Hi BNRA folks,
I’m resending this to you all as the PDF I attached to the original was too big for our
mail server. That file had this letter to Mayor Savage, plus the By Law email saying
Bloomfield is ’not deemed unsafe this time’, and pictures of construction debris, broken
windows, derelict fencing, graffiti, etc, etc.
Dear Mayor Savage,
Over the past month, me and a number of other concerned citizens have complained to our
Councillor and to By Law enforcement about the dangerous and unsightly property at the
Bloomfield school site. Some of that correspondence has been cc’ed to you. Now I am
writing directly to you as the responses (and lack thereof) have proven quite
unsatisfactory.
The basic issue is that I believe the Bloomfield school site is both dangerous and
unsightly. Less than 2 days ago, By Law Enforcement wrote to me that it is not dangerous.
I respectfully submit that the Enforcement Officer confuses recently cleaning up syringes,
broken glass and some of the trash with the dual issues of dangerous and unsightly
premises.
1. The site is dangerous
a. The site and all three buildings contravene HRM’s website describing a dangerous
property as “dangerous or likely to cause danger to health, life or property” and is a
“building or structure which presents an allurement or has open access to the public”.
b. There are signs on the buildings warning of falling bricks. Corners of some of the
buildings are literally crumbling, with bricks falling to the ground. I would suggest that
falling bricks present danger.
c. The site is not secure enough to prevent falling bricks from falling on someone.
Waist high fencing on Agricola and Robie streets do not secure the site, and there is
effectively no barrier to entering the site from Almon Street.
d. The buildings present an allurement as evidenced by the amount of graffiti on all
of the buildings, and windows obviously broken from the inside of the buildings.
2. The site is unsightly.
a. Broken glass, syringes, furniture and some garbage have recently been cleaned up.
However again quoting from HRM’s website, the property is unsightly in that it is a
“property which has items that are decayed, deteriorated, demolished or in a state of
disrepair… overgrown grass… lack of exterior maintenance to buildings/structures…
graffiti on private property”.
b. There is no evident exterior maintenance to the buildings other than attempts to
close off ground level access points. Most of the windows in all three buildings are
broken and provide relatively easy access to the interiors.
c. The landscaping has been ignored completely.
d. Graffiti is obvious on all three buildings.
e. All of this unsightliness is particularly galling as By Law Enforcement recently
posted a notice of dangerous or unsightly premises on a property on Creighton Street (near
Buddy Daye). It noted that the owner is “hereby ordered to remedy the condition of the
property by cutting or mowing all overgrown grass, weeds or shrubs, so as to leave the
Property in a neat, tidy, environmentally compliant and safe condition.” Under threat of
daily fines, the owner was given 7 days to remedy the matter. Why shouldn’t Bloomfield be
subject to at least these same conditions?
I’d be happy to do a walk about on the Bloomfield site with you to determine whether you
agree that it is dangerous and unsightly. In the meantime, here are some pictures I took
after receiving the Compliance Officer’s email, posted below. I suggest that the pictures
reinforce my opinion that it is still both dangerous and unsightly.
Your reply would be appreciated,
Ron Skibbens
Show replies by date