Downtown residents refuse to foot the bill for years of urban sprawl and living off of reserve funds by feeding our neighbourhood parking meters. We already pay a disproportionate tax burden, the broken assessment system is about to sharply increase our subsidy to the suburbs, and now suburban councillors want us to pay almost $4 an hour just to live in our neighbourhoods and shop our local businesses? Enough is enough!

The true legacy of municipal amalgamation has arrived: downtown vs. the suburbs. If suburban and rural councillors want to see the downtown rise up against their wards then they should pass these punitive parking measures. We will remember.

For years, city council has been living on borrowed time, approving urban sprawl with no way to pay for ongoing costs. Now that the city reserves have run dry, suburban and rural councillors propose we foot the bill by paying more at downtown parking meters.

This plan is unfair to downtown residents and businesses. We already pay a disproportionate share of the city’s costs through higher property taxes and the broken property assessment system is about to shift even more of the tax burden to us.

Now, suburban and rural councillors want downtown residents to pay up to $3.75 an hour just to live in our neighbourhoods and shop at our local businesses? Enough is enough!

The true legacy of municipal amalgamation seems to be a polarized city: downtown versus the suburbs. If suburban and rural councillors force the parking plan through over downtown objections, it will fuel this polarization. It’s time to shelve this cash grab and come up with a fair way to resolve our budget problem.

I believe that O’Brien — as a private citizen — is innocent until proven guilty. I also believe, however, that the power and responsibility of the Mayor’s office demands the highest level of integrity, and must be protected from even the suspicion of criminal acts and actors. The recent criminal charges filed against O’Brien raise significant questions of integrity that, until fully resolved, are incompatible with his continuing to hold the office of mayor.

O’Brien has spoken clearly about how the city has laboured under the possibility that he would be charged with a criminal offence. If he chooses to continue on as mayor I fear he will be continuing to hold the city hostage to this issue. In this period of financial challenge, when we are searching for a long-term direction, we look to the mayor to take responsibility and guide our planning. How can he act in a position of oversight when he himself is under suspicion? How can he guide us when he may be found guilty and be stripped of his powers? How can he focus his attention on the city when he must defend himself in court? I believe he cannot do any of these things.

For all of these reasons, I ask Mayor O’Brien to do the right thing. I ask him to take a leave of absence while his criminal proceedings are being dealt with. Step aside and let the city proceed.

The back room is looking pretty cosy these days, as “Decider Larry” cools on an international Lansdowne design competition. The park is not his personal property. His rush to construct a premature idea next fall leaves no time to get the rest of us involved.

The way to make money with Lansdowne is through tourism, not property taxes. A design competition would class up a city that badly needs a great public space. Our world heritage canal is one piece of the puzzle. Let’s not waste it by handing Lansdowne to O’Brien’s pals for small-minded development.

Let’s get excited about what we could build downtown. Let’s transform Lansdowne into a space that will be a beautiful draw for a hundred years. Mayor O’Brien: we want an international design competition.

I read with dismay this morning reports of a backroom deal that would see Minto developments get access to the redevelopment of Lansdowne Park. Nothing could make me more angry.

The canal has just been declared a world heritage site, and here we have a fantastic opportunity in what is a large vacant lot next to this world treasure. To contemplate filling it with housing is the worst possible plan. The Glebe and Ottawa South are full of housing already and there are other development opportunities and projects in the area that are adding to the available housing stock.

That a developer is salivating over this prime real estate is not surprising. That city council is salivating too is a shock and a disappointment.

Once housing is built here the opportunity will be lost forever. It’s time to think beyond the moment. Think about what kind of city we want for the next hundred years or more. Look into your heart and I know you will agree that a subdivision is not the best we can do.

A CFL team, never a draw in this government town, is not worth it if we lose Lansdowne to development. This plan should be shelved right away, and the public reassured that future planning will be done in the open.

The people of Ottawa call upon you to make the tough decisions. Make the right one: preserve Lansdowne as a public space. No to housing on Lansdowne park.

I have to turn left from Amberwood onto Prince of Wales every day, and this intersection has become more and more dangerous over the years. Recently I have had to wait up to 10 minutes at rush hour to safely turn, and I have seen numerous close calls as frustrated residents turn left when there is not enough space.

I am worried that there will be a serious accident here before long.

