 |
| Gerald Tremblay has decided to change the name of Park Avenue to Robert Bourassa Ave, without any type of public discussion. This is tyranny, and we must stand up for ourselves. |
| S.O.S. |
| SAVE OUR STREETS |
| _________________________________________________________ |
 |
 |
| Scroll down for neo-comics |
 |
| Update: Sunday November 26, 2006 |
| This is democracy in Montreal. This is the process of Gerald Tremblay's administration. Does it come as a shock to you? Is the community surprised? We know there is no democracy in Tremblay's party, only hypocrisy. 40 000 petition signatures opposed to the name change; zero petitions for the name change. Yet it has passed. And the mayor has the audacity to say that this is democracy. He has the nerve to say that there was public consultation. A complete and utter lie. When was the public ever given the right to speak before the proposal? Never. This was a proposal which was forced upon the public. This was a proposal conceived behind closed doors. And what about the free vote? Well the fix was in right from the beginning. Less than a handful of councilors actually stood up to support the name change, while many councilors voiced their opposition. Yet the vote was lopsided. The councilors were clearly scared to voice their true opinions. The vote was almost completely along party lines. It should make the people of Montreal sick. The councilors themselves should be ashamed. So, have we lost the battle for Park Avenue? It seems we have lost a far greater battle for democracy; a battle for the preservation of our history. They can never take Park Avenue away from us. We know the history of our street, we have the memories, we own houses and businesses which will always be on Park Avenue. And we will continue to fight, tooth and nail, against the name change. What do we do next? We are taking legal action against the city. Tremblay's party mandated in January 2006 to follow rules pertaining to public consultation and transparent government. They are clearly in violation of these rules. We will voice our opposition to the Commission de Toponymie du Quebec, so that they can reject the name change and preserve our beloved Park Avenue. And most of all we remember the politicians in their ivory tower who allowed this to happen. Je me souviens! The next municipal elections are a few years away, but we will certainly remember the wounds of Park Avenue. We will recall that Fotopulos initially agreed to change the name of Park Avenue. We will recall that when she and her council flip flopped around the issue and finally decided to oppose the proposal, they did so half-heartedly. She never formally proposed a motion to reject the name change. She never lobbied any councilors in Tremblay's party to reject the name change. The Plateau councilors, Fotopulos, Prescott and Labrecque abandoned the public. French English, Greek Jewish�all nationalities, all races, were abandoned, and the name change was allowed to pass without strong opposition from our own Plateau councilors. They should be ashamed. They will be voted out at the next election. We the people will show our democracy. The people of the Plateau had to rely upon Mary Deros and her opposition council from Park Extension to stand up for our community. These are our heroes, and they are not even from our borough. For public consultation we had to rely upon Warren Allmand and Marvin Rotrand who actually had the bravery to stand up against Tremblay and organize an informal consultation in Cote des Neiges. All of these other councilors had to step in and do the work of Helen Fotopulos and her cronies. We will not forget. Civil Disobedience And most of all, we will never allow these bureaucrats to change the Park Avenue name. A respect for one�s family and heritage places a personal obligation to passively resist this name change and not recognize Robert Bourassa Avenue. We will not change our addresses, or our business names. Park Avenue will always remain Park Avenue. What the mayor has done has intimately touched the community. He has affected our personal heritage. He is re-writing history and he is trying to change our personal addresses on Park Avenue. His decision will personally affect our lives, and we should not feel afraid to personally affect his. Write him personal letters, and send them directly to his home. He is a person in our community; he is not far above the average person. He is our elected official, and our neighbor, and we should feel free to bring issues to his personal attention. So you can send your mail to Gerald Tremblay's personal address: 441 Av Stuart Outremont, QC H2V 3H1 You can also get Tremblay's home phone number here |
| Show me the Democracy... |
| We're as mad as Hell, and we're not going to take this anymore. |
| The classic movie quote from Peter Finch in the movie "Network" seems to be very appropriate in this situation. See for yourself. |
 |
| People in Montreal have to get angry. We're sick and tired. We pay enough taxes, we have enough problems and we are not going to take this crap anymore. |
| Your (dis) Honourable Mayor TREMBLAY |
| I and most residents of the Parc Avenue neighbourhood are in shock. We believed that in the end the Mayor and the Councillors would �do the right thing�. What they did instead was corrupt the democratic process. The Mayor spoke of a consultation process that never took place. There was no consultation of citizens to determine the best way to best honour Robert Bourassa. Mayor Tremblay, mustering a straight face, said that the last six weeks were consultation. No Mr. Mayor, the last six weeks were about protest. In the words of Robert Bourassa �les masques sont tomb�s�. We now see the Mayor and his party for what they are: smug, self righteous with a disdainful for citizens� rights under The Charter. They have shredded the Charter of Montreal, the Consultation Policy and the Topology Policy. As Councillor Allmand said he will lock these away in his desk because they now have no meaning. The Mayor�s disrespectful comments towards Mr. Rotrand, a fellow councillor of great distinction and commitment, were beneath the dignity of the Mayor�s office. The party line vote was camouflaged as a vote of conscience. What the residents of Parc Avenue got was a vote based on the tyranny of the majority. The 42,000 name petition meant nothing. We all have to ask ourselves now, �Who will be next?� Mr. Tremblay and his party have lost the trust of Montrealers. They do not protect our heritage, respect our history or respect Montrealers. The tide has turned. It is time to move them out of office. The residents of Montreal call on the other Montreal city parties to �immediately� announce that, if the name change takes place, they intend to rename Parc Avenue when the (dis) Honourable Mayor Tremblay and his cohorts are voted out of office. If you, Vision Montreal et al, really believe that an injustice has been done to the residents of Avenue du Parc and Montrealers, then declare your intention to return any name change to Parc Avenue, together with a statement to establish a formal consultation process to suitably honour Robert Bourassa. Let it be known to all that if the renaming of our beloved Parc Avenue takes place, Mr. Bourassa�s family will have to accept the fact that the name change is temporary, built out of disrespect and division. A truly permanent way must be found to honour Robert Bourassa. Mayor Tremblay and his party will have dishonoured Robert Bourassa�s memory. It is �they� that will be responsible when Parc Avenue reverts back to Parc Avenue. They must go!! Special mention must be made of the (dis) honourable Helen FOTOPULOS. Through her inattention, sycophantic support of the Mayor and failure to represent her community, FOTOPULOS has lost both our respect and the right to represent us. She does not merit the $123,231 salary and expense allowance �we� give her to look after our interests. Her belated flip flop was seen by all for what it is, a feeble duplicitous attempt to fool the residents of the Plateau. Guess what? Neither we nor the other councillors believed her unconvincing weak-kneed no vote. For the next three years let her be treated with the same disdain she feels for us. I would suggest to FOTOPULOS to start preparing her CV. I am certain that Mayor Tremblay would be pleased to be her character reference, for whatever that is now worth. FOTOPULOS is an embarrassment to the Greek community and to all Montrealers. Let her be the first to go!!! Let her never be allowed the privilege of representing the people of Montreal or anyone else. It is most important that all citizens send their personal concerns in writing to the Commission de toponymie du Qu�bec, 750, boulevard Charest Est, Qu�bec (Qu�bec) G1K 9M1. We hope and expect that the Commission will reaffirm the heritage of Parc Avenue and Bleury. We want to ensure that the Commission understands that the name change, if approved, will only be temporary. Mr. Bourassa deserves better. Marion Bialek 3600 Avenue du Parc Montreal, Qu�bec |
