KJIPUKTUK (Halifax) – When writing about the Halifax Board of Police Commissioners, I often remind readers that it was a CBC journalist who, in 2017, uncovered the stats that eventually triggered the Wortley report and the subsequent province-wide ban (sort of) on street checks. 

In all these years since a human rights court ordered police to track race-based statistics, in 1993, it never occurred to any commissioner to ask the chief of police about them. Several of those commissioners are still on council.

The Board of Police Commissioners didn’t hold police accountable then, and that continues to this day.

Last week Councillor Lindell Smith, the current chair of the Board of Police Commissioners, told the Chronicle Herald that the Board can do very little about the horrible ways the evictions of unhoused people by Halifax police on August 18 were executed, including the decision to use pepper spray on non-violent protesters and bystanders.

“What the board doesn’t do, is the board can’t give operational direction and the board can’t tell the chief how to do things,” he said. 

This means the board can’t direct police when they can and can’t use pepper spray or riot gear, for example.

“The commission also can’t tell police to not enforce bylaws or compliance,” Smith told the Chronicle Herald. 

“I would never want that, at all,” he said when asked if politicians should be more involved in directing police on operational duties.

“Those are places where we have politicians who have their own view and could be swayed by public perception and who knows what decisions could be made that impact community.” 

Going by this logic and the examples Smith lists, very few police actions can ever be questioned. I find that a bit hard to swallow, given that we fund the Halifax Regional Police to the tune of $89 million.

Thankfully, Smith is wrong. 

Of course we don’t want politicians to tell police to throw away a parking ticket, or interfere with investigations and other day to day activities. 

The Nova Scotia Police Act is very clear on that, and rightly so.

But that same Police Act clarifies, in section 55, when a police board does have jurisdiction and can ask questions or even issue directions and set priorities. It turns out community values and public perception matter a whole lot.

(3) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), a board shall 

(a) determine, in consultation with the chief officer, priorities, objectives and goals respecting police services in the community; 

(b) ensure the chief officer establishes programs and strategies to implement the priorities, objectives and goals respecting police services; 

(c) ensure that community needs and values are reflected in policing priorities, objectives, goals, programs and strategies; 

(d) ensure that police services are delivered in a manner consistent with community values, needs and expectations; 

(e) act as a conduit between the community and the police service providers; 

(f) recommend policies, administrative and organizational direction for the effective management of the police department; 

(g) review with the chief officer information provided by the chief officer respecting complaints and internal discipline; 

(h) ensure a strategic plan and business plan is in place; and 

(i) ensure the department is managed by the chief officer according to best practices and operates effectively and efficiently.

On August 18 we witnessed a series of over the top police actions, including the use of pepper spray on innocent bystanders without advance warning, the donning of riot gear, efforts to prevent journalists from doing their job, the absence of name patches on officers’ uniforms, and other questionable actions. 

Questioning these practices has nothing to do with operational interference, and everything with the board’s broad job description as listed in plain English in the legislation, especially in terms of subsections c and d, referencing community values.*  The Board can tell police to clean up its act when the community feels that’s called for.

Meanwhile, chief of Police Dan Kinsella should be challenged and held accountable for the many lies he told at the press conference on the day following the police evictions.  

If all else fails they can discipline the chief.

What happened this month has been a wake up call for many citizens of HRM. Let this also be a wake up call for the commissioners. They have way more power than chair Lindell Smith seems to think.

*A similar argument has been made by the Nova Scotia Policing Policy Working Group (here, and in more detail here).

See also: Three somewhat remarkable images from today’s protest

The post The Board of Police Commissioners has more power than chair Lindell Smith thinks appeared first on Nova Scotia Advocate.

January 10, 2121 

Dear HRM Planners, Mayor and Council 

RE: Cancel the Proposed WSP high-rise- Case 22927 

The proposed Westwood high-rise tower at 2032-2050 Robie Street has already been  turned down by HRM Mayor and Council. Height for this location was to be restricted to  6-storeys. Council’s decision to allow a Development Agreement is discretionary and  should be cancelled. It is effectively raising the dead. This Development Agreement not  only denies the earlier council decision and staff recommendations to limit the height to  6 storeys, it makes a mockery of public participation by voiding the historic and more  recent input of citizens. 

Values reflected by statements such as Councillor Smith’s June 2019 motion “In  recognition of the substantial investment made in the preparation of a planning  applications for the site located at 2032- 2050 Robie Street, Halifax” beg the question  whose interest are Mayor, Council and staff representing? The owner’s investment of  money in thinking about what to do with their land is not a legitimate basis for approving  a project. 

Are residents of the area being given recognition for their substantial investment in their  homes, livelihoods, neighbourhoods, community services and time to participate in HRM  planning consultations and processes?  Regulations and policies put in place under the Regional Plan through the efforts of  Councillor Nick Meagher in the early 1990s were intended and did restrict high-rise  developments so as to protect the Halifax Common and the Quinpool Road Business  district. These had the full support of the area residents and merchants. This development is not necessary and will cause harm.

Necessity: The Willow Tree Group found that mid-rise (five-storey) development along  Quinpool Road would allow for 2,500–2,800 new bachelor, 1-, 2- and 3-bedroom  residential units. Distributed density with multiple developers is a form of gentle/hidden  density and in-fill that is now the preferred form for getting densification done right as  determined in a 2020 report by Ryerson University’s City Building Institute—”Density  Done Right”—distributed density with mid-rise, townhouses and has multiple advantages  over high-rises which in fact contribute to “tall and sprawl”. (See attatchment.) 

