Jean Drapeau’s Broken Pencil

It’s astounding that municipal administrations still feel the way about heritage buildings that Jean Drapeau did. The former mayor of Montreal would be asked by a journalist about a questionable demolition. Such events were legion in the 60s and 70s. His Honour would pull a pencil from his pocket saying how it was his pencil: he bought it, it was his to do with as he pleased. Then he would break the pencil in two and that was the end of the interview.

It doesn’t work that way with our architectural heritage. It’s taken a few decades but we’ve learned how to integrate the old with the new. There is no reason to knock down a building just because it’s old.

As a founding director of Héritage Montréal in the mid-70s and a major contributor to the Colby Curtis Museum’s recent exhibition on North Hatley architecture, one of my main interests are the old buildings and the architectural fabric of this beautiful village.

In the heart of North Hatley stands J. B. Reed’s Old Grist Mill, the history of which states, “With the coming of electricity, J.B. Reed moved his grist business from Reedville up on the Massawippi river to the village of North Hatley in 1904. He built a new mill near the railroad track where he and son, Ronald, operated it for thirty-five years. Then Ronald took over and carried on the business from 1942 to 1968. Standing on Mill Street, the architectural style of the mill is American Vernacular Gable.”

As acknowledged on the Townships Heritage page of the Quebec Anglophone Heritage Network’s website, “With electricity, the old grist mills became obsolete. Today very few remain in the Townships.”

In December, 2014, I wrote to the Mayor and Council asking assurance that the Old Grist Mill – previously home to two restaurants and now privately owned – would be restored and preserved into the future as one of the few landmark buildings in North Hatley and one of the very few remaining mill buildings in the region. Despite my re-sending that letter in July of 2015, no action seems to have been taken by Council.

Apparently without a principal tenant, the Old Grist Mill might be standing in the way of a proposed development in the core of North Hatley, and the easiest way to get rid of an unwanted building is to leave it to the ways of nature. It becomes classic example of ‘Demolition by Neglect’.

Search for the term ‘Demolition by Neglect’ on the web and one finds pages of entries. Here are but a few quotes and their sources :

“The exact opposite of preservation by maintenance; any building or site that is not taken care of on a regular basis is a potential candidate for the eventual disuse, disrepair, and ultimate need for demolition.”

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Demolition+by+neglect

“’Demolition by Neglect’ is the term used to describe a situation in which a property owner intentionally allows a historic property to suffer severe deterioration, potentially beyond the point of repair. Property owners may use this kind of long-term neglect to circumvent historic preservation regulations.”

http://www.preservationnation.org/information-center/law-and-policy/legal-resources/preservation-law-101/resources/Demolition-By-Neglect.pdf

“Demolition by neglect is a loophole that exists in many local jurisdictions that allows property owners to use nature to accomplish what they weren’t able to do through the court system.  When someone purchases a property with the intention of tearing down the existing structure to make room for a new home or commercial building–they must apply for a demolition permit from the local building department.  This is the point when the new property owners often discover that they might have a roadblock to their plans. If the structure is considered of historical significance to the area, local citizens and preservationists often work to prevent the demolition.”

http://www.oldhouseweb.com/blog/demolition-by-neglect/

“ .. There are also environmental and psychological impacts of preserving old buildings, since human beings are positively affected by their surroundings when they feel a ‘sense of place’.’When buildings in a historic district fall prey to ‘demolition by neglect,’ meaning that the owners allow their property to reach a state of deterioration, the entire sense of community can be lost.”

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=hpps_papers

There are many uses for old industrial buildings. While coordinating the exhibits on industrial heritage and Montreal’s Old Port for Héritage Montréal in the early 80s, I toured post-industrial sites in southern Ontario and a number eastern U.S. cities and towns, photographing grain silos, mills, factories and warehouses that had found new vocations as a church, a hotel and in housing, light manufacturing and the burgeoning tech industry.

In this day and age, to allow a unique, historic post-and-beam industrial building in the heart of one of Quebec’s most beautiful villages to moulder into the ground is an unacceptable throwback to the dark days of Jean Drapeau.

The Old Grist Mill deserves better than this. Let’s not let it become the sad legacy of the current North Hatley administration, its own broken pencil. Strong civic leadership is the only solution.

Brian Merrett

(Originally published in Quebec Heritage News, Fall, 2015)

Council is made up of seven individuals and each individual runs for Council and votes on resolutions independently.  We are not a party with a common platform position on all of the different issues but rather seven individuals with opinions and positions that sometimes differ.  This is why we sometimes have to call for the vote in order to pass decisions.

In the municipal world there is a saying:  Council speaks by resolution.  This means that it is only when a council comes together, discusses an issue and then votes on a specific resolution (ie. an action), that the council has « spoken » .

The public often feels left out of the process mainly because they are not present at the closed door meetings when Council discusses the issues at hand.  This is a complaint that is common throughout municipalities.  As members of Council we are neither entitled to disclose what has been discussed at these meetings nor what another member of Council has said at these meetings.  HOWEVER, we are most definitely entitled to give the public our own opinion and our position on the issues and it is up to each member of Council to decide whether or not he or she wishes to disclose their opinion or position at any given time.  In some cases, a member of Council may have a definite position to disclose and at other times, he or she has simply not yet made up their mind so they would rather not disclose their position.  We are human beings, after all.

This is why Council cannot give « one position » on the petition.  You may get seven different positions on the petition, depending on how many members on Council choose to disclose their opinion (if they have one .. they may be undecided).  Or you may get a certain number who choose to give their opinion and others who prefer to wait … or you may get two councillors who agree on some things but not on others … you get the picture ?

I hope this helps to clear things up a bit.

