Montreal filth due to renters

[Regarding Raf Katigbak’s Feb. 8 Riff-Raff column, “Instant Mess-Age”]: The main reason for this city’s many dysfunctions, including cleanliness, is the high level of renters. Do renters have the same interest as homeowners? I don’t think so.

Property ownership intrinsically motivates citizens to be aware of the factors likely to affect their investment. Cleanliness is one of them. The same deep-felt motivation does not exist when renting.

Since there is a preponderance of renters in Montreal, many of the city’s services are geared toward those interests. We can imagine how this plays out electorally.

Montreal has a very large inventory of cheaply built rental units. They were built to shelter a poor, uneducated labour force. They are not upgradeable and are not what a highly skilled labour force wants. Even buying real estate for a homeowner in areas with many renters is not advisable.

There was once hope that condo conversion of dilapidated tenements could reverse the trend, but a freeze was placed on that gentrification process. I believe it was an admitted and regrettable part of Mayor Jean Doré’s administration of Montreal. Not all was lost for potential Montrealers wishing to become homeowners. They could and would populate many new suburbs and move to the cities within the city of Montreal.

Provincial and municipal governments have in the past thrown much money in the form of subsidies to those upgrading housing in Montreal. Much of that money was ill-spent on renovating what should have been destroyed. That money could have gone instead to helping Quebecers become homeowners in Montreal.

Often, expedient choices from the past are somewhat hard to reverse. Montreal is still the hub of Quebec—the place where the largest part of its population lives—therefore, bad decisions made in Montreal have dire consequences for all of Quebec. The decision not to promote home ownership in Montreal may have lent credence to the saying that Quebec is a nation of renters. The sad results of this is a city that is virtually schizoid in its decision making, a victim of arrested development, less than an attractive place to be, disinterested citizens and, of course, a dirty city.

I think even an armada of a cleaning fleet could not do as much for the city as citizens who actually own the property around them.

>> Ugo Magni

City vs. country

I was very moved by Tracy Lindeman’s Feb. 1 article “Country collection conundrum.” I feel immensely sorry for Bob Fuller, who is being hounded by city inspectors because he has a collection of 250,000 vinyl records. There is nothing wrong or unhealthy about having such a large record collection, considering Mr. Fuller’s chief mission in life is to popularize country music. Mr. Fuller apparently already has many records scattered across the city.

I have a friend who has a collection of over 10,000 magazines. But because he has a big country house with nine rooms, inspectors have never bothered him.

I can understand inspectors’ concerns that records must not be stored in the backyard, but trying to prevent people from storing things in their own basement goes a bit too far. I know far too many people, even very tidy people, who store things in the basement.

The callousness of inspectors upsets me. Where are the same inspectors when delinquent landlords do not fix broken plumbing and leaky ceilings, and neglect to paint the hallways in many dilapidated buildings for years on end?

As for the vinyl records being a fire hazard, give me a break! A lot of people smoke at home (including in bed) and many people burn candles unattended. Unattended candles and careless smoking cause far, far more fires every year than people’s record collections. Which planet are the inspectors living on?

Thank you to the Mirror for covering this story. Please keep us posted on developments. I surely hope Mr. Fuller will be allowed to live in peace with his records. I pray his harassment will stop.

>> Frederick Muster

WMDs on the streets

he Feb. 8 letter by Edward Abramic [“Obsession for autos”] made a lot of excellent points. But it is also very important to mention that in the 110 years since the automobile was invented, more than 32 million people around the world have died in car accidents. That is far more than the number of people who have died in shipping disasters, boating accidents, train accidents and airplane crashes combined.

In the U.S., more than 40,000 people die in car accidents annually. Come to think of it, cars are not only endlessly polluting the air, but they are also weapons of mass destruction.

>> Manish Patwari