North Hatley has always inspired in its residents, property owners, and neighbours a love of “place” – which is why we, and our ancestors, have chosen to live here. Over the years this love has found expression in many forms – gifts of land to the town, active engagement in its ‘improvement’, voluntary participation in the institutions that bind us together.

Unfortunately, at the present time, under the present administration, there seems to be no appreciation of what has traditionally made North Hatley a community; more than that, there seems to be a desire to erase and eliminate these ‘particularities’ of ‘place’ – particularities that point to what brings us together and leads to involvement in the affairs of the village, to what makes the village what it is, or at least, to what it has been.

The public land in the town is under siege – with the envisaged authorization of the use of the public beach by a private enterprise, but also the discussion of accepting commercial encroachments on public parks. Why not fill the ballpark with condos? Will these things come to pass? The residents and property owners of North Hatley don’t and can’t really know for certain, since we are not consulted, or kept informed, and our questions remain largely unanswered. But that these possibilities have even been and are being mooted shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the importance of public spaces for those who live in North Hatley.

These suggestions constitute attacks on what is essential to North Hatley, on what makes this village a space for all to enjoy, an attack on the public – rather than private – use of these lands: the ballpark, Dreamland Park, Memorial Park, the Pavillon and public beach – lands whose purpose has always been clearly understood (a purpose expressed in the deeds of the lands that were given, deeds agreed to by the mayors and councils of the moment). Understood, it would seem, until now.

Why, then, under the influence of those who do not live in this town and whose only connection to it is the temporary one of employment, should we give up on what has made the village what it is? Why the lack of leadership on the part of the mayor and the councillors on this question?

The councillors and mayor are either unaware of this potential loss of public space and of the attempt to discourage public involvement in village life or are too blithely willing to accord these no importance. As in the case of the latest development in the ongoing battle between the volunteers associated with the North Hatley Recreation Society (NHRS), and municipal officials and the town council, which has led to the bullied withdrawal of volunteers – from North Hatley but also from surrounding towns – from this long-standing and vital institution. The town sets non-negotiable conditions, telling the volunteers: either agree to our demands, or leave.

Bullies want their way and, when they think they have power, when we allow them to think they have power, they get it.  Unless – and this is very important for all of us at this point in time – unless we, the residents and property owners of North Hatley, as well as those of neighbouring towns, show support for our volunteers and insist on the respect of those who have, for many years, given of their time, energy, and land, for the benefit of us all.

Let it be known that municipal officials should not be dictating to the volunteers of the NHRS; let it be known that we do not accept the privatization of public spaces; let’s stand up and be counted as people who want the ‘community’ of North Hatley to continue to exist!

That is needed now, since we, those who love this village, those who contribute to and are involved in the institutions of this village, are presently under siege.

Paul St-Pierre

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.

Le commentaire suivant sur la réunion du Conseil du 13 novembre a été soumis par Paul St-Pierre. Il a été envoyé au maire et à tous les conseillers. Une seule conseillère, Pauline Farrugia, a répondu et sa réponse suit.

 FANHCA publie ceci maintenant, juste avant la réunion du 4 décembre, dans l’espoir que plus de citoyens prendront conscience des processus du Conseil et y participeront.

 FANHCA encourage également les candidats qui n’ont pas réussi à se faire élire à la dernière élection à surveiller les activités des personnes élues au Conseil, à s’interroger sur les activités qui doivent être remises en question et à faire part de leurs préoccupations et de leurs constatations aux citoyens.

 – Les administrateurs.

(English follows)

À l’ordre du jour de la réunion de lundi dernier (13 novembre 2017) du conseil municipal de North Hatley figuraient deux points concernant le remplacement du pont sur la rue Main, au cœur du village. Les travaux auront lieu en 2019, vraisemblablement sur une période de cinq mois, et la façon dont la circulation (et les camions de pompiers) passera d’une partie du village à l’autre pendant les travaux n’a pas encore été décidée. Les items à l’ordre du jour étaient fondés sur une étude d’EXP, payée par la ville (16 300 $ autorisée pour une étude de la « signature visuelle » du nouveau pont) et n’incluaient pas les coûts supplémentaires de mise en place des fils électriques et de communication dans le pont même (évaluation par EXP autorisée pour 20 100 $ dans une étude différente – et, apparemment – cela ne surprendra personne – extrêmement coûteuse; le maire a cependant refusé de divulguer le montant estimé dans l’étude). Les deux points de l’ordre du jour de lundi étaient de nature technique, et les résidents du village n’y ont pas eu accès avant la réunion. Mais il semblerait que le village demande certaines

« améliorations » sur le pont standard payé par Transports Québec (Ministère des Transports, de la Mobilité durable et de l’Électrification des Transports). Ces
« améliorations » s’élèveraient à 400 000 $! L’espoir est que le ministère paiera pour ceux-ci, et, sinon, que des subventions pourraient (mais très probablement seulement partiellement) les couvrir.

