Tag Archives: London

Time to Park By-law

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Let me preface this with a little story here, before I get into the meat of my discussion. It’s the story of a young 19-year-old celebrating his high school prom.

Now, of course, this was back in the days when Grade 13 was still in vogue. In fact, I think it was back in the days when En Vogue was still in vogue… But regardless, after a night of revelry and some alcoholic libations, several of us retired to a friend’s back yard, set up tents, and celebrated the conclusion of our high school experience.

Of course, many of us drove from the official prom to this more laid-back after-party. And, seeing as our hostess only had a normal-sized driveway, many of us parked on the street. The next morning, many of us also woke up to little City of London gifts tucked ever-so-maliciously under our windshield wipers — a fine for parking on the street between the hours of 3 a.m. and 5 a.m.

Now, the $20 charge wasn’t the issue – it was the principal of the matter. Begrudgingly I paid my fine, dramatically stating, “Next time I’ll comply by the law and drive drunk – I hope that’s acceptable for you!”

And that, in a nutshell, is the lunacy of this by-law. It penalizes those who are acting responsibly. Personally, I don’t think any revenue gained by these needless fines are worth the cost of one innocent life lost because an inebriated driver chose to get behind the wheel, instead of leaving the car on the side of the road.

Proponents say that other regions have similar by-laws, but I can also count a number of cities – large ones, the likes of which London often aspires to become – that have more sensible parking enforcement strategies. And if city councilors are reticent about losing the cash grab – uhm, sorry – legitimate revenue from parking offenders, then there is a simple solution to this issue that should satisfy all sides.

There is the argument that the existing by-law makes road maintenance easier, but that convenience can still exist for both the maintenance crew and the citizen or visitor. Alternating parking rights on city streets is the simplest way to satisfy all parties.

Here’s how it can work: on certain days, or between certain hours on certain days, you are restricted from parking on certain sides of the street. Simple. Easy. Clean. Clear.

Say I live on Menard Street (it’s catchy, isn’t it? And I’m more than willing to offer that up for the next round of road name suggestions). Well, from Monday at 8:00 p.m. to Tuesday at 8:00 p.m., I’m restricted from parking on the north side of the street. Then, from Wednesday at 8:00 p.m. to Thursday at 8:00 p.m., I’m restricted from parking on the south side of the street. That way, if they need to do any maintenance on Menard Street, then the workers have a 24-hour window to do so – far more convenient than the 14 hours of interrupted time the current by-law offers.

During the winter, more frequent restrictions can be put into place to enable snow plows to work their magic. Say a Monday to Thursday restriction on the north side of Menard Street and a Friday to Sunday restriction on the south side. That way, there’s always ample parking and also room for the maintenance crews.

This is London, remember. There’s not an abundance of people parking on the street. Most people either have private drives, complex parking, or parking garages, so the impact on the roadways would be minimal. And should we find that the issue grows and more people are parking on the street, preventing area residents from having close parking for their homes, then we can designate certain streets at certain times as residential parking – and the residents would obtain stickers indicating that they are allowed to park in that zone.

We’re not reinventing the wheel here. All we’re doing is taking the best of what other cities have effectively done for years and applied it to our region. There’s no need for a Made-in-London solution when the answer is so clearly available to us elsewhere.

The fact that council refused to make a change to this by-law shows that their progressive thinking gear is stuck in neutral. The way to make all parties happy is clear. And sure, there’d be a little investment in street signs, but that’s a one-time cost that can be considered an investment in fostering our city’s growth and infrastructure.

And that way, should someone know they’re going to drink a few too many, they can park appropriately before they’re under the influence – without being penalized for doing the right thing!

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Graffiti Ban Targets Symptom, Not Disease

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Verily, I say to thee that London truly is a safer place today! Yes, a committee has put forth a recommendation before our esteemed council to wrest from the hands of our city’s youth the very implement they wield to pierce into our city’s soul.

A marker.

Oh, but not just any marker. A marker specifically targeted by these hooligans to deface our fair streets and mark their territory. In celebration I felt like running to where my four-year-old daughter was colouring, seizing her Crayola’s, and waving them in front of her, shouting “Verily, thine fiendish future ways have been thwarted, daughter of mine.”

Yes, we have eradicated the opportunity for these youths to purchase their weapon of choice! And, although they’re smart enough to do intricate work in public places without getting caught by the police, we can only hope that they’re not smart enough to hop in a car and drive to a neighbouring community that’s more writing implement friendly.

