Updates from May, 2022 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Kate 13:08 on 2022-05-18 Permalink | Reply  

    Six years ago Angelo d’Onofrio was shot dead on a café terrasse in Ahuntsic, and it was soon known that it was a mistake. The two men who were later convicted were after a different man, a known gangster called Antonio Vannelli. Now the two will have a new trial although this Journal piece is mostly about the feelings of d’Onofrio’s widow and doesn’t give details about the errors in law that have led to a new trial.

    Global still has a 2016 piece up with a headline calling d’Onofrio a presumed mobster and that should not be allowed to stand, or should at least have a prominent correction appended.

     

    • Kate 12:53 on 2022-05-18 Permalink | Reply  

      The Journal has photos of a restaurant in St‑Léonard restaurant firebombed early Wednesday when it was closed.

       

      • Kate 10:16 on 2022-05-18 Permalink | Reply  

        Tourisme Montreal is sanguine about a busy tourism season this summer; while hotels may manage, restaurants are still struggling to hire workers.

         

        • Kate 09:43 on 2022-05-18 Permalink | Reply  

          Some of Montreal’s suburbs are resisting the idea of densifying their existing territory and prefer the idea of spreading single‑family sprawl beyond their current borders. But it’s a complex problem, affecting transit and services, and not every suburb is keen on suddenly having thousands of new people set down in their sleepy single‑family streets.

           

          • Paul 10:26 on 2022-05-18 Permalink

            This article seems biased. It implies the the developer’s proposal of 8-storey towers is a positive thing, and that they have the community’s best interests at heart. No mention of any financial incentives for them to densify the site to its maximum potential.
            It paints the city as being NIMBY without identifying what the City is proposing as an alternative (IMO 4-5 storeys is considered a much more human scale), and engages no independent experts to weigh in on if an 8-storey tower is a good option considering the surrounding context (it isn’t).

            Since when is La Press about Gotcha journalism??

          • Kate 11:27 on 2022-05-18 Permalink

            Maybe, but sooner or later these 1960s-style suburbs are going to have to come to terms with the growing population. We shouldn’t swallow up more and more natural areas and farmland outside the city when there are areas to be redeveloped inside the city and its existing suburbs.

          • Michael 12:07 on 2022-05-18 Permalink

            Having 3-4 humans live within a 4-5000 square foot lot was never sustainable on an increasingly populated island.

          • Poutine Pundit 12:23 on 2022-05-18 Permalink

            The St.Bruno article is not about spreading single family sprawl beyond the borders but about building 5-6 storey housing towers next to a shopping mall. Either way, can’t see what they could possibly do to St. Bruno to make it a place I’d ever want to live in.

          • DeWolf 17:45 on 2022-05-18 Permalink

            I don’t think you can consider eight storeys to be a tower. Many buildings in Paris, Rome, Barcelona and other low-rise European cities are that height. Four to five storeys is great but not in the context of a leftover industrial site in a suburb filled with big single-family houses that will be ferociously protected from redevelopment. Besides, St-Lambert already has a bunch of actual towers so I’m not really sure why this site is subject to so much fuss.

            As for St-Bruno, the mayor clearly doesn’t care that his policies mean it won’t be long before only the rich can afford to live there. That doesn’t surprise me though given the culture of the place. Its precious town centre is mostly strip malls and parking lots — way less characterful or interesting than half a dozen other old town centres on the South Shore — but I get the impression that it’s the kind of suburb that has holds itself in particularly high regard.

          • Blork 20:57 on 2022-05-18 Permalink

            I think the issue in St-Lambert is that packing in a bunch of new residents in that former industrial site will create a lot of vehicle traffic on the otherwise pretty quiet Ave. St-Charles. (Which, BTW, looks like a random street in St-Leonard. Streetview: https://goo.gl/maps/zg6fVbWrVKhc9aPF7 )

            Since there are railroad tracks on the other side of the lot, St-Charles is the only way in and out of that area.

            There’s apparently also some concern that tall buildings will put the existing residences in permanent shadow, but I’m nit buying that. Maybe it will cut the light a bit at sundown in winter, but unless the towers are built right at sidewalk level — highly unlikely — then I can’t see how that would be a problem.

