Letters to the editor

Duncan is right to oppose Madvac purchase

To the editor

I am in complete agreement with Councillor Kathleen Duncan ("Duncan holds out on Madvac vote," April 24).

The so aptly named Madvac is not only a source of atmospheric pollution but also of noise pollution, which is an all-too-neglected source of annoyance as well as a significant health hazard. Furthermore, anyone who takes the trouble to observe one of these wretched machines as it is actually being used can hardly fail to see how egregiously inefficient it is in picking up litter.

Last week, while walking in the downtown section of Montreal, I was both surprised and delighted to see a couple of blue-collar workers engaged in the quaint but efficient activity of sweeping the sidewalks with that old-fashioned device called a broom. My immediate thought was that at last I had found a practice in the City of Montreal from which our own city could learn something of value. I think the city council should be reproached for wasting our money in this way.

Roger B. Angel

Mount Stephen Avenue



Where was council debate on turf issue?

To the editor

Bravo to Kathleen Duncan for showing a real sense of debate at council (“Duncan holds out on Madvac vote,” April 24).

I do have some reservations, however. I have been to many council meetings in the past year. At the beginning, council comes out of an inner room where they have been conferring privately, and then councillors in the public chamber give brief comments for each item on the agenda. These remarks, though, always seem to have been pre-scripted during the closed meeting prior to the open session. And all votes, except for Duncan’s recent dissent, have been unanimous.

When Kathleen Duncan opposed the Madvac motion, all the other councillors seemed to have had short, set speeches ready to answer her opposition, as if a script had been agreed to ahead of time.

My question is — where were the opposition councillors when the Westmount Park issue was of vital concern last year? Surely that was far more important than the purchase of one Madvac. Who had the forthrightness to publicly say that they were against synthetic turf, or even had some doubts?

Why did no one have the directness to tell citizens that the soccer project was not about young children’s soccer, but a sports complex with artificial turf to go along with the arena/pool project?

We do not have artificial turf and for that I am grateful to council. But I feel that we do have the loss of a true park, a result which debate might have prevented. Soon an open, meadow-like, public, multi-use space will be carved into two segregated areas. One of them — 60 per cent of the former fields — will be enclosed in fences and it seems doubtful that this specialty area will be available for public use. Neither will the north field be fully available in the fall.

Why didn’t someone come out and debate these kinds of issues in council? Will the arena/pool project be debated openly?

Marilynn Gillies

Melville Avenue

Madvac emissions are less than other vehicles

To the editor:

I am writing to make a clarification in last week's article (“Duncan holds out on Madvac vote,” April 24).

Mr. King wrote: "Mayor Karin Marks, who is in favor of adding a Madvac to the City's fleet of vehicles, disagreed with Duncan's views that the emissions produced will be significant." That is incorrect, in fact, at the council meeting I conceded that emissions from the Madvac vehicle were significantly less than ordinary vehicles. In fact I argued we hadn't investigated any other alternatives and it would be worthwhile to consider one such as, manually sweeping the streets.

I agree with Mayor Marks that there are situations which require a balance between realistic, achievable goals and the protecting the environment. However, I would argue with respect to the Madvac, that is not the case. I'm not sure sweeping wouldn't give us the "biggest bang for the buck," an assessment hasn't been done to rule it out as a viable alternative. In fact, in this particular instance, I believe the community would endorse a more sustainable option such as manual sweeping, even if it may be less cost effective.

Kathleen Duncan

City Councillor for District 4