Layout 2 - Westmount Independent

WESTMOUNT INDEPENDENT – March 2-3, 2010 – 9Asking not to need to askI was disappointed after reading DonWedge’s February 16 column (p. 7) “Whateverhappened to transparency…”, whichhighlighted the general silence surroundingvery important issues. Wedge asked:“What ever happened to transparency?” Healso mentioned that regarding the Westmountbudget “there was no attempt atpublic consultation or much explanation,”while Mayor Peter Trent is quoted as replying:“‘I don’t call it lack of transparency.I make everything available to those whoask for it.’”I don’t think that citizens having to askfor information is an example of transparency.I think that information shouldbe provided in a timely way so that peoplecan make rational decisions.The biggest election promise from allcandidates was that there would be opennessand transparency on this council. Ithink that transparency means being genuinelyopen about important informationand not holding it back.I think that Mayor Trent overreacted toDon Wedge’s piece. But the proof will bein the pudding. We will watch and see howthe openness and transparency questionunfolds in this council.Marilynn Gillies, Melville Ave.Kudos to Public Security,Cllr. LulhamMy bedroom at Place Kensington overlooksa private lane, used by the employeesof the engineering firm next door forparking. Twice during a blizzard late lastyear, this lane was plowed – noisily – in themiddle of the night. Cynthia Lulham,councillor for Ward 7, informed me thatWestmount had passed a by-law (No. 1367,article 13) to prohibit such activity betweenthe hours of 9 pm and 7 am.I wrote a letter to the firm in questioninforming them of this fact and during thesnowless weeks that followed, thought nomore about the matter, other than keepingthe phone number of Public Securityhandy, Ms. Lulham having informed methat I should call them if the plowing happenedagain.At 4 am on February 19, following theovernight snow fall, the plow came backand I called Public Security. The polite personthere informed me that he believedMs. Lulham to be mistaken in her opinionand that snow clearing was indeed permitted.When I phoned Ms. Lulham againthat morning, I of course found she wasnot mistaken, and she went so far as to tellme that should this happen again, tophone her, not Public Security, no matterLetters to the Editorwhat the hour. Subsequently, she left me amessage to say that she had been in touchwith a senior officer at Public Security,who would take action.Following this, Sgt. McBain left me amessage to say he had visited the firm inquestion and made them understand thatthe by-law was in effect and to inform thesnow plow company accordingly. This theyagreed to do.I am sure that everyone in Westmountwill agree with me that we are more thanwell served by our councillors and PublicSecurity. Thank you, Cynthia Lulham andSgt. McBain.Sarah Stevenson, St. Catherine St.What is renovation?What should be studied?In the February 16 Independent (“Arenastudies progressing as part of total package”,p. 3), Mayor Trent is quoted as saying“the former council has calculated [anarena] renovation figure of $14 million.”The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines“renovate” as “To restore to good condition;repair.”1. Does anyone seriously believe that justto restore to good condition and repairthe arena will cost taxpayers $14 million?2. To have come up with a cost of $14 million,what luxury embellishments andaggrandizements were included?Every property owner knows that thereare renovations and there are renovations,but the $14-million estimate does notmeet any sane definition for the word“renovation” and can be interpreted ashaving been done to justify spendingmany millions on constructing a newmega sports and hockey palace.In the same article, it is reported thatthe city of Westmount will be conductingthree separate arena studies. They are:1. A needs assessment,2. A traffic survey, which for anyone livingnear the present arena is obviously unnecessary,3. An internal operational cost survey.How many thousands of dollars will bespent on these studies when much moreimportant studies could be undertaken, including:1. How many Westmount citizens are unemployedand struggling to meet mortgage,tax and rent payments?2. How many families and retirees haveseen their life savings and pensionplans seriously eroded?3. How many citizens have had to stopspending on luxury items, along withprivate schools for their children?4. Most sadly, how many citizens arestruggling to put food on their tables?If Mayor Trent and council had alreadythought about these important concernsthen they would not be spending moneyon needs assessment and traffic surveys.Larry Klepper, St. Catherine St.Over 60, hockey-playingand arena skepticalReferring to Peter Naylor’s letter of February16 “60-plus set wants ice time,” forthe record, I am a hockey player and I amalso over 60.My statistical training, equivalent tothat of most 14-year-olds, leads me to conclude,from my interpretation of StatisticsCanada census information, that a secondfull-size rink is folly and a completely unnecessaryexpense.Mr. Naylor’s comment that the Executiveleague can only schedule one gameper week and does not permit (believe thisor not) sufficient practice time is outrageous.That the 60 percent or so of Westmounterswho live on fixed incomesshould have to subsidize a couple of dozenseniors/executives who, as Mr. Naylorstates, are forced to suffer the indignity oftravelling a couple of kilometers to arenaselsewhere, is absurd. That we permit suchhardship on our hockey elders is unconscionable.The fact that other municipalities arerenting space to Westmounters simplydemonstrates my point: these municipalitiesare unable to use their own rink capacityfor their own citizens.Westmount is not obliged to provideevery last citizen with ice time. It shouldbe expected to do the best possible withinits financial constraints.We need a modern, affordable, wellrun,year-round arena with a similar configurationas we have now.Comparing Westmount with other municipalitieswith multiple rinks and threeto four times the population is not reasonable.David Schachter, St. Catherine St.Think arena,March is hereIn March, Mayor Trent and city councilwill present citizens with a new plan forthe arena/pool project, but many Westmountersfeel somewhat fatigued by thisissue. The mayor, however, takes this turningpoint very seriously, as he has indicatedin a quasi-public letter written toDon Wedge and circulated to the WestmountMunicipal Association and otherson February 20. Here are some of Mr.Trent’s own words:“If we had simply gone ahead with theplan presented September 26, 2009 bythe previous council, it is my view that itwould have been handily voted downwhen it came time to seek loan by-law approval.This is why we have sought a radicalnew approach to the design.”The sub-text here is obvious: the previousarena design was so massive that itwould have provoked by-law defeat, withcitizens denying the city the money to proceed.The “radical new approach” will be anattempt by council to reconcile the views oftwo different groups of citizens: those whowant two big hockey rinks, and others whoprefer one-and-a-half rinks and a yearroundswimming pool. Furthermore, twocouncillors – Theodora Samiotis and GaryIkeman – have been largely elected by theirconstituents to ensure that the pro ject willnot damage existing greenspace in WestmountPark or at the Westmount AthleticGrounds. Mr. Trent him self has spoken tome of his own view of planning: citiesmust work from what they already haveand mega-projects should not be dumpedon neighbourhoods.Critics of the previous arena projectsare not against hockey. This debate is allabout scale – and not destroying what wehave. Because the two big-rink obsessiontyrannized previous planning, up untilnow all sorts of alternative ways of addingice space have been ruled out, a priori.There is one further point. We are not asuburb. Westmount is an urban place, andthe arena area will soon be engulfed bymore intense pressures – the Turcot construction,the Superhospital and new developmentalong the escarpment.We should be able to build a lean, elegantand green project. The new plan, Ibelieve, must meet two principal requirements:no significant new traffic should beadded to the existing arena area and no existinggreenspace in Westmount should besacrificed to this project.Patrick Barnard, Melville Ave.Correction: In Stephen Chin’s February 23letter “Westmount 450 years behind thetimes” (p. 4), the subject of the final sentencewas inadvertently changed. It should haveread: “[George Bows er’s] Ruminations areabout 450 years out of date.”Electronic IndependentsavailableEnjoy the Indie at supper timeon Tuesdays!Sign up by writing us:office@westmountindependent.com.