| Send you emails to the Commission de toponymie du Qu�bec |
| Send the commission many emails telling them why we cannot lose the Ave du Parc name. It is a part of our heritage and our tradition. We must preserve the name. |
| Commission de toponymie du Qu�bec 750, boulevard Charest Est, Qu�bec (Qu�bec) G1K 9M1. |
| Obituary: Democracy will be deeply missed |
| She lay there motionless in City hall, sprawled on the floor in clear view of everyone, breathing still on Tuesday morning; she was exhausted from the crowds of visitors the night before. Some loyal friends who claimed to have known her well were still at her side, hoping that she could still be saved. Some had spent the night praying; thousands had spent the weeks earlier searching for any solution, any compromise that would allow her to live. Pleading with the people in power to listen to their suggestions. But most pleas fell upon deaf ears. Every cold shoulder represented another nail in her coffin. Just before 1pm, in the great hall, we could feel her pulse was getting weaker. Her condition was deteriorating with each councilors vote. �Yes�yes�yes�� They were the final words she would hear before passing on. Mourners gasped in shock; slow to accept that she was gone. In the minutes that followed, some would even deny she ever existed. But they were wrong. She had existed, and in her time she was the most beautiful thing imaginable. Drawing people from all over the world to Montreal. And she exists still, in other places, helping people everyday. In her fairness, she is a guiding light, and perhaps someday she will return to Montreal. Perhaps she can even restore the Park Avenue name. But for now, this is my epitaph for Democracy in Montreal. Mario Rizzi |
| Call them directly (418) 643-2817 |
| La Presse: Question du 29 Novembre 2006 Appuyez-vous la d�cision de la Ville de Montr�al de renommer l'avenue du Parc Avenue Robert-Bourassa? |
 |
| Message de Dimitri Roussopoulos Le site Web de la Commission du toponymie du Qu�bec (section 1.6, Politique de d�signation toponymique comm�morative) se trouve ici. Voici quelques extraits de la Politique de d�signation toponymique comm�morative : 1.6.1 Consultation du milieu L'attribution d'une d�signation comm�morative n�cessite la consultation � ce propos de la communaut� qui vit � proximit� du lieu choisi, de m�me que la consultation, le cas �ch�ant, de l'entourage imm�diat de la personne dont on veut honorer la m�moire et celle du milieu concern� par son action. 1.6.2� Choix non controvers� Le choix du lieu et du nom devant faire l'objet de comm�moration (personne, organisme, collectivit�, �v�nement ou �uvre) ne doit pas �tre de nature � susciter la controverse. 1.6.3 Origine de la demande de d�signation comm�morative Lorsqu'il s'agit de voies de communication ou de parcs urbains, les propositions devront, pour acc�l�rer le processus, �tre appuy�es de r�solutions du conseil municipal concern�. Il faut, en principe, pr�voir un d�lai d'au moins trois mois pour l'approbation d'un projet de d�signation comm�morative par la Commission. Pour rejoindre la personne responsable des plaints et commentaires, t�l�phonez au (418) 643-2817 ; t�l�copieur (418) 644-9466 ; courriel [email protected]. Les membres de la Commission de toponymie France Boucher Pr�sidente par int�rim Jean-Ren� C�t� Commissaire Jacques Lacoursi�re Commissaire Jo�l Simonnet Commissaire Danielle Turcotte Secr�taire Derni�re r�union de la Commission de toponymie La Commission de toponymie, lors de sa r�union du 13 novembre, a officialis� 326 noms de lieux dont 238 sont des noms de voies de communication. La prochaine r�union de la Commission aura lieu le 16 janvier 2007. Voici les coordonn�es de deux membres de la Commission : Mme France Boucher Pr�sidente par int�rim T�l�phone (418) 643-2817 T�l�copie (418) 644-9466 [email protected] Mme Danielle Turcotte Directrice et secr�taire T�l�phone : (418) 644-2392 T�l�copie : (418) 644-9466 [email protected] Nous sommes toujours � la recherche des coordonn�es des autres membres. Jacques Lacoursi�re est le c�l�bre historien, grand vulgarisateur de l'histoire du Qu�bec, connu pour ses activit�s en radio, en t�l�vision, en enseignement et en �criture, dont l'Histoire populaire du Qu�bec. Voir aussi la Charte de la langue fran�aise, Titre II, Chapitre III, la Commission de toponymie, en cliquant ici. P.S. from Dimitri with regard to his info on the Commission de toponymie that just went out: What is important to know is that the Commission is watching the situation closely, e.g., expressions of public opinion, letters to the editor, etc., and that it can have public hearings on name changes. Therefore a formal demand[s] can be made to them seeking such a public hearing. Any letter writers out there ? |
| Message de Damaris Rose Je ne pense pas que le commentaire de Jean-Claude Marsan [ci-dessous] a �t� suffisamment diffus�. Il contient des �l�ments qui seraient d'une grande utilit�e pour des gens qui ont l'intention de r�diger des lettres � la Commission de la Toponymie. Avenue du Parc : � quoi bon travestir la r�alit� ? par Jean-Claude Marsan, Professeur titulaire, �cole d'architecture, Universit� de Montr�al Il est heureux que l'on songe � honorer Robert Bourassa en donnant son nom � une art�re ou � un lieu public montr�alais. Il l'est moins, cependant, si cette op�ration vient oblit�rer une d�nomination existante particuli�rement significative pour la collectivit�. La controverse suscit�e actuellement par le changement de nom de l'avenue du Parc a �t� interpr�t�e par certains comme un autre aspect de l'immobilisme qui grippe les Qu�b�cois. La r�alit� concernant cette question s'av�re � mon avis plus complexe. Deux composantes g�ographiques sont fondamentales dans l'histoire de Montr�al : le fleuve Saint-Laurent et le mont Royal. Ce n'est pas sans raison que se trouvent dans l'agglom�ration plusieurs lieux publics dont la d�nomination rappelle ce fait, notamment le boulevard Saint-Laurent et l'avenue du Mont-Royal. Il serait impensable de songer � changer le nom de ces deux art�res qui font partie int�grante de l'histoire et de l'identit� montr�alaise. Il en va de m�me pour l'avenue du Parc. Cette art�re tire son nom et sa valeur symbolique du fait qu'elle longe, de l'avenue des Pins � l'avenue du Mont-Royal, le parc du Mont-Royal. Or ce parc, r�alis� � partir de 1873 par Frederick Law Olmsted, le p�re de l'architecture de paysage sur le continent nord-am�ricain, vient ajouter une plus-value � la montagne et consacrer son statut d'ic�ne publique. Gr�ce � cette conjoncture, le parc du Mont-Royal constitue le parc urbain le plus prestigieux de tout le Canada. On observe le m�me ph�nom�ne aux �tats-Unis. Une des art�res les plus prestigieuses de Manhattan et une des rares � porter un nom, Park Avenue, rappelle Central Park, le parc urbain le plus c�l�bre de la nation, chef-d'�uvre du m�me Olmsted. Comme l a soulign� l'urbaniste Jean D�carie, on imagine mal les New-Yorkais changer le nom de cette avenue pour honorer un pr�sident d�c�d� r�cemment. Nouvelles valeurs Enfin, il faut comprendre que cette d�nomination de l'avenue du Parc prend une signification particuli�re aujourd'hui du fait que la conservation de l'environnement naturel, particuli�rement dans les villes, soit devenue une valeur fondamentale de notre temps. Cela fait partie aussi de l'�volution des mentalit�s � Montr�al, surtout lorsque l'on sait que, dans les