Hearsay based systematic hostility
Several false arguments are put forward and repeated by the city administration
30 years after the unilateral transformation of the boulevard into a highway, the citizens have camped on their position.
We meet with an attitude of systematic hostility from some towards this historic situation and several false arguments put forward are repeated by the city administration.
53.1 Scare taxpayers
This is an intimidation tactic used by the municipal administration of Beaconsfield:
When he does not favor a project, the mayor declares that its cost will be prohibitive, without study or proof of what he claims:
- He claims that the acoustic barrier project will cost $ 40 million. Wow this is a big figure that scares. But he “forgets” to mention that the city’s share is limited to 25% of the cost. If the total cost is more like 30 Millions, our share will be $ 7.5 Millions, which will come down to $ 50 per residence for 25 years.
- When asked about improvements to traffic problems in the Woodland interchange, the mayor said “it will cost $ 50 Million“! No studies, a figure out of nowhere.
However, when he favors a project, the mayor avoids revealing the estimated cost. He answers:
“In accordance with the legal tendering process, it is wise to wait until it is finished.” Mayor, does this mean that we will not know the costs until after a tenderer has won the contract (???) p.9
- How much will the IMAGINE project cost? Will $ 40 Million Be Enough? The mayor has been telling us to imagine this project for over a year. No grant has yet been announced. Who asked to move the library to the water’s edge? No answer.
- How much will the expansion of the recreation center cost? None estimated.
- North side: What undocumented assessment will the mayor give us when we tell him about a study for an acoustic barrier on the north side? Will he talk about $ 40 Million right away?
53.2 “Impact” on the value of houses
“I don’t want to pay for an acoustic screen that will increase the value of your house TA. This is an argument heard frequently. Some even told me of a difference of 20-25% … based on nothing at all.
what is the truth? We went to the sources. We met three professional real estate agents specializing in the South Beaconsfield area.
We asked them in writing the following question: If we build the acoustic screen, do you think it would significantly increase the market value of the houses along the highway? If so, what would be the impact (rough estimate in%)?
Their responses (here M. Souini) were unanimous, (although they are competitors):
“Adding an [acoustic barrier] will have VERY LITTLE IMPACT on the market value of a given house located in the immediate vicinity of the highway. The fact remains that the house is still located near the highway and will therefore not benefit from any noticeable increase in market value. Even optimisticaly, the maximum impact that an [acoustic barrier] can have on the values of houses is an increase of approximately 2 or 3% of the current value of the house without acoustic barrier. “
So this is fake news.
53.3 “You knew before you bought”
Some opponents say, “You knew what to expect when you bought your house in front of the highway. We don’t have to pay for it. ” This argument is weak and short-sighted.
It’s like talking about the situation of black people and racism in the United States, forgetting the slave trade of previous centuries. The solution lies in recognizing the problem and its historical cause, not blaming their existance or for having black children.
Some bought in winters when the windows were closed. Several asked the question before buying. Sellers and property developers reassured them by talking about an upcoming noise barrier, neglecting to talk about the city hall’s opposition. But no one can imagine the magnitude of the problem before facing it on a daily basis. Especially in summer.
53.4 “If you are not happy, move out”
This unreal comment was heard several times in the mouth of the mayor of Beaconsfield during the public meetings of the city council in 2018 and in 2019. It was taken up by certain opponents of the acoustic screens.
According to this approach, it is OK to sell your house to solve the problem. So, Mr. Mayor, we push the problem forward, to the next owner WITHOUT CORRECTING IT ??? A fine example of responsibility!
Almost a third of Beaconsfield residents cannot use their land or open their windows during summer because of noise and air pollution and you tell them to continue to risk their health or to transfer this poisoned gift ???
This is an irresponsible statement, what enlightened leadership!
When he takes an oath at the start of his mandate, each mayor implicitly undertakes to protect his population. Refusing to resolve this situation is to betray his oath and 6,000 citizens.
The municipal administration has known the negative effects of the highway on the health of many of its citizens for over 30 years. These health effects are cumulative. These residents risk their health without ever having been consulted.
It is a matter of public health, not a matter of money.
53.5 “Ugly Wall”
In September 2015, leaving the meeting with the Minister of Transport Robert Poeti who then proposed to pay 75% of the cost of the screen, the mayor said:
“There are pluses and minuses to having a wall. I think it will be 100% effective in reducing noise, that’s pretty clear. But a wall is a wall. “
What a prodigious argument! We’re talking about the health of thousands of people and are you moved by the appearance of the acoustic barrier? How can you assume it will be ugly before you even start designing?
An acoustic barrier protects citizens 12 months a year. You can’t hide it in a garage like a snow melter.
Technology has evolved. There are all kinds of screens in all kinds of materials. A study by the MTQ in 2012 suggests various solutions, and the most important, in our opinion, is :
“To analyze any development project on the scale of the district and to seek the compatibility of the elements with each other, be it the elements of the screen (shapes, materials, textures, etc.), the planting, functions of use and proximity activities. » Page 183
Aesthetics can be controlled, but is it more important than the health of thousands of citizens?
So, this is a bogus problem.
53.6 “The noise will bounce back to the north side”
We sometimes hear this statement from the “anti-walls”. According to this theory, noise barriers reflect sound on the opposite side of highways.
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation), is the California equivalent of our Ministry of Transportation (MTQ). They installed and studied hundreds of kilometers of noise barriers.
“The results of studies implying an increase in the noise level for barriers on the opposite side of a road in simple terrain, agree remarkably well with the theoretical calculations (…).
For distances of 50 to 100 feet, the increases were generally from 0 to 1 dBA. At 400 feet, the measured results were a 2.4 dBA increase as calculated for longer distances. “
The INSPQ (2018) states that “a noise difference is noticeable from 3 dBA”.
Installing an acoustic barrier on the south side will therefore have NO perceptible impact for residents on the north side.
53.7 “I know”
The citizens of Beaconsfield fall into three groups that we consider roughly equal in number:
- Those who suffer and want a solution, they live in the polluted corridor, talk about the environment and a better quality of life,
- Those who are against, they live far from the corridor, they talk about themselves and their money,
- Those who are neutral, they are everywhere in the city and are indifferent to the debate.
Many of those “against” suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect, also called the overconfidence effect. These two Nobel Prize winners (2002) describe the effect they have documented: “It is a cognitive bias according to which the least qualified in an area overestimate their competence”. They never say “I don’t know!” “But rather said” I know! With the certainty of ignorance, and often even with arrogance. Some say ignorance of ignorance.
In our situation, many of the “against” believe they know everything about the issue, they spread falsehoods without knowing the facts: “there is no pollution problem in Beaconsfield”, “it is an unnecessary expense”, “I will not pay to increase the value of YOUR house “.
The only solution to correct this ignorance is to inform, to advance their knowledge, to “light their lantern”. If they are open-minded, of course.
This is one of the objectives of this website: to document, inform, educate, illustrate the problems. Let us now look at some of the often fallacious arguments used by these “against”.