(version française ici)

After attending last Monday’s workshop organized by the municipality concerning the proposed demolition of 190 Main Street, it seemed to me that I was missing the answer to two important questions in order to form an informed opinion on the subject, namely :

– At what price could the house be spared from demolition?

– Is this price justified?

The municipality could, it seems to me, provide this information to the public while respecting the framework it has established or been imposed upon it to make a decision. This would have the merit of clearing up the debate by bringing it back to facts rather than opinions and would also legitimize the decision that the municipality will make regarding the future of 190 Main Street.

At what price could the house be spared from demolition?

The fact that the house is in very poor condition is not disputed by anyone. Since it is rented, one can assume that it is not an immediate danger to its occupants. That is all that is known at this time. Can the house be rehabilitated? Assuming that any building can be renovated if you put the resources into it, the answer would be “yes”. But at what cost? That is the question.

So it would seem to me that the first step in deciding whether or not the house should be demolished would be to have a credible assessment of the costs of renovation done by an independent firm. This would put an end to speculation on both sides and base the decision not on perceptions, but on facts. Given the passions that this issue arouses, I believe the municipality needs to take this step.

Is the price justified?

Once the costs of the renovation are assessed, it is important to decide whether they are justified. I would like to say at the outset that the reasoning that the house could be demolished if the renovation costs exceed the municipal assessment does not apply here, as this is a heritage house. In fact, the municipal assessment does not take into account this aspect, although it is central to the case. I was surprised to learn at last Monday’s workshop that the demolition committee did not involve the heritage committee before making its decision. It seems to me that this should be rectified as soon as possible.

All agree that the house is beautiful. But then, what? Does the house have special features that make it a unique testimony to our past? Maybe, maybe not, we don’t know. Before deciding to demolish it, I think it is important to answer this question.

If it is determined that the house has some heritage value and that it would be desirable to repair it, then the question of the value of the house remains. It seems to me that one way to proceed might be to compare the cost of renovating the house to what it would cost to rebuild a similar house with the same materials. Is the house so run down that it would be more expensive to renovate it than to rebuild a similar one? If so, it could be reluctantly demolished. If not, every effort should be made to preserve it.

Before concluding, I would like to say that I was touched by the testimony of the owner of the house at the workshop organized by City Council on the 190 Main Street demolition project. She said that she was very emotional about the way things were going, as she was thrust into the middle of a debate in which she felt she was being cast as the villain. I understand that it must be difficult to accept that everyone should have a say in how she wishes to use a private property in poor condition that she undoubtedly bought at a high price.

That being said, the age and beauty of 190 Main Street makes the house more than just a private property, and the question of whether to demolish it or not is very delicate: the owner’s desire to enjoy her property as she sees fit clashes with the public interest in preserving the past. This is why I think it is important here to step back and remember that this issue goes far beyond the individuals involved, because the decision to demolish the house or not will have effects that will outlive almost everyone involved in this discussion. When we are no longer here, the house that results from the decision will remain.

That is why, in my opinion, the decision to grant a demolition permit for the house should be made only after it has been determined that the costs of renovation are prohibitive in light of the heritage and real value of the house.

– Marie-Christine Richard

(English version follows)

Le village de North Hatley a besoin de votre présence à cette réunion importante et ouverte concernant deux questions critiques et d’actualité : la demande de démolition du 190, rue Main et l’abattage d’arbres. 

Toutes les voix doivent être entendues – notre avenir dépend de votre contribution !

En ce qui concerne la protection de l’architecture patrimoniale, Bruce McNiven, avocat montréalais, agent d’Héritage Montréal et promoteur de longue date du développement respectueux du patrimoine, a écrit dans sa déclaration de 2019 au village de Senneville, au Québec, 

« En transférant la surveillance générale des biens patrimoniaux à des municipalités sous-financées ou mal équipées, la province, qui auparavant en vertu de sa Loi sur les biens culturels conservait l’autorité et le financement, a failli à sa responsabilité générale envers ce patrimoine culturel. Sous prétexte de laisser les autorités locales décider des questions locales, le gouvernement provincial a transféré la responsabilité sans les ressources ou l’expertise appropriées. Cela aggrave doublement le problème ou la capacité à le résoudre, car, comme cela a été suggéré, cela met les municipalités (surtout les plus petites) en conflit avec elles-mêmes, souhaitant générer des recettes fiscales à partir de leur seule source d’imposition : la propriété. » 

En soi, c’est correct, mais nous pouvons attester que les amendes et les redevances sont également des sources de revenus publics, tout comme les actifs actuellement inutilisés de North Hatley qui sont des générateurs de revenus potentiels, de la marina à la plage, le parking et éventuellement le moulin à grains.

