Updates from July, 2017 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Kate 22:25 on 2017/07/02 Permalink | Reply  

    One tenants’ group says we need stronger rent controls and another that there isn’t enough social housing and that the rental crisis is chronic, if you’re poor; another group demands transparency on rent levels.

    • Ephraim 11:42 on 2017/07/03 Permalink

      Here’s the basics of economics and risk….

      Low risk, low income. High risk, high income. If you want stronger rent controls, you need to lower the risk for landlords and that means a faster way to vacate renters who don’t pay their rent on time, disturb others and a better way to collect on damages. You can’t have one without the other. The result of having one without the other is the loss of apartments available to rent… which is what is already happening.

    • Bill Binns 13:10 on 2017/07/03 Permalink

      +1 Ephraim

      We have to remember that renting apartments is a business. If we make the relationship between tenant and landlord so lopsided that the business no longer makes sense, more and more people will simply choose not to be in that business. I have always liked the idea of owning rental property as a sort of soft retirement but it feels very risky here in Montreal. You have to be prepared to pay a mortgage for a year or more with no rental income should you have a non-paying tenant who refuses to leave.

      If the government wants to prevent evictions of non-paying tenants, the government should guarantee the lost revenue to the landlords. You would see the Regie move a hell of a lot faster under that system.

    • SMD 15:02 on 2017/07/03 Permalink

      We have to remember that housing is a right. The German model might have something to teach us, as it protects both homeowners and renters.

    • Kate 15:05 on 2017/07/03 Permalink

      SMD, where does it say housing is a right?

    • Viviane 15:52 on 2017/07/03 Permalink

      Kate, “the right to housing is the economic, social and cultural right to adequate housing and shelter. It is recognised in many national constitutions and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.”

      That being said, yes, renting appartments is a business. But instead of evicting non-paying tenants, you can require new tenants to have a guarantor who will take on their financial obligations under the lease if they are unable to meet them.

    • Ian 16:07 on 2017/07/03 Permalink


      “Article 25.

      (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”


    • Ephraim 16:08 on 2017/07/03 Permalink

      Viviane. Where have you seen this guarantor? Because it’s not part of Quebec’s tenant laws. In fact the law states “demand additional amounts on deposit or in another form, for instance, to guarantee the keys are returned;”

      Here’s what happens if you are late… the landlord can take action as of the 2nd day. But they have to wait until you are 3 weeks late before they can request eviction. It still takes time to go through the rental board and the landlord can easily lose 3 months of rent before he gets the apartment… and then likely it will be damaged and they have to go back to a get a judgement. The judgement is good for 30 years, but you still have to pay for a bailiff and garnishment, etc. etc. etc.

      You need a fix that either allows landlords to know when someone has previously been evicted (there are databases, but it should actually be recorded by the rental board). And a system to recover the rent rather than having to go out and get a bailiff and worse, garnishing someone’s wages… because the whole office doesn’t need to know your business. We need a balance. Help limit the losses and more people may be willing to rent apartments.

    • Ephraim 16:32 on 2017/07/03 Permalink

      That’s a declaration, not a law. It’s also an ideal.

      But you realize that a bed at a shelter covers that requirement. Not an apartment.

    • Bill Binns 16:35 on 2017/07/03 Permalink

      @Ephraim – Is it really just 3 months? If so, that’s not too bad and pretty much the same as it was in the US. Remember that simply getting an order of eviction from the court won’t get rid of a professional rent dodger. The process only decidedly ends on the day you can get the cops to the property to forcibly drag the people out. That was the tricky part when I was involved with this stuff. Even after the order of eviction, there were last minute tricks that would put off getting the cops to the property.

    • Kate 16:46 on 2017/07/03 Permalink

      Also, it seems to me that it’s not in the Canadian Bill of Rights.