Honestly, does this seem a little short-sighted to anyone else? Do we honestly think that preventing under-18s from buying markers will stop the tagging and other acts of graffiti that pop up in our city? Do we honestly believe that only under-18s are the ones perpetrating this activity?

And are we so stuck in this white-bread mentality that we can’t see the beauty of the work that some graffiti artists produce?

Of course, it may all come for naught. In true Keystone Kapers fashion, the council neglected that discriminating based upon age may not be the most legally sound foundation for a by-law. But beyond that, this is a clear case of sweeping the issue under the carpet by dealing with the symptom not the disease.

As with most youth activities, including the very gang affiliation that some councilors attribute, graffiti and tagging are simply a crime of opportunity – or, more specifically, lack of opportunities. Many kids get involved in tagging for the simple fact that they’re bored. Yes peer pressure can be a factor, but in large part these are kids who have fallen through the cracks.

Listen, I’m not advocating a bleeding-heart approach where these kids are considered the victims, not the victimizers. But what I know is that an approach that’s designed to restrict access to the tools of the trade is only going to embolden these perpetrators to be more outrageous and outlandish in displaying their craft. After all, we know what happens when you tell a teenager not to do something – you’ve suddenly made the act far more appealing than ever before. Instead of reducing the number of tags on public property, a ban may in fact increase the frequency and prevalence of this type of graffiti.

The first step in the process has to be education. Start the kids young in elementary school by instilling a sense of what’s right and wrong. There are anti-graffiti colouring books and other materials that other communities have used, and we should be on the bandwagon. Secondly, we need to continue to hammer home this message throughout their schooling. As kids enter high schools, we need to show them the economic effects of tagging and – more specifically – how it affects their wallet. If we can draw the correlation between increased clean-up costs that get rolled back into increased product and service prices, not to mention taxes, maybe that will help.

We also have to have stricter punishments in place for those that are caught. A hefty fine or stint in jail may serve as an effective deterrent for some of the more thrill-seeking members of this community.

As well, these youth need to be engaged in finding the solution. Obviously the programs and services that are already in place aren’t meeting their needs, so why not involve them in the process of defining and implementing social programs that work? If we accept that graffiti can be a crime of boredom, where is the harm in engaging these youth in developing solutions that are stimulating and effective? The top-down approach, despite all its good intentions, is obviously not working.

And the final piece is that there needs to be recognition that not all graffiti is bad. By setting up graffiti walls in various parks and areas of the city, we can encourage these artists to showcase their wares in a public and accepted forum. Some graffiti art is an expression of social conscience and that’s something we should be encouraging more of in our community’s youth.

In the end, London may soon be the first city to ban the sale of these implements to minors, but that’s certainly not a distinction of which I’m going to be proud. I’d much live in a city that’s know for putting a premium on the participation of its youth in more constructive activities than for residing in one that simply banishes them to the corner.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Capitol Punishment? Hardly

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

You don’t know what it’s got until it’s gone. The old adage rings true, and it’s all the more evident when long-standing representations of London’s past are scheduled to be torn down.

However, don’t blame the imminent destruction of the Capitol Theatre downtown on progress – blame it on lack of interest from Londoners at large. Heritage buildings are great to celebrate, but they must be living ties to a vibrant past – not hollow reminders of days gone by.

I have the same issue with Heritage buildings that I do with dried flowers. Both are beautiful and vibrant when alive – but when dried they become withered and gutted shells of their former glory.

Eventually enough is enough. There’s no point in simply preserving buildings for nostalgia’s sake. And there’s certainly no doubt that there’s been ample time for someone to step up and make something of the old theatre – its “Opening Soon” marquee has been around so long, it’s become a joke to look at.

The sad fact of the matter is that interest is just not there. No one is willing to step forward and do something to preserve the building. And we have to face facts that if public will is not there, then we have to let it go.

While the building may fall, the memories will live on in those who ever went to the theatre. From nights out with friends, to movies only partly seen because of “extracurricular activities” many Londoners will cherish those memories and hold them close to their heart. Walking past such a decrepit building only devalues those remembrances by framing them on a stage that casts the memories in shadow.

There are other ways of remembering a building. I personally own a wonderful book that examines the photographic history of Montreal. What’s equally interesting as what’s remained the same is what’s changed. One can chart the progress and development of a city through its architecture.

Now, while a parking lot may not be the fitting epitaph for the Capitol theatre, perhaps it’s a harbinger of things to come. Since no one appears to be willing to make the old building a living part of the downtown’s future, at least it will no longer be a roadblock on the way to future success and prosperity.