          • Robert H 23:33 on 2022-05-18 Permalink

            Dans ces drames du développement urbain que l’on trouve dans tant de zones métropolitaines de nos jours, on cherche le méchant et le héros de la pièce. Il ne s’agit toujours le cas d’un promoteur rapace contre un quartier assiégé, même si les résidents peuvent avoir cette impression. Derrière le conflit entre les promoteurs et les habitants se cache une profonde ambivalence de la part de ces derniers. Ce n’est pas qu’ils préfèrent des immeubles de 4 ou 5 étages plutôt que de 8, c’est qu’ils ne veulent rien changer! Les promoteurs sont naturellement frustrés. À Saint–Lambert, la ville a besoin des revenus qui proviendraient d’un développement plus intense. Mais les citoyens préfèrent se plaindre que l’infrastructure ne peut pas supporter l’ampleur de ce qui est proposé. À Saint-Bruno, comme l’a dit DeWolf, c’est surtout des mails linéaires et stationnements qui bordent la Rue de Montarville. Un étage de plus ne serait pas la fin du monde. Le progrès est difficiles à réaliser car tout le monde veut que tout soit construit ailleurs.

          • Uatu 10:53 on 2022-05-19 Permalink

            I don’t know what the big deal is in St Lambert because there’s high rises within walking distance that have been there for years. Suddenly it’s a problem?

          • Blork 12:28 on 2022-05-19 Permalink

            @Uatu, the problem isn’t high rises in general, it’s those particular (proposed) high rises. See my comment above about the concerns regarding traffic for the existing people in that neighbourhood.

            The existing high rises are pretty much all along Riverside Drive, where there’s plenty of room for traffic flow (and already a lot of traffic). That said, I’m sure the residents along there were not happy to have their views on the river obscured back when those buildings were proposed.

        • Kate 09:13 on 2022-05-18 Permalink | Reply  

          François Legault says foes of Bill 96 are spreading disinformation and that access to health care will remain the same for anglophones and immigrants – but his opponents say he’s doing it too and contradicting what’s written in the bill.

          What effect the bill will have on Quebec society can’t exactly be known yet, but surely there’s no doubt about what’s written down? Is Legault implying that he knows the terms of the bill are unrealistic to apply in practice?

           

          • Matt G 09:42 on 2022-05-18 Permalink

            Un “shitshow”, comme on dit.

          • mare 09:58 on 2022-05-18 Permalink

            There *is* doubt because a lot of the exceptions are up to interpretation. Who says that interpretation will not be legally challenged afterwards?
            “Hey doctor, was that really a life threatening situation? We, the St-Jean-Baptiste Society, don’t think so.” A judge will probably side with the doctor, but a court case, of just the threat of one, makes not for a somewhat relaxing work environment.

          • Kevin 11:03 on 2022-05-18 Permalink

            There’s a whole lot of nuance when the premier says something like the following:
            “I want to reassure everybody speaking English, even if their fathers went to an English school or not… [providers] will not refuse to treat a patient in English if it’s needed.”

            Who decides *if* it’s needed to communicate with someone in English?

            Then look at this comment from Christopher Skeete, when a doctor asked if she could talk to her patients in Italian, and was told it would be fine as long as nobody complained https://twitter.com/Cskeete/status/1526552794324516866

            It’s extremely dishonest when politicians are pushing the Shirley Exception as a reason not to be worried.
            https://frasersherman.com/2019/06/03/the-shirley-exception-and-other-links/

          • EmilyG 11:07 on 2022-05-18 Permalink

            I’m tired of the notwithstanding clause. I think the CAQ used this to quickly pass the law that people can’t wear religious things that the CAQ doesn’t like. And now this.

            François Legault reminds me of a bad parent, who thinks that “Because I said so” is an appropriate reason for anything.

          • Michael 13:57 on 2022-05-18 Permalink

            Trumpian divisive politics as usual with the ex-separatists.

          • H. John 17:40 on 2022-05-18 Permalink

            And here’s a twitter thread from Robert Leckey McGill’s Dean of Law, “Are health and social services exempted…”

            https://twitter.com/DeanLeckey/status/1526896919540293632

          • Kate 10:11 on 2022-05-19 Permalink

            That’s interesting, H. John, but Leckey doesn’t delve into the definition or identification of who’s English-speaking. Some who immigrate here speak other languages and can manage some English, but no French, yet I doubt they will be acknowledged.

