I am writing to follow up on the report and associated editorial on comments attributed to Mac Harb on the NCC’s vision for downtown Ottawa/Hull in your Oct. 9 issue.
. . . I was at the same meeting as your reporter and thought it would be useful to let your readers know that the comments attributed to Mac Harb are not what I heard at the meeting.
In fact, the conclusion that I drew from the meeting was that Mr. Harb is doing everything he can to learn the views of the community without expressing a personal opinion with respect to the NCC’s “vision” for the core of the National Capital Region, including Ottawa Centre.
I recall Mr. Harb saying how impressed he is with the NCC’s communications on this topic and that the vision being presented is quite far- reaching (he might have even described it as “fabulous”).
But he also emphasized Metcalfe Street is only one part of the NCC’s overall “vision”. He also drew the attention of the group to the sub-options presented for Metcalfe Street, including the option of leaving the residential area south of Laurier Street untouched.
This was news to me as I thought the plan to widen Metcalfe Street all the way to the Museum would be an all-or-nothing idea. Obviously this is one idea, but there are other alternatives to consider too, including opening up the street scape only as far as Queen Street or even Laurier.
It is true that the town hall meeting did not draw a large number of people, but those who were there seemed pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the NCC’s vision and they welcomed Mr. Harb’s participation and interest.
I thought he presented the background information in a thorough and forthright way, but I did not hear him express a personal preference nor did he try to direct any one else’s thinking.
Paul J. Murray
Grange Avenue