March 28, 2001
An Open Letter to Mayor Bourque
Dear Mayor Bourque:
I must congratulate you on at least one aspect of your March 16 interview with the Westmount Examiner: your natural creativity is most in evidence when you apply it to the humdrum world of facts. So please forgive me if I arrest your flights of fancy and acquaint you with the rather pedestrian reality of Bill 170. Encumbered as I am by facts, I have little choice but correct much of what you told the reporter during that interview.
BOURQUE: Five or six years ago, you could buy houses here [in Westmount] for half the price you pay now or maybe less because the economy was very poor. Now that Montreal is coming good again, it's a benefit to the people of Westmount.
M. Bourque, if things are going so well in Montreal, why muck things up by changing anything? Obviously, the economy turned around without a megacity (or a mega-mayor) in place. And why is it only Montreal that can take credit for the turnaround? Is it not possible that the existence of a well-run, attractive city such as Westmount helped in the process? We are one of Quebec's best kept secrets in attracting new foreign investors, who generally look for a great place to live even before they look for a place to locate their plant or office.
Is it also not possible that Westmount's low taxes, sense of community, and exemplary municipal services - not to mention our heritage preservation by-laws - have something to do with Westmount's consistently high house prices? These are the very qualities we would lose if Montreal annexed Westmount.
BOURQUE:[on the subject of Prof. Andrew Sancton's book "Merger Mania"]: It was paid for by Westmount. There are other intellectuals who favour completely opposite views. These are theoretical debates among university people.
First of all, Prof. Sancton came out against municipal mergers decades before he was commissioned to write that book. Secondly, most Montreal-area academics have come out against the megacity. While Prof. Sancton's book may seem theoretical to you, M. Bourque, most people who have read it say it's pretty down-to-earth. It's chock-full of (for you) inconvenient facts. Item: the U.S. urban region you would most like to emulate - Boston - has 282 cities in it. Item: the last real merger in the U.S. was over 100 years ago. Item: municipal amalgamation has nothing to do with economic development
And rather than dismissing Prof. Sancton's - or my - arguments, it might be better to counter them. Ah, but you have refused to debate with me publicly for nearly a year. The least you could do is respond to the recent report from the C.D. Howe Institute. It's only 28 pages. In case you don't have time, let me give you just two quotes: "Despite extensive, critical coverage of the proposed amalgamation in Quebec, the provincial government is pressing ahead with a religious-like faith in the efficacy of nineteenth-century solutions." The report's author, Dr Bish (another one of those pesky intellectuals, M. Bourque) says the root of such mergers is the "bureaucratic urge for centralized control".
BOURQUE: We're much closer to a better solution than Toronto or Ottawa because we are better prepared. We know what didn't go well in Toronto so we can avoid these problems.
Even the municipal administrators in Toronto don't quite know what didn't "go well" there, so how do you know? Your standard answer - that the mess in Toronto was caused by downloading - just won't wash. Only $47 million out of the $305 million shortfall this year was due to downloading. Just about every researcher across North America now agrees that bigger cities spend more per capita. Just look at your own city. Toronto is in a financial mess principally and simply because it became a megacity.
BOURQUE: When we will arrive at the new city, we won't have any problem with the unions. They were not prepared for that in Ontario.
This statement stretches credulity. With the megacity, we'll have one island, one city, one union. One blue-collar union known for smashing down city hall doors. One firefighter union best known for punching holes in their hoses. Even if Bill 170 requires a temporary cap on total - rather than individual - wages while the various unions coalesce, this cap can easily be met through higher salaries and fewer employees (and, ergo, poorer services). And what happens when the initial - capped - collective agreements run out? In a few years, both the cap and the gloves will be off. Can you imagine the unions' bargaining power then?
M. Bourque, it was you whOWN to Quebec not so many years ago pleading for an equal "rapport de force" with the unions, for things like the right to lock-out and to contract out. You said then you were at the mercy of the unions. Well, Quebec gave you absolutely nothing. Now the unions will be even larger and therefore more powerful.
After all, what did Toronto discover? That wages quickly climb up to match those paid by the most generous former city. It's the highest common denominator that applies. Perhaps not next year, M. Bourque, but in three years' time. Just like in Toronto.
BOURQUE: If you talk to Mel Lastman in Toronto, he'll tell you the citizens are very happy and proud to be part of Toronto as a whole…
As far as Mel Lastman is concerned, let him speak for himself: "There's no two ways about it, amalgamation has turned out to be a disaster" (The Gazette, Feb. 17, 2001). "We're not in good shape, we're in bad shape" (Toronto Star, Feb. 1, 2001). And one can only imagine how proud his citizens will be when they start to receive tax increases that could go as high as 77% over the next five years.
BOURQUE [On imposing mergers without public consultation]: It is (the government's) full right to do so according to the Constitution of Canada. It is normal that sometimes people don't understand.
It is not odd that "the government" admits that a referendum is required to break up a country, but not to wipe out a city? This same PQ government is quite fond of looking to the European Community as a model. Perhaps they are not aware - nor, seemingly, are you, M. Bourque - that Europe has a Charter of Local Self-Government, ratified by 30 European countries. Article 5 of this charter states: "Changes in local authority boundaries shall not be made without prior consultation of the local communities concerned, possibly by means of a referendum where this is legally permitted". This same article is incorporated in the draft World Charter of Local Government.
BOURQUE: It's time to stop urban sprawl - it's time to act. We've been studying all this for 40 years; this is not new.
Even you have admitted that the entirety of urban sprawl is occurring off the island of Montreal. So how will the creation of one city on the Island help urban sprawl? In fact, a megacity will exacerbate urban sprawl, as Island residents will decamp to smaller (unmerged) cities off-island in their search for the kind of communities, low taxes, and responsive local government they once enjoyed.
Yes, we have been studying urban structures for 40 years, but none of the major studies* recommended one-Island-one-city. Many studies - including the Pichette report - recommended the creation of a structure for the entire greater Montreal region. This body is now in place. It's called the Montreal Metropolitan Community. As well as attacking urban sprawl, the MMC will also compensate the City of Montreal for much of its regional infrastructure. So what's the problem?
BOURQUE: Each municipality will keep its own local services. Of course, many people don't believe that. But if we do things right according to the law, Westmount will remain Westmount and Westmounters will keep their library and everything else. As much as services will remain the same as before, I don't see a problem.
You are right. Many people don't believe that. How can Westmount remain Westmount when all employees will be hired and fired by the City of Montreal? How can Westmount remain Westmount when the financing and staffing levels for local services will be doled out by the City of Montreal according to what they consider to be our needs? With no power of taxation, "local control" becomes a sham.
And how can Westmount remain Westmount when we won't even have legal status? Some lawyers, in their attempts to interpret the contradictions in Bill 170, even say we won't have the right to adopt by-laws. While our current by-laws will remain in force, the City of Montreal will have the power to modify or rescind them. What will happen to such proud Westmount initiatives such as our by-laws against pesticides, noise, and smoking? What about by-laws regulating speed limits, parking, even building construction? It's far from clear the arrondissements could legislate in these matters. Certainly, the City of Montreal would be able to override anything done locally.
And we won't keep many local services, M. Bourque. Our fire brigade will disappear into the City of Montreal brigade. Our Public Security will disappear, as it will no longer be a local responsibility. (Also, the police union has always taken dim view of public security activities, and "harmonization" will mean everyone will get equally poor service.) We would also lose things such as the municipal court, our arterial roads, and our Light and Power Department.
Our library will be open to anyone on the Island, free of charge. Now, at first blush, this seems like a good and fair idea. But then one must take into account the dearth of libraries - especially anglophone - in places such as N.D.G. Our library was designed to suit the needs of 20,000 citizens, not 100,000 or more. And do you think the City of Montreal will spend the money to expand our library to meet such a huge demand? Just look at the underfunding and the pitiful state of libraries in today's Montreal for the answer to that question.
