Westmount Watch has just learned that the City of Westmount and Pomerleau Inc. were served papers for an injunction hearing to stop construction of the Westmount Recreation Centre. The injunction was filed through the law firm of Lavery, de Billy, L.L.P. in Quebec Superior Court on Friday, 13 April, 2012. The plaintiffs are David Ludmer, Westmount Park United Church, and George Robert Tait.
According to our sources, the reason for the injunction is that the project violates By-Law 1397. You can read more about By-Law 1397 here. In WW’s opinion, the City has flirted with many grey-areas of the law in recent attempts to force-fit the Recreation Centre onto an aging and quiet population. We think the City needs to go back to the beginning and re-evaluate its needs assessment process.
Westmount’s latest PR move, led by none other than Jonathan Goldbloom, indicates that the City is getting more desperate to start the Recreation Centre construction quickly. It’s quite understandable, given that no one on Council wants a large, open, mud pit during the next municipal election campaign in the fall of 2013. The Council and the Mayor urgently and desperately need this project to start now, citizens be damned.
And all the City’s usual shills have been called to action. The WMA have stayed silent despite the fact that the project has changed considerably right under their “watchful” eyes. The Westmount Examiner’s Wayne Larsen has stopped accepting letters from concerned citizens about the Centre, probably for fear of rocking the boat with his friends at Selwyn House, and his family at City Hall. The Westmount Independent remains a complete non-entity when it comes to City oversight. And important information has been put under tight embargo from the public and only shared with a privileged few . There’s no question who the City and its gang think is the enemy. It’s the citizens of Westmount, of course!
In our continuing Letters series, we present an open letter from Westmount architect, David Ludmer to Hal Hannaford, Head Master of Selwyn House School, concerning Selwyn House’s role in the planning of the Westmount Recreation Centre. Wayne Larsen, Editor of The Westmount Examiner, refused to print this important letter, leading us to wonder why. Have all of Westmount’s traditional media fallen prey to the City’s PR tactics? And, if so, what could be the reason for this?
WW thinks Ludmer sends a powerful message to Selwyn House in this letter, but we’re not expecting any miracles. We think Selwyn House is too busy teaching its students an important message: that to be successful in life, one must be sure to suck at the public teet.
In our continuing “Letters” series, here is a letter to Québec’s Commissaire au lobbyisme filed by Westmount’s Patrick Barnard. Barnard’s letter asks the Lobby Commissioner to investigate the possibility of two parties being involved in failing to register for lobbying: Mr. Bruce St-Louis and National Public Relations.
This is Part 1 of a two-part series to answer the question of how many parking spots a two-rink arena will require. In this part, we look at a typical executive hockey league evening where both rinks are being used simultaneously.
It’s time for an honest assessment of how many parking spots a two-rink arena complex needs. Isn’t it curious that the City hasn’t come forth with a clear and detailed analysis of the number of parking spots yet?
At the last council meeting on June 6, 2011, there was a conversation between a citizen and the Mayor about the mutual lack of trust that exists, a mistrust which first started when synthetic turf was to be placed in Westmount Park.
Westmount’s latest spin on the Arena/Pool Project, now called “The Westmount Recreation Centre”, was presented in an “information session” at Victoria Hall on the evening of June 21st, 2011. A crowd of approximately 200 gathered to ask their questions, and voice their opinions on the project. The session was by invitation, and the invitees were from an area within 1000m 1000ft of the proposed site.
It’s hard to even begin to enumerate the long list of awkward moments and misrepresentations offered by the City at this event. But let’s start with the fact that some residents living closest to the project — Ste-Catherine St W next to the train station, for example — were not invited. Some showed up anyway and were eager to speak openly about their anger over the project. These poor residents have had to listen to the MUHC construction from the comfort of their livingrooms for the past year. It’s clear that they are in no mood to listen to more noise coming from Lansdowne St..
Part of a continuing series covering Question Period at Westmount City Council, here are our notes from the 6 June 2011 Council Meeting. This question period was very dramatic, once again. Tensions between citizens and Council — particularly the Mayor — seem quite strained. Our own message to the Mayor is this: you reap the trust that you sow.
FIRST QUESTION PERIOD
Q1 Because the questioner had been told by the Director General that the city was responsible for all trees on its territory [not private territory], whether called private or public in the tree registry, she asked why all citizens were not advised of this information and suggested that the category private tree be eliminated.
In this installment of The Pimento Report, Patrick Barnard brings us coverage of the “Pour un Turcot Moins Rétro” walk that took place on June 4th, 2011. The demonstration was organised by Mobilisation Turcot.
Recent Comments