As a tenant who resides in a building managed by Triole Investments, I found it unfortunate that your reporter didn’t ask to see a copy of the ‘questionnaire’ which was distributed to the tenants in our buildings.
It began with an implied statement that our rents would be raised substantially if this bridge were to be built, followed by the question as to whether we would support it or not.
Needless to say, most tenants opposed the bridge based on the information provided by Triole Investments. The result was based on information which was biased and misleading, hardly the signs of proper impartial research, and most tenants responded by voting out of fear.
What most tenants did not understand was that city staff had already allocated the total cost of the bridge at an average of 21 cents per taxpayer. In addition, municipal taxes must rise an average of 2.5 per cent before such costs can be passed on to the tenants, meaning tenants were mislead into believing the bridge costs would significantly impact their rents.
In addition, it should be noted that the results were based on a very small survey: there are more than 400 tenants in these buildings, meaning those who opposed the bridge (all 27 of them!) represented only 6.5 per cent of the total tenants. Some tenants indicated they didn’t bother submitting a response since they felt the survey was obviously biased against the project.
It is for these reasons that Mr. Ducharme received a rather lukewarm response when he presented his “research” on Jan. 24.
I hope this is the last time that Triole Investments tries to influence the political process by manipulating their own tenants.

Rob MacDonald
Somerset Street W.

Although I personally don’t see the need for the proposed bridge, I’m certainly not surprised the results from the survey conducted by Triole Investments garnered such lop-sided results.
Triole manager Doug Ducharme said the final tally counted 27 opposed and four in support. But considering the letter attached with the survey drew direct comparisons between the city’s capital budget and rent increases, it’s easy to see why.
I know I personally received notice of a rent increase the same day as I received the survey.
Moreover, the residents who live in this building aren’t likely the ones it’s meant to help. Not only do we live close to the Laurier Bridge, but the rent charged for the apartments is too expensive for most students or people on low or fixed incomes to afford.
These people might be better served by a second bridge.
Although people in this building and other similar buildings are entitled to share their views, Somerset Coun. Diane Holmes must represent all residents and take their opinions into account.
If the survey had been representative of the entire ward, and conducted by an unbiased third party, the results would have likely been different.

Rob MacDonald
Somerset Street W.