That’s not to say that creative things can’t be done to retain those links to our past. One has to look no further than the remnants of the Talbot Block and how they were incorporated into the façade of the John Labatt Centre. Other examples are found in the recasting of a Queen St. church into the offices of a Internet consulting company or the turning of the barracks and the Banting home into living museums.

In the end, the theatre will prove to be as transitory as the films it once showed, simply due to the fact that no one was willing to step up and invest in revitalizing it. And there’s really nothing wrong with that. The one thing about the past is that you can never recapture it. Forcing it to stay against its will only leads to resentment and neglect amongst those whose future dreams are stymied by an overzealous grasp on the past.

The other issue is that there is only a limited amount of money available in the pot to be shared. We can’t expect to be everything to everyone, so we have to accept that some things will fall by the wayside. We need to identify our key buildings and invest in them, instead of throwing bad money after good, just to keep buildings that the public at large has not shown the requisite interest in maintaining.

Instead of scurrying around, popping out sound bites whenever another Heritage building is on the chopping block, those truly interested in the past need to be far more proactive in preserving these historical ties. It’s not simply about bestowing Heritage designation on buildings, it’s about having the foresight and creativity to ensure that these buildings remain a viable and participatory member of the community. Whether it’s through the creation of museums, maintaining facades for business use, or any number of other applications, simply preserving buildings isn’t enough – revitalizing them must be a priority.

When the Capitol finally does come crumbling down, it will be a fitting death for a once-stately London building. And the Capitol certainly does deserve to be remembered as something more than a down-trodden, boarded-up shell of what it once was.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Tecumseh’s Trees Obscuring Educational Forest

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

In a true case of not being able to see the forest for the trees, the battle over a small public school in South London has become the focal point of the debate regarding the Thames Valley District School Board’s future – and it’s preventing us from taking a good hard look at the education system as a whole.

As a former student at South Secondary School – the big, bad entity that’s going to swallow up Tecumseh Public School – I found myself thinking that what was being obscured was the loss of what potentially is one of the most unique learning environments in the city – good ol’ SCI. Would annexing the neighbouring facility not precede an increase of student enrollment? Would that educational Mecca be trampled underfoot of a stampeding horde of additional students?

But my memories betray the reality of the situation. I remember a school where 700 kids grew together, learned together, and enjoyed a community environment that didn’t exist in other schools where enrollment was larger. We pretty much knew – or knew of – everyone else in the school and there was a comfort level attached to it. My worry, upon following this story, was that this small-school benefit would be lost.

Lo and behold, maybe it already has. And maybe we’re arguing for a past that no longer exists. In speaking with South’s current principal Barb Sonier, and Chris Dennett, the manager of public affairs and community relations for the TVDSB, today’s situation differs greatly from my almost 15 years’ past reality.

South is bursting at the seams. With nine portables and over 1,000 students, there’s no elbow room. The student body can’t fit into the auditorium at the same time. How can minds expand when there’s no room to breathe? So, with declining elementary enrollment and need for space, the annexation of Tecumseh’s facilities by South just makes sense, right? Maybe. But perhaps there are other answers.

And by focusing on these little brush fires, we’re missing out on actions that we can take to put out the raging inferno that’s building. We can’t continue to apply band-aid solutions to our education system. We can’t continue to play feast or famine with various schools, depending on demographic or residential swings. The time to take broad, decisive actions is now.

We have to stop thinking regionally. We should be thinking of the betterment of all students. It’s hard to argue that the kids in Old South shouldn’t be able to go to their school. It’s hard to look at their cherubic little faces in the paper, or see the heart-felt appeals they make to save their school, and say that it’s not possible. But it’s equally hard to say that other students – maybe older, maybe from a different area – don’t have the right to a maximized education as well.

How do we decide? Case by case won’t work. And pie-in-the-sky calls for more funding will continue to go unheeded. It’s time to work towards a cure of our education system, not just treating the symptoms when they flare up, with the tools at our disposal – today.

And first and foremost, we have to look at where education should be going. Our system has been in place for years, but the world is changing at an increasingly rapid pace. Are our schools meeting the needs? Not all that long ago, you could argue that having a separate school board for Catholic students and a quote-unquote public system (which, not too long ago was often referred to as Protestant…) made sense. In today’s multi-cultural and multi-religious society, one would be hard pressed to find an argument in favour of the duplication of effort, the waste of resources, and the imbalance in facilities.

Patching the holes won’t work any more. We need to tear down and rebuild the system. We need to find one that works for all students. Obviously money is at a premium, so why not do our best to maximize the allocation of these precious resources? Instead of two separate school boards, roll them together and focus on the creation of programs that embrace our society’s multi-denominational status, so that we can learn to love, respect, and understand one another.