    • Bert 19:04 on 2017/07/03 Permalink

      If it were in the Canadian Bill of Rights, would it not be to the government to guarantee housing and not individuals? (and all that could entail)

    • Ephraim 19:10 on 2017/07/03 Permalink

      @Bill Binns – That’s optimal, but nothing is optimal. But it can be dragged on and on….

    • Kate 20:38 on 2017/07/03 Permalink

      Bert, I’m not sure how it works out in places where it’s a firm part of the local bill of rights, if indeed there are any such places.

    • Viviane 23:28 on 2017/07/03 Permalink

      Ephraim, I guess you’re right. Guarantors may be required only for minors. But when I signed my present lease in 2003, during the housing crisis, I was willing to do anything to find a decent place to stay after being forced to move out by the new owners of the building, so my landlord had no problem requesting a credit check and a guarantor.

  • Kate 22:21 on 2017/07/02 Permalink | Reply  

    A gathering at the home of Pierre Coriolan Sunday meant as a vigil turned into a demonstration demanding change in how police handle situations involving people who are not white. Coriolan was shot dead by police last week.

  • Kate 21:52 on 2017/07/02 Permalink | Reply  

    A cool billion is being spent on the 375th, twice what the feds are spending on the 150th.

    • Martin 16:39 on 2017/07/04 Permalink

      It’s a journalist from Radio-Canada that came up with that number. It makes for a sensational headline, for sure, but I find it dishonest and misleading. The celebrations by themselves will cost 110M$; the rest is being spend on stuff that will be permanent and will contribute to the city’s urban and cultural infrastructures, including the covering of the Ville-Marie expressway, the demolition of the Bonaventure elevated expressway, the expansion of the Fine Arts Museum and the Musée Pointe-à-Callières, the renovation of the Alexandria pier (which was falling apart), the illumination of the Jacques-Cartier bridge for ten years including maintenance, the revamping of Place Vauquelin, Saint-Paul street, Parc Jean-Drapeau, etc. I say it looks like money well spend and a large part of it is coming from the provincial and the federal gov. If Coderre was able to bring that many investments in the city under the pretext of the 375th celebration, then bravo to him. I know that this birthday (that number, 375) is very arbitrary, but I’ll take all it if it’s to make Montreal more beautiful and with more cultural offerings.

  • Kate 21:42 on 2017/07/02 Permalink | Reply  

    Bombardier has taken over operation of commuter train lines, and the first thing we get is the cancellation of several departures because there aren’t enough train conductors. You couldn’t expect Bombardier to figure that out in advance, after all.

    Update: CBC says the problem is fixed and all trains will be running according to schedule.

    • PO 08:36 on 2017/07/03 Permalink

      I’m curious to know if this is because of the holidays being taken this time of year. Could be there are enough people employed, but their vacation times were not properly coordinated.

    • Kate 11:42 on 2017/07/03 Permalink

      The reports suggests you’re right, PO, but a well organized outfit simply does not allow that to happen. Qualified people have to take holidays according to seniority – they can’t all bugger off at once.

  • Kate 14:12 on 2017/07/02 Permalink | Reply  

    Carey Price has been signed to eight more years with Les Glorieux.

  • Kate 11:47 on 2017/07/02 Permalink | Reply  

    The big ferris wheel in the Old Port will not open on time – in fact, it’s two months late.

    • Blork 16:01 on 2017/07/02 Permalink

      Too bad. I was just down there this afternoon and it’s a nice addition to the skyline. From the waterline it looks like it’s ready to go.

  • Kate 11:43 on 2017/07/02 Permalink | Reply  

    Gilles Proulx grudgingly acknowledges the genius of English engineering in the design and construction of the Victoria Bridge. Illustrated with some good images from the era.

    Seems the weekly Centre d’histoire item is taking a holiday.

    There was news this week that the Grande bibliothèque had received 7000 more historical postcards. I can’t get this video report to play in any browser, but there it is. The TVA item says the library will be gradually scanning these postcards and adding them to the existing web collection – one of the features displayed here – which is good news because the recent staffing cuts were said to be putting the digitization project at risk.

