There’s a near-constant public spat between former premier Danny Williams and the City of St. John’s over the Galway development — and you have to ask why.
Not why a developer and the city don’t see eye to eye about their interpretations of agreements and requirements — gamesmanship in that area seems to be a given, as both sides angle — but instead, why it’s so endlessly public.
What exactly is to be gained?
In the final analysis, it’s hard to tell.
Here are the details of the latest fuss: Williams is complaining that the city has forced his company to surrender three acres of land for snow storage in the winter, and that the city has required that land to be cleared and fenced — refusing to issue building permits until the work is done.
Williams maintained the city keeps changing the terms for the snow storage site, and says he is essentially being blackmailed for the land, the clearing work, and the fence.
Strong words.
The city, meanwhile, has a different view of the contretemps. As Mayor Danny Breen pointed out, an up-to-three-acre site for snow stockpiling has been a requirement for the Galway development throughout the process, and had been agreed to as part of rezoning the land for the development in 2015.
Williams maintained the city keeps changing the terms for the snow storage site, and says he is essentially being blackmailed for the land, the clearing work, and the fence.
The snow storage land in question — right now, undevelopable land near the Galway water tower — is a fraction of the 2,400 acres in the Galway project, and the city says it has been willing to be flexible about the land until an assessment is done to determine how much land would actually be needed for the storage.
The ability to not issue building permits — and occupancy permits, for that matter — are some of the strongest tools municipalities have to ensure that builders and developers live up to their commitments. It’s easier to get the work done ahead of construction than to try and play catch-up later on. In fact, development agreements with other developers specify that building permits will be withheld until infrastructure work in the agreements is complete.
And it’s not strange and new. City development regulations spell out that the city can require the transfer of land for public purposes, and says, “no building permit for any building in the said area shall be issued until the developer has complied with all the provisions of these regulations with respect to the development …”
So where does that leave us?
A precis of the story is apparently either, “Developer doesn’t like being forced to live up to agreement,” or maybe, “City using legal tactic to enforce agreement.”
Choosing to fight this case in the court of public opinion suggests blowing off steam, but hardly solves any problems.
A teapot has met its tempest.
