I would like to begin by saying that I applaud the government for having adopted this draft decree concerning the declaration of a special intervention zone in the territory of certain local municipalities affected by the floods that occurred in April and May 2017. I hope that the government will remain steadfast in its intention to reduce the effects of seasonal flooding and continue its reflection on the ways of doing so. My intervention will focus on the presence of North Hatley on the list of municipalities set out in annex 1 of the decree. My argument is that North Hatley should most definitely be on this list, and that the part of its territory in the high-velocity flood zone should be declared a special intervention zone.

The town council and the general manager of the Village of North Hatley have worked hard and long on a management plan that would apply to the flood zone. It would allow the construction of three predominantly residential buildings, containing 210 condominiums, and of two largely commercial buildings. But if the city council and the general director have worked hard, they have also worked blindly, closing their eyes to the facts – that the area planned for the construction of the residential buildings floods regularly and severely. The map of the flood zone produced in May 2017, to which the management plan adopted by the MRC de Memphrémagog on 21 June 2017 refers, confirms this. More than 84% of the footprint of the three residential buildings foreseen in the management plan (see page 28, table 4, Plan de gestion) is situated in the high-velocity, 0-20 year flood zone! When the area floods, residents will have to be evacuated – at the expense of taxpayers across the province and across the country, and not only of those who have benefited from the construction, i.e. the developer and the municipality.

The municipal council, or rather the three councillors – half of a full council – who voted for the resolution being presented by the mayor and the general manager of the municipality, argue that North Hatley is in a better position than other municipalities, that North Hatley did not suffer damage in 2017, that North Hatley monitors water levels better than do others – but none of these change the fact that North Hatley wants to allow the construction of residential buildings in a high-velocity flood zone, and would do so – to quote the language of the draft decree – “in the context of climate change.” If North Hatley is allowed to continue to proceed with this development, if the municipality is removed from annex 1 of the decree, this will increase – not reduce, as is the stated objective of the decree, and of the government – “the number of people and the amount of property exposed to future flooding.”

It is argued as well that the planned waterproofing of the buildings to be constructed, set at a level of 32 cm above the 100-year flooding level (based on an arbitrary projected 20% increase in water flow) makes the buildings safe in the event of flooding. But have simulations been carried out to establish if this theoretical level is indeed sufficient? A major rainfall event – even substantially less than the 158 mm of rain that fell during a few hours in Mount Forest, Ontario, on 24 June 2017 – would most probably demonstrate that it is not. Moreover, securing the buildings by waterproofing them, even if that were possible with absolute certainty, would not prevent the people living in them from having to be evacuated, possibly in inflatable boats and by helicopter, and it will be the taxpayers of Montreal, Chicoutimi, Jonquière and Stanstead who will pay the cost of doing so. The only certain way of ensuring the protection of people and property is to build outside 0-20 flood zones.

The town council is supporting a project without knowing what its consequences will be. This is precisely what the government wishes to avoid by adopting its draft decree: the disastrous effects for residents, but also for taxpayers generally, of construction in zones prone to flooding. Granting an exceptional status to the Village of North Hatley by withdrawing it from the list of municipalities to which the proposed decree applies would be tantamount to saying that the construction of residential buildings in 0-20 year flood zones is consistent with government policy. Granting such an exemption would mean returning to the status quo; it would send a signal that we are not living “in a context of climate change,” that the 2017 spring floods were nothing special and of little importance. The very existence of the draft decree demonstrates that the government wants the existing situation to change, that there can no longer be any possible exceptions to the Protection Policy for Lakeshores, Riverbanks, Littoral Zones and Floodplains in the case of residential buildings. For this reason, North Hatley must be kept on the list of municipalities to which the draft decree applies. In the meantime, over the next 18 months, simulations of significant rainfall and of combinations of rapid snowmelt and of rainfall should be carried out to verify whether the studies put forward by the Village of North Hatley have any basis in reality and whether, in fact, the effects of climate change are likely to produce situations in which waterproofing, to any level, is an insufficient response. During this 18-month period, the village should itself explore the possibility of developing other areas of its territory, outside the 0-20 year flood zone, since several such areas in fact exist.

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.

(English follows)

Je suis allé à l’assemblée du Conseil lundi dernier et l’atmosphère de lourdeur, de non-transparence et de méfiance réciproque m’a convaincu qu’il fallait écrire collectivement, « à vous nos élus », sans passer par les filtres de défiance de votre administration face aux gens qui pensent autrement. J’écris donc cette opinion libre dans La Tribune.

Cela fait près de quatre ans que vous, élus actuels de notre conseil municipal, êtes à la recherche de solutions pour agrandir une assiette fiscale trop lourde à supporter pour une petite communauté. Du même élan, vous cherchez à offrir une qualité de service qui permettrait à des familles de s’y installer et aux commerces d’y vivre adéquatement. Vous souhaitez prospectivement répondre positivement à l’attrition et aux besoins d’une population vieillissante tout comme au départ des forces vives vers les centres urbains. Enfin, comme toute municipalité, vous souhaitez rentabiliser les zones inhabitées, rehausser et moderniser le parc immobilier. Nous sommes conscients des efforts à consentir pour résoudre de telles équations, mais aussi, à quel point il est impératif de les inscrire dans un plan d’ensemble, dans une vision et dans un consensus.

