Montreal City Weblog

Kate 09:41 on 2024-11-10 Permalink Reply  

• dwgs 21:09 on 2024-11-10 Permalink

  Alex Norris can go kick rocks, sanctimonious prick that he is. The path that traverses the falaise has been there for decades and is perfectly safe. Also, in what world does removing trees and plants with their attendant roots and shade stabilize a slope and prevent sudden disastrous erosion? Remind me again why the Parc Jeanne Mance softball game had to be shut down again?

• MarcG 23:21 on 2024-11-10 Permalink

  I assume the “Stabilizing the cliff could require significant amounts of vegetation to be removed” comment means that they would have to remove trees in order to get big machines in to move earth around or add big rocks. Also, apparently they had professionals evaluate the whole escarpment and they concluded that it’s unstable. If that’s true, why not be transparent and share some of the details of the study so that people have the facts and won’t just respond with “This is stupid and mean and I really like walking there and it seems safe so it must be safe”. Patronizing and opaque communication like this leads people to anti-science.

• Orr 23:36 on 2024-11-10 Permalink

  Jeanne Mance softball field had to be removed bc people couldn’t lounge in the field around the field with the risk of softballs flying round. I loved watching the softball games, but the parc is now a better park for everyone who likes sitting peacefully on the grass. Expecting other people to assume a risk because you want to do a thing is asking a lot and in this case asking too much, the city decided, and I agree with them.
  There is an imperfect but apt parallel with hunting season. Outside of hunting season the forest can be enjoyed my many people, doing many different things. During autumn hunting season, only hunters can use the forest and everyone else has to stay out, even though the forest in autumn is the best season to be out enjoying the forests.

• walkerp 08:37 on 2024-11-11 Permalink

  We probably shouldn’t tear this scab off, but Orr, that is not at all what actually happened to that softball field. In the end, I think despite my frustrations with the process, consider it a better situation. However, the path there was some really terrible politics and Alex Norris had a similar high-handed and untransparent approach.

• Kate 09:58 on 2024-11-11 Permalink

  Irony there: Alex Norris was a Gazette reporter before he became a councillor. That might be informing his approach to giving out information.

• dwgs 11:00 on 2024-11-11 Permalink

  MarcG A quick google search will show that vegetation is one of the most efficient ways to prevent erosion and stabilize slopes. The root systems bind the soil while the foliage lessens the force of the rain hitting the soil. Additionally, large trees serve as windbreaks, thus lessening the effects of storms. That’s science that I learned in university.
  Would you care to offer any more detail on how big machines moving earth around and adding big rocks could help?
  My point about people using the area for decades is that there isn’t a history of landslides and that perhaps the August one was an outlier. The slope where the slide occurred is much steeper than the one that the path traverses and is located far from the path.
  Also, going straight to an ad hominem argument isn’t the best way to win people over. One reason I like this blog is that it’s one of the few places where the comment section isn’t full of people shouting and insulting one another, it would be a shame if that changed.

• Joey 11:20 on 2024-11-11 Permalink

  @Orr the JMP softball community went to great lengths to propose lots of different solutions to make the ball field safe for passersby that would ensure PM’s main priority (preserving as much of the view of the mountain as possible) and enable a ‘mixed use’ approach, so that the field would be accessible to loungers when not in use. You may recall that the previous field installation, which Ferrandez promised to preserve, did not haven outfield fence, meaning it the grass could be easily traversed and used. There’s really no reason why a compromise couldn’t have been neogtiated. Nobody from the borough/city, elected officials or technocrats, thought it worthwhile to engage with the proposals. It should come as no surprise that they are treating the citizens engaged in the use and preservation of the falaise the exact same way.

• MarcG 11:29 on 2024-11-11 Permalink

  @dwgs: Sorry if my statements weren’t clear, I wasn’t trying to attack you. I was attempting to say that the city should share the knowledge it’s basing decisions on rather than just saying “We know best” and expecting people to roll over. The same problem is happening with science communication in general and it leaves huge holes for people to fill with ‘common sense’ or worse, mis/disinfo. The counter-arguments you and others users in the articles provided (“has been there for decades and is perfectly safe”, “It’s very unfair. It’s pretty safe to go by there”, “It’s not dangerous, the city has overreacted”, “Too many people are using it now”, “we don’t think it’s a very big risk”, “It’s not really a dangerous situation in our opinion”) are simply not strong. Would you feel differently if the city provided evidence that a reputable group analyzed the falaise and determined that it was likely to have more problems in the near future causing potential harm to people? If they have such a study they should have a meeting with the users and explain the reason they think it’s dangeorus. If they don’t have the study, then, well, I don’t see how they can claim it’s dangerous and their arguments don’t hold any water either.