We must stand behind City's arena project

I feel it is imperative to respond to Mr. Gary Ikeman’s April 9 reaction (“Arena plan must consider our scarce resources”) to my March 26 opinion piece (“Numbers tell a different story"). In my view, this recreational project is too important for our present citizens, and even more so to our future generations, to allow his self-serving comments to sit uncontested, given that they appear to represent a very small, but heretofore vocal, number of citizens. I believe we must resolutely stand behind Council’s final project when our funding grant proposal to senior levels of government is delivered.

Accurate data are the foundation of serious, useful discussion. In his prior communication, Mr. Ikeman “cherry-picked” largely irrelevant statistics and mixed them with other misrepresentations and omissions of salient facts. My letter to the Examiner served to challenge that. In his retort, Mr. Ikeman described my response as “trivial and mostly irrelevant.” Interestingly though, he did not describe the content as “inaccurate.”

In his retort, Mr. Ikeman did not respond to the facts contained in my letter. Instead, he offered some vanilla-type comments, which Council has clearly been cognizant of in their deliberations. Such is often the strategy of choice when one cannot proffer substantive comments, i.e. just take another tangent.

Mr. Ikeman has cleverly appeared to conditionally support the renovation of the one existing arena. However, the existing obsolete arena is “bursting at the seams” and that is the principal issue facing Council. The City desperately requires a second full-size ice surface, amongst its other recreational needs.

The content of Mr. Ikeman’s WAMCAM website is skued to reflect his own negative sentiments on the project. All of his 21 web contributors had inputted their comments, still without identifying themselves. He still has not yet removed that shield of secrecy from his website, nor has he allowed contrary views to appear there. Doing so might lend some measure of integrity to his site and would offer an opportunity for his contributors to revise their comments after receiving new or updated information, and create a transparent environment for dialogue amongst neighbors. To inhibit such discussions, in my opinion, is mostly irresponsible. Not all Westmount residents have school-aged (or any) children, yet all citizens support our public schools. Not all Westmount residents take advantage of our library’s wealth of knowledge, yet all citizens support this service. And not all Westmount residents use emergency services, yet all citizens support the efforts of these well-trained men and women.

As stated by Mayor Karin Marks on numerous occasions, citizens will have several opportunities — the two Victoria Hall meetings, the review package, the telephone survey, the City’s website blog — to express themselves before any action plan is finalized.

In the spirit of community living, I ask Mr. Ikeman to bear in mind that Council was elected to plan and act for its citizens and future generations. It appears that Mr. Ikeman has little interest in the myriad benefits that this capital investment would yield: programs for improved physical health; more opportunities for positive social interaction for its citizens (including seniors and youth); and higher utilization rates (by age, gender, household occupancy) of the new recreational facilities.

The governance of our culturally, economically, linguistically diverse community requires common sense, compassion and, at times, a little clairvoyance. In their decisions, our Mayor and eight City Councilors strive to achieve one outcome: a community in which citizens have the most opportunities to live their best lives. In return, Westmount retains its enviable status as the best place in Canada to live, work, play and retire!

Mr. Ikeman is correct in his April 9 letter that this dual ice-surface project must have adequate parking and security for the facility’s users. However, attendees at the April 6, Council meeting heard Mayor Marks and our Councilors address these specific issues.

Westmount has recreational land. With the anticipated support of senior levels of government, the City will also have the financial resources and expertise to bring this project to fruition.

With the assurance that his concerns will have a chance to air in any of several positive ways, Mr. Ikeman is welcome to lend his spirit and enthusiasm to a project which will enrich our community in so many ways.

Howard B. Hoppenheim

The Boulevard

Consider the alternatives

To the editor:

Attempting to shoehorn an enlarged arena/pool facility onto the site of the present installation is becoming increasingly costly and is short-sighted, as it severely limits any possibility for future expansion.

Typically, the large, open area behind Westmount High School could be a much more advantageous site for the arena/pool renewal project. Some significant advantages of this suggested site relocation are:

By relocating the renewal project to a different site, the present arena/pool facility could remain in use while the renewal project is being implemented.

The area behind Westmount High School would afford ample space for above-ground parking and scope for any future expansion of the facilities.

Without severe space limitations, there would be flexibility to design a more cost-effective facility which, if necessary to reduce initial cost, might be readily enlarged in pre-planned future stages.

