Dis­ney­world

Stanstead Journal - - FORUM -

Walt Dis­ney’s™ great­est joy was the small scale rail­road that he had at his home, car­ry­ing his chil­dren and grand­chil­dren in a make be­lieve world of his own. His vi­sion re­al­ized in Dis­ney­world™, he could pass away. Dis­ney­world™ is the per­fect city, clean to the ut­most, not a wire in sight. Un­less you take a magic en­trance to the real world un­der­neath. Tun­nel af­ter tun­nel, not a ray of sun­shine in sight.

Par­adise for the NIMBY crowd! Not a cell tower in sight, but as per­fect as if a tower was just be­side you! Not even a filthy garbage truck! No won­der that fairies, princesses, mar­vel­lous if not MARVEL™, roams the streets; there is even Mickey™ to have self­ies taken with.

Well, Stanstead is not trade­marked. What roams our streets maybe stuff for fic­tion but none of our lo­cal char­ac­ters are trade­marked yet, not even Bob Shel­don. Who could, depend­ing on the twist, be ei­ther the vil­lain or the hero, tow­er­ing over what­ever side is op­pos­ing him. Only to be de­feated by democ­racy.

The re­cent events in town have taken a life of their own. Bob Shel­don’s™ (should as well do it now than never) plan of ex­per­i­ment­ing with a way to get rid of the residue of an industry that is dear to him, sec­ond only to toy trains (see first para­graph), is to be com­mended, less as a sav­ing grace to the Gran­ite Mu­seum but as a huge step for­ward to clean up the town and, for once, be ahead of the industry in Que­bec and else­where.

We be­lieve that this is a worth­while project, even if it doesn’t seem to pass scru­tiny at first glance.

First things first. It would not take a le­gal ge­nius to ar­gue that ar­ti­cle 2 of the Rè­gle­ment sur les car­rières et sablières of the Loi sur la qual­ité de l'en­vi­ron­nement clearly states that the en­ter­prise pro­posed is sub­ject to the reg­u­la­tions and that ob­tain­ing the nec­es­sary cer­tifi­cate is sub­ject to ap­peal by any­one. The sec­ond para­graph of ar­ti­cle 2 is clear in its word­ing. So any two bit lawyer could ask for an in­junc­tion the mo­ment one lit­tle piece of gran­ite is pro­cessed there.

What we face to­day is, in fact, the ex­ten­sion of a quarry op­er­a­tion and it is clearly the in­tent of that reg­u­la­tion that it be reg­u­lated.

We have no doubt that highly paid lawyers would ar­gue oth­er­wise, but we think that our two bits™ lawyer would pre­vail in the short run. Said short run last­ing a cou­ple of years at best.

So we would humbly sug­gest a re­turn to the draw­ing board and that an in­de­pen­dent com­mit­tee be formed un­der the lead­er­ship of Bob Shel­don™ to as­cer­tain the best way of mon­e­tiz­ing the wasted stone that this town pro­duces. This is a bril­liant idea, badly im­ple­mented now. As it has been pre­sented, it will only make lawyers happy. A shame since re­cy­cling should be the norm in to­day’s econ­omy.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.