Harm: Objections from staff and council against the original proposal included: property  is located mid-block; backs on the existing low-density buildings on Parker Street;  frontage only on a single street; shallow property depth; shadows on the adjacent  Commons to the east; contextual fit of the proposed building heights; massing of the  buildings; setbacks; spacing between towers; density. 

To these could be added: parking, traffic, congestion, pedestrian safety and air pollution  associated with vehicular emissions; neighbourhood stability; wind and shade; noise and  privacy; property values and housing affordability; concentration of rental market to the  exclusion of smaller developers; greenhouse gas emissions associated with demolition,  construction and operation; over concentration of development in a single area rather  than distributed; disrespect for meaningful public participation and public process;  mismatch between populations density and provision of services (water, waste water etc) 

Cumulative Impact: These aforementioned problems are not all single issues about the  one development but many should be considered cumulatively along with the two other  towers on this block, the Atlantica Hotel and Dexel building south of Quinpool, the  unknown QEII Redevelopment and the unrevealed St Pat’s High School site.  

That is how do these all work together? What is the desired density? What is the  cumulative effect of shadow and wind on the Halifax Common, Cogswell Park and the  neighbourhood? What is the cumulative impact of the vehicles associated with all of  these developments within close proximity of one Halifax’s busiest intersections and  hospital emergency entrance and exit? What is the impact on affordable housing in the  area-especially Parker Street where 12-14 buildings seem to be now zoned as a future  service lane?

We remind you that at the public hearing for APL’s 20-storeys there were ~1039  submissions in opposition and dozens of members of the public who spoke against that  development. And just prior to the public hearing an independent Corporate Research  Associate poll indicated that the majority of HRM residents (52%) supported 16-storeys  or less with only 1/10 of those surveyed supporting the 25-storey option. Despite this  opposition Mayor and Council approved a 25-storey building. Adding this 23-storey  Westwood proposal would form a wall of high-rises, standing between the unwanted 25- storey building and next to the Welsford high-rise. 

Although urban green space plays a huge role in mitigating the effect of climate change and nature improves mental and physical well-being HRM’s Centre Plan is not  creating any new public green space for the Peninsula. It should therefore not consider permitting further degradation of either the Halifax Common or Cogswell Park with more  shade, wind, noise, blocked views, traffic, pollution, for a project that does not add  anything to the public realm but only takes full advantage of over-taxing the public’s  socially provided greenspaces. 

Please do not approve this proposal. Please take this as an opportunity to re-think the  Centre Plan for this site. 

Thank you, 

Peggy Cameron, Co-chair, Friends of Halifax Common

See also: Open letter to Premier Stephen McNeil: Cancel the Lloyd Hines parking garage

With a special thanks to our generous donors who make publication of the Nova Scotia Advocate possible.

Subscribe to the Nova Scotia Advocate weekly digest and never miss an article again. It’s free!

The post Letter to Council: Stop the proposed Westwood high-rise tower at 2032-2050 Robie Street appeared first on Nova Scotia Advocate.

Earlier this week a long-awaited report by Ontario criminologist dr. Wortley established that no matter how you look at the data, Black people are much more likely to be subjected to a police check than are whites.  

See also: Robert Wright on the Wortley report: Street checks are illegal and should be banned

Dr. Wortley’s report also documents many anecdotal reports by African Nova Scotians of unprofessional, rude, and sometimes blatantly racist police behaviour during traffic stops and other interactions with police.

There were no Black youths invited to the panel that responded to dr. Wortley’s street check report earlier this week. Never mind that Black youths, and especially young Black males, are subjected to street checks more than any other group.

In contrast, the community meeting at the North End Public Library focused on those voices of Black youths. Black youths also organized and led the proceedings.

“We are here today because we had a visceral and emotional reaction to what dr. Wortley’s report brought to life. For many Black people this wasn’t  a shock or a surprise, rather it validated what we had been saying for many years,” said DeRico Symonds, one of the organizers of the event.

“With all respect, it took a well educated white man from Toronto for society to believe that, yes, Black people experience racism,” Symonds said.

“But still we’re marginalized. Halifax is hiring a new chief of police, but where is our voice in that?” asked an audience member.

“To heal as a community, we need not only a ban, we also need an apology,” somebody suggested.

The day after the report was issued Justice Minister Mark Furey announced a ban on street checks executed as a quota or performance tool.

That’s meaningless, speakers at the community meeting said. Even Minister Furey could not name one jurisdiction where such a quota is in place.

Everybody is saying how complex it all is. Don’t let yourself be fooled in believing that. It’s simple. Police checks are racist, and should be banned, said poet and activist El Jones.

Councillor Lindell Smith, who spoke briefly when the protesters gathered at the steps of the Gottingen Street police quarters, did not ask for an immediate ban.

Smith told the crowd that at the next meeting of the Board of Police Commissioners he would ask for a moratorium while the report’s recommendations are further discussed.

Call for a ban, somebody in the crowd yelled.

“The next Police Commissioners meeting is on April 15, at 12:30 pm, it’s a public meeting. You can attend, and you can also send in your written response, we need to hear that,” Smith said.

See also: Racist street checks are a white silence problem

With a special thanks to our generous donors who make publication of the Nova Scotia Advocate possible.

Subscribe to the Nova Scotia Advocate weekly digest and never miss an article again. It’s free!

The post Protesters call for an immediate ban on police street checks appeared first on Nova Scotia Advocate.