Two meetings were held at Westmount City Hall (Nov. 3, 2008 and Jan 14, 2009) regarding demolition and proposed construction of a new house at 310 Côte St. Antoine Road.

At these two sessions, close neighbours made objections regarding noise, air pollution, environmental and health hazards in the course of a demolition and construction. They also voiced complaints about obstruction of views and loss of light, as well as the enormous size of the proposed building.

However, unfortunately, after 15 minutes of deliberation behind closed doors, the final decision to the Council to grant the demolition was announced without answering any of the objections raised by the a appellants.

I find it difficult to understand why the councilors heard but did not listen to the neighbours, who, after all, are their electors. On the contrary, since 2007 they have sided with the owner of 310 Côte St. Antoine, who is not a Westmount resident. After he bought the property, the new landlord did not take any care of it. He let weeds grow all over, did not mow the lawn, and let the garden become a jungle where rubbish accumulated for more than three years.

The City did nothing to counter this neglect. Now it rejects the appeal made by a number of neighbours without any explanation.

Westmount is made up of various neighbourhoods, each having its own distinctive character. The proposed building, due to its oversized footprint, would clash with our small community.

City Council should not have based its decision solely on by-laws, thus dismissing all the concerns of the immediate neighbours.

Joe Der

Arlington Avenue

To the editor:

I am reading your commentary of Jan. 29 entitled “Two peanuts that shook the town.” You seem to suggest that citizens and the media should make a fuss about unreasonable parking tickets so that other people know that parking bylaws exist!? Well no, of course it is the City who takes prime responsibility for the visibility of its bylaws.

But what is going on is much more worrisome.

This is a case of inequality between authority and citizen, where law enforcement officials seem to side together in enforcing law just “because it is the law." The idea which is being projected is that it is the authorities against “us.”

I myself am in a years-old legal battle about damage by a tree that is fully on City property because the City says it did not plant it 60 years ago. Since 172 citizens are in the same position as I, I would really invite a judge to take into consideration the real intentions of certain City officials when they litigate to enforce the law.

With due respect, your forgiving attitude to Westmount and their “intentions” in this matter is really too cavalier.

Nanette Neuwahl

Prince Albert Avenue