ann�es 1960, il a �t� envisag� de faire passer une autoroute � travers le parc du Mont-Royal pour faciliter la circulation automobile. Si cette voie b�tonn�e avait �t� construite, il est fort � parier que l'on serait en train maintenant de la d�truire comme on a fini par d�molir l'�changeur des Pins au lieu de le r�nover. Car loin d'�tre n�glig� comme auparavant, le mont Royal est devenu aujourd'hui un lieu suscitant beaucoup d'int�r�t et de pr�occupations comme en t�moigne sa d�signation r�cente � titre d'arrondissement historique et naturel, lequel d�borde largement les fronti�res du parc d'Olmsted. L'avenue du Parc traverse d�sormais cet arrondissement. Dans son ouvrage classique L'Image de la cit� (1960), le grand th�oricien am�ricain Kevin Lynch nous rappelle que les �l�ments qui contribuent � engendrer des images m�morables chez l'observateur d'une ville sont ceux qui contribuent � la structure, � l'identit� et � la signification de cette ville. L'avenue du Parc, dans sa section qui traverse l'arrondissement historique et naturel du Mont-Royal, apporte une contribution importante dans ce sens. Elle canalise la circulation pi�tonne et v�hiculaire en offrant une vue spectaculaire sur le mont Royal, vue agr�ment�e par la pr�sence de l'H�tel-Dieu et du plus imposant monument de la ville, celui de Sir George-�tienne-Cartier. Elle affirme par sa d�nomination la signification essentielle de ce lieu qui permet � Montr�al de se distinguer parmi les autres villes du continent. Quand on a la chance d'avoir un lieu si bien nomm�, o� il y a une telle coh�rence de valeurs qui transcende le paysage, � quoi bon s'ing�nier � en travestir la signification en lui donnant un nom qui n'a rien � voir avec la r�alit� physique et symbolique que les personnes de tout �ge, de toutes les cultures, r�sidantes � Montr�al ou de passage, per�oivent et ressentent comme identitaire et magnifique? Le Devoir, Libre-Opinion, lundi 6 novembre 2006 |
| Nombre de votes : 6098 |
| Le 3 d�cembre, 2006 Mesdames et Messieurs, J'aimerais vous faire parvenir mes sentiments sur le dossier de l'avenue du Parc � Montr�al. Comme vous le sachez, le conseil municipal de Montr�al a vot� 40-22 en faveur de changer l'avenue du Parc pour l'avenue Robert-Bourassa. Ceci, sans aucune consultation publique, et la forte opposition d'au moins 50,000 r�sidents de la ville. Pas seulement du quartier imm�diat, mais de partout. De plus, le conseil, et en particulier le maire Tremblay, avait le culot de nous dire que la p�riode de questions en conseil constituait une consultation publique! L'avenue du Parc est un axe tr�s important et la principale route qui se m�ne au Parc du Mont-Royal. Donc, c'est un nom parfait pour cette rue. Aussi, l'histoire de l'avenue du Parc est plus riche qu'une mousse au chocolat Belge. Tout ceux qui veulent litt�ralement effacer l'histoire de cette avenue ont tr�s tort. Les rues, en particulier ceux comme du Parc, deviennent une partie de la communaut�, de la culture, et de nous tous. Il est aussi tr�s important de noter que personne est contre rendre hommage a M. Bourassa. Mais, on veut pas que notre patrimoine soit tu�. Renommer l'avenue du Parc ferais exactement �a. C'est le mauvais choix. M. Bourassa m�rite mieux que �a. Je peux pas du tout m'en rappeler d'un affaire en politque municipale qui a g�r� autant de controverse et de peine. Il faut aussi penser aux r�sidents et aux commerces de l'avenue. Changer son adresse est un affaire co�teux et frustrant. Je sugg�re fortement � la Commission de bien respecter les r�gles 1.6.1 et 1.6.2 de la politique et, au pire, de tenir une vraie consultation publique, ou au mieux, de rejetter la proposition de la Ville de Montr�al. C'est une proposition que les politiciens ont d�cid� sans �couter les tr�s fortes voix des gens qu'ils ont le devoir le repr�senter. Si cette avenue historique est rebaptis�e, vous pouvez �tre certain que seulement la controverse de ce dossier et non M. Bourassa sera honor�. Si j'etais sur la Commission, apr�s avoir vu qu'est-ce qui s'est d�roul� � Montr�al ces derni�res semaines, je n'aurais pas le choix que de rejetter le changement de nom de l'avenue du Parc. J'esp�re bien que la Commission verra les choses de la m�me fa�on que les 50,000 personnes qui se sont exprim�s de leur coeur. 50,000 expressions tomb�s sur des oreilles sourds et des yeux aveugles. Traiter la population comme a fait la Ville n'est pas la fa�on qu'une soci�te d�mocratique fonctionne. Sinc�rement, Marc Gu�rard Montr�alais � vie. |
| December 4th, 2006 Commission de toponymie du Qu�bec 750, boulevard Charest Est Quebec (Quebec) G1K 9M1 Dear Members of the Commission, The purpose of this correspondence is to convince the Commission de toponymie that the proposed name change of Avenue du Parc goes against the policies of the Commission de toponymie du Qu�bec. The name change is not justified because of the following: a) impending legal challenges, b) the City of Montreal decision goes against the wishes of the vast majority of its residents, c) the absence of a formal consultation process, d) it endangers the proper recognition of Robert Bourassa and e) it promotes a political agenda, which denigrates the recognition awarded to Cl�ment-Charles Sabrevois de Bleury. I would like: To request that the Commission postpone its deliberations concerning the City of Montreal proposal to change Avenue du Parc and Bleury to Robert Bourassa Avenue until such time as the courts rule on the City of Montreal�s designation. The court challenges touch directly the issues related to the mandate of the Commission, specifically the lack of a formal public consultation process as called for in the City�s toponymie and consultation policies and in violation of the Montreal�s Charter of Rights and Responsibilities. To request the Commission to direct the City of Montreal to undertake a formal public consultation process of the affected boroughs, given the more than 40,000 names in ad hoc petitions against the name change To underline to the Commission the false assertion of Mayor Tremblay that a public consultation process was undertaken of the borough residents or other Montreal boroughs i.e. no meetings were called by the the borough Mayor or Mayors, no minutes of any consultations were made. What the Mayor refers to as consultation was in fact protest. Indeed the Mayor made every effort to stiffle consultation. In a leaked memo to the press, the Mayor ordered his councillors not/not to speak publically on this issue. Additonally, the borough Mayor Helen FOTOPULOS made a public statement in City Hall that she only had limited discussions, confirming that no formal or inclusive consultations had taken place. To underline to the Commision the enormous political controversy with the decision of the City of Montreal, over the objections of a significant number of Montreal citizens and the vast majority of the citizens of the affected boroughs. This opossition is symbolized by the 40,000+ names in ad hoc petitions to keep Avenue du Parc. I am not aware of any petitions to the contrary. This controversy risks that a future City administration would undertake a true formal consultation, reversing this recent City decisioin. If this were to be the case, both the present City administration and the Commission de toponymie would have been negligent in ensuring that Mr. Robert Bourassa�s has a rightful permanent place of recognition. To underline to the Commission that the City of Montreal has decided to erase the historical importance of Cl�ment-Charles Sabrevois de Bleury for politically controversial reasons. The Mayor wants a newly renamed Robert Bourassa Avenue to intersect Blvd. Ren� L�vesque. This political symbolism is both controversial and disrespectful. It certainly does not warrant the removal of Cl�ment-Charles Sabrevois de Bleury from the cultural heritage of the City. Experts of heritage and toponomy can speak much more eloquently than I to the cultural and heritage significance of Avenue du Parc and Bleury Street. I can only give a personal testimony of the importance of Avenue du Parc to me and to my family. I was born on Clark Street; went to Our Lady of Mount Royal School and D�Arcy McGee High School; I lived on Jeanne Mance Street and St. Joseph Blvd.; worked as a student at Royal Victoria Hospital and went to McGill University. Avenue du Parc has figured in almost every aspect of our personal lives. For almost thirty years I have had the privilege of serving Canada. I worked in several other Canadian cities and I spent almost fifteen years abroad, representing Canada. When I retired from government service, I looked forward to getting back to my roots, my Quebec, my Montreal and my neighbourhood. I moved to Avenue du Parc, always insisting on a view of the Cross, Mount Royal Park and Avenue du Parc. I finally felt back home. Now that is being taken away. Avenue du Parc is as much to Montreal and Mount Royal Park as �La Grande-All�e� is to Quebec City and 6th Avenue is to New York. These are not generic names without meaning. They are majestic names full of historical signficance and part of the heritage of our cities. Please save Avenue du Parc. Yours sincerely, Marion Joseph Bialek |