And the short-fall in the elementary system won’t be restricted to there. In time, those diminished numbers will filter up to the high school system. Do we wait for a crisis at that time, or do we take the steps necessary to ensure our system, as a whole, is ready for the challenges that are before us?

Tradition has a role to play in our society and we should embrace it, but not at the expense of any child’s education. Although the decisions may be tough, we have to ensure that the already stretched dollars and overtaxed teaching resources aren’t strained until the point where they snap. It’s time for someone to take a carte blanche approach to the education system and create a best-practices scenario for today’s demographics.

We can’t just hold onto the past. The tighter we squeeze, the faster it slips through our fingers. The South of my memories is gone – but the commitment to excellence in education remains. Let’s just make sure that today’s students have the same opportunity to succeed that I did. And that comes with defining a plan, using resources wisely, and dealing with today’s realities – not yesterday’s memories.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

The Mystery of the One-Way Highway

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

If the government of Quebec is looking for a way to save a few bucks, perhaps they could scrimp a little on repairs of Highway 20 west of Montreal because it’s a little-known fact that this stretch of highway only goes one way.

Well, to be honest, it’s a little known fact only to Montrealers. To those of us estranged from our beloved city to locales westward, it’s an all-too-real phenomenon.

OK, it can be a little scary crossing those bridges and heading to the mainland. And, sure, the barren expanse around St. Zotique is almost post-nuclear in its Spartaness. But a little perserverence goes a long way. Maybe it’s a fear similar to what seafarers felt in Christopher Columbus’ day, but I can assure you that you won’t fall off the edge of the Earth – well, maybe off the edge culturally, but certainly not literally. In fact, many successful forays have been made into the Heart of Darkness – also known as Ontario – and several Quebecers have lived to tell the tale.

Sure, family members have been forced to visit us because we have that all important magnet creating an irresistible force drawing them to us – grandchildren. However, when it comes to friends and extended family — that’s a different story.

When we make our frequent pilgrimages back to our home town of Montreal, all of our friends come out of the woodwork, welcoming us with open arms, and peppering us with the same question, “When are you coming back?” Yet, despite this outward expression of concern and affection, a return visit to our domain is never forthcoming.

Lest you think that this is an isolated situation and that we’re the proverbial black sheep of the family, let me assure you that this is a phenomenon shared by many of us now residing in the land of the trillium but with fleur-de-lys growing in our hearts. From my parents, to co-workers, to acquaintances with French roots, it’s too much of a coincidence to believe that we’re all social pariahs condemned to banishment from our birthplace. Since examples of this phenomenon are shared across family lines, then there must be a deeper aversion at foot.

Why is there such an apprehension of crossing this particular border? In fact, the Ottawa-Gatineau border is well traveled, with people from both sides making ventures into a different province and returns to their homes without any long-term emotional scarring. Perhaps it’s Montrealers’ fear of the unknown, prompted by the fact that so many of their friends have disappeared down the 401 never to return. Of course, this migration is usually prompted by the threat or existence of a referendum, but that’s another story.

As our license plates state, Ontario is truly yours to discover. There is more to us than the scourge of Toronto – many of us non-Hog-Town residents hate that city as much as you. We are here, immersed in our Anglo enclaves waiting for your arrival. In fact, a trip to visit relatives in Ontario is no more exotic than a visit to certain parts of the West Island, so don’t fear broadening your horizons.

We have many of the same programs, we have many of the same interests, we use the same currency, and hold the same passport. We even all get SRC, so the comforts of home are all around you! Sure, Montreal has more to offer than most other cities on this planet, and travelling to Ontario locales doesn’t have the same cachet as staying in town – but what Montreal doesn’t have at this moment is us, and friendship and family knows no geographic boundaries.

I can assure you that there is no hidden danger that comes when the 20 turns into the 401. We are not forced to return to our Ontario homes because of the fact that our first-born are being held as collateral by some Orwellian government organization designed to tether us to our shallow Ontario bonds when the lure of our deeper Quebec roots come calling. We come and go as we please – and so should you.

As a Quebecer stuck in Ontario, I beseech you to come visit us! We’ve gone to all extents to make your trip as comfortable as possible. In fact, you’ll notice that we’ve taken the steps to make all the highway markers bilingual – well, at least until you pass Cornwall, and then by that time you’ve made too much of an investment of time to turn back.

Come visit us. Regale us with stories from the old country. And don’t be afraid of the unknown because, despite all appearances and experiences to the contrary, the highway does go both ways.

2005 © Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved