1) I am in agreement that city council declarations about human rights and pverty issues should be twinned with a certain amount of financial help. Otherwise, such declarations are nothing more than window dressing. How we’d come up with the money is something we should likely discuss, but the idea is solid.
2) Mr. Searle,
I have read with interest the Resarch Document regarding Eritrea that was in mailbox yesterday night, but was perplexed between your two versions: to ante up to 1 million $ (or more) or “allouer 1 millions de dollars (ou une somme inférieure si nécessaire)”. This is a mistake of thousands of dollars more of less, which could have been avoided for $75.
3) Dear Jeremy,
Re: your two “research documents,” here are my considered thoughts….
A. Cavendish Blvd. The argument to be made against extending Cavendish northwards — in line w/ one thing you say — is that it won’t solve the problem of Decarie Expy. congestion. This will be esp. true for southbound traffic on Cavendish. The Fleet St. intersection was re-engineered a few yrs, ago, so that now there’s only one lane for continuing south on Cavendish. And it was done in such a way that i’m surprised there isn’t at least one accident daily at that pt. And were that intersection to be redone so that there were two lanes continuing south, the backup for Fleet would at times extend to St. Laurent. Perhaps there’s a solution to that problem. But i have no confidence that the city’s engineers could come up w/ it. Someone told me that Montreal’s street planning is among the worst in the world. And i heard that yrs. ago. Over the past 12 mos. or so, the situation’s become worse, much worse, at least from Decarie west.
On the other hand, given that the Minister of Transport, Cordere & Copeman are all on side this time, i figure there’s a good (or bad) chance the project for extending Cavendish may go thru. Were i in your place & my attempt to defeat it failed, i would insist that truck traffic be barred from Cavendish.
As for an added burden of traffic & its concomitants on other NDG streets, i don’t see that as a consequence. I do, however, see the intersection of Cavendish & Sherbrooke St. becoming a Major Congestion Area.
B. World Poverty. If the City Council is going to consider resolutions re: two egregious instances genocide, i think it reasonable that it also entertain some kind of proposition calling for action to alleviate world poverty. But if you’re also going to ask Council members to put $1,000,000 where their mouths are, doesn’t it make more sense to use it to help alleviate poverty in Montreal? Esp. in view of the following further considerations….
(1) Why Eritrea when there’s some fairly high double-digit number of other countries equally impoverished (the latest in the news being Bangaladesh & Burma)?
(2) By the same token, $1,000,000 would barely be a drop in the clichéd bucket.
(3) Who would administer the money?
You could, of course, also trey to get the Council to vote for some kind of tax break for Montreal companies making new investments in impoverished nations (tho’ that might have the effect of reducing new job openings here).
C. Coronation St. The sidewalk plan is almost surely going to create problems for people on the west side in getting out of their driveways, esp. in winter.* I hope that at the appropriate moment you’ll ask the borough to resurvey residents about restricted/permit parking.