Version HTML de base
1
onclusio n
S
omeone asked me during the preparation of this book how a library
"extension" could possibly have taken so long or consumed so many
hours of time and resources.
Although I had sat through the eight years of council debate over the
project as a Westmount journalist and written thousands of words about it,
the only answer I could muster at the time was: "It's a long story."
I'm still not certain there is any simple answer to the question. Maybe
that's because Westmount is not a simple place. Maybe it's because the
library has always held such a special place in the heart of the community
that the easiest way not to make a mistake over it was to do nothing quickly.
Or maybe it was simply that so many architects, financial people, professional
librarians, builders and other highly qualified citizens make Westmount their
home. When the design layout became a controversial issue, for instance, no
fewer than 50 librarians, all of them ratepayers and most of them heading
major Montreal-area libraries, turned out to contribute their "constructive"
criticism.
The issue of spending money during a belt-tightening time also was a key
factor because of the frugal and conservative mentality that historically has
characterized successive city councils. When budget surpluses of nearly $20
million were accumulated from 1986 to 1990, most of the windfall was used
not to build new buildings but to write off loan by-laws to make the city
effectively debt-free. No matter how prosperous the city's image, it's a
municipality that pays off its credit cards at the end of the month, as it were,
before buying more. The library project was put under a microscope from all
angles. Then a new council came in with another microscope and even more
angles. Just ask Peter Rose.
Two aspects fascinated me as a journalist. One was the relatively low
return of ballots from the poll of all addresses in the city, roughly 18 per cent.
Considering the potential tax load of the project, one had to assume that
those who did not reply did not oppose. We usually hear from the malcon-
tent. Of course, as it's been duly noted, the rate of return was actually 25 per
cent of all property owners, since tenants are not as affected by the tax issue.
The second point was the relatively little controversy that surrounded the
$4.5 million refurbishing of the library building. It was the new $3 million
building that created all the fuss. Is that because Westmounters are more
accustomed to fixing up their older homes and more comfortable with the
wom-look than with newer construction?
In any event, the gem has finally been polished. The torch has been
passed to another generation. And the story has been told — thanks to the
many people who were so candid in providing their recollections and, in
some cases, even their personal notes to augment city documents and, of
course, my own record and memories.
LAUREEN SWEENEY
OCTOBER 1995
56