BOURQUE: (Westmounters) will have an elected president and three [sic] councillors to represent them…they will have financial control through their president or councillor at City Hall[sic]. […] It is clear that if they want to build something new, they will have to pass through City Hall in downtown Montreal.
First of all, we would have two, not three local councillors. And the place they meet surely will no longer be called "City Hall". But more importantly, how can we have financial control when we have no local power of taxation? All power - financial or otherwise - will be centralized in the real City Hall "downtown". Our "elected president" will only be one of seventy-two councillors cluttering up Montreal City Hall. Fat chance of any financial control there. Besides, given the governing gridlock guaranteed by 72 councillors, the real people in charge will be the members of the executive committee - each one of whom will be appointed by the Mayor of Montreal. The whole scheme is designed to centralize power - which is now shared by the MUC, Montreal, and the suburbs - into the hands of one man.
And if that is not enough autocracy for you, you are already making noises about asking Minister Harel to get rid of the requirement for referenda in zoning matters. Even as it stands, Bill 170 does not require referenda for certain borrowing by-laws, or for zoning by-laws affecting the entire city.
In summary, M. Bourque, Bill 170 leaves the arrondissement of Westmount with the following responsibilities: zoning (possibly), garbage removal, recreation, library, local road maintenance - and perhaps a few user fees. But the financing and staffing for these responsibilities will be controlled by the City of Montreal. On top of that, we lose responsibilities such as firefighting, public security, light and power, municipal court, and arterial roads such as Sherbrooke Street. We would have no legal status, with no power to tax, borrow, hire or fire. In short, we don't exist. We become a subdivision of a bigger, fatter City of Montreal.
That's what Bill 170 says, M. Bourque. Is that what you mean by promising "little change in Westmount"? Westmounters have not and will not fall for such mealy-mouthed assurances and platitudes. Nor will their mayor.
Yours very truly,
PFT:rc Peter F. Trent
Mayor
Trent answers Bourque.
30/Mar/2001 11:10 Anjou....Outremont....Baie d'Urfé....Lachine....St.Laurent....Dorval. In recent weeks, Pierre Bourque has stepped up his campaign to become mega-mayor of mega-Montreal. He was not very successful at attracting sympathetic listeners in the suburbs except for the local weekly newspapers who were “awarded” an exclusive interview.
His much-resented visit to Westmount followed the same pattern. The interview with the Westmount Examiner contained more testing questions than in most of its contemporaries. But Bourque’s hazy perspective prevailed. Unlike in other municipalities, Westmount mayor Peter Trent has responded at length. In a four-page, 2,000-word open letter, Trent challenged Bourque’s “flights of fancy” and sets out “encumbered by facts, to correct much of what you told the reporter.”
Here are some of the key points. For Westmount, substitute Beaconsfield....St. Leonard....Pierrefonds....Verdun or any other suburb.
“The economy was very poor. Montreal is coming good again” -- M. Bourque, if things are going so well in Montreal, why muck things up by changing anything? Obviously, the economy turned around without a mega-city (or a mega-mayor) in place. Why is it only Montreal that can take credit for the turnaround? Did a well-run, attractive city such as Westmount help? Is it not possible that our consistently high house prices have something to do with low taxes, sense of community, heritage preservation by-laws and exemplary municipal services? These are the very qualities we would lose if Montreal annexed Westmount.
“We know what didn’t go well in Toronto” -- Even the municipal administrators in Toronto don’t quite know what didn’t “go well” there, so how do you know? Your standard answer that downloading caused the mess in Toronto just won’t wash. Only $47 million out of the $305 million shortfall this year was due to downloading. Toronto is in a financial mess, principally and simply, because it became a megacity.
“We won’t have any problem with the unions.” -- This stretches credulity. With the megacity, we’ll have one blue-collar union known for smashing down city hall doors, one firefighter union best known for punching holes in their hoses. Bill 170 requires a temporary cap on total wages that can easily be met through higher salaries and fewer employees and poorer services. What happens when the initial, capped agreements run out? Imagine the mega-unions’ bargaining power then? Toronto discovered that in wages, it is the highest common denominator that applies. Perhaps not next year, but in three years’ time like Toronto.