Durant tout votre mandat, vous avez investi beaucoup d’efforts à appuyer presque sans retenue un seul projet comme la solution à l’ensemble des problèmes de la municipalité. Vous avez tracé et facilité le chemin au projet d’un seul et même promoteur propriétaire de ce grand espace inondable au coeur du village. Et vous n’avez ménagé aucune énergie pour que la vision de ce promoteur fasse son chemin contre l’avis éclairé d’une partie de la population s’opposant à ce choix.

Au-delà des « mécanismes démocratiques » trop souvent utiles pour encadrer des arguments difficiles à entendre, il y a certainement eu manquement de votre part quant à « l’esprit de la démocratie », vu ce climat de méfiance et de dissension qui s’est installé entre les tenants de visions différentes, ceux de « l’économie d’abord », d’une part, et ceux du « développement harmonieux de la communauté sous tous ses aspects », d’autre part. Visions différentes, mais malgré tout réconciliables pour peu qu’on agisse en « bon père de famille » qui écoute et décide à partir des opinions de tout le monde.

Depuis que ce projet chemine à travers assemblées, réunions et instances supérieures, vous vous êtes privés des connaissances techniques et des lumières tout aussi avisées que celles de vos experts-conseils, préférant croire et claironnant que ceux qui s’opposent ne veulent aucun changement. Et vous vous êtes surtout privés de la profondeur du vécu communautaire de ces personnes. Somme toute, vous avez cru économiser des efforts et avez succombé à la solution facile d’un développement économique qui n’aura sans aucun doute rien de durable. Qui viendra acheter à fort prix un condo en zone inondable sans assurance de pouvoir s’assurer contre les risques?

Nous venons de traverser un printemps difficile à l’échelle nationale, dû justement au principal objet du litige, soit la construction de plusieurs immeubles de 3 à 5 étages totalisant quelque 210 condos en zone inondable. Ce que le Québec vivait durement aurait dû, à l’instar des gouvernements, vous faire réfléchir un peu plus loin et vous mettre à l’écoute plus sérieusement des arguments solides de certains opposants qui avaient sonné la cloche depuis longtemps.

Pire, vous n’avez pas « planifié » ou imaginé votre municipalité autrement qu’à travers cette idée de « masse de condos », sans doute lucrative pour le promoteur, mais combien risquée pour l’avenir de la communauté. Vous n’avez pas fait l’exercice d’y regarder de plus près et de dégager une vision générale acceptable pour tout le monde et à laquelle seraient soumis les gestes municipaux dans les années à venir. Des expériences existent pourtant en ce sens pour répondre aux mêmes préoccupations que celle de la municipalité.

Maintenant que le gouvernement du Québec se propose de revoir sa politique en regard des zones inondables, au lieu d’aller demander d’être l’exception à la règle, il serait peut-être temps de faire quelques pas prudents du côté de vos commettants et de reprendre les rênes du développement de votre municipalité avec une attitude plus ouverte, plus respectueuse de ce qu’elle est fondamentalement et plus inclusive des idées qui y ont cours. Vous avez l’occasion de redevenir les élus de tout le monde et non ceux d’un seul promoteur. Au lieu de vous buter, pourquoi ne pas ouvrir un vrai dialogue entre tous (jeunes, vieux, commerçants, retraités, jeunes familles, etc.) pour qu’on recherche de nouvelles avenues de développement et qu’on y pose des gestes à la mesure de nos capacités, de notre rythme et de nos ressources? Pourquoi ne pas regarder plus sérieusement le regroupement des municipalités autour de ce lac?

North Hatley, comme vous le clamez souvent et à juste titre, est un bijou dont il faut préserver le lustre en tirant profit tout autant de ses forces que de ses contraintes. C’est visuellement un patrimoine en soi que des interventions trop clinquantes et non pertinentes à son environnement hydrique délicat, à sa communauté et au bon voisinage des cultures fondatrices, pourraient rapidement ternir.

« Small is Beautiful » s’applique parfaitement à son cas. Mais « Small is Beautiful » n’est pas synonyme de refus de l’évolution, de la modernité et de l’essor économique.

North Hatley a besoin de se construire une vision à long terme et de faire place à tout projet qui ira dans le sens d’un consensus obtenu par une vraie démocratie participative. North Hatley, comme le reste de la planète, doit inscrire dans cette vision, la fragilité, la protection et la mise à contribution de ses écosystèmes qui heureusement, par leur beauté, sont le fer de lance de l’économie du village.

À l’aube d’un prochain rendez-vous électoral, est-il pensable que le conseil municipal adopte des gestes responsables et concertés en regard de l’avenir?

Est-il pensable que les élus reprennent le contrôle d’un agenda qu’ils auront concerté avec leurs commettants et qu’ils répondent directement et sans filtre aux interrogations qui leur seront inévitablement transmises?

Est-il pensable que les élus soient vraiment médiateurs entre tous les intérêts et les forces en présence?

