Speeding ticket: Journal makes hay
The Journal is rubbing its hands over getting to tell about how Benoit Dorais, whom it describes as the city’s No. 2 and le bras droit de la mairesse de Montréal, was ticketed for $1378 and 14 demerit points on some highway outside of Montreal in April, writing as if this one error invalidates Dorais’ work on calming traffic in St-Henri and makes mockery of his visit to see the cars at the Grand Prix a few weeks later.
Tim S. 07:41 on 2019-07-12 Permalink
He was doing 171 km/h in a 2 ton SUV. He deserves public shaming, and it’s normal to be upset at public officials who don’t practice what they preach. I don’t usually support Peladeau & Co’s editorial line, but I really don’t think this kind of behaviour can be hand waved away. And given the state of traffic enforcement in Quebec, I usually assume drivers commit dozens or hundreds of violations for each time they’re actually caught, so I would hesitate before calling it one error.
Kate 07:49 on 2019-07-12 Permalink
OK it’s news, but it doesn’t invalidate the work Dorais has done in St-Henri, and him and Plante visiting the Gilles-Villeneuve track is not relevant either.
Jim 08:13 on 2019-07-12 Permalink
Maybe not, but the behavior was excessive. He put people consciously in danger. It says a lot about his personal judgement.
Blork 10:12 on 2019-07-12 Permalink
Well, you can’t really blame them. After all, going 171 in a 100 zone is a pretty serious mistake, and the irony is pretty rich even if it’s a win for opinions we don’t like.
(That said, it’s pretty easy to speed on that stretch of highway 35, as it’s flat as the Prairies and straight as an arrow for 10 km.)
CE 10:21 on 2019-07-12 Permalink
I’m not sure I’d call 71 km/h over the speed limit a mistake. You really have to put the pedal to the metal to go that speed, especially in a Buick!
david100 12:02 on 2019-07-12 Permalink
In some North American jurisdictions, doing 70+ over the limit is felony reckless driving punishable by prison. It’s about as dangerous as you can get on the road, short of driving impaired. Traffic calming is great, and the guy is decent mayor (though not sufficiently pro-growth for me) but I hope he’s not allowed to drive again.
Ian 12:11 on 2019-07-12 Permalink
My secondhand hatchback starts to rattle above 120, I don’t think it could do 170 haha
Kate 12:50 on 2019-07-12 Permalink
Until we raze all the duplexes and triplexes and replace them with high-rises, david100, nobody will be sufficiently pro-growth for you.
david100 12:58 on 2019-07-12 Permalink
I’m happy enough with mid-rise (say, 6-10 stories) on arterials for a start. My thing, more than anything, is the kind of culture that exists when rents are low. Many people don’t understand that there’s a direct connection between anti-growth conservatism and the increasing rents. I’m an evangelist for growth to prevent gentrification, to bring down housing costs, to bring up population density to serve businesses (and the street and culture generally), and you’re right that I completely reject the idea that just because a two story building is there means it must always stay the same. The greater good of a better city through lower rents and higher density, that’s my thing.
ant6n 17:07 on 2019-07-13 Permalink
And I thought the tickle down theory of affordable housing was debunked (ie replacing old cheap housing with multiple, but more expensive units will create more cheap housing)
david100 19:56 on 2019-07-13 Permalink
^ No, not debunked. Not even a “theory” in the colloquial use of the word, at least not any more than it’s a “theory” that growing more food feeds more people, or a greater population will require a greater number of resources. You may be thinking about some of the research that zoning alone won’t do it, well, yeah, no shit. Building, rent control, use regulations, they all affect the cost of housing. But Montreal/Quebec already has a lot of the pieces in place, the one thing powerful it could do is simply building more housing in areas people want to live.
I read a threat on reddit yesterday, some conversation among people in Miami, where they were discussing the benefits of renting v. buying. And the overwhelming consensus was that buying was a foolish thing to do, because the cost of housing doesn’t go up, and you’re unnecessarily taking on liabilities. Miami has no rent control, there’s no social housing going it, but there’s a lot of demand for housing – so why can’t you buy an investment property? Because they have a fairly unregulated building regime, and supply comes online to meet demand at a rate sufficient to keep prices low. If you want to buy an investment property, you need to cross the bay to Miami Beach, where they simply aren’t building – that scarcity is what drives up the cost of housing, irrespective of location. It’s not rocket science, and the people who write articles trying to convince you that it’s a lot more complicated than that assume you have this basic knowledge.
Man, still can’t figure out where people get the idea that shortages push up the price in everything except housing, where prices are magically exempt from demand pressures, and the reason for price increases are exclusively tied to “greedy developers.” Imagine how much worse the affordability situation would be in the neighborhoods if there weren’t a Ville Marie or even just a Griffintown to absorb demand. You’d have owner move-in evictions, unit fusions, hardcore gentrification on pretty much every available unit. All landlords would be encouraged to sell, rents would shoot up even higher, etc. You’d have a steroids version of Mile-End in every inner neighborhood.