered. One eye on their re-election kitties and the other on the growing public resentment to the double standard that flies outside City Hall, councilors ultimately concluded that discretion might, after all, be the better part of valor. When the news finally filtered back to the Tower, one of the lesser Royals a Duke I believe emerged on the parapet to issue a curt almost churlish statement that the game was over. Fortis was taking its ball and going home. The message loud yet unspoken - was that when the dust settles and the realization of what the city has lost begins to set in, we will have no one to blame but ourselves. As one lone member of the Society of Smucks, I worry that I might never again be able to sleep through the night.

  • Brett
    July 02, 2010 - 13:17

    Does this suprise anyone? The city council couldn't make a competent business decision if it was laid on their laps! Oh wait, it was. Point proven with this brain dead move. Good Business sense Shannie!

  • Donald
    July 02, 2010 - 13:17

    Good for you Fortis. It's time projects were allowed to proceed based on planning, zoning and codes etc. rather than let every councillor have his /her pet preference incrporated in the project.It's a shame, but is it possible that staff, when considering a project,must also keep the whims of certian councillors in the back of their minds. Come on back Andy we need you.

  • Justin
    July 02, 2010 - 13:17

    It's no surprise this was turned down. The same tired arguments were being made when I left sin city 10 years ago.

    Here in Kelowna, BC, we have the same problem. A city council full of old fogies, terrified of change who want to preserve concrete and corrugated steel buildings from the 60s for some bizarre historic value.

    Why doesn't this ever change? Because nobody under 50 ever votes in a municipal election. Seems too unimportant. Realistically, they affect your daily life more than federal and provincial elections. It's time we got out and did something about it.

  • Michael
    July 02, 2010 - 13:16

    The only way to resolve this is to VOTE OUT Shannie Duff and anyone else that stiffles development.

  • Paul
    July 02, 2010 - 13:13

    Hey Taxpayer. Geologists and engineers are also professionals if they joined the organization. I assume Justin was probably talking to engineers who just want to build stuff.

  • Ronny
    July 02, 2010 - 13:10

    What a shame. St. John's was one step closer to being a soulless, ugly, cookie cut downtown, just like Calgary, Edmonton or Toronto.

    Too bad :(

  • Sounding
    July 02, 2010 - 13:10

    Build them on Water St. West after the train station on all that wasteland that council can expropriate at the drop of a hat and we can have our very own Canary Wharf .

  • John Doe
    July 01, 2010 - 20:25

    I hope Fortis just boards these buildings up, like the rest of the buildings down there. That should make the Peg Norman's of the world happy. No modern building, no 400 plus parking spaces, no class A office space, no thousands of beautiful new retail space for restaurants and stores, no construction jobs, no spin off jobs, no new money for the city coffers...no, no, no!!! However, yes to more boarded up, run down dilapitated, graffittii ridden fire traps, and yes to the city spending millions of hard to come by dollars on a similar proposal a few step down the road. I mean it is totally unbelievable that people would rally behind the ugly monstrosity that is slated to replace the Woolworth's bldg., but are ready to fight to the death to stop Fortis from doing the same. This is not governance, this is insanity.

  • DB
    July 01, 2010 - 20:24

    Millions of dollars pumped into the economy for St John's.Mega tax dollars to fix up the pothole ridden streets of this city.Makes good sence to stop it from going ahead, wait I just woke up for the dream I was having what a bunch of old hags at city hall.

  • Justin
    July 01, 2010 - 20:24

    Is anyone surprised that our HACK politicians shut this down? We have a NL based company who wants to invest heavily in class A real estate, which we desperately need in St. John's and we have these totally incompetent people who want to put a harness on the Provinces growth. Clearly I am an advocate for building the City up, but nobody is proposing a NYC skyline here. This office space is a necessity! I am hearing that there is less than 1% vacany for Class A real estate in St. John's, which is driving lease rates close to those experienced on Bay Street in Toronto. Does this make sense to anyone? This is horrible for the business community in St. John's! You know what, I hate to say it because I am a proud NL'er, but maybe we are stupid! You would be hard pressed to find another city in Canada that would bombard a local multi-billion dollar company with red tape in an attempt to deter them from investing in a 75 million dollar project. I am all about the peserving the heritage appeal downtown, but we can have the best of both worlds. To me, our downtown right now signifies years of poverty and unemployment - I mean some of these buildings are just ridiculous looking!

