The REM paradox couldn’t be more glaring than this week.
On the one hand, we are told that we should spend 36 billion for a REM 2.0 in order to promote the development of eastern Montreal. This astronomical bill is revealed to us without having studied the alternative modes of transport which could present a better cost/benefit ratio. And above all, without offering us a clear vision of urban development – construction of housing, creation of businesses – which is nevertheless the keystone of investment.
We would have liked to nip the project in the bud, but we couldn’t have done it better.
Meanwhile in the West Island, 26 Pierrefonds residents are left to derail a 111-unit construction project… right next to a station where the new REM will soon stop.
It is sabotage that is driving Montreal’s development to a dead end.
What’s the point of rolling out REMs all over the island, with billions, if we then let the communities put a spoke in the wheels of those who want to develop the neighborhoods?
A little vision! A little political courage! The development of structuring public transport goes hand in hand with urban densification.
Right now, it’s too easy for a handful of residents to block projects that require rezoning, brandishing the threat of a referendum, as we’ve seen in Pierrefonds and many other places.
In Griffintown, the situation is particularly glaring. In Eleanor Street, for example, a project for some 100 homes was overturned in 2022, following a referendum in which 78 people voted against.
But most of the time, the project fails as soon as a sufficient number of residents sign the register demanding a referendum which never takes place because the cities and the developers do not want to embark on a long and expensive process.
Often, we find ourselves in aberrant situations, where a very limited number of citizens who live nearby have the right of life or death over large-scale projects.
Last spring, it would have taken only 16 signatures to obtain a referendum in which barely 62 people would have been called upon to vote on a project of more than a thousand housing units on L’Île-des-Sœurs, near the REM. In the end, only 10 residents signed the register. But it didn’t take long!
This proves that the process is much less democratic than it looks.
If referendums can serve as safeguards when a city is too complacent with a promoter, they can too easily be hijacked by individuals who place their own interests before the common good.
The classic: residents complain that a new project will cause too much traffic in their neighborhood. However, they lose sight of the fact that by rejecting densification, we will cause urban sprawl which will cause a lot more traffic… but not at home.
If we really want to fight against climate change, we have to think collectively, not individually. If we want to solve the housing crisis, we must put an end to the “not in my backyard” which prevents the younger generation from settling on the island.
From British Columbia to New Zealand to Vermont, many governments have changed their laws to encourage intensification.
In Quebec, the recent adoption of Bill 16 will make it possible to avoid referendums for projects near structuring public transit, but only if the density is increased by less than 50% compared to the current zoning (eg: going from 2 floors to 3 floors).
It’s better than nothing. But we are ripe for an in-depth reform of the referendum process, which remains terribly complex.
Real estate projects that respect a healthy vision of urban development near structuring public transit should no longer be subject to referendums.
While we are investing billions in public transit, we cannot grant a right of veto to a few residents living nearby, while the rest of the community – and those who would like to settle there – have no say. to say.
Cities must also do their homework. Some like Brossard or Verdun are more proactive than others, like Pointe-Claire, whose elected officials have sided with citizens to block a project near the REM.
Of course, the surroundings of the REM should not just be a playground for promoters.
But instead of turning their backs, elected officials should show political courage and carry out detailed planning based on an overall vision that takes into account the development of parks, schools and other public infrastructure.
This clear vision is the essential element that must accompany the structuring transportation project in the east end of Montreal, where there is plenty of potential (underused land and buildings), but also many constraints (proximity to the port with trucks and rail, contaminated land, etc.).
We need solutions to meet the challenges. A clear plan to propel the structuring transport project in the East.