            I’ve told the story before about going to a walk-in clinic in my neighbourhood, and while waiting, overhearing an incident. A couple had come in, and the man, who spoke English with a heavy accent I didn’t recognize, was pleading with the receptionist. His wife was ill, but they hadn’t understood a phone message in French and had missed an appointment. Can you please leave our appointment messages in English, the man begged. The receptionist – a man – coldly told him (in English): “Our first priority is the French language.” And this was a few years ago, before Bill 96 was even a glint in Jolin-Barrette’s cold eyes.

          • Margaret 09:58 on 2022-05-20 Permalink

            If the community is falling victim to “disinformation”, maybe Legault should reconsider an English language debate where the facts can be laid out for better transparency?

        • Kate 09:04 on 2022-05-18 Permalink | Reply  

          More river ferries will be operating this summer: the ferry linking Pointe‑aux‑Trembles to the Old Port is back, but there will also be a link from the Old Port to Boucherville and another linking the Old Port to St Helen’s Island and Longueuil. More details in the article. A one‑way fare is $5.50.

           

          • Thomas 09:12 on 2022-05-18 Permalink

            Love to see it! Montreal is an Island, but sometimes you’d never know it.

            Presumably our electric boat service on the Back River between the Site nautique Sophie-Barat and the Parc de Beauséjour will be back this year as well (I haven’t seen confirmation, but I was told last year that they’d be back this year with better boats — and the signs are still up)

          • Daniel D 09:47 on 2022-05-18 Permalink

            I am so happy about this! In lieu of weekend trains it will be a great way to explore the region.

          • mare 09:51 on 2022-05-18 Permalink

            Anybody knows if you could bring a bike on those ships? (To a limit, If there’s room.) Then it would be a great start for a bike ride a bit further away from the city. Since we don’t have bike racks on busses you almost need a car to cycle further away (Communautos don’t have hitches to BYO bike rack.)
            I bought an electric bike this year so my range is a bit wider now (albeit with slight battery anxiety). Went to Varennes and back last week, but getting up the Jacques-Cartier on the way back took nearly all the juice out of the battery.

          • Kate 10:52 on 2022-05-18 Permalink

            Bikes certainly used to be welcome. The Navark site doesn’t say either way, but you could inquire.

          • Daniel D 11:13 on 2022-05-18 Permalink

            There were loads of bikes last year when I went on the boat to Pointe‑aux‑Trembles, as the boat seemed very popular with leisure cyclists. But like Kate says, probably best to confirm to be sure.

          • Blork 11:45 on 2022-05-18 Permalink

            The boat that used to run between the old port and Ile-Ste-Helene/Longueuil (pre-pandemic) had passenger capacity of 100, and the entire bottom deck was for bicycles. You could probably fit 60 or more bikes in there.

            Photo of the boat from the JCB: https://flic.kr/p/9Xv6cV You can see the top deck where passengers sit (no passengers sitting there in this photo), and the bottom deck (the line of square windows) is enclosed and consists of benches pushed up against the windows and then entire centre space for bicycles (a rack runs down the middle, with bikes radiating on both sides, like ribs on a spine).

            It’s unclear if those same boats will be used for the new service. I really hope so, because they were fantastic. Sitting out there in the breeze with you bike happily racked down below… it was the cheapest river cruise in town.

            Montrealers could bike to the old port, hop the boat to Longueuil, and from the marina (where it docked) you have quick access to the bike path that runs along the river all the way to Varennes, or to Ste-Catherine in the other direction. Or you could do a loop but taking the boat to Longueuil then going south to St-Lambert and across to Ile-Ste-Helene and back to the city, or go farther and take the Champlain bridge back to the city.

            Of course those rides still exist, minus the boat part. (E.g., take the Jacques-Cartier across to Longueuil and then south to St-Lambert and back through Ile-Ste-Helene, or go from Griffintown across to Ile-Ste-Helene then south to the Champlain bridge, etc.) But having that boat component made it all the more magical on a beautiful day.

          • Kate 13:12 on 2022-05-18 Permalink

            Here’s the Navark page on river shuttles. They do mention bicycles.

            Blork, I did something like you describe back when I was cycling. Went over to Longueuil by boat, cycled into St‑Lambert where I still had an elderly relative at the time, dropped by for a visit, then came home over the Victoria and the islands.