Il y a beaucoup à faire ici et il y a un relais à transmettre à des jeunes qui verront les choses à la lumière d’autres modèles et dont la principale préoccupation de survie tiendra obligatoirement compte de l’environnement.

La démocratie n’est pas un jeu déchirant qui doit se jouer tous les quatre ans. Elle est un exercice qui se fait au jour le jour, souvent dans la confrontation, dans la recherche de compromis et dans le respect des idées et des différences.

Vincent Ranallo, North Hatley

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.

(web translation)

I went to the council meeting last Monday and the atmosphere of heaviness, non-transparency and reciprocal mistrust convinced me that we had to write collectively, “to you our elected representatives”, without going through the filters of Distrust of your administration to people who think otherwise. I therefore write this free opinion in La Tribune.

It has been almost four years since you, the current elected members of our municipal council, are looking for solutions to enlarge a tax base too heavy to bear for a small community. With the same impetus, you are looking to offer a quality of service that would allow families to settle in and businesses to live there adequately. You want to prospectively respond positively to the attrition and needs of an aging population as well as starting from the living forces towards the urban centres. Finally, like any municipality, you want to make the uninhabited areas profitable, enhance and modernize the housing stock. We are aware of the efforts to be made to resolve such equations, but also the extent to which it is imperative to include them in an overall plan, vision and consensus.

Throughout your mandate, you have invested a great deal of effort in supporting almost unreservedly a single project as the solution to all the problems of the municipality. You have traced and facilitated the way to the project of a single promoter owning this large flood-able space in the heart of the village. And you have spared no energy so that the vision of this promoter will make his way against the enlightened opinion of a section of the population opposing this choice.

Beyond the “democratic mechanisms” too often useful for framing hard-to-hear arguments, there has certainly been a failure on your part as to the “spirit of democracy”, given this climate of mistrust and dissent, Is set up between the supporters of different visions, those of “economy first”, on the one hand, and those of “harmonious development of the community in all its aspects” on the other. Different visions, but nevertheless reconciled if one acts as a “good father” who listens and decides from the opinions of everyone.

Since this project has gone through assemblies, meetings and higher forums, you have been deprived of the technical knowledge and insight that is as wise as your consultants, preferring to believe and bewailing that those who oppose do not want any change. And you have mostly deprived yourself of the depth of community life of these people. All in all, you thought you saved efforts and succumbed to the easy solution of an economic development that will undoubtedly have nothing durable. Who will come to buy at a high price a condo in flood zone without insurance to be able to insure against the risks?

We have just gone through a difficult spring at the national level, due to the main subject of the dispute, namely the construction of several 3- to 5-storey buildings totalling some 210 condos in a flood zone. What Quebec, like governments, would have had to make you think a little farther and listen more seriously to the solid arguments of some of the opponents who had been ringing the bell for a long time.

Worse, you did not “plan” or imagine your municipality other than through this idea of ​​”mass of condos”, probably lucrative for the promoter, but how risky for the future of the community. You have not done the exercise to look more closely at it and to come up with a general vision acceptable to everyone and to which the municipal gestures would be subjected in the years to come. Nevertheless, there are experiments in this respect to address the same concerns as the municipality.

Now that the Government of Quebec is proposing to review its policy with regard to flood zones, instead of going to ask to be the exception to the rule, it may be time to take some cautious steps on the side of your constituents And to take back the reins of the development of your municipality with a more open attitude, more respectful of what it is fundamentally and more inclusive of the ideas that are there. You have the opportunity to become the elected representatives of all the world and not those of a single promoter. Instead of stumbling, why not open up a real dialogue between all (young people, old people, shopkeepers, retired people, young families, etc.) so that new avenues of development can be sought and gestures made Measure our abilities, our pace and our resources? Why not look more seriously at the regrouping of the municipalities around this lake?

North Hatley, as you often rightly claim, is a jewel whose lustre must be preserved by taking advantage of both its strengths and its constraints. It is visually a heritage in itself that interventions that are too flashy and irrelevant to its delicate water environment, to its community and to the good neighbourliness of the founding cultures, could quickly tarnish.

“Small is Beautiful” applies perfectly to her case. But “Small is Beautiful” is not synonymous with refusal of evolution, modernity and economic growth.

North Hatley needs to build a long-term vision and make room for any project that will lead to a consensus achieved through genuine participatory democracy. North Hatley, like the rest of the planet, must include in this vision the fragility, protection and contribution of its ecosystems, which fortunately, by their beauty, are the spearhead of the village economy.

On the eve of an upcoming electoral event, is it possible for the city council to take responsible and concerted action with regard to the future?

Is it conceivable that the elected representatives take back control of an agenda that they have concerted with their constituents and that they respond directly and without filter to the questions that will inevitably be transmitted to them?

Is it conceivable that the elected representatives really mediate between all the interests and the forces involved?

There is a lot to be done here and there is a relay to pass on to young people who will see things in the light of other models and whose main concern for survival will necessarily take into account the environment.

Democracy is not a heartbreaking game that must be played every four years. It is an exercise that takes place day by day, often in confrontation, in the search for compromise and in respect for ideas and differences.

Vincent Ranallo, North Hatley

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.