Torontonians are “very happy and proud” -- Mega-Toronto mayor Mel Lastman said in February: “Amalgamation has turned out to be a disaster…. We’re in bad shape.” How proud his citizens will be when they start to receive tax increases that could go as high as 77% over the next five years?
The government’s “full right” to impose forced mergers -- It is odd that “the government” admits that a referendum is required to break up a country, but not to wipe out a city? Europe has a Charter of Local Self-Government, ratified by 30 European countries, requiring that: “Changes in local authority boundaries shall not be made without prior consultation of the communities concerned, possibly by a referendum.” This same article is incorporated in the draft World Charter of Local Government.
“Westmount will remain Westmount” -- How can it when all employees will be hired and fired by the City of Montreal? How can it when the financing and staffing levels for local services will be doled out by the mega-city according to what they consider to be our needs? How can Westmount remain Westmount when we won’t even have legal status?
Some lawyers say we won’t have the right to adopt by-laws. While our current by-laws will remain in force, the City of Montreal will have the power to modify or rescind them. What will happen to such proud initiatives such as our by-laws against pesticides, noise, and smoking? What about regulating speed limits, parking, even or building construction? Certainly, mega-Montreal would be able to override anything.
“Services will remain the same as before” -- Not so. Our fire brigade will disappear into the Montreal brigade. Our Public Security will no longer be a local responsibility. Harmonization will mean everyone will get equally poor service. We would also lose the municipal court, our arterial roads, and our Light and Power Department.
“Westmounters will keep the library” -- Our library will be free to anyone on the island, but it was designed to suit the needs of 20,000 citizens, not 100,000 or more. Will the City of Montreal spend to expand our library to meet such a huge demand? Look at the pitiful state of libraries in today’s Montreal for the answer.
“Westmounters will have financial control through their councillor at downtown city hall” With no local power of taxation we do not have financial control. All power will be centralized “downtown”. Our “elected president” will only be one of seventy-two councillors in Montreal city hall. The real people in charge will be the executive committee each appointed by the mega-mayor. The power - now shared by the MUC, Montreal and the suburbs - will go into the hands of one man.
Trent concludes: “M. Bourque, Bill 170 leaves the arrondissement of Westmount with the following responsibilities: zoning (possibly), garbage removal, recreation, library, local road maintenance and perhaps a few user fees. But the City of Montreal will control the financing and staffing for these responsibilities. On top of that, we lose responsibilities such as firefighting, public security, light and power, municipal court and arterial roads such as Sherbrooke Street. We would have no legal status, no power to tax, borrow, hire or fire. In short, we don’t exist. We become a subdivision of a bigger, fatter City of Montreal. Is that what you mean by promising ‘little change?’ Westmounters have not and will not fall for such mealy-mouthed assurances and platitudes. Nor will their mayor.”
Compiled by Don Wedge. Trent’s letter will be published in the March 29 issue of the Westmount Examiner, . Copies, in French or English, are available from the mayor’s office (989-5240) and will be posted on in both languages.
The Latest Story part II
"The man behind the mayor"
By Jan Kaluza
For
"The man behind the mayor"
By Jan Kaluza part I
Gaszette & other media MergerNotes a please see for Lastest & History
10/Feb/2001 Gaszette Editoral by Peter F. Trent a must see.
And do see his March 13, 2001 Letter
to Fellow Citizen:
2000: The year in review
Last year was an exciting one for Westmount. The 125th anniversary celebrations and the library's centennial generated a number of special activities and events-all under the ever-present threat of a Y2K-related disaster that never materialized.
Merger to One City page | photos
click any image or underlined type as they all go somewhere - a big picture or a new page.
Most open a new window which can get lost on your Link bar at bottom of browser
There'll Be No Tavern In This Town
by Peter Trent March 14th 1998 It has a 26mg movie with George Bowser and Peter Trent