    Shannie Duff, I hope you read this messsage: AT SOME POINT, NL IS GOING TO NEED NEW OFFICE SPACE. COMPANIES THAT ARE LARGE ENOUGH TO BUILD HAVE ECONOMIC THRESHOLDS FOR RETURNS AND ANYTHING UNDER 10 STORIES IS NOT VIABLE. I WORK IN THE BUSINESS WORLD AND YOU DONT (IF YOU DID, YOU WERE CLEARLY INCOMPETENT THERE TOO), SO PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THIS CITY CAN GROW WITHOUT DEVELOPING COMMERICAL EAL ESTATE?

    What I would really like answered is who are these people in the community that are concerned? Everyone I talk to, albeit mostly professionals with brains, are 100% supporting this inititiative. Oh but I must have forgot that we need to protect the view from Barter's Hill - after all those folks are huge tax payers and deserve at least that.

    This project has so much promise to create jobs for NL'ers, as well as the economic spinoffs that come with. It is a sad day!

  • Steve
    July 01, 2010 - 20:18

    Its in fact a lot of our own fault (not mine cause I didn't vote for her). Mrs Duff and the like are stuck in the past and can't get their head around St. John's becoming a modern city. These people in office will continue to butt heads with/aggravate/annoy anyone who wants to construct anything that doesn't fit in with or resemble something they remember when they were young...like the 1920's. Put them out to pasture and then the progress will have a chance

  • Graham
    July 01, 2010 - 20:18

    Cool down Justin. No one cares what you think, especially Shannie. Why don't you run for office -- you can get all your 'professional' friends to vote for you.

  • Jordan
    July 01, 2010 - 20:17

    The telly poll here as well as the polls on CBC and VOCM show that support for this proposal was evenly divided between people who wanted it built and those who didn't.

    This shows that the city council should be working with Fortis to come to up with a new plan that would see a larger majority of residents on board, instead of just letting the company walk away.

    Not everyone is going to be happy but I think had the exterior of the building been modified atleast 60% of residents would have supported the project, which should definitly be enough support for it to be built. Most people did not like that it looked like a glass box and for that reason only they didn't support it, so a design with more thought put into it should have gotten these people to support it.

    When was the lasst time the city had a $75 million proposal submitted to them, which also meant $1 million plus in taxes annually. unless this type of proposal was a common occurrence for the city it does not make sense to just let it fall through.

    It is time for them to start working down at city hall, it seems as though nothing ever gets accomplished.

  • john
    July 01, 2010 - 20:17

    That's what is wrong with Newfoundland. Don't want to see any possitive change. Guess what nothing, stay the same. Water Street downtown is a eye sore.

  • Dave in NL
    July 01, 2010 - 20:16

    Awesome Council! Nice way to turn away $75million. Brilliant.
    Wake up. There is NO historic value in the eight affected building facades on Water Street. EVERY city in Canada is at least the same age - post fire of 1892. Many countries, except Canada and the US, host structures dating thousands of years old. Who gives a pile of mud about one block of three stories of decaying architecture that is younger than some residents at Hoyles-Escasoni.
    I have visited 40 countries over the past 20 years and I can't understand first, why downtown is considered anything but a dump; and second, why new and nearly new (by world standards) cannot co-exist.
    Why don't you let development occur and focus in real issues such as why city employees receive fully funded health benefits FOR LIFE?!?! It will take four new Fortis buildings to cover the interest on the pension liability you have created.
    Again, awesome!