Being in close proximity to the high school, the site's facilities could be readily deployed for athletic activities that would enhance the school's physical fitness program. <@Rb?We must stand behind City's arena project

To the editor:

I feel it is imperative to respond to Mr. Gary Ikeman’s April 9 reaction (“Arena plan must consider our scarce resources”) to my March 26 opinion piece (“Numbers tell a different story"). In my view, this recreational project is too important for our present citizens, and even more so to our future generations, to allow his self-serving comments to sit uncontested, given that they appear to represent a very small, but heretofore vocal, number of citizens. I believe we must resolutely stand behind Council’s final project when our funding grant proposal to senior levels of government is delivered.

Accurate data are the foundation of serious, useful discussion. In his prior communication, Mr. Ikeman “cherry-picked” largely irrelevant statistics and mixed them with other misrepresentations and omissions of salient facts. My letter to the Examiner served to challenge that. In his retort, Mr. Ikeman described my response as “trivial and mostly irrelevant.” Interestingly though, he did not describe the content as “inaccurate.”

In his retort, Mr. Ikeman did not respond to the facts contained in my letter. Instead, he offered some vanilla-type comments, which Council has clearly been cognizant of in their deliberations. Such is often the strategy of choice when one cannot proffer substantive comments, i.e. just take another tangent.

Mr. Ikeman has cleverly appeared to conditionally support the renovation of the one existing arena. However, the existing obsolete arena is “bursting at the seams” and that is the principal issue facing Council. The City desperately requires a second full-size ice surface, amongst its other recreational needs.

The content of Mr. Ikeman’s WAMCAM website is skued to reflect his own negative sentiments on the project. All of his 21 web contributors had inputted their comments, still without identifying themselves. He still has not yet removed that shield of secrecy from his website, nor has he allowed contrary views to appear there. Doing so might lend some measure of integrity to his site and would offer an opportunity for his contributors to revise their comments after receiving new or updated information, and create a transparent environment for dialogue amongst neighbors. To inhibit such discussions, in my opinion, is mostly irresponsible. Not all Westmount residents have school-aged (or any) children, yet all citizens support our public schools. Not all Westmount residents take advantage of our library’s wealth of knowledge, yet all citizens support this service. And not all Westmount residents use emergency services, yet all citizens support the efforts of these well-trained men and women.

As stated by Mayor Karin Marks on numerous occasions, citizens will have several opportunities — the two Victoria Hall meetings, the review package, the telephone survey, the City’s website blog — to express themselves before any action plan is finalized.

In the spirit of community living, I ask Mr. Ikeman to bear in mind that Council was elected to plan and act for its citizens and future generations. It appears that Mr. Ikeman has little interest in the myriad benefits that this capital investment would yield: programs for improved physical health; more opportunities for positive social interaction for its citizens (including seniors and youth); and higher utilization rates (by age, gender, household occupancy) of the new recreational facilities.

The governance of our culturally, economically, linguistically diverse community requires common sense, compassion and, at times, a little clairvoyance. In their decisions, our Mayor and eight City Councilors strive to achieve one outcome: a community in which citizens have the most opportunities to live their best lives. In return, Westmount retains its enviable status as the best place in Canada to live, work, play and retire!

Mr. Ikeman is correct in his April 9 letter that this dual ice-surface project must have adequate parking and security for the facility’s users. However, attendees at the April 6, Council meeting heard Mayor Marks and our Councilors address these specific issues.

Westmount has recreational land. With the anticipated support of senior levels of government, the City will also have the financial resources and expertise to bring this project to fruition.

With the assurance that his concerns will have a chance to air in any of several positive ways, Mr. Ikeman is welcome to lend his spirit and enthusiasm to a project which will enrich our community in so many ways.

Howard B. Hoppenheim

The Boulevard

Consider the alternatives

To the editor:

Attempting to shoehorn an enlarged arena/pool facility onto the site of the present installation is becoming increasingly costly and is short-sighted, as it severely limits any possibility for future expansion.

Typically, the large, open area behind Westmount High School could be a much more advantageous site for the arena/pool renewal project. Some significant advantages of this suggested site relocation are:

By relocating the renewal project to a different site, the present arena/pool facility could remain in use while the renewal project is being implemented.

The area behind Westmount High School would afford ample space for above-ground parking and scope for any future expansion of the facilities.

Without severe space limitations, there would be flexibility to design a more cost-effective facility which, if necessary to reduce initial cost, might be readily enlarged in pre-planned future stages.

Being in close proximity to the high school, the site's facilities could be readily deployed for athletic activities that would enhance the school's physical fitness program. <@Rb>John D. Dorey

Victoria Avenue<@$p>