    • rue david 20:02 on 2017/07/02 Permalink

      I love this I have a small collection of historic Montreal postcards (~80 or so), not much value if any, obtained by my hobby of picking through old postcards at shops and fairs when I’m traveling. Weirdest one I found was in a market in Istanbul, I scored a postcard of the old greyhoud terminal on Réné Lévesque. I can already see myself drinking wine and sifting through the images to see if there’s one I have that they don’t, so I can get it up there.

    • Max 12:56 on 2017/07/03 Permalink

      If you like postcards, rue david, you’ll like this.

  • Kate 10:46 on 2017/07/02 Permalink | Reply  

    The Grand Défi Pierre Lavoie takes place Sunday. A few days ago I saw Dorchester Square and Place du Canada full of white marquees, and apparently it was for this event. Most of the 135‑km route is off the southwestern end of the island and 6000 cyclists are signed up. TVA link plays a video report.

    Update: La Presse found some people fuming because roads were closed for the bike tour on Moving Day.

  • Kate 10:40 on 2017/07/02 Permalink | Reply  

    Another cyclist has been killed in an incident with a truck, early Saturday evening in Montreal North. Apparently he blew through a stop sign. TVA link plays a video report.

    • Ephraim 16:19 on 2017/07/02 Permalink

      I’m waiting for Velo-Quebec to somehow find a way to blame the truck driver.

    • Bert 17:04 on 2017/07/02 Permalink

      Was the cyclist wearing a helmet?

    • ant6n 19:26 on 2017/07/02 Permalink

      True, not stopping at a stop sign is punishable by death.

    • Kate 21:44 on 2017/07/02 Permalink

      ant6n, the comments I saw to this story on Facebook were universally condemning ths cyclist and condoling with the driver. Can’t make this stuff up.

    • Mathieu 07:39 on 2017/07/03 Permalink

      Well, it’s difficult to not put the blame on the cyclist knowing that he didn’t do his stop where the car had none to do. There’s so much you can do when someone jumps in front of your car as it takes some time and distance to stop. It’s just simple physics and that’s why there is a set of rules and right of way in place. I’m all for Idaho stops, but it doesn’t apply in these cases as you should never cross without making sure it’s safe.

    • Fab Pine 08:56 on 2017/07/03 Permalink

      Cyclists need to remember that drivers will kill them if they make a single wrong move. That’s the game of life-and-death we turned our “public” roads into during the last century.

    • Kevin 09:09 on 2017/07/03 Permalink

      Unmoderated free speech always devolves to the lowest level.
      It was true with Usenet and BBSes, and it is no less true with Facebook and Twitter and every other social media site.

    • Blork 10:24 on 2017/07/03 Permalink

      Statements like “True, not stopping at a stop sign is punishable by death” and “Cyclists need to remember that drivers will kill them if they make a single wrong move” are not helpful and amount to trolling.

      The reality is that if you blow through a stop sign you might cause a crash (whether you’re a cycist, a skateboarder, a car driver, or on pogo stick). And if you cause a crash and you’re the softer object (human on a bike vs. a truck) then you’re going to sustain more damage than the truck. It is pointless to troll about that, and is potentially harmful because it might embolden some people to think they have some kind of divine right to blow through stop signs without causing any harm.

      Forensic analysis (admittedly based on not very much info):

      The cyclist was on Bruxelles Ave. La Presse says he was travelling north, so he was coming off of a pretty steep hill. Possibilities include:

      Brake failure; maybe he couldn’t stop.
      Impatience; not wanting to lose momentum.

      The truck was a rental cube van, and a pretty big one. You don’t need a special driver’s license to rent or drive one of those. There’s a possibility the driver was inexperienced with operating the vehicle and might have been able to avoid the cyclist if she had had more experience.