  • Taxpayer
    July 01, 2010 - 20:16

    Welcome back to the province Jordan. I guess all those mainland jobs were for narrow minded people too. Well got to be off now to pick up somethings at Walmart. They pay there employees better and the prices are the best too.

  • Taxpayer
    July 01, 2010 - 20:13

    Justin the only professionals are doctors, lawyers and accountants. Economists, bank managers and salesmen are not professionals as they do have a professional body. So was it a bunch of doctors, lawyers or accountants you listen to.

  • Get
    July 01, 2010 - 20:13

    Great- tax revenue lost and dilapidated building of questionable heritage value remain. Duff is surprised Fortis didn't come back with a new proposal? Has she no grasp of economics at all? The square footage from the height is required to make the project economic! Once again, St. John's has to suffer from the incompetence of it's so-called municipal leaders.

  • Taxpayer
    July 01, 2010 - 20:12

    In the comments on the editorial Pro Development suggested that business needed to line the pockets of councillors to get better decisions. It looks like based on the invective in comments here the business community feels that it is being short changed. The sad truth is that if business spent half its time playing by the rules instead of trying to make it own everyone would be far ahead. To the business community of St. John's why don't you just try to learn new tricks like obeying the rules likes the rest of us. You could also learn that you are a part of the community of St. John's and not the community.

  • Steve
    July 01, 2010 - 20:08

    The St.John's city council may have gotten played like a pawn in a chess game. They were certainly caught between a rock and a hard place so to speak.

    I don't see some of the controversy that was generated holding much water. If the downtown area of St.John's was a pristine area so to speak, containing all historical properties I could see some of the argument. A large portion of the downtown area has already been redeveloped. When you look at a number of the newer buildings that have been built over the past few years they most certainly do not blend or compliment the existing area what so ever. It is very difficult to make a modern high rise building look like the existing area.

    I think council took a huge gamble and lost. There are many fine areas of St.John's that can be designated as historical sites and protected. If you are trying to rejuvenate and modernize the downtown district it is foolhardy to think that a developer is going to build 3 or 4 story properties that blend in with the rest of the downtown area.

    It must be nice to turn away a 75-million dollar investment and a million dollars per year in lost tax revenue. Not to mention the employment or other spin offs from having more people working and visiting the downtown area. I would venture to say that almost any other community in Newfoundland & Labrador would be lining up with open arms to welcome this type of major investment.

  • Robert
    July 01, 2010 - 20:06

    Justin Burrage, your myopic view of the world is amusing. City hall did not barrage Fortis with red tape, and they certainly didn't say that they could not construct a new building. Fortis can construct whatever they want in 90% of the commercial space in St. John's. They wanted it at that particular location to give themselves a monoply on the harbour view and direct profits from other developments to theirs. Enabling that plan brings no benefit to the city - but a ton to the shareholders of Fortis at the expense of others. If there is a profit to be made in Class A space, someone will build, create jobs doing so, and provide the same tax benefit as the Fortis proposal - without cost to anyone but themselves.

  • Peter Johansen
    July 01, 2010 - 20:05

    What truly amazes me are those that put up posts alluding to this project making the downtown look worse, that is not possible. As well, almost as preposterous, are those that think allowing this project will lead to a manhattan like skyline. What is most maddening though, is the fact that a few, a very few, could lead the city's elected representatives around by the nose, and destroy a project that would have been to the benefit of every taxpayer in this city.

  • Nasty Nate
    July 01, 2010 - 20:00

    This is all Danny Millions fault! Anyone at city hall will tell you that ever since Andy Wells left he and his best frined Shanine Duf is runining that place down there and if you don't believe me ask Paul Sears.

  • Tom
    July 01, 2010 - 19:59

    Shannie Duff is saying that Fortis should look at renovating and upgrading the older Water Street buildings that were pegged for demolition. Can someone explain how ripping out electrical and plumbing and modernizing the interiors keeps those buildings heritage?