| Letters to the commission |
| Report from Terri Foxman of the Milton Park Citizens Committee Notes on a conversation with Danielle Turcotte of the Commission de Toponymie du Qu�bec, December 4, 2006 [Note: Madame Turcotte is forthcoming if anyone else wishes to call her with questions.] I had left her a message saying that a colleague had heard a news report that their decision was going to be delayed until the spring. The next meeting is January 16, 2006. She said that at this time she does not know if they will have all the avis (notices) they are looking for and need for that date, particularly with the upcoming holidays. This might explain why a journalist said it would be delayed until the spring. But there is no reason to think that it would be delayed this long. The meeting may not happen January 16th if they don�t have all the documents in hand that they need to study the matter. The commission members can meet as soon as the dossier is completed. Madame Turcotte can then request a meeting of the members. Normally name-change decisions are made during a single meeting, except in cases where a member asks to do an additional verification regarding organizations that the Commission had not thought of before. Does the Commission sometimes allow people to make presentations? She said no. Normally their meetings take place with only the members of the Commission. Are there ever hearings in advance? She said no. But she thinks there were cases where people made a presentation to the Commission members after having made a request. But she has been there four years and has never had this happen. She said that if we wish to do this we must make a request and the Commission members will evaluate if they agree to welcome representatives or not. It is not the current practice. When will the Commission know if it will be taking the decision on January 16? She said that the agenda and the list of dossiers that are ready are prepared about two weeks in advance. But they are off until January 8th. We can check then if they are proceeding on the 16th. |
| Politique de d�signation toponymique comm�morative 1.6.1. Cadre d'application Consultation du milieu L'attribution d'une d�signation comm�morative n�cessite la consultation � ce propos de la communaut� qui vit � proximit� du lieu choisi, de m�me que la consultation, le cas �ch�ant, de l'entourage imm�diat de la personne dont on veut honorer la m�moire et celle du milieu concern� par son action. 1.6.2 Normes et crit�res de choix Choix non controvers� Le choix du lieu et du nom devant faire l'objet de comm�moration (personne, organisme, collectivit�, �v�nement ou �uvre) ne doit pas �tre de nature � susciter la controverse. 3. Pratiques contre-indiqu�es 3.1 D�signations p�joratives, grossi�res ou suscitant la dissension On doit �viter l'emploi de noms � connotation p�jorative ou grossi�re, de m�me que les choix susceptibles de provoquer ou d'alimenter une dissension. Les noms qui peuvent porter atteinte � la r�putation de personnes ou de groupes sociaux, ethniques, religieux ou autres et les noms qui utilisent des mots ou des expressions que condamne la langue correcte ne doivent pas entrer dans la composition des toponymes. Il en est de m�me pour ceux qui peuvent faire na�tre ou encourager une division violente ou profonde de l'opinion publique. Lorsqu'un changement de nom sera demand�, sur la base de ce principe, il faudra tenir compte du milieu avant de proc�der � une modification. Chaque cas sera examin� au m�rite, selon les repr�sentations faites � la Commission. Extraits de la Charte de la langue fran�aise CHAPITRE CONCERNANT LA COMMISSION DE TOPONYMIE Extrait de la Charte de la langue fran�aise : article 125 Devoirs de la Commission. 125. La Commission doit : a. proposer au gouvernement les normes et les r�gles d'�criture � respecter dans la d�nomination des lieux; b. proc�der � l'inventaire et � la conservation des noms de lieux; La prochaine r�union de la Commission aura lieu le 16 janvier 2007. Proc�dures de d�nomination 2. Avis d'intention avant le remplacement d'un nom officiel Proposition d'un modus operandi ent�rin� lors de la r�union du 20 janvier 2000 de la Commission de toponymie 1. L'�nonc� de principe Avant de remplacer officiellement le nom d'un lieu d'importance significative ou un nom ayant une valeur culturelle ou historique, la Commission de toponymie en informe la ministre responsable de la Charte de la langue fran�aise et publie un AVIS D'INTENTION � cet effet. 2. Les objectifs poursuivis Le recours � des avis d'intention publics pr�alablement au remplacement de certains noms de lieux officiels vise � : permettre aux citoyens de faire conna�tre leur opinion; favoriser la stabilit� de la toponymie officielle; �viter la cr�ation de ressacs cons�cutifs au remplacement de noms officiels. 3. Les crit�res gouvernant la publication de cet AVIS D'INTENTION On entend par lieu d'importance significative un lieu dont la dimension physique, le degr� de fr�quentation ou le rayonnement du nom d�passe l'�chelle locale ou municipale. Le recours � ces avis ne concerne en principe que les noms de lieux sur lesquels la Commission exerce une comp�tence exclusive. Par ailleurs, la Commission souhaite que les autorit�s toponymiques concurrentes incorporent � leur proc�dure de changement de nom de lieu une pratique similaire. Cependant, il pourrait �tre d'int�r�t public, pour la Commission, de recourir elle-m�me � cette proc�dure, dans certains cas o� la Commission ne se trouve pas en situation de comp�tence exclusive, par exemple, lorsque des d�cisions municipales mettraient en p�ril la pr�servation de noms patrimoniaux ou des noms dont l'usage est consacr�. La Commission pourrait ainsi s'appuyer sur cette pratique d'avis d'intention pour consulter la population et les associations int�ress�es avant de statuer sur la d�sofficialisation d'un nom autour duquel s'est cr�� un sentiment d'appartenance. Exemple : Une d�cision qui viserait � remplacer le nom C�te de la Montagne, � Qu�bec ou Rue Notre-Dame, � Montr�al. La publication d'un tel avis d'intention interviendrait apr�s une �valuation pr�liminaire de la part de la Commission, c'est-�-dire une fois seulement que la Commission se serait d�clar�e favorable ou d�favorable en principe au remplacement d'un nom. 4. Les modalit�s techniques entourant la publication d'un avis d'intention Le contenu de l'avis L'avis d'intention pourrait contenir les �l�ments suivants : La description du projet toponymique � l'�tude, incluant la mention de l'avis favorable (ou d�favorable dans le cas du d�sir de la Commission de voir un nom officiel maintenu) et l'objectif poursuivi par la Commission � travers son avis. Le titre de l'avis devrait contenir l'objet de l'avis d'intention : Exemple : " Projet de remplacer le nom de l'autoroute Henri-IV par celui d'Autoroute des Centres-Commerciaux ". La localisation du lieu vis� par l'avis d'intention. L'invitation � transmettre des commentaires � la Commission (ou, �ventuellement, des renseignements pr�cis). Le d�lai � respecter quant � la transmission de commentaires. La mention que des renseignements compl�mentaires sont �ventuellement disponibles sur le site Web de la Commission ou encore sous forme imprim�e et qu'on peut les obtenir sur demande. Les coordonn�es de la Commission, incluant son site Web et son adresse �lectronique. La diffusion de l'avis L'avis d'intention serait diffus� dans le site Web de la Commission et il pourrait faire aussi l'objet d'une diffusion parmi les supports d'information suivants, selon le cas : -La Gazette officielle -Un communiqu� de presse -Les grands quotidiens -Les quotidiens et hebdos r�gionaux http://www.toponymie.gouv.qc.ca/intention.htm |
