Beaconsfield sound wall committee threatens lawsuit
The Citizens’ Sound Wall Committee of Beaconsfield wants the city to acknowledge there’s a pressing problem concerning excessive noise along Highway 20 that must be addressed. That’s why it has sent a lawyer’s letter to the mayor and director general demanding action and threatening a class-action lawsuit. “What we want is a dialogue with the city that will lead to a solution to a sound problem the citizens of Beaconsfield have been suffering from for 30 years,” committee member André Turenne said. The letter sent by Sylvestre Painchaud & associés is dated Dec. 15. The city has 30 days to respond. “If we don’t exert pressure, why should they bother doing anything?” Turenne said. “But a classaction lawsuit is the last resort.” During the Monday council meeting, Mayor Georges Bourelle said the city can’t do anything until the Quebec Transport Ministry completes a preliminary study. Turenne said the city isn’t pushing hard enough. As Highway 20 traffic increased in volume and speed over the decades, sound levels have increased. The sound wall debate in Beaconsfield reaches back to the mid-1980s when the transport ministry conducted an environmental impact study which said hundreds living near the highway were exposed to excessive noise. On Monday, Bourelle presented a brief timeline beginning in 2010 with the government’s estimate that the cost of building a wall would be $20.5 million. He said that estimate would have increased by now. In 2015, the transport minister at the time made an offer which would see the provincial government pay 75 per cent of the cost. That same year, the city received a letter from the transport ministry about conducting a technical study, a necessary step before the construction of the wall. Beaconsfield would pay a portion — $50,000 — for the study. Council passed a resolution to pay the amount. This past October, the ministry sent another letter announcing its plan to proceed with the study. Beaconsfield responded within the week, asking to see the contract. “We need to see the contract before we can pass another resolution, because our portion of the cost (for the study) has increased ( by around $2,000),” Bourelle said. “We haven’t heard back. I’m sure the ministry has many projects on its plate and I’m pretty sure our sound wall is not at the top of the pile. And when it comes to building the wall, we need to know what the budget will look like. We need to protect the city.” CSWCB and Beaconsfield paths diverge when it comes to how Beaconsfield would pay its 25 per cent of construction costs. The CSWCB is opposed to Beaconsfield council’s plan to take the estimated wall budget to public consultation — a move which could, potentially, trigger a referendum on the project. Another option is people living close to the highway pay more than people living at a distance. The CSWCB’s position is a sound wall will benefit Beaconsfield as a whole and all citizens should pay for it.