Civic Alert: Give us all the facts

Some clear facts did emerge. Others were fuzzier and could have benefitted from the greater rigour a rebuttal process would have provided.

For instance, what is the real position of Westmount Park School? Two differing views of the school’s staff were presented. But the City had a third view after consulting the school board and thought it agreed to the proposal.

Who forms the school board? What is their position? How much did they know when they gave the green light to the City? Why do so many of the staff disagree?

The school is a public institution, and it is important that its interests be built into the solution, but we were left with a lot more to know.

The neighbouring Narnia pre-school, a privately-run enterprise, must also have an interest. Did Dr. Gillian Anderson, who spoke so eloquently and passionately, represent that organization? The format of the evening prevented such questions from being asked.

Dr. Carsley’s intervention

It was not clear if Dr John Carsley was speaking as an informed resident or as the professional head of the Quebec government’s public health department.

At first, he seemed just to have stepped up from the audience as an knowledgeable citizen, yet he said he knew about my enquiry to the ministry about the toxicity found on artificial turf in New York City.

Given all the health concerns about the project, the City should have openly asked him to take part and be part of the panel.

As it was, Carsley had to give a hurried finish to his presentation due to the time restraint on participants. He should have been given the time needed to explain the health department’s position.

For many, the five minutes allowed was barely enough to make their points. However, there should have been better opportunities for clarification. Some speakers should have been allowed longer.

Henry Olders’s presentation as president of the Westmount Municipal Association was a particular victim. Really there were two parts of it, each requiring a reasoned response — the definition of the problem and possible alternatives that should be considered.

Director-general Bruce St. Louis undertook to respond to them, but both issues are worth discussions in themselves. If the City does not provide the occasion, then I trust the WMA will do so itself.

How many young soccer players are we talking about? What are their ages? What is the projection over the years? Is today’s explosion of soccer going to be short-lived or do the demographics indicate continuity?

What are future needs?

Attempting to quantify present and future recreational needs has a bearing or more than soccer fields. It extends to the next big debate — the future arena — at least.

More quantification is very relevant.

The problem of the playing surfaces in the Park has been a major one over the years, and the Council and staff of the forced merger years found it especially onerous.

Their perception is not necessarily shared by their newer colleagues or the general public, who are not as familiar with the history of the problem and the implications of all the various solutions that have been proposed.

I have been criticized by some Council members because, like many in the population, I assume that this project is endorsed by Council.

However, the very first public document was the letter from the Recreation Department inviting the neighbouring residents to hear about the proposal. It spoke of "our intentions to replace the grass fields with a more durable synthetic surface.”

It was probably a mis-speak. “Contemplating” would have more accurately reflected Council’s position at the time. But “intentions” set the stage for an unpleasant, inflammatory meeting which has never been fully countered.

Even before the public consultation, Councillor Patrick Martin was challenging me for referring to “Council’s decision to install artificial turf.”

Councillors’ decisions

“Council has not decided,” he said on the eve of the Victoria Hall consultation last week. “I have decided and I just checked with four colleagues — Councillors Duncan, Bowser, Forbes and Thompson. They told me that they have not made a decision.”

Martin added that Council had, however, approved expenditure on the consultants’ reports to investigate options and possible environmental effects.

But in view of that letter of last September, plus the language of the website, the mayor’s initial focus on the artificial solution for the Park and nowhere else, it’s no wonder people thought it was a done deal.

“Certainly not for all members of Council,” Martin insisted.

The debate over the Park has forced Council a little closer to the contemporary world of e-communication.

Making the documentation available on its web site is not the same as giving everyone their own copies, but it begins to become close to the democratic ideal.

Perhaps next time, there will be some kind of offer to those without internet access (and there are still many) to be given free hard copies on request. For the present project, I hope that responses to queries will be published, as well as the summaries of the input, even if they have to be anonymous.

Calling for input via the website was cumbersome to the Internet-challenged. The idea of suppressing the identity of contributors does not meet the ideal transparency requirement, but it has allowed some who were nervous of revealing their view publicly to speak out.

A great complementary service has been made available by Henry Olders on behalf of the WMA.

Online debating

Its website forum is another electronic outlet for what the City does not publish, and is the home of an ongoing debate, which does have opportunities for discussion and rebuttal.

Over the holiday weekend, Joan McCordick of Abbott Avenue wrote on the WMA forum, explaining the position of some of the teachers at Westmount Park School.

Another contributor was Lesley Wright, who moved two years ago from the West Island to de Maisonneuve Boulevard because her children were grown. She lives a few blocks from the Park.

“Westmount is an oasis in an urban city,” she said. “It has a casual feel and great charm which should be preserved. Artificial turf has no place in that Park.”

That is a view I have heard numerous times on Wednesday and especially since. The Save the Park warriors presented a strong case, although a few did make inappropriate accusations.

But I feel they were eclipsed by the quieter voices. Council — majorities of all nine — will eventually agree to abandon this proposal and find other solutions to the soccer conundrum.

Transit strike’s effects

Montreal’s 15th transit strike in 40 years is likely to affect Westmounters the same as everyone else — except that their choice of a living in an expensive suburb means it is possible for many to walk to work if necessary.

Nevertheless, there will be more cars on the road, and that will increase the local congestion and pollution.

As elsewhere, City personnel who work shifts could be handicapped.

If the strike is prolonged, traffic problems may worsen.

“With reduced maintenance, the STM will have fewer vehicles available and they will not be able to offer full service,” said Westmount Director-General Bruce St. Louis.

“That could mean even more road congestion at peak times on Sherbrooke and elsewhere. At first, however, I don’t expect much change.”

- Community activist Don Wedge can be reached at calert@web.net. His columns are archived at www.westmountexaminer.com, go to Opinion.