| How to write your letter to the Commission de toponymie (CTQ) The following guide was prepared by an urban geography professor The decision of the Montr�al City Council has to be approved by the CTQ. Contrary to the "miserabilist" editorial published in the Montreal Gazette on Nov. 29, appealing to the CTQ is not a lost cause, and this body has a rigorous set of criteria for judging the merit of proposed place name changes. The City's request will be evaluated according to the Politique de designation toponymique comm�morative (sec. 1.6. of the Politiques Toponymiques; www.toponymie.gouv.qc.ca/poltopo5.htm The Commission will receive, study and take seriously all letters received from individuals and groups, contesting the City's decision and/or asking for the Commission to hold public hearings on the matter - as long as the writers of these letters provide valid reasons for their concerns. In other words, petitions and form letters will not cut much ice. Some groups are taking legal advice in order to strengthen their presentations to the Commission. That's good, but individuals shouldn't feel that they have to have legal advice to write an effective letter! To make your letter effective all you need to do is show how your concerns relate to any or all of the specific criteria that the CTQ is required to use when it evaluates name-change requests. Here are some key extracts from the Commemorative Toponymy Policy, with my unofficial translation in square brackets, and some observations of my own that may be helpful: 1.6.1. Cadre d'application [Framework for Application] Choix des lieux [Choice of places] 'On attribue une d�signation comm�morative � des lieux sans nom ou � des lieux dont les noms sont tomb�s en d�su�tude.' (...) ['Commemorative designations are attributed to places that do not already have a name or to places whose names have fallen into disuse/have become obsolete.'] - This particular extract of the policy was left out of the email sent around from Dimitri Roussopoulos the other day, but I think it's crucial. This clause of the policy allows for place names to be changed if they have fallen into disuse, but the clause can also be interpreted to mean that a name can be changed if it is no longer relevant, if it no longer has resonance for today's population. I remember that this was the argument used (successfully) to change the name of Boulevard Dorchester to Boulevard Ren�-L�vesque - the argument being that Lord Dorchester is not really relevant to contemporary Montr�al and its citizens. - So, as regards Park Avenue, your letters need to explain why the name has relevance, significance, symbolism for you in the present day. Saying that it's a historic name is not enough - you need to say why it is still important to recall this history through the name of the street. Your letters can address this point with respect to all or all of these: residents; businesses; 'neo-Montrealers' (!!!); the identity of the adjoining neighbourhoods; the link with Parc Mont-Royal; the prestigious association with New York; tourists, etc.). - Also, some of you might have heard an interview a few weeks ago on CBC Daybreak with M. Fran�ois LeBel, a nephew of M. Bourassa, in which he argued that Montrealers should be willing to "sacrifice something important" in order to commemorate his uncle. By this comment M. LeBel revealed that he recognized that the name of Park Avenue is indeed important to many people! His notion that it should be "sacrificed" is totally contrary to the policy of the CTQ. Consultation du milieu [Consultation with the milieu] 'L'attribution d'une d�signation comm�morative n�cessite la consultation � ce propos de la communaut� qui vit � proximit� du lieu choisi, de m�me que la consultation, le cas �ch�ant, de l'entourage imm�diat de la personne dont on veut honorer la m�moire et celle du milieu concern� par son action.' ['Attributing a commemorative designation requires consulting the community living in proximity to (in the vicinity of) the place to be renamed, as well as, when relevant, those close to the person whose memory one wants to honour and that of the milieu affected by that person's actions.'] - Letter-writers wishing to address this point will need to give their opinion as to whether Mayor Tremblay's way of consulting the 'community living in the vicinity' of Park Avenue was adequate. What he did was: 1) allow councillors to have what he said would be a free vote and saying that those councillors could do consultations; 2) say that the statutory question period at City Council meetings was a means of consultation. What he did not do was arrange for any kind of organized consultation process for those 'living in proximity' to Park Avenue. - Also, there is the question of how does the CTQ interpret the concept of living '� proximit�' [in the vicinity]? In my view (as an urban geographer by profession!) this should be interpreted as including all of the neighbourhoods that border on Park Avenue. - Concerning consulting those 'close to the person' to be honoured, we know that the Bourassa family was consulted and that they like the idea of renaming Avenue du Parc although it might not have been their first choice. - The requirement to also consult 'the milieu affected by the person's actions' is wide open to interpretation. The word 'milieu' does not have a geographical connotation, more of a sociological connotation, and could be interpreted very broadly. So it could be more difficult to address this point in a letter to the CTQ. 1.6.2 Normes et crit�res de choix Choix non controvers� 'Le choix du lieu et du nom devant faire l'objet de comm�moration (...) ne doit pas �tre de nature � susciter la controverse.' ['The choice of place and the name to be commemorated should not be such that it creates controversy']. - Obviously the proposal in question has created enormous controversy. What letter-writers need to stress is that the controversy is about the obliteration of a name that is very meaningful (for you personally; for certain groups of Montrealers; for Montrealers in general...). The Executive Committee claimed that it believed that the name Park Avenue was a 'generic', 'neutral' name without strong heritage associations and that people did not care about. The Toponymy Commission knows that many people do care, but they need to get lots of letters explaining all the reasons why. - At the same time, the letters need to say that the principle of choosing a significant place or piece of infrastructure to name after the late Premier is not controversial. It just should not be done at the expense of an existing name that is very meaningful to many people and vital to the identity of your neighbourhood (be it Park-Extension, Mile-End, Lower Outremont or Milton-Parc). WHERE TO SEND THE LETTERS Madame Danielle Turcotte Directrice et Secr�taire Commission de Toponymie du Qu�bec 750, boulevard Charest Est, rez-de-chauss�e Qu�bec QC G1K 9M1 Fax : 418 644-9466 email : [email protected] |
| The postings of extracts from the Commission's policy document have left out one very important point that people need to look at and use in their letters: 1.6.1. Cadre d'application [Framework for Application] Choix des lieux [Choice of places] 'On attribue une d�signation comm�morative � des lieux sans nom ou � des lieux dont les noms sont tomb�s en d�su�tude.' (...) ['Commemorative designations are attributed to places that do not already have a name or to places whose names have fallen into disuse/have become obsolete.'] - This clause of the policy allows for place names to be changed if they have fallen into disuse, but the clause can also be interpreted to mean that a name can be changed if it is no longer relevant, if it no longer has resonance for today's population. I remember that this was the argument used (successfully) to change the name of Boulevard Dorchester to Boulevard Ren�-L�vesque - the argument being that Lord Dorchester is not really relevant to contemporary Montr�al and its citizens. - So, as regards Park Avenue, letters need to explain why the name has relevance, significance, symbolism for you in the present day. Saying that it's a historic name is not enough - you need to say why it is still important to recall this history through the name of the street. Please spread the word! Can you post it on the site somewhere, in the blog maybe (I don't know how to join/log on). Damaris Rose 514 271-6888, [email protected] |
