Letters to the editor

A contradiction of values



To the editor

Regarding Mayor Marks’s recent column “Sustaining our future,” I do not agree with the Mayor when she talks about balancing the values between “the Westmount” which is preoccupied with heritage and “the Westmount” which is a vibrant, modern community.

I believe that people who live here and people who want to come here to live, whether young, old, or in-between, have similar values and the two preoccupations she mentions are not incompatible, but are part of being one community.

Mayor Marks seems to think that there is a contradiction between the old and the new. I see no such conflict, but I do see a contradiction between the mayor’s commitment to sustainable development and any proposal to put synthetic turf on one of Canada’s most beautiful parks. Destroying precious, heritage green space is no way to promote a healthy, modern life.

It appears that city council already has a plan for Westmount. I think that the citizens of the city should have had some input before the council had a meeting on the weekend regarding sustainable development. Six months ago, council discussed this as being a priority for them, but I do not think they have had any significant community input about sustainable development in the intervening period.

This is worrying because the plan for placing synthetic turf in Westmount Park was developed about two years before any citizen input was given. Two consultants were hired, which led to a very detailed plan for the park, and only after this were citizens consulted. Then when the feedback was overwhelmingly negative, council seemed not to be listening.

The Mayor’s comment about Westmount not being able to have an impact on worldwide climate change also strikes me as being rather pessimistic. All concerned environmentalists agree that small steps are crucial in any global improvement. Change begins at home, and each little bit that we do contributes to the worldwide effort. As the saying goes, “think globally, act locally.”

Marilynn Gillies

Melville Avenue





Westmount Park is far from what it could be



To the editor:

It is hardly an understatement to describe Westmount Park as a tattered mess.

Its concrete paths, concrete squares and concrete enclosures for many trees are cracking, rotting; frost action has raised a few lamp posts two feet above ground, exposing their concrete foundations, making them lean; others have the detached covers of their switch boxes held with black duct tape; one post has been clean-cut and the round metal base left in the ground, painted yellow; all lamp posts are rusted by dog urine, in need of a long overdue paint job; the trash cans are being eaten up by formidable-toothed squirrels; the trees and bushes dangerously blocking view along the cycle path need a long overdue pruning; the three flood-prone areas have been for years flood prone and dangerous as ever; no attempt has been made to colour and sculpt the concrete (to resemble its bark and prevent graffitti) used to repair the century-old willow or to rid the ugly bare stump rising stark from its middle trunk; the gravel path to the tree is hastening the tree’s destruction; the scared flooring and leak in the gazebo have not been repaired for years; vandalized benches abound and, incidentally, rodents other than squirrels, as well.

And now we have the explosive sounds of adolescent ice hockey, complete with powerful eye-hurting lighting and crude stairs to the underused restroom to liven up the scene. The rifle-shot noise of pucks being hit and hitting the green wooden board fence can be heard blocks away (my dog refuses to enter the park during a game; he’s smart).

May I, who as a daily visitor to the park for decades, suggest to City Hall and fellow citizens a private vision of what I imagine Westmount Park could be? Since the restroom is hardly if ever used, why not recycle it into an exciting annexe to the children’s library that is within steps of the playground? Or, as a nature museum to inspire in them a love of the natural world and the wonder of trees. For the rest of the park, a visit to the exquisite, peaceful courtyard gardens of the Federal Building on Place Guy Favreau would give City Hall officials and citizens a ton of ideas.

Something has to be done to spruce up Westmount Park—especially for younger children and the majority of Westmount’s citizens who are more senior than young. Sports (especially hockey and soccer) have both national and provincial encouragement, and enough attention from our schools. And City Hall wants to encourage still more hockey and soccer so Westmount will not be behind Britain and Italy in the violence culture inherent in those games which last week, resulted in the death of an Italian policemen and the wounding of dozens of spectators and players?

If my suggestion is deemed worth a closer look and acting upon, I’ll bet my last penny the resulting renaissance and new look of our beloved park will make citizens including all City Hall officials, happy. And it will not cost one penny more than $1.7 million.

Stephen Chin.

Sherbrooke Street





Prestige, my eye!



To the editor

I see in the Westmount Examiner that the building that I have lived in for many years is advertised as being "prestige." While it may have been many moons ago, it is now rather shabby and prone to falling ceilings, burst pipes, elevators that frequently 'take a break' (pun intended) and shortage of staff. The only thing that is "prestige" is the rent.

Apart from location, there is little about this building that puts it in the prestige category. It is only partially air conditioned, although a prospective new tenant will be told otherwise over the phone. There is no swimming pool, no social room, nothing that would put this building in the category of "prestige."

3033 Sherbrooke St. W. is just another old apartment building that has long since seen better days.

Paula J. McKeown

Sherbrooke Street





ADQ siren calls must be ignored



To the editor:

I am perplexed by the fascination demonstrated toward Mario Dumont by some of the reconstituted cities' mayors. Not that I am not very angry at Jean Charest for breaking his solemn promise and foisting upon us the 'abomeration' municipal structure, but I do not believe that the ADQ has the proverbial snowball's chance of influencing policy in the next Quebec parliament.

It is my view that it will be crushed between the Liberals and the Péquistes in the coming election. It would be wasting our influence to vote for the ADQ . It is well to remember the one time not so long ago when anger on the part of the Anglos gave us the first PQ government and we are still paying for it, many long years later.

Although the abomeration is toxic to our current well-being, history teaches us that the structures that do not make sense eventually are dismantled either because of ineptitude or by the workings of democratic popular pressure.

Although tiring at times, our mayors should muster their strengths and continue the good fight within the Liberals' tent and forgo the siren calls of the ADQ.