  • James II
    July 01, 2010 - 19:59

    This whole sleazy story is not about the absence of rules. It is a timeless and universal story of corruption and greed. The greed is that of powerful corporate interests who believe that rules are for smucks. When they announce a $75 million dollar project, they believe every money-grubbing politician within earshot will bow down and praise Allah. And generally they are right. Never mind that their plan is for a 15 storey monstrosity in an area zoned for four, or that it represents a further, massive visual impairment of the downtown streetscape and skyline. Never mind that it requires the destruction of an important historical façade protected under heritage rules. Never mind that it plugs one end of the oldest street in North America and creates a traffic nightmare. With few exceptions (Duff, OLeary, Galgay and possibly Hickman), most councilors would have gone for it in a flash. Many like OKeefe and Hann had already sent plenty of signals that they were on the side of big money. What stopped them? We did. The St. Johns Society of Smucks got together on-line and at public gatherings and roundly condemned this brazen attempt to throw the rule book out the window. We got online and responded to the endless queue of corporate aliases who warned us ad nausea that if we didnt knuckle under, the whole $75 million would wind up in Halifax, our downtown would become a barren wasteland, and our youth would be driven in bigger droves to more enlightened economic wonders such as Toronto and Fort McMurray. The avatars of Fortress Fortis with John Doe-ish names were unleashed to hurl their nasty invective at anyone who dared question the penthouse pronouncements from the Royal Tower. But the Smucks persisted and, for now at least, have persevered. One eye on their re-election kitties and the other on the growing public resentment to the double standard that flies outside City Hall, councilors ultimately concluded that discretion might, after all, be the better part of valor. When the news finally filtered back to the Tower, one of the lesser Royals a Duke I believe emerged on the parapet to issue a curt almost churlish statement that the game was over. Fortis was taking its ball and going home. The message loud yet unspoken - was that when the dust settles and the realization of what the city has lost begins to set in, we will have no one to blame but ourselves. As one lone member of the Society of Smucks, I worry that I might never again be able to sleep through the night.

  • Brett
    July 01, 2010 - 19:58

    Does this suprise anyone? The city council couldn't make a competent business decision if it was laid on their laps! Oh wait, it was. Point proven with this brain dead move. Good Business sense Shannie!

  • Donald
    July 01, 2010 - 19:57

    Good for you Fortis. It's time projects were allowed to proceed based on planning, zoning and codes etc. rather than let every councillor have his /her pet preference incrporated in the project.It's a shame, but is it possible that staff, when considering a project,must also keep the whims of certian councillors in the back of their minds. Come on back Andy we need you.

  • Justin
    July 01, 2010 - 19:57

    It's no surprise this was turned down. The same tired arguments were being made when I left sin city 10 years ago.

    Here in Kelowna, BC, we have the same problem. A city council full of old fogies, terrified of change who want to preserve concrete and corrugated steel buildings from the 60s for some bizarre historic value.

    Why doesn't this ever change? Because nobody under 50 ever votes in a municipal election. Seems too unimportant. Realistically, they affect your daily life more than federal and provincial elections. It's time we got out and did something about it.

  • Michael
    July 01, 2010 - 19:56

    The only way to resolve this is to VOTE OUT Shannie Duff and anyone else that stiffles development.

  • Paul
    July 01, 2010 - 19:52

    Hey Taxpayer. Geologists and engineers are also professionals if they joined the organization. I assume Justin was probably talking to engineers who just want to build stuff.

  • Ronny
    July 01, 2010 - 19:46

    What a shame. St. John's was one step closer to being a soulless, ugly, cookie cut downtown, just like Calgary, Edmonton or Toronto.

    Too bad :(

  • Sounding
    July 01, 2010 - 19:45

    Build them on Water St. West after the train station on all that wasteland that council can expropriate at the drop of a hat and we can have our very own Canary Wharf .