Pour que North Hatley puisse planifier son avenir, il faut penser à long terme. Quiconque pense que l’abattage d’arbres matures et la destruction de bâtiments amélioreront d’une manière ou d’une autre notre attrait touristique et notre héritage historique ne prépare pas une vision ; il ne voit que des gains à court terme.

Au plaisir de vous voir lundi !

• l’équipe Fanhca

Atelier de travail du 27 février 2023

Le conseil municipal souhaite inviter la population à se joindre à une partie de leur atelier de travail, pour discussions. Les résidents peuvent se présenter au centre communautaire de North Hatley, de 17h à 18h. 

À l’ordre du jour :

Démolition – 190 rue Main

Règlement d’abattage d’arbres

__________________________

The Village of North Hatley needs your presence at this important, open meeting regarding two critical and timely issues – the application for the demolition of 190 Main Street and the cutting of trees. 

All voices must be heard – our future depends on your input!

Regarding the protection of heritage architecture, Bruce McNiven, a Montreal lawyer, a Heritage Montreal officer and long time promoter of respectful heritage development, in his 2019 statement to the Village of Senneville, Quebec, wrote, 

“By transferring general oversight of heritage properties to underfunded or ill-equipped municipalities, the Province, which previously under its Cultural Properties Act retained authority and funding, has failed in its general responsibility towards this cultural heritage. .. Under the policy guise of letting local issues get decided by local authorities, the Provincial government has transferred responsibility without proper resources or expertise. This doubly compounds the problem or a capacity to solve it, because, as suggested, it puts the municipalities (especially the smaller ones) at conflict with themselves, wishing to generate tax revenue from their only taxing source: property.”  

In itself, that is correct but we can attest that fines and fees are also sources of public income, along with currently unused assets in North Hatley that are potential revenue generators, from the marina to the beach, parking and possibly the grist mill.

In order for North Hatley to plan for the future, long-term thinking is needed. Whoever thinks that the cutting of mature trees and the destruction of buildings will somehow improve our tourist-attractiveness and historical legacy is not preparing a vision; they are looking only at short-term gains.

Looking forward to seeing you on Monday!

= Team Fanhca

Working Meeting on February 27, 2023

The Municipal Council would like to invite the public to join them for a portion of their work meeting, for discussions. Residents are welcome at the North Hatley Community Centre, from 5:00 pm to 6:00 pm. 

On the Agenda :

Demolition -190 Main Street

By-Law – tree felling

(français ci-dessous)

Recently, news from Ste Anne de Bellevue reported that a grocery store that had served the community for 85 years had closed. 

North Hatley merchants are critical to the survival of our community. Whether the services are for grocery, accommodations, restaurants or boutiques for gifts, art and antiques North Hatley has a great selection very close to home.

Maybe we can’t buy everything close by but, the next time you shop, consider the time and cost to go elsewhere. More importantly, consider the merchants that are in the community and the quality goods and services that they provide.

Andrew Pelletier &  Carole Leger

_________________________

Récemment des Nouvelles de Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue ont rapporté qu’une épicerie qui servait la communauté depuis 85 ans avait fermé.

Nos commerçants sont essentiels. Qu’il s’agisse de services d’épicerie, d’hébergement, de restaurants, de boutiques de cadeaux, d’art ou d’antiquités, North Hatley offre un grand choix tout près de chez nous. 

Nous ne pouvons peut-être pas tout acheter près de chez nous mais, la prochaine fois que vous aurez besoin de faire des achats, pensez au temps et au coût pour aller ailleurs. Mais surtout, pensez aux commerçants de notre communauté et aux services de qualité qu’ils offrent.

Andrew Pelletier et  Carole Leger