| Dear Ms Bialek, May I point out that as mayor of the Plateau-Mont-Royal I am elected to work on behalf of all its citizens, not just those who voted for me or my party. You, as a citizen, are encouraged to participate, contribute or dissent, actively or by ballot. The fundamentals of democracy presume an exchange of diverging opinions and the melding of participatory voices into a form of consensus. We all do our part honestly, diligently and respectfully. However, I submit that disdain, as you put it, has never been my attitude regarding the citizens of the Plateau. In fact I do not condone your aggressive campaign aimed at discrediting the many valuable initiatives that meet the aspirations of thousands on the Plateau. What you are implying is tantamount to throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. Allow me the indulgence of possibly showing you that instead of disdain I have been actively reaching out to and being reached by many concerned residents of the Plateau prior to the Park Avenue name change question. One only needs to go through the sizeable list of citizen initiatives that have become borough/city accomplishments under my stewardship of the Plateau. To mention just a few: the long overdue redesigning of the Park/Pine interchange, the traffic calming measures, the two permanent citizens commissions on Urban planning and sustainable development as well as on Civic and public security, the massive participation in elaborating the borough's Master plan and finally the participatory budget process which involved thousands of Plateau residents. As for the Park Avenue name change question, I want to set the record straight and clarify where the ensuing breakdown of communication had truly occurred. It all began on September 19, 2006, three months ago. The newspaper, La Presse announced that the name of the former premier of Quebec, Robert Bourassa, was to be bestowed upon either of two major Montreal streets, St Joseph or Park Avenue. Both of these streets were significant to honour his personal and political memory. Only one person reacted negatively at the mention of Park Ave. That was it, period. St Joseph was another story. The deluge of mail, telephones and response was decisive, while on Park Ave, not a boo... That same day, the two city councillors from Mile End were at a meeting with Park Ave merchants and what they reported was that, aside from some joking, no one took any particular notice, no alarm whatsoever. One month later, October 18, the executive committee was presented with the proposed name changes. To avoid the already manifested controversy, St Joseph was dropped. Park Ave was left on the table. At the time, I had one lonely e-mail to support a dissenting vote, and the extensive silence on the part of the media. Moreover, I had not forgotten that The Gazette, in 1987 had suggested that Park Ave would be a safe choice for any forthcoming name changes. I raised some concerns regarding heritage around the mountain which was taken under advisement and the executive committee gave the green light for the proposal to be submitted to City Council for decision. At that moment, I thought that my decision reflected the mood of my constituents. Then the ground moved. Testimonials, mostly heartfelt and personal began to pour in along with some hate mail, insults and threats. Monday October 23rd, in the company of Montreal's mayor we met the Greek Community leaders. Thursday October 26th we met with the merchants of Park Avenue and then, in the afternoon, with our caucus at the city. By Friday October 27th, all the Plateau councillors and I had decided to vote against the proposal at the city council. The mail kept coming. We spoke to our local party executive, the party president as well as some Plateau leaders to inform them of our intentions. On Monday October 30, I submitted my letter to the mayor, stating that I and the Plateau councillors were going to go public with our decision and that I would take responsibility for my mistake. On Tuesday, October 31st, we convened a meeting with various Plateau representatives and activists, after which I did a press announcement. Two of the activists, Mario Rizzi and Alison Lauder refused to attend. Meanwhile, what was emerging alongside the opposition to the Park Ave name change was a campaign of personal attacks against me. Unsigned flyers circulated calling for my resignation while I was already on record against the name change. Clearly other agendas were at play. In two weeks I had found myself at the center of a controversy and the bearer of all the blame. I accepted my part in assuming mistakenly that controversy was indeed avoidable. Moreover, I still do not understand how the Anglophone and Allophone media, written and electronic, did not pick up on this issue before October 18th. Wool-gathering and blame games are not relevant to the issue at hand. In the meantime, respectfully, I submit that the task of engendering citizen participation is still foremost of my daily concerns and I am actively and doggedly pushing forward, in spite of what you might think, for greater democracy on the Plateau. Disdain perhaps is your motivation for not contributing positively to democratic debate and instead, disdainfully, lobbing invective from a convenient distance at me and thereby besmirching the sizeable work already underway by so many who are dedicated to making the Plateau-Mont-Royal borough one of the finest anywhere. Furthermore, "Civic Affairs Reporters" are not cheerleaders for politicians but are indeed professionals and, believe me, they don't sing or dance for anyone, not even me. Helen Fotopulos Mayor Plateau Mont Royal Borough |
| Fotopulos writes a letter.... what do you think? |
| Dear Ms. FOTOPULOS, With the greatest of respect, I and the tens of thousands of citizens associated with the Save Our Parc Initiative are not, unlike you, campaigning. We are not interested in discrediting any initiatives and it is disingenuous of you to suggest we are. We are simply the ordinary citizens of Montreal who want to save L'Avenue du Parc. We feel disenfranchised because our elected officials are not respecting our rights as citizens of Montreal, as voiced by the Montreal Charter of Rights and Responsibilities and in the topology and consultation policies of the City. Simply put Mayor Tremblay, you and the rest of Councillors of the Montreal Island Citizens Union simply did not listen to our voices. Let the reader decide whether that shows disdain or not. It would also be disingenuous of me not to say that you, the members of the Plateau of Mont Royal Borough and the civil servants of the City of Montreal have done some excellent work on behalf of us. Nonetheless the Park Avenue fiasco has turned a spotlight on the attitudes of the Montreal Island Citizens Union towards Montrealers. The good will that had been built up has been soured. Should the citizens turn a blind eye, forgive and forget? No. Should we speak out loudly when our rights are abused? Yes. Should we protest when an issue dear to us, our history and our cultural heritage is under attack? Yes. You say it all began on 19 September 2006. Did it? When did the Mayor first decide that a street should be named after Mr. Bourassa? When were the citizens of Montreal consulted about the best way to honor Robert Bourassa? There was no/no consultation and a La Presse article, not pickup by other media, is not a call for a City consultation process. You and your Councillors did not immediately protest the lack of consultation. You held your breath gauging the winds. The storm that followed should