      Legally, the truck driver did nothing wrong, but it might be useful to look into just how safe it is to be renting those cube vans to inexperienced drivers. But ultimately, as I said above, when someone blows a stop sign, then the resulting crash is always the fault (both legally and in terms of “blame”) of the person who blew the stop sign, whether that person is a cyclist, a skateboarder, a driver, or someone riding a pogo stick.

    • Ephraim 11:35 on 2017/07/03 Permalink

      There are universal rules of the road that apply to everyone. When you deviate from them, there may be consequences. It’s horrible. It’s awful.

      And why do we have these rules of the road? To try to keep everyone safe. When you jaywalk, you take that chance. The thing is that there are an awful lot of people who take chances, an awful lot of chances. But when you take one of those chances, it can have consequences.

      To me, the worst part is that those chances have consequences on others. Not only the death of the cyclist, but that driver has to live with the trauma of having taken another life. It’s awful on all sides. It’s one of the reasons I hate riding a bike in Montreal…. I get these awful looks when I follow the rules of the road, because I have too much to lose by not following the rules.

    • Bill Binns 13:30 on 2017/07/03 Permalink

      “not stopping at a stop sign is punishable by death”

      Yep, it absolutely is. As is ignoring railroad crossing signage or red lights or one way signs or any number of other signs meant to prevent deadly incidents. I don’t know how we go about making the world safe for cyclist who want to ignore road signage.

    • Kate 13:31 on 2017/07/03 Permalink

      Fab Pine, your comment in this thread is shrill and verging on the hysterical, and the two I’ve deleted were worse. I know you’re qatzelok and I don’t think you add to this blog, you simply derail threads. Please stop commenting here – under any pseudonym – or I will simply block you again.

    • ant6n 19:43 on 2017/07/03 Permalink

      Ad absurdum sarcasm is not trolling. But fair enough, I’ll try a more written-out response:

      Safety on the road is not a black and white issue. You’re supposed to engage in defensive driving on the road (it’s one of the major lessons when you learn driving, btw, and a major component of the written test). You’re supposed to be vigilant and anticipate potential danger situations — even if you have the right of way. All traffic participants ignore all sorts of rules all the time — for example kids. So if somebody disobeys a stop sign, saying it’s basically okay if they end up dead is actually kind of trolling. It’s a major failure to drive safely for all traffic participants, even if the cyclist is legally at fault. Especially in the middle of a residential area, with low speeds, and where there’s a sharp downward slope on one side.

      Another issues in many situations like this (although possibly not in this one) is the design of the street, which may be not ideal for a peaceful interaction of cars, cyclists and pedestrians. Road design is often based around cars – and often around cars driving much faster than the allowed limits – and doesn’t take into account cyclists, in particular around slopes (like that recent example of the stop sign on Berri that no cyclist will stop for). Saying something like “this accident is not a problem because somebody rolled through a stop sign” will mask/ignore these issues.

      Lastly, this blame game played on the internets sometimes come close to celebrating the death of cyclists. I have a problem with that severe lack of empathy.

      (Bill Binns’ ‘participation’ in this issue comes close to calling for murder of cyclists if they disobey the rules — yet another example of pretty distasteful mouth-garbage)

    • Tim 21:44 on 2017/07/03 Permalink

      @Blork: it is not trolling to say “Cyclists need to remember that drivers will kill them if they make a single wrong move”. It’s an accurate warning. Of course it wouldn’t be intentional by the driver. But if you’re dead, who cares who was right.

      When I cycle in this town and even when I walk, i’m conscious of the fact that if I’m not aware of what is going on around me, some aggressive (or even absent minded) driver could easily kill me.

      I don’t mind being called paranoid or risk averse. After being nearly hit three times by different cars in less than a month last year (when I was not jaywalking and crossing with the light), I’m both.

    • Tim 21:51 on 2017/07/03 Permalink

      Posting in the wrong thread and now, after re-reading Blorks comments, realizing I jumped the gun on my comments. I need to call it a night.

compose new post
next post/next comment
previous post/previous comment
show/hide comments
go to top
go to login
show/hide help
shift + esc