Lantic Sugar site

I've seen this comment posted about a half dozen times on the Telegraph Journal website under articles about the proposed Irving HQ development:

• "While the Irving development is a definite win for the city, the citizens of Saint John spoke loud and clear through extensive public consultation in 2001 on the use of our waterfront in the Inner Harbour Land Use Plan that the sugar refinery site should not be used for industrial purposes."

I'm not sure if I agree with the logic. I don't think the Inner Harbour Land Use Plan of 2001 was something the city spoke loud for - this is probably just some Enterprise Saint John, Board of Trade, etc. document that was funded by the people with input from the 100 or so people who would sit in on any public consult that offers free coffee.

Many parts of the Waterfront Development Partnership's current plan (pre-Irving announcement) were highly doubtful. A big part of the plan involves the Coast Guard development that has already missed benchmarks and seems to be getting a free ride with the developers not being forced to answer questions.

Another part of the plan that is doubtful is the development of the environmentally contaminated former Lantic Sugar site. Many millions would need to be spend before this site was even ready to be graded. I doubt many families would want to be the first to move to an apartment on a recently mitigated site. Also, they would likely be reluctant to move to the coldest part of the south end, that is not only getting blasted from the wind, but is separated from much of the downtown by active industrial port uses.

We need to be realistic in considering what the city and the port are trading (with Irving in the middle).

The port has an underutilized dock at Long Wharf and the city has an underutilized development site at the former Sugar Refinery. The Wharf is better for development and the refinery site is better for port uses - the trade makes sense.