For over 30 years, the city of Beaconsfield pursued its shameful policy of pushing back
The city pretends that the noise barrier is OPTIONAL.
The MTQ and 6,000 residents see it as a NECESSITY for their health.
We must find a solution.
The City of Beaconsfield has made several public attempts to wash their hands of the decision to build a noise barrier to avoid paying for it. The city has, among other things, used tricks such as :
- to make it a personal problem,
- to try to divide the citizens
- through surveys,
- by threatening a referendum, or
- to issue building permits in dangerous areas.
Through these barely veiled attempts, the Beaconsfield municipal administration wants to send back the decision to tax in the hands of taxpayers … under the appearance of democracy.
64.1 Make it an individual problem ???
During the city council meeting of September 23, 2019 (page 3), the mayor of Beaconsfield clarified his thinking by distinguishing between a local or collective improvement. According to the mayor,
“local improvement is a project that only benefits certain citizens, and collective improvement is a project that benefits all citizens, not just some. The latter should, he added, be paid by all citizens. “It’s a question of having access (eg the marina, the library, etc.). When the project benefits all citizens and not just some, then everyone pays ”.
However, if we build an acoustic barrier along the highway, everyone will have access to it! Beaurepaire Drive will not suddenly become a private road!
Double standards in Beaconsfield.
This position (local or collective) is highly questionable in fact because the city manages these situations with double standards:
Lord Reading Yacht Club
In November 2019, the city announced an agreement with the Lord Reading Yacht Club. According to this agreement, the city undertakes to carry out renovation works (demolish the shed, the club house, build a new harbor master’s office, etc.). However, citizens will not have access to Lac Saint-Louis in this area of the marina unless they pay and become a member, said the city’s CEO. This area will be fenced and crossed out. The marina is therefore managed as a private site!
These renovations will be paid for by the citizens of Beaconsfield. The land belongs to the city of Beaconsfield. But this work will only benefit club members.
So these are local improvements, not collective improvements.
The schools
The 1,430 students and staff from three schools and a daycare center south of Highway 20 attend about 200 days a year. Knowing that children are more affected than adults by pollution, these children need protection from the noise barrier even more.
If we build the noise barrier how are you going to tax the parents of these students? If they benefit from the noise barrier without paying, then these are collective improvements!
Build your own wall by yourself !!!
In July 2013, the City Council of Beaconsfield presented a by-law that allowed residents living along Highway 20 to build their own noise barrier in their backyard.
What a sad, shameful precedent! The city of Beaconsfield let its residents down! Take care of yourself! Your health is not important to Beaconsfield.
The city therefore has a double standard that is unfair to the 4,320 people including 2,350 children living south of the highway.
Living in a community
Sure, a noise barrier will bring more benefits to a few thousand people than others. But you can say the same thing about pretty much everything a city does. Only a few people use:
- the library,
- the arena,
- the sport centre,
- the lawn bowling ground,
- swimming pools.
We don’t ask users to be the only ones to pay. We have chosen to live in a community. And everyone pays for the standard of living that the community offers.
The city council must show real leadership and declare that an acoustic barrier is necessary. This is the right thing to do for over 30 years.
64.2 It is a collective problem
More than 4,320 people in Beaconsfield south of the 20 live in a risk zone for their health. This means almost a quarter of the population of Beaconsfield is directly exposed to external pollution, twelve months a year. So it’s NOT a personal problem.
Labeling the polluted corridor as “personal problem” is another tactic to avoid taking responsibility for it. The situation was not caused by citizens along the 20, but they have suffered the consequences unfairly for 32 years.
So it’s a collective problem.