Open letter to Pointe Claire municipal officials



I am a brand new tax paying (welcome tax) citizen of Pointe Claire and happy about it.

Please do not underestimate the negative power of the airport in Dorval. Yes, I realize that for a city it can mean many 'positive' things. I lived there for 28 years and know that many cities including Pointe Claire would be hard pressed to offer in some instances the level of services they do.

On the other hand, I moved from Dorval, a place where my children grew up and my wife and I had the most wonderful neighbours in the world to this day, solely because of the ever increasing noise and pollution created by the airport. When we moved there in 1980, Mirabel was a going concern. Since 1997 when Mirabel closed and more recently when all flights including charters and freighters flew in and out of Dorval and Aéroports de Montréal lost all interest in the quality of life for its citizens, living there became unbearable.

While I am somewhat surprised to hear and see so many planes over the skies of Pointe Claire, it's only a fraction of what Dorval residents suffer today.

Please do not force me and others to have to move from my new city.

Please do what's right in the interest of your grandchildren and their children. Please help rein in these capitalist mercenaries.

Please help to at least maintain what little green space we have left on the island of Montreal.

Patrick Manning

Pointe Claire

New library not needed

The recent report of the proposal by Beaconsfield city council, to replace the existing library and to erect a new library building, in order to create additional office space, is certainly open to very serious questions.

1) Apparently, so it has been implied, there is a need for additional area for the city administration. For what purpose, for whom, and what is the real justification and cost benefit?

The population of Beaconsfield has remained basically static for the past 25 plus years, in fact it has decreased about five per cent.

The increase in kilometres of public roads during this period is a minimum.

A relatively insignificant number of new homes have been added during this time, as the city is virtually fully developed.

Certain essential services previously administered by the city are now the purview of the Agglomeration Council, who recently added fire protection to the list.

So why the need for additional administrative space?

Beaconsfield council apparently hopes to acquire funding for $4 million, either by government grants and/or corporate funds.

Nothing is free. Government funds are public money (you and me), there is no such thing as free money.

2) With so many current serious public funding problems, principally for overpasses, highways and roads, bridges, hospitals, and medical services, etc., it is inconceivable that the government or other body would consider this kind of money for a non-essential project to embellish existing facilities or financing unneeded office expansion when there are other more practical alternatives. We hope our public is not that naïve.

3) Realistically, an estimated annual cost to finance this $4 million project over a period of, say, 20 years at five per cent, would not only amount to approximately $300,000, but increase our public debt.

4) Beaconsfield, by choice, is predominantly a residential community, without industrial support, and with only a modest commercial base. As a consequence with the present comparatively high residential taxes, our tax rates are very sensitive to any increase in municipal spending, and thus almost 100 per cent an additional residential burden. Could and should our money be better administered and utilized?

Edwin M. Briggs

Beaconsfield