Updates from March, 2023 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Kate 14:57 on 2023-03-03 Permalink | Reply  

    The headline on this brief piece says François Legault was named honorary mayor of Quebec City on Thursday, but the text says the premier is ex officio honorary mayor already under the National Capital Act. I did not know that. I suppose the ceremony allows the actual mayor to do a bit of ass‑kissing.

    Legault is also quoted saying he wants to make Quebec City the second biggest city in Quebec. According to this Quebec government page, it’s already the second biggest by population with 557,390 residents in 2022, ahead of Laval at #3 with 446,476. Did Legault not know this, or did he mean by area?

     

    • Nicholas 11:09 on 2023-03-04 Permalink

      If Quebec merged with Lévis, that would really justify the 3e lien, non?

    • Kate 16:18 on 2023-03-04 Permalink

      I wonder if what Legault said was a hint towards that.

  • Kate 12:00 on 2023-03-03 Permalink | Reply  

    Despite a couple of brief cold snaps, this has averaged out as one of the mildest winters in recent history.

     

    • MarcG 12:30 on 2023-03-03 Permalink

      How about the amount of snow? Seems like we’ve had a ton.

    • Kate 12:51 on 2023-03-03 Permalink

      Haven’t seen a report on it, possibly because it’s not over yet.

    • Mark 12:58 on 2023-03-03 Permalink

      217.4 cm so far according to env. canada historical weather data, which is already above our yearly average and definitely above the average of the past 15 years or so.

    • JaneyB 09:28 on 2023-03-04 Permalink

      217 cm = about 7 ft. I was not imagining things. That’s a fair bit of snow.

  • Kate 11:44 on 2023-03-03 Permalink | Reply  

    Activity lists for the first weekend in March from Metro, CultMTL, Sarah’s weekend list, CityCrunch.

    And here are the driving horrors of the weekend.

     

    • Kate 11:31 on 2023-03-03 Permalink | Reply  

      A study by the city of the impact of the Ray-Mont Logistics operation judges it “not so bad after all.”

       

      • Kate 10:45 on 2023-03-03 Permalink | Reply  

        24heures talks to three winter cyclists about why they do it.

         

        • qatzelok 13:07 on 2023-03-03 Permalink

          They mention as “Les accessoires incontournables,” a helmet that is well adjusted,, but they don’t mention a thin tuque and gloves. And Sophie (the winter cyclist) is pictured biking at sub-freezing temperatures with no hat or gloves. This can be hell for your hands and earlobes.

          Does everyone have a grandmother or grandfather who taught them how to dress for cold weather? Is that why journalists can casually omit this information?

        • Spi 14:48 on 2023-03-03 Permalink

          Jumping to a lot of conclusions aren’t we? You can clearly see that the little snow that’s on the ground is melting even in the shade and that there’s very little accumulated snow. Their little photoshoot could have just as easily taken place during that week of abnormally warm weather.

        • qatzelok 00:43 on 2023-03-04 Permalink

          As a general cycling rule, you should wear gloves starting at about 10 C and lower. Your hands get much colder than normal because they get struck by wind and are totally exposed. Many visitors attempt to go without gloves at 10 C and they suffer.

      • Kate 10:42 on 2023-03-03 Permalink | Reply  

        Airbnb is now permitted in almost all primary residences in Quebec, and can’t we already see all the technicalities that people will exploit.

        Meantime, asylum seekers are having a hard time finding affordable places to live. And they’re not the only ones.

         

        • Ephraim 12:58 on 2023-03-03 Permalink

          If I remember correctly, this is for 30 days maximum and for your personal primary residence. So basically when you go away on vacation. This doesn’t allow you to run it as a tourist rental BEYOND 30 days in a calendar year. And it doesn’t allow it if you don’t live there.

        • Blork 17:05 on 2023-03-03 Permalink

          If Ephraim is correct (likely so) then this seems entirely reasonable. There’s a big difference between renting out your own place on an occasional basis and setting up NOT-HOTEL HOTEL that exists only to make money from short-term rentals, and the two should not be confused.

          After all, the idea that if I go to Florida for a couple of months in the winter and I CANNOT rent my place out for a few weeks while I’m gone because of panic over short-term rentals; well that’s just ridiculous.