Il y a au moins deux problèmes ici. L’argent impliqué – sans indication de combien de notre argent le Conseil est prêt à dépenser si le ministère n’accepte pas la demande du village. Mais encore plus important, est-ce que la population du village veut de telles « améliorations », veut-elle que notre argent soit dépensé pour les réaliser, a-t-elle d’autres idées sur ce qui pourrait être fait, etc.

Encore une fois, un important projet touchant tout le monde à North Hatley est entrepris sans consultation appropriée. L’étude d’EXP sur laquelle sont fondées les « améliorations » est datée de la mi-mai 2017. Le Conseil aurait eu amplement le temps, s’il l’avait jugé nécessaire ou souhaitable, de convoquer une réunion publique sur la question afin d’informer correctement le public, et de demander des commentaires. Mais non, les membres du Conseil – l’ancien Conseil, dont quatre, avec le maire, siègent au nouveau – n’ont pas jugé bon de le faire.

Pour ma part j’en ai assez de cette approche paternaliste, par laquelle le Conseil semble penser qu’il sait mieux que les autres et qu’il peut décider seul. Qui lui a donné un tel mandat? Aucun des candidat(e)s n’a indiqué dans son matériel de campagne la position qu’il/elle prendrait sur ce projet majeur, et un seul l’a même mentionné. Le Conseil doit se rendre compte que tous les résidents et propriétaires ont un intérêt dans l’avenir du village. Il doit prendre comme principe directeur, dans de tels projets majeurs, que les résidents et les propriétaires doivent être impliqués dans l’élaboration de tels projets.

– Paul St-Pierre

Les opinions exprimées sur ce site Web reflètent celles de leurs auteurs. L’espace est offert à titre de service à la communauté et FANHCA, ses administrateurs et son hébergeur ne peuvent en aucun cas être tenus responsables des opinions qui y sont émises.

The following commentary on the November 13th Meeting of Council was submitted by Paul St-Pierre. It was sent as well to the Mayor and all councillors. Only one councillor, Pauline Farrugia, has replied and her answer follows.

FANHCA is publishing this now, just prior to the December 4th meeting, in the hope that more citizens will become aware of the processes of Council and will participate in them. 

FANHCA encourages, as well, those candidates who were unsuccessful in the recent election to monitor the activities of those elected to Council in the seats for which they were running, to question activities that need questioning, and to report their concerns and findings to the citizens.

– The administrators.

On the agenda of last Monday’s meeting (13 November 2017) of the North Hatley Town Council were two items concerning the replacement of the bridge on Main Street, in the heart of town. The work will take place in 2019, most likely over a period of five months, and the solution as to how traffic (and fire trucks) will cross from one side of town to another during the work still has not been decided. The items on the agenda were based on a study by EXP, paid for by the town (16,300$ authorized for a study of the ‘visual signature’ of the new bridge) and did not include the further costs of putting the electrical and other wires in the bridge itself (evaluation by EXP authorized for 20,100$ in a different study – and, apparently – this will surprise no one – extremely costly; the mayor, however, has refused to divulge the estimated amount relating to the electrical and communication wires). The two items on Monday’s agenda were technical in nature, and residents of the town were not given access to them before the meeting. But it would appear that the town is applying for certain ‘upgrades’ on the standard bridge, paid for by Transports Québec (Ministère des transports, de la Mobilité durable et de l’Électrification des Transports). These ‘upgrades’ would amount to 400,000$! The hope is that the ministry will pay for these, and, if not, that grants will (but most likely only partially) cover them.

There are at least two issues here. The money involved – with no indication of how much of our money Council is willing to spend if the ministry does not come through. But even more importantly, whether the population of the town even wants such upgrades, is willing to spend money on them, has other ideas about what could be done, etc.

Yet again, a major project affecting everyone in North Hatley is being undertaken without proper consultation. The EXP study on which the ‘upgrades’ are being based was completed mid-May 2017. There has been ample time, if Council had thought it necessary or desirable, to call a public meeting on the issue, to inform the public properly, and to ask for feedback. But no, the members of Council – the old Council, four of whom, along with the mayor, sit on the new Council – have not seen fit to do this.

For my part I have had enough of this paternalistic approach, in which Council seems to assume that it knows best and can decide on its own. Wherever did it obtain such a mandate? None of the candidates indicated in her/his campaign material the position she/he would take on this major project, and only one even mentioned it. Council needs to realize that all residents and property owners have a stake and an interest in the town’s future, and it needs to take as its guiding principle, in such major projects, that residents and property owners need to be involved as collaborators in the elaboration of such projects.

– Paul St-Pierre

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.