In The Review’s Wednesday, August 26 edition, a paid advertisement about Alto touted the benefits of the proposed high-speed rail project to agriculture. But one has to ask: Will a project that takes valuable agricultural land out of production and removes forests benefit agriculture?
The Alto agriculture ad has created a tempest of shaming directed at The Review via Facebook. Just because The Review published this advertisement does not mean its management and staff are advocating for the high-speed rail project.
There isn’t much that we have not already said before. Construction will be disruptive and land where food is grown will be lost. Farmers not only ensure people have food to eat, but their activities contribute to the local economy. Why would we want to lose food production and the economic advantages it brings to our community?
And then there is this: This train will transport largely urban-dwelling passengers. It will not have a stop in Vankleek Hill or any other local small towns making it easier for area residents to get to Ottawa or Montréal for work, education, medical appointments, or entertainment. The high-speed train will not be used to transport crops or livestock to market. The Alto people chose the wording of the advertisement in our August 26 edition badly. By saying the project will benefit agriculture, it only inflamed the already tense, skeptical, and angry mood among many in our local, primarily agricultural, region.
In the midst of the uncertainty sparked by the 10-kilometre study corridor, municipal officials are voicing their discontent. Efforts by Alto to manipulate local municipal officials through nondisclosure agreements to gain access to public lands for study purposes have made politicians stand firm.
At the federal level, communication with citizens has been frustrating. Residents feel ignored by their local federal representative. Provincial officials, while sympathetic, can only make recommendations because railroads are a federal responsibility. Municipal governments have very little influence either, although the United Counties of Prescott and Russell is attempting to take an aggressive role to convey opposition to Alto to federal officials.
Route planning for Alto has been disappointing. An independently-developed map plotting the locations where residents received property access requests in recent months indicates where the final route study area will likely be. However, Alto has not confirmed this. It should have done this in the interest of transparency and as a way of mitigating public anxiety. From the outset, there has been no exploration of designating the route along existing highway or rail corridors, or utility corridors such as natural gas or electrical transmission lines as a way of mitigating the impact on agricultural land. Notices from Alto to property owners have left anxiety and worry in their wake.
The $60 to $90 billion estimated cost of the Alto project is a significant concern, particularly when existing VIA passenger rail service is so poor and in need of significant improvement. A possible projected profit 50 years down the road should be unacceptable to Canadians.
In the weeks to come, you will see advertisements placed by local municipal candidates asking you to vote for them. Ads from all three Champlain mayoralty candidates does not mean The Review is asking you to vote for all three.
Advertisements are advertisements containing content paid for by the advertisers.
News stories aim to be fair and representative of both sides.
Editorials are where the editor’s opinions are expressed, problems and challenges are aired and more: a good editorial presents not just the problem, but a solution.
Since the Alto proposal emerged, The Review has consistently covered activities in opposition of it, and we will continue to do so. The Review has published many letters to the editor in opposition of Alto, and we will continue to do so. We do this because it reflects the sentiment of our community based on the very real and serious challenges that we and our friends and neighbours are facing.
Social media bashing is a well-understood sign of our times. We get it. You took your outrage against the Alto project and directed it at us.
Whether or not there are a few Alto ads in The Review, or you endure the many sponsored Alto ads coming at you on Facebook, one thing is clear: the Alto project is ill-conceived with a flimsy rationale behind it. The Canadian public deserves better.
On Friday, August 28, The Review contacted the Alto corporation explaining this advertisement has led to a negative response from some citizens. We told them to not try to explain that the project will benefit agriculture when popular opinion, especially among the agricultural community, does not believe it will benefit them. We also included a series of requests from Alto. Those include: Show an understanding that people are angry and afraid; communicate more often and more directly; find a way to engage with, and educate rural residents in a way that facilitates constructive discussion without excessively neutralizing the issue or provoking hostility; and, run a full-page advertisement in The Review, and any other publication the advertisement in our August 26 edition appeared in, acknowledging the poorly conceived premise of that advertisement and a promise to better understand the agricultural community. We await their response.
In response to their dissatisfaction with the Alto advertisement, The Review has also offered at least two farmers the opportunity to share their story about why they oppose Alto. Neither has accepted this offer. The Review has also offered a group opposing Alto a free advertisement for their next event.
Before approval of this $90-billion project, let’s continue to press for this project to be reviewed to better meet the needs of Canadians.