        • Kate 18:17 on 2023-03-03 Permalink

          Blork, people used to do that kind of thing all the time without the intervention of Airbnb – by asking friends, usually, since you tend to want to pre‑vet people who are going to live in your space for a time.

          But that would be the thing. I can see having a friend stay to look after the plants and the mailbox while you’re away, but do you really want strangers you don’t know camping out at your place and looking through your stuff and doing things in your bed? I guess people do. I wouldn’t.

        • Blork 22:41 on 2023-03-03 Permalink

          Well *I* certainly don’t want that, but some people are oblivious and don’t care. The point is that if Airbnb is allowed to do that then it means that the idea in general is allowed. It’s not like the law can isolate a specific company. I’m referring to the idea in general.

          So imagine, for example, you get an offer to work in Halifax or Vancouver for a couple of months on a really interesting project (or maybe you just want to bugger off to Belize for two months in winter) and you have a cousin who would love to live in your place for a couple of months while they finish their novel or whatever, and they offer to cover your rent in that time. It would be insane for that to be illegal, but under short-term rental panic rules it might be. So this is good, because it’s reasonable.

          Side note: I remember back in the 90s I would often hear about people looking to sublet their apartment (furnished) for a month or two while they took a vacation somewhere. I remember thinking that sounded completely nuts. Why would you let strangers live among your personal stuff for two months for the sake of what, $500 or $1000? (1990s sublet rent.)

        • Kate 11:39 on 2023-03-04 Permalink

          Blork, you’ll see a new post above on this topic. This is an area where there’s a gaping void between what’s technically legal and what’s actually being overseen and enforced. Nobody could make it enforceably illegal for you to privately rent your place to a friend or relative for a couple of months.

          What I was thinking above is that I could see the point, if it wasn’t so damaging, of having a second premises you could rent out, where you didn’t live yourself. Psychologically that’s so different from renting out your personal space. Of course people will want to do it that way, if they have e.g. a basement apartment or something like that, which they could fix up and put on Airbnb. How would that fit into the new law? Will anyone even care?

          The flat next door used to be rented by a young woman who was working in stints up north as a social worker. She hadn’t been living there long when I saw it listed on Airbnb. It was simply but pleasantly furnished with Ikea stuff, very impersonal, since for her it really was only a pied‑à‑terre in town, not really a home. But if anyone rented it out for even a few days a month, and they did, she could cover the month’s rent. Was that her primary residence?

        • Ephraim 13:28 on 2023-03-04 Permalink

          Kate – Not her primary residence and would still be illegal, if she rented for over 30 days a year.

        • Kate 14:13 on 2023-03-05 Permalink

          Ephraim, I think arguably it was her primary residence. If she’d given the address as hers, and considered her field work in different locations as trips away, she would’ve had a good argument, I think, even if the number of days she was “home” was fewer than those on the road. Domicile would be the keyword.

      • Kate 10:34 on 2023-03-03 Permalink | Reply  

        Vegan activists have owned up to hanging the pig carcasses off the overpasses as a protest statement, and although Thursday it was reported there were no messages, the Journal has a photo of one of the pigs with a sign saying TU PAIES, ILS MEURENT.

         

        • Kevin 11:28 on 2023-03-03 Permalink

          @Arzhey for the win!

        • Ephraim 12:59 on 2023-03-03 Permalink

          And all I hope is that they were donated to a soup kitchen. So in the end, their money was used to feed people… which of course is exactly the opposite of their message. But there are people who need food…

        • Blork 13:19 on 2023-03-03 Permalink

          I’ve been proven wrong before, and maybe again this time, but I doubt they can use the carcasses for human consumption because there is no traceable history. It’s basically like road kill. You don’t know where it came from or where it’s been. You don’t know if it’s been tampered with or deliberately poisoned, etc. (It probably hasn’t been, but the point is they don’t KNOW, so it’s probably against protocol to assume it is safe to eat.)

        • MarcG 14:56 on 2023-03-03 Permalink

          Let’s eat the evidence!

        • Ephraim 13:29 on 2023-03-04 Permalink

          @MarcG – Let’s store the evidence, frozen for the years it takes to get to trial? Or shall we just use the photos?

      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