dissuade you from ever becoming a weather forecaster. On October 18 2006 you state that you had only one e-mail protesting the Park Avenue name change and a silent media. Yet you say you believed your decision reflected the mood of my constituents. You must be joking. This is your idea of consultative participatory government? On 19th October 2006 Linda Gyulai reported the executive committee decision. Finally the public was informed about what had happened behind their backs. You certainly had not brought this issue to the attention of borough residents and other Montrealers. You report on a series of damage control meetings that you and Mayor Tremblay participated. I believe that the message you got for the Greek community and Park Avenue merchants was clear. Did you and the Mayor take the name change issue off the table pending a formal consultation of all residents, heritage authorities etc? No. It took over 500 e-mails and a petition in the tens of thousands for you to admit that you 'misread the situation'. Thank you for admitting that but there was not word of apology. If by personal attacks against you, you mean that people have lost confidence in your leadership, you would be correct. If some groups or individuals are calling for your resignation, it simply shows to what degree you have lost their trust. The question you have to ask yourself is whether you can still effectively work with the borough community leaders. Please do not think that you are alone and the bearer of all the blame. The Mayor and the representatives of Montreal Island Citizens Union will be with you when you are all voted out of office in the next election. Please do not blame the 'Anglophone'and 'Allophone' media. It was your responsibility not their's to launch a consultation process. Thank you for pointing out that there was no consultation, only protest. The Commission de toponymie du Quebec will certainly make note of that. If you think that there is some hidden agenda, you have been reading too many Le Carre novels. My intention is not to "lobby invective from a convenient distance". This is not a cat fight!! When the voices of the ordinary citizens are not heard, when their petitions in the tens of thousands are not considered, when transparently duplicitous explanations are provided, we have an obligation to ourselves to speak up against injustice. I am a proud borough resident and proud of the work of its many supporters. It is a shame that you, the Mayor and your Party have let us down on the Park Avenue issue. Again, I leave it to the reader to decide whether there is any disdain. As for Civic Affairs Reporters, Linda Gyulai has done an outstanding job. Unfortunately that one article was not balanced. The article dealt with outreach and there was not even passing mention of your lack of consultation of borough residents on the Parc Avenue name change issue. The Gazette has been doing a great job in covering both sides of the issue. However the lack of support of the Park Avenue name change among Montrealers makes it difficult to cover..even for you. Marion Joseph Bialek 3600 Avenue du Parc Montreal H2X 3R2 |
| Citizens respond to Fotopulos' |
| Citizens respond to Fotopulos' |
| Dear Borough Mayor Helen Fotopoulos: I have read your response to Joseph Bialek and I am angry. Allow me to say, that I am truly disappointed in you. I have attended many of your public meetings and many of your fund-raisers, including a few of them at Milos restaurant, where I have the pictures of us with Mayor Tremblay in happier times. I supported you through many elections, because I felt that you could do a lot of good for this area and Montreal. In the last municipal election, I abstained from telling people to vote for or against you. I was frustrated with you. You have done nothing, but blame others, for your inability to solve the issues on Park avenue including the famous bus lane. You have dealt with the residents, merchants and property owners with contempt. Why are we bothering you ? That seems to be your message to all of us. After your reversal during the Park Avenue debate, I asked you on numerous occasions, through emails, to tell us who you were attempting to sway to vote with us. I asked you who you felt was a soft vote. You never responded and through all the lobbying I did, I realized that you were doing nothing. You were just waiting for us to simmer down and go away !! This whole exercise of a free vote was a sham !! Your colleagues Rotrand, Prescott and Allemand said it clearly, that this was not a free vote. Even as the fight for Park Avenue continues, you have decided to " turn the page". Forty one (41) municipal city councilors, just one week before this vote, were unsure or undecided as to how they were voting on this issue. Even as I write it I don't believe it. Democracy, political leadership, at it's best. The arrogance and lack of understanding you have displayed the people of this area is truly incredible ! We have spent thousands of man hours and dollars to try to get the Mayor and your party to understand our frustration! It took two weeks of "moving the earth" to get you to change your vote. You can try to blame everyone for your blunder. Your own city councilors admitted on more than one occasion that they were unaware of the Mayor's decision until he announced it at some cocktail fundraiser. The blame is yours and no one else's. Originally, I wrote a three page letter, answering point by point, inaccuracy after inaccuracy, your response to Mr. Bialek. I now realize that I would be wasting my time. Your response shows that you have truly "turned the page" and are now in re-election mode. Your new motto is all those of us who fought for Park Ave. had another agenda to get you. !!! I guess that's the new divide and conquer strategy. Shame on You !!! You can respond to me if you like. You can try to put your spin on it ! I really don't care. Through out this whole campaign and even today, I never felt like you were an ally. You have a lot of work to do,....not only to get re-elected,....but to win back my respect. Jimmy Zoubris |
| Progress report |
| The coalition of people involved in the Park Avenue fight have hired legal representation. We are now working with lawyer Julius Grey who will be representing the coalition of concerned citizens at the Toponymie Commission of Quebec. another Lawyer working on the case, May Chiu will be representing the citizens of Park Avenue and Mile-end in a civil case against the city, on the grounds that the city did not follow democratic process' and broke the Montreal citizens charter in perusing the name change without public consultation and against public outcry. The legal action is being financed by certain merchants on Park Avenue as well as many concerned ctizens in the Mile-End area. |
| Il ne faut pas jeter l��ponge Lysiane Gagnon, La Presse, le 30 d�cembre 2006 Les opposants au � re-bapt�me � de l'avenue du Parc ont jet� l'�ponge beaucoup trop t�t. Le vote du conseil municipal n'�tait qu'une �tape. Il reste encore celle de la Commission de Toponymie, qui aura le dernier mot et pourrait fort bien renverser cette d�cision. D�j�, un groupe de commer�ants de l'avenue du Parc ont intent� un recours qui sera pilot� par Me Julius Grey, dont les arguments sont inattaquables. La Commission de toponymie exige en effet qu'un changement de nom ait fait l'objet d'une consultation publique (ce qui n'a pas �t� fait) ; que la d�nomination actuelle soit d�su�te (ce qui n'est �videmment pas le cas puisque cette belle avenue qui borde le parc du mont Royal est parfaitement bien nomm�e et que son prolongement sud est intimement li� � l'histoire de Montr�al) ; et, enfin, que le changement de nom ne suscite pas de controverse... Or, il y a controverse � et comment ! Il faut absolument mettre fin � cette manie de rebaptiser � tout bout de champ l'espace public. Comme le disait ma coll�gue Mich�le Ouimet : � Qu'est-ce qu'on va faire quand Lucien Bouchard dispara�tra ? Changer le nom de Montr�al ? � Les villes ne sont pas faites pour honorer des notables, elles doivent au contraire offrir un cadre historique o� se retrouvent plusieurs g�n�rations. New York n'a jamais renomm� ses rues et ses avenues. Paris non plus : on