Paul-A Billette

Columbia Avenue





Demolition is a small price to pay



To the editor:

I have read the debate regarding the proposed demolition of a house on Cote St. Antoine with great interest. There seems to be a fair degree of negative reaction from area residents. While I appreciate their concerns, it seems to me the issues are more far-reaching than the immediate vicinity of 310 Cote St. Antoine.

The first issue is the fundamental right to do with one’s property as one sees fit. Should someone want to demolish their house and replace it with one more to their liking, should that not be their right? Westmount’s Urban Planning Department is in place to ensure that any new project meets with the strict planning regulations of the City and respects the heritage of the City. Once these extensive requirements have been met, you can rest assured that the proposed project will respect the neighbourhood and its citizens.

The second issue is that of the environment. A recent letter by Ms. Weinroth brought up the issue of a demolition disturbing toxic materials. If my house had toxic materials in it, I would want to get the materials removed as quickly and as safely as possible, not let them lay dormant. I recently lived on the south side of Ste. Catherine Street near Victoria, and endured countless months of the decontamination of the MUHC Glen Yards site. It was a noisy and dirty experience, but in the end the toxic sludge that was a stone’s throw from my house is now gone and the area and the City are better for it. I would rather suffer the inconvenience of the clean-up than have it remain in place to pollute the neighbourhood for the next 100 years.

As for the environmental impact of a new house on Cote St. Antoine Road, the new energy-efficient house should in fact consume considerably less energy than the old house it replaces. An energy-efficient home, combined with the use of eco-friendly options such as greywater recovery, geo-thermal heating/cooling and a green roof, can result in a positive environmental impact.

The preservation, restoration, decontamination and rebuilding of the City’s structures can be noisy and disruptive, but it seems to me that is a small price to pay to ensure that our rights to use our property as we see fit are preserved. And a small price to pay to ensure that the city remains vibrant and healthy for generations to come.

Paul King

Cote St. Antoine Road





Heating guidelines defy logic



To the editor:

I refer to the report in Ted Wright's column of last week's Examiner, which set out the suggested rent increases for 2007.

Perhaps the Régie du logement could explain why the rent increase for an unheated (they use the expression non-heated) dwelling at 0.8 per cent is more than one heated by gas at 0.4 per cent. In addition, I would point out that the ambient temperature is not taken into account when calculating these increases. I myself spent exactly the same on heating in 2006, namely $5, 030, as I did in 2005, when the allowable increase was 1.6 per cent. I was asked to put on the heating on Sept. 13, 2006.

I find it quite heartwarming to know that I am still being paid for capital expenditures I made some 20 years ago

E.J. Adye

Prince Albert Avenue





We need more healthy debate in council



To the editor:

I recently wrote (Examiner, 25 Jan 2007, Letters) about a proposal to increase citizen participation in City Council’s budgeting process. Essentially, councillors would 'champion' two or more alternative proposals, would debate their proposals in a public forum, and respond to questions and comments from citizens. A subsequent poll of citizen preferences would not be binding on Council, but would guide their decision-making.

In reflecting on this suggestion, I am struck by the lack of debate in open council meetings, on any issue. Votes by councillors are always unanimous. At the same time, many voters have recently been coming to council meetings to express very vociferously and angrily their opposition to certain Council initiatives such as the proposal to install artificial turf on the Westmount Park playing field, or the cutting down of trees in the park under the summit lookout. I believe that citizen anger and the lack of debate in council are related.

The goings-on remind me of the debacle surrounding Montreal Mayor Gérald Tremblay’s proposal to rename Park Avenue in honour of Robert Bourassa. Tremblay was openly intolerant of opposition to his scheme by his councillors, and ignored the vigorous opposition by many merchants and ordinary citizens. His disdain of voter opinion fuelled anger in many quarters.

Of course, one cannot compare the functioning of Westmount’s municipal government to that of Montreal’s. We are blessed in this city to have an efficient and generally open administration. That being said, I submit that the lack of debate and of dissenting voices in open council meetings has the effect of leading citizens (at least those who disagree with Council’s position) to feel that their concerns are not being taken into account, that their points of view have never been seriously considered. Thus effectively disenfranchised, these citizens express their frustration in question period. I am saddened that question periods in recent council meetings have been characterized by incivility and lack of respect by some citizens, but I think Council has only itself to blame. By studiously avoiding public debate and discussion, our elected representatives fail to convince their constituencies that they are acting in the interests of those constituencies.

I call on Councillors to demonstrate respect for their employers, the citizens, by ensuring that potentially contentious issues have the various points of view well represented during open council meetings.

Even if this requires individual Councillors to act as 'devil’s advocates' from time to time, in championing a position that they may not agree with, doing so will restore voter confidence that our city government is indeed democratic.

Henry Olders

Lansdowne Avenue





Do dog runs reflect social imbalance?



To the editor:

As a fairly new user of the various Westmount dog runs, I have noticed a real disparity in the maintenance of these—particularly the Murray Hill one compared to the Lansdowne one.

On Lansdowne, the outside gate latch is incorrectly adjusted and almost impossible to close (it takes me two hands). Then one comes to a big puddle, a sea of mud, or a sheet of ice. I know several people have complained to Public Works about this problem. Once inside the run, there is one bottomless garbage can with a bag in it and no lid. It regularly rolls around in the wind, spilling its contents. There is another container with a lid, but the lid doesn't fit the container and it regularly blows off, too. The third container has, for mysterious reasons, been moved to between the two gates—so you have to go back out to make use of it.

Up in the Murray Hill run, the gates open efficiently and the various containers (all inside the run) have lids which actually fit, and they are chained to their bases.

Do these differences between so-called upper and lower Westmount reflect some sort of social hierarchy as to the needs of dog owners?

Jo LaPierre

Metcalfe Avenue