          • dhomas 15:35 on 2022-05-18 Permalink

            @mare my EV isn’t certified to use a hitch (not because it can’t, but because it would affect the range calculations in the marketing material), so I use a different portable bike mount that hooks into the trunk. It looks something like this:
            https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/6e9a50ba-b7f2-4349-a18d-a68f55e0d8d6_1.350798ba02202b6e1d5733c9eda5cef5.jpeg
            (Sorry for the ugly link!).
            You could surely use one of these on a Communauto.

          • Blork 17:13 on 2022-05-18 Permalink

            @dhomas, I doubt that bike mount would handle an ebike because of the weight. Ebikes are typically 50-60 pounds.

            Also, the highways of the past are littered with smashed bicycles that flew off of that kind of bike mount. (This is why you almost never see those anymore; they fail. A lot.)

            Unfortunately, hitch-mounted bike racks are way more complicated than most of you might imagine, especially for e-bikes. When I was shopping around for a new car last year (after 14 years of faithful service from my compact Honda Fit) it was impossible to find a compact car that could accommodate a class II hitch, which is necessary for carrying more than about 75 pounds of bicycle.

            (With the Fit we’d put the lighter bike on a class I bike rack and put the other bike inside the car. Huge pain in the ass, so we absolutely wanted a car that could take both bikes on a rack.)

            Every single compact car on the market (including small SUVs like the Hyundai Kona) is only certified for class I hitches. You cannot buy a class II hitch for those vehicles.

            So I ended up with a Subaru Crosstrek, which is the smallest car I could find that takes a class II hitch. (We have two e-bikes, with a combined weight of about 85 pounds without batteries attached.)

            The important factor is “tongue weight,” which refers to the downward pressure on the hitch. It has nothing to do with how much weight the car can carry or how much it can tow; it’s all about the downward weight. A class I hitch has a maximum tongue weight of 200 pounds. So when you combine two bicycles, the weight of the bike rack, and account for the added pressure from bouncing, there is no way you can have a bike rack for two ebikes on a compact car.

            …I mean you could, but only after the manufacturers change the design of compact cars so they can accommodate stronger hitches, but that ain’t gonna happen.

          • DeWolf 17:49 on 2022-05-18 Permalink

            Now that Longueuil is going to pedestrianization St-Charles this summer, I will definitely be up for a bike and ferry ride to check it out. Vieux-Longueuil is very nice.

          • Blork 18:22 on 2022-05-18 Permalink

            Best thing about a bike ride to Longueuil is this crazy passerelle over the 132: https://goo.gl/maps/MRtNWyKYMYGcgvFT7

          • Margaret 08:05 on 2022-05-19 Permalink

            I took the pilot project voyage from Boucherville to the Old Port last summer. What a great way to travel! Bikes allowed, dogs not, as the Navark ferries stop at places where dogs are not allowed (Ile Grosbois of the SEPAQ Iless de Boucherville site). Debouched my bike, cycled from the Old Port to Terrasse St Ambroise for rehydration and then back to the boarding quai along the Lachine Canal again for the river ride to home. Living the dream! 🙂

          • Blork 09:31 on 2022-05-19 Permalink

            Finally had a look at that Navark web site. What a mess. First off, the photo on the landing page (showing a small wharf along the bike path on the 132) is 15 years out of date. It looks nothing like that now. There’s a three-metre high wall separating the bike path from the highway, and the path itself has been greatly improved — almost twice as wide and with a fence on the river side. You can see all this — and the wharf — in this short video I shot there in 2017: https://youtu.be/VdnDEPetz3c

            Trying to navigate the Navark site isn’t easy. It’s got all the modern bells and whistles (circa 2015) but doesn’t give you what you need. For example, it has a map of the routes, and the map seems to be interactive but when you click on it all you get is a JPG of the map.

            I want to get info on the MVL line (old port to Ile-Ste-Helene and Longueuil) but there’s no “more details” page for it!

            WTF Navark!

          • JaneyB 09:44 on 2022-05-19 Permalink

            @Blork – that’s very useful info on bike hitches. Thx!

        • Kate 08:57 on 2022-05-18 Permalink | Reply  

          A big show for St-Jean will be back this summer, on the evening of June 23 in the Place des Festivals.

           

          c
          Compose new post
          j
          Next post/Next comment
          k
          Previous post/Previous comment
          r
          Reply
          e
          Edit
          o
          Show/Hide comments
          t
          Go to top
          l
          Go to login
          h
          Show/Hide help
          shift + esc
          Cancel