The intersection was fine before the developments in the greenbelt just south of here, and now that Manotick will also be getting a large new development the stop sign at this intersection is clearly insufficient. Many other intersections on prince of wales have recently had new traffic lights installed and those residents are safer for it.

Amberwood is the only major artery between Manotick and the downtown that is missing a traffic light. It is possible to snake through the neighbourhood and access Macfarlane, but Amberwood is the designated and natural artery through this neighbourhood and it will not work to ask people to snake through tiny residential crescents to access a traffic light, nor is it fair to the residents of those streets.

Moreover, the Ottawa Police has frequent speed traps at this intersection due to the high speed of traffic. Having a traffic light here could also moderate the speed of traffic on an automated basis by causing drivers to be more ready to stop.

I know that the city has many intersections waiting for stop lights, but this one must be addressed soon or I feel there will be severe consequences for some unfortunate soul.

When will the city get a traffic light at this dangerous intersection? Lives depend on it.

Citizens of Ottawa should be rising up today against a snowjob by city council.

We had until December 15. Mayor O’Brien campaigned on a promise that we would take six months. It is a mystery as to why council was in such a rush to vote on December 6. Especially since the real debate was done in secret.

This is the largest capital project in the city’s history. As the people footing the bill, citizens of Ottawa deserved an open and public debate on the rail question. We deserved time to absorb it, make up our minds, and write our councillors. And there was time — another week. Yet the ink was barely dry on yesterday’s headlines when councillors voted their essentially-secret plan into place.

Councillors apparently did not debate the plan that generated significant interest from mayoral candidates, media and citizens during the election, namely the Friends of the O-Train plan. Let’s compare the plans:

The friends of the O-Train plan: take hundreds of buses off the downtown streets, maintain current popular O-Train service with the possibility of southward expansion. Cost: $400 million, benefit: clean up downtown.

Council’s plan: Ignore downtown. Replace the O-Train with a new technology on the same run, extend line to Barrhaven where everyone is a car lover anyway. Cost: $700 million, benefit: yawn.

Regarding the subway, this idea has been raised and killed more times than a zombie in a cheap slasher movie. It will never be built. Regarding the $70 million to start on the east-west line… that’s like a toddler saving his nickel allowance toward a shiny new car.

In their mad rush to settle this question, the councillors have done that most Canadian of things: they have compromised. We’re left with the poorest part of the old plan and we’ve lost all the benefit. Twenty points for teamwork, but minus 700 million for spending money wisely. Looks like we’re building ourselves an expensive white elephant instead of a reliable and efficient solution to a real transit problem.

Dear Councillor,

I am writing to urge you not to support a two-phase light rail plan calling for a downtown tunnel, and instead propose the Friends of the O-Train plan to council.

Although I support a rail technology to reduce congestion downtown, the subway is an ill-conceived and poorly thought out suggestion. There are three key reasons why I feel this is a bad idea:

1. Spending huge amounts of money to essentially replace the existing O-Train with a different technology on the same run makes no sense. The need for rail transit southward from downtown is already being serviced by the current technology, and it is not at capacity. Extension is possible.
2. The future subway project will likely never go forward. The massive expense of this solution will never fly in the current political environment against debt. It is unwise to pin the solution to our transit woes upon a “just so” story about how the project could be expanded later.
3. The right solution has already been proposed. The cheap, efficient, frequent and reliable plan put forward during the election by the Friends of the O-Train would cost much less than a tunnel. It would bring the same benefits in terms of reduction of buses downtown and improved transit.

The subway plan has not been considered by council or citizens and so it is improper to throw it out there and vote on it in a kneejerk manner.

It is not clear why the Friends of the O-Train plan is not being given serious consideration. It isn’t clear what’s wrong with this plan except that it did not originate within the transportation department.

I urge you to table the friends’ plan as an option. It is better thought out and more complete than the vague subway proposal, which can never work.

Hi James and Ian,

Thanks for your kind emails about the recording.

I’ve learned a huge amount in doing this project so far. The single-point stereo recording technique that I continue to be attracted to is brutally true to the space. My previous single-point recording was made at the Carsonby hall, a wonderful small wooden space that sounds so cozy that it enhances the sound of just about anything — even Sacred Harp! An ambient recording in that space gains as much from the room as from the singers. A stereo recording in the National Library is a different beast altogether. (In the future I would like to try tapping the house board and doing my own recording mix.)