peut lire Zola et y retrouver des noms familiers. Ce n'est pas de l'immobilisme. Paris se transforme constamment (voyez le nouveau tramway, les pistes cyclables, les couloirs prot�g�s pour les bus) mais elle conserve le boulevard Saint-Germain, la rue de Rivoli, la Tour Saint-Jacques... C'est le comble du provincialisme que de d�nommer des rues pour faire plaisir aux descendants de commissaires d'�cole ou d'�diles municipaux (exemple, le boulevard Laurentien, nagu�re si bien nomm�, d�sormais d�di� � un ancien maire que nul ne conna�t en dehors de Saint- Laurent). Certes, Robert Bourassa a eu beaucoup plus d'importance, mais l� n'est pas la question. Qu'on lui donne un pont, une place, un �difice prestigieux, mais pas l'avenue centrale de la ville de Montr�al. (Qu'on ne vienne pas reparler du boulevard Ren�-L�vesque, une d�cision prise en catastrophe, dans l'�motion du deuil. C'est d'ailleurs cela qui a pouss� la Commission de toponymie � resserrer ses crit�res : on doit maintenant attendre au moins 10 ans apr�s le d�c�s pour honorer la m�moire de quelqu'un, ce qui nous �pargnera d'autres spectacles ridicules comme celui d'Antonine Maillet habitant la rue... Antonine-Maillet. On se rappellera aussi que, dans un bel �lan f�ministe, l'administration Dor� avait baptis� un square � Nelson-et-Winnie-Mandela �... pour gommer plus tard le nom de l'�pouse divorc�e, condamn�e au surplus pour fraude et agressions!). Il faut corriger cet � abus de pouvoir �, pour reprendre l'expression de l'un des opposants, l'urbaniste Jean D�carie, qui fut responsable du Plan de mise en valeur du mont Royal et laur�at du Prix 2006 des Amis de la montagne. Mais, pour cela, il faut reb�tir la coalition qui s'�tait manifest�e � l'annonce de la d�cision. Si les francophones de tous horizons et les organismes de protection du patrimoine restent cois, l'administration Tremblay continuera de pr�tendre que l'opposition n'est que le fait d'un noyau d'anglophones qui en veulent � Bourassa pour la loi 22 � un argument inepte et bassement d�magogique mais qui est bien dans la ligne de cette administration qui n'�coute que ses propres lubies. |
| "If you live some place long enough, it becomes part of you. It's who you are" Rocky Balboa 2006 |
| The Toponymie Commission of Quebec publicly announced today that they will need more time to render their decision on the Avenue du Parc name change proposal. Without a doubt they have received hundreds of letter on the subject and they have surely taken notice of the massive public outcry against the proposal. The fact that the commission has decided to further investigate the issue does not seem to bode well for the cause. In my opinion the argument is very clear and should not require more deliberations. On the side of preserving Avenue du Parc, we have petitions from more than 40 000 people. We have held large rallies and demonstrations against the name change. All important heritage committees in Montreal and Quebec have voiced their opposition to the name change. The French, English and Allophone citizens of Montreal have overwhelmingly expressed their disfavor for the name change. In fact, the only people in Montreal who seem to be in favor of the change have been Mayor Gerald Tremblay and certain unscrupulous politicos in his party. Even their support of the proposal has been put in doubt, amid certain allegations that they were only supporting the Mayor out of duress, fearing that countering the Mayor would put their jobs at a risk. The issue is simple, and all parties involved in the he debate would certainly like a decision to be rendered as soon as possible. The Avenue du Parc issue is something that intimately effects the culture of Montreal, and it must not be allowed to fall through the cracks in Quebec's bureaucratic maze. The name change was a flawed idea from the start, proposed unilaterally and on a whim, by an overzealous Mayor Tremblay. The Commission de Toponymie must follow their own clearly stated guidelines for name changes, and deny all modifications to the Avenue du Parc and de Bleury roads. |
| Nouveau Projet de comm�moration en l'honneur de Robert Bourassa � Montr�al Remplacement des odonymes Avenue du Parc et Rue De Bleury |
| Au terme de leur rencontre tenue le 16 janvier, les membres de la Commission de toponymie ont unanimement convenu de poursuivre leurs d�lib�rations � une date ult�rieure. Ils souhaitent notamment pouvoir prendre connaissance de l'ensemble des nombreuses r�flexions re�ues par la Commission au cours des derniers jours et accorder ainsi � ces t�moignages une importance �gale � tous ceux d�j� soumis � leur attention. Ils indiquent par ailleurs vouloir rendre leur d�cision en tenant compte : - du mandat de la Commission qui pr�voit la pr�servation des toponymes � valeur culturelle et historique; - de l'expression quasi unanime de la population de son d�sir d'honorer le premier ministre Robert Bourassa dans la toponymie montr�alaise; - et du contexte de comp�tence partag�e dans lequel s'inscrit ce projet de d�nomination. Les membres de la Commission rappellent enfin qu'en temps opportun leur d�cision sera d'abord transmise officiellement aux autorit�s de la Ville de Montr�al, puis � l'ensemble de la population par voie de communiqu�. La directrice et secr�taire de la Commission, Danielle Turcotte |
| Montreal's leading Real Estate Agent - Mario Rizzi |
| Past News... |
| Place Robert Bourassa |
| "An excellent proposal to honor a great man" |
| One of the latest suggested solutions to the name change debate has been detailed in an official plan proposed by Montreal architect Joseph Baker to honor Robert Bourassa by creating an expansive public esplanade on the former site of the Park/Pine interchange. This proposal has received wide acclaim from many residents of the Plateau community. I personally love the idea. It will encompass a large portion of land at the base of Mount Royal and will include trees, paths, several fountains and a statue. It will in many ways be reminiscent of Piazza and squares which are famous in most European cities. It will be in the center of Montreal, and serve as not only a focal point of beauty, but also as a meeting point for Montrealers alike. I am pleased to see that the Commission de Toponymie has made reference to the idea as a solution to the Avenue du Parc renaming controversy. Like the Commission de Toponymie, I see the Place Robert Bourassa concept as a way to preserve the official Avenue du Parc name, while still creating a monumental new place to honor Robert Bourassa. |
| Place Robert-Bourassa plut�t qu'avenue Robert-Bourassa? 19 janvier 2007 - Une nouvelle proposition pour honorer la m�moire de l'ancien premier ministre du Qu�bec Robert Bourassa est sur la table. Joseph Baker, l'ancien pr�sident de l'Ordre des architectes du Qu�bec et ancien directeur de l'�cole d'architecture de l'Universit� Laval, sugg�re que l'intersection des avenues du Parc et des Pins devienne la place Robert-Bourassa. |
| Libre-Opinion: Une Place pour Robert Bourassa Joseph Baker, Ancien pr�sident de l'Ordre des architectes du Qu�bec et ex-directeur de l'�cole d'architecture de l'Universit� Laval Article: Le Devoir |
| Park Avenue will stay!! |
| Gerald Tremblay forced to backtrack on name change proposal |
| After months of fighting, the people of Montreal have won their fight against the Mayor's Avenue du Parc name change proposal. Gerald Tremblay has been forced to change his mind, and has retracted his proposal for the Park Avenue name change. Speaking for myself, for the coalition to Save Park Avenue, and thousands of people in Montreal, we are all very happy that Avenue du Parc will live on, but we will not forget the Mayor's autocratic manner of government, and will certainly remember his actions when we vote in the next elections. We thank everyone who has helped with this cause to Save Parc Avenue, and I personally give special thanks to Jeremy Searle who has been a publicly silent, but ever present force against the name change proposal; who has used his years of experience in municipal government to support this cause. I feel that saving Parc Avenue would not have been possible without his help. |
 |
| Huge celebration in honor of Park Avenue. Get your tickets fast ! |