The city has used surveys to postpone the decision
The main impact was to divide the citizens
In addition, the city suggests that the noise barrier is OPTIONAL, while it is a NECESSITY for the health of more than 4,300 people affected, for the Minister and for the MTQ!
65.1 “The more you suffer, the more you pay” !!
In 2012, Mayor Pollock’s municipal administration refused to pay for it’s share of an acoustic barrier. It produced a survey based on the assumption that this is an individual problem. It was proposed to adjust the payment of special taxes for the acoustic barrier according to the distance to this barrier.
The city proposed that 464 residences (6.9% of Beaconsfield residences) share a tax debt of $ 6.810 Million, or an invoice between $ 3,227 and $ 36,483 per house before interest depending on the area where the houses were located !
150 residences would have shared a special tax of up to 10% of their value!
The majority of houses south of the highway date from the 1960s and 1970s. These are not luxury homes. The 150 properties targeted in the red and yellow sectors (as defined in the survey) were worth $ 250,000 to $ 300,000 on average at that time. They would suddenly have been hit by tax debts of more than 10% of their value! (up to $ 36,500!) All of this as a result of decisions on which these citizens did not even have the opportunity to express their opinion!
Remember that spreading the cost of construction across all residences in Beaconsfield will cost $ 50 per residence per year for 25 years. A cost easily absorbed by the city.
$ 50 per residence per year for 25 years spread over all homes
This approach was immoral and unfair because, here again, the city was trying to offload its responsibilities and even to punish its citizens most affected by this pollution. Again, these are intimidation tactics that could have had these effects:
- Transfer to citizens of their own responsibility to pay for the acoustic barrier,
- Promote a new unfair principle: “the more you suffer, the more you pay” !!!!
- Scare these Beaconsfield citizens with a 10% tax, a debt of $ 6.8 Million,
- Divide and create tensions between citizens by arbitrarily establishing taxation borders,
- Reduce the sales potential (and / or the sale price) of the properties covered by this special tax.
Mayor Bourelle said he wanted to bring this immoral proposal back to the table. What a contrast with what is happening in Longueuil, Laval, Brossard, and Baie d’Urfé, where mayors are building acoustic screens to improve the quality of life of their citizens!
Beaconsfield must meet its responsibilities without threatening its citizens with unfair taxes
65.2 Suggesting that health protection is optional !!!
In October 2015, faced with the MTQ’s 75-25 proposal, the City still wanted to evade its responsibilities by dividing the citizens in a survey.
Instead of consulting impacted residents, the City mandated the marketing firm Léger to conduct a telephone survey in the six neighborhoods of the city to get their perception of noise pollution generated by the road and whether they were favorable to the construction of an acoustic barrier.
This survey suggests that the noise barrier is OPTIONAL, while for residents, the Minister and the MTQ, it is a NECESSITY!
The questions asked made NO REFERENCE to the historical context of noise pollution, nor to studies of noise levels in Beaconsfield, nor to the scientifically demonstrated impact of noise pollution on the health of affected residents, nor to the inaction of the city since 1986.
In other words, the poll asked residents of Beaconsfield “Do you want to pay an additional tax?” Without explaining the situation or its impacts.
And the sound wall survey says 2015
One third of Beaconsfield citizens live within 300 meters of the highway and are affected by noise. So two-thirds of citizens can say they are not concerned, especially if they are threatened with an additional tax. This is a low electoral tactic and, what a surprise, the survey revealed that the population consulted was against an additional tax !!!
Presented in this way, no project will ever be accepted by the population because, for obvious reasons, no one will want to vote for a new tax!
The health of residents cannot be negotiated in public. The city of Beaconsfield must protect a third of its citizens in the same way and objective as several cities have done it : for a better quality of life.