You need to also keep in mind that public input in the process is often as simple as going to speak to a member of Council or addressing the entire council all at once (so you don’t have to go running around to speak to each one separately).  The latter method was used in the presentation of the petition.  I personally went through and read ALL of the comments that were on that petition and I am sure that other members of Council did as well.  I am most definitely taking seriously what North Hatley residents are telling me and weighing this against other things that have to be considered.  I am NOT unaffected by what people have to say.

Remember, however, that other people are also free to do the same and some prefer not to do it in public.  Members of Council have to therefore consider many different public opinions, in addition to their own views on the matter and a heck of a lot of information.

The opinions expressed on this website are those of their authors. Space on the website is provided as a service to the community and FANHCA, its administrators and host cannot be held responsible for any of the opinions expressed thereon.

Friends Amis North Hatley tient ses racines de la pétition : 130, trois et beau, pour un projet moins dense, moins haut et plus harmonieux que celui présenté au public en août 2014, pétition qui a recueilli plus de 350 signatures de personnes qui connaissent et qui aiment North Hatley.

Le 8 septembre 2014, les résultats de la pétition ont été présentés au maire de North Hatley, M. Michael Page, lors d’une réunion publique des citoyens et du Conseil municipal.  En réponse à un courriel envoyé à Communications North Hatley, l’adresse spécifique pour communiquer avec le Conseil du Village, la conseillère Pauline Farrugia* a reconnu l’existence de la pétition, mais a rejeté le nombre de signataires, indiquant : (traduction) « La pétition de 350 signatures en est une en fait d’à peu près la moitié de ce nombre parce que beaucoup de personnes qui ont signé la pétition ne sont pas des résidents de North Hatley et bien d’autres résidents n’ont pas signé. »

Le 17 septembre 2014, le Maire et le Conseil ont reçu une liste indiquant l’attachement que certaines personnes qui ont signé la pétition et qui ont une adresse à l’extérieur de North Hatley ont envers North Hatley.

En réponse à mon courriel envoyé à Communications North Hatley demandant quelle serait la signification de la pétition, la conseillère Farrugia a répondu le 11 décembre 2014 (traduction) « Quand la pétition nous a été présentée officiellement à la réunion publique du mois de septembre, nous avons dit à ce moment-là que nous allions la prendre pour considération.  C’est ce que nous avons fait… Nous l’avons lu et nous en tenons compte. »

Par contre, à une réunion publique du Conseil municipal l’automne dernier, la question a été posée à chaque membre du Conseil à savoir si leur point de vue sur le fait que le projet soit acceptable ou non avait été affecté par la pétition. Une conseillère a dit que cela ne l’avait pas influencé, que la pétition avait été signée par des non-résidents, et que ce n’était pas possible de savoir combien de personnes dans le village étaient en faveur du projet.

Techniquement, le Conseil a raison quand il dit que plusieurs de ceux qui ont signé ne sont pas des résidents de North Hatley, mais ce qu’il a choisi d’ignorer dans cette déclaration est que plusieurs qui ont signé la pétition et qui ne sont pas résidents de North Hatley viennent d’endroits intimement liés à North Hatley, comme Hatley, le Canton de Hatley et Sainte Catherine de Hatley. Ils ont une relation proche avec le village, utilisent ses services, sont concernés par son avenir et sont partie intégrante de sa vie.

Encore plus significatif, d’autres viennent d’encore plus loin: Montréal, Toronto, New York, Baltimore, Los Angeles, Les Caraïbes, l’Europe et ailleurs. Mais ce ne sont pas de simples touristes qui à l’occasion visite notre beau village – plusieurs sont les fils, filles et familles étendues de résidents actuels qui hériteront de ces propriétés et qui auront un intérêt encore plus accru dans le développement du village que possiblement leurs parents ou les membres actuels du conseil. Mais dans les yeux du conseil, ces personnes ne comptent pas.

Il y a peut-être une raison encore plus profonde qui fait en sorte que le Conseil se précipite à écarter ces environ 200 signataires. La conseillère Farrugia continue dans sa réponse du 11 décembre dernier: (traduction) « …un certain nombre de personnes pense que [le projet présenté en août 2014]  est parfaitement bien de la façon qu’il est présenté. Tout comme nous considérons les personnes qui ont signé la pétition, nous considérons aussi les personnes qui nous ont dit le contraire. »

Le Conseil est vague par rapport aux nombres de personnes qu’il considère étant en faveur du projet tel que présenté au mois d’août 2014 et bien qu’il prône vouloir représenter la population qui compte à ses yeux, à savoir les « vrais » résidents de North Hatley, il n’a émis aucune considération sur la possibilité d’un référendum sur le sujet. Il est clair que jusqu’à présent la pétition demeure l’expression la plus concrète de l’insatisfaction à l’égard du projet proposé, et en particulier à l’égard de sa taille et de sa densité, par un nombre quantifiable de personnes et, en tant que telle doit être respectée. Seulement un référendum pourrait démontrer le contraire.

fanhca.org continue à offrir au public un forum sur lequel les citoyens et les divers groupes peuvent se rencontrer afin de partager leurs opinions et leurs préoccupations à l’égard de l’avenir du Village de North Hatley. Nous invitons tous les citoyens/citoyennes de North Hatley et d’ailleurs à se prévaloir de ce forum ouvert et non révisé afin d’exprimer leurs préoccupations et leurs opinions ainsi que de répondre à celles exprimées par d’autres. N’oublions pas que ce projet, s’il a lieu, va quel que soit sa forme, changer dramatiquement et à tout jamais le visage de North Hatley, un des plus beaux villages du Québec.

*Dans une version antérieure, ces commentaires ont été attribués par erreur au Conseil en tant qu’entité. Ils sont, en fait, l’opinion personnelle de la conseillère Farrugia. Le Conseil n’a pas commenté la signification de la pétition fanhca.