Here’s the thing: I agree with everything you two have pointed out regarding the sound, but I don’t believe the problems overwhelm the enjoyment of listening to the recording. Although I would certainly love to have a recording that avoids some of the problems, I think there are many good reasons why this recording is worth putting on the air. James has brought up the important question of what a live field recording hopes to achieve, and what listeners will get from this kind of thing as opposed to simply airing a cut from the studio CD. I’m going to try to answer that question now.

I have the greatest of respect for the studio process, and for James’ recordings in particular. I love putting on great studio albums and your CD is a particular favourite. I don’t say this to be ingratiating, but because I want to go on and say that a great live recording can be as enjoyable — even if the studio album has better sound. At the risk of sounding like a separatist, I think live field recordings are in a different category from studio material… not better, not worse, just different.

To me, the watchword of the studio album process is ‘control’. It’s like a painting. The players and producer have in mind the result they want and the name of the game is to translate this vision to tape. You’ve spent your time arranging the material to your satisfaction, determining the sound you want and now you want to present this arrangement to the world. It can be refined over time to bring it into line with the vision. It can be a masterpiece.

A good field recording is never a masterpiece, even if it sounds great. The watchword is ‘document’ rather than ‘control’. It’s more like photography than painting. The best live field recordings can capture the essence of a live performance, which is the personality of the players coming out through the music in the kind of effortless groove that comes from jamming in front of an audience. And the sound of the audience on the recording makes the listener a part of that audience and brings them into the performance itself. You can become part of the event when you hear a live recording, and this allows you to form an emotional connection with the players that is different from the passive listener role that you are in when listening to a studio recording.

When I appreciate a studio recording I appreciate and enjoy focusing on the music and arrangements. When I listen to a live recording (or attend a concert) I gain appreciation for the band and the players as well as the tunes. Part of that rapport comes from (as James suggests) the amiable, informative and entertaining stage talk that is directed at the audience. I think this is where that sense of immediacy comes from too. The stage talk lends an insight into why the performer cares about the particular piece of music, and from this we gain insight into the performer themselves. So when James says that MFTG listeners would approach the recording differently (from his own personal emotional reaction) I am not sure I agree. (I hope I am not putting words in his mouth here.) In any case, I think that an acceptable field recording can make you wish you’d been there in a way that a studio recording isn’t focused on.

The last point I want to address is the question of how the recording will stand up next to produced material. I think there’s two aspects of that: imperfections in live material, and hearing the recordings side by side with studio quality tracks.

I think there is a charm to a live performance that includes little slips, inaccuracies, audience noise and, yes, ambient room sound. I know from listening to recordings of my own vocal trio (which is in stasis right now) how there is a tendency to focus in on those little slips and inadequacies. I hope that you and the band will fight this tendency because I can tell you from having it on around the house that it is an enjoyable record of a very enjoyable concert — the audience applause alone is testament to that.

In terms of its radio context, the good news is that the room sound which at first seems strange also serves to immediately clue the listener in to the fact that this recording is apart from the other material we tend to broadcast. It sounds like a field recording, so people will respond to it as such. Having said that, so far I have not played live material without accompanying it with comments about how and when it was recorded. I see no reason why we would not keep setting up the recordings in this manner (if for no other reason than to let people know that they can’t go out and buy a copy).

With the information that it’s a live field recording of a performance I think that live recordings will stand up quite nicely in MFTG sets. I think that our listeners turn on the radio because they want to learn more about the music. This means that they want to hear new bands and new studio albums, but they also want to learn more about the players they already know. I think the kind of connection that listeners can get from a live recording can go a long way to bringing them into things they may not be familiar with, and also tightening their connection to the local players and scene. I hope that ultimately people feel like they wished they’d been there and that encourages them to get out there and go to traditional music concerts.

If all these reasons weren’t enough, I think field recordings are important also for their documentary aspect. There is a rich tradition of field recordings in the folk community, and there is no reason that today’s performers shouldn’t be documented in this way. Of course, the purpose of this recording on my part is for MFTG and I am no Alan Lomax but you all have copies of this recording and the copyright is yours to share now or in the future should you wish to do so.

This is a tricky email because I want to stand up for the process and the idea of doing field recordings, but — philosophical views about field recordings aside — I don’t want you to feel pressured by me to release this particular field recording unless you’re comfortable with it. Of course I hope that you’ll agree that I can use it, but I will understand and chalk it up to experience if you ultimately decide that it is something you want to keep for yourselves.

Let me know either way.

Cheers,
Colin