the winnipeg sandbox
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
the winnipeg sandbox

Latest topics

» Gord Steeves should run for Mayor
by FlyingRat Wed Aug 13, 2014 4:58 pm

» To discontinue?
by EdWin Sat Jul 12, 2014 9:26 pm

» Sandbox breakfast get-together, Saturday, January 25, 2014.
by rosencrentz Fri Apr 11, 2014 11:27 pm

» 2013-14 Bisons/CIS Thread
by Hollywood Tue Apr 01, 2014 11:56 pm

» Katz must resign
by cobragt Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:09 pm

» Best Breakfast/Brunch
by cobragt Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:07 pm

» Manitoba Action Party
by RogerStrong Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:24 pm

» Police Respond to a silent alarm With Guns Drawn
by EdWin Tue Aug 20, 2013 10:10 pm

» Details about Cineplex SuperTicket -- interesting promotion
by MattKel Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:08 pm

» Freep locks out non-subscriber commentary
by Deank Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:58 pm

» 7-year sentence for Berlusconi
by FlyingRat Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:32 pm

» New Stadium
by grumpy old man Mon May 27, 2013 4:34 pm

» Winnipeg News Android App
by grumpy old man Mon May 27, 2013 4:33 pm

» First Post
by grumpy old man Fri May 24, 2013 2:43 pm

» The New Sals at Pembina and Stafford
by grumpy old man Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:35 pm

» Emma Watson wants to do nude scenes for 50 shades of grey movie
by FlyingRat Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:39 am

» Museum finally admits it needs to raise more money priovately.
by FlyingRat Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:32 am

» And You Thought Your Taxes Are High Now!!!
by FlyingRat Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:21 am

» free chocolate sample
by cobragt Sun Mar 31, 2013 6:12 pm

» Do you want a gift certificate for A winnipeg restraunt?
by cobragt Sun Mar 31, 2013 6:12 pm


You are not connected. Please login or register

We don't need no stinkin' development in Winnipeg...

+7
EdWin
jimj_wpg
Electrician
rosencrentz
AGEsAces
Deank
grumpy old man
11 posters

Go to page : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 5]

grumpy old man

grumpy old man
administrator
administrator

The following column by Colin Craig from today's Sun speaks volumes. Add in the CMHR and the Winnipeg Stadium to the equation. This seeming complete aversion to development in Winnipeg has me baffled. I understand that significant tax dollars have to be invested for some development to proceed. And I understand that maybe there is better use of those monies.

Yet any time a new development is announced the blades come out in Winnipeg and we send the developer scampering away, tail between his legs, maybe never to return. Is this attitude unique to Winnipeg? I believe it is. I wonder why we fight so hard against development?
Remember the "whack a mole" carnival game at the Red River Ex? That's the game where a plastic mole pops up through a hole and you have to hit it on the head with a giant mallet.

Many developers and entrepreneurial ideas in Winnipeg have been treated a lot like the mole in recent years. It seems every time a good development idea comes along, it gets whacked on the head by the city, the province or the ever-present anti-development crowd.

Consider the recent proposal to build two new apartment towers on Whellams Lane in North Kildonan. That proposal would have seen a $50-million investment in our city generating approximately $500,000 in annual property taxes. As we're in the middle of an economic slowdown, most cities in North America are frothing at the mouth for that scale of development.

But due to opposition from a vocal "not in my backyard" crowd and a lack of council support, the proposal was pulled by the developer. Certainly some kind of compromise could have been worked out prior to that result. Not surprisingly, the developer is now looking at investing in Alberta or Saskatchewan. Whack! The Olywest pork plant proposal from a few years ago is another great example. That project would have invested $200 million in our city and created hundreds of new jobs. We all know what happened to that initiative. Whack!

Who could forget the idea of putting "condos in the parking lot." It was such a "green" development idea, even David Suzuki probably would have supported it. Had it proceeded, rarely used parking lot space at the south end of the zoo would have been turned into a small condo development. Proceeds from that project could have been used to fix up the park.

As we all know, shortly after the idea was floated, the anti-development crowd whipped people into a frenzy and began a fear-mongering campaign that the park's beautiful green space was going to get scarred by development all over the place. To this day, few people know that not a blade of park grass would have been uprooted by that proposal. Whack!

Perhaps the most surprising "whack" in recent years was against the proposal to build a new condo building beside the remains of Upper Fort Garry in downtown Winnipeg. After all, for decades, people have been clamouring for more condo and apartment units in the downtown area.

Even though the developer was extremely accommodating in preserving the existing ruins, people still found a problem with it. Suddenly Winnipeg needed a park downtown more than new condo units. Whack! Whack! Whack!

Were each of those projects perfect? Perhaps not, but consider the recent "bend over backwards" customer service that Ikea received from the city and provincial government. All kinds of capital upgrades like the widening of Kenaston are being sped up to help move the project along. It's probably fair to say that there have been dozens of phone calls and behind-the-scenes meetings to make that project move forward. If only other projects got that level of "let's make it work" support government and the "anti-development" crowd in this city. Hopefully it's a sign of times to come.

-- Colin Craig is the provincial director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.



Last edited by grumpy old man on Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:26 pm; edited 2 times in total

Guest

Anonymous
Guest

Yes Jenny Gerbasi and friends pull a lot of weight but the point is true , I was not a supporter of Oly West in that Location As it impacted my house not Sam's, So I do see some of what people say when it impacts their own home . But the Whellams Lane thing probably could have found a compromise to the height thing, yet I would not want someone looking in My back yard either.
There is always two sides and for someone who is not directly involved it is easy to bring out the development argument .

Deank

Deank
contributor eminence
contributor eminence

There is a distinct difference between allowing developers to do whatever they want and actually listening to the public. If we had a vote on some of the bigger projects would that make it better when we refuse them? Or is simply having the meetings we have sufficient but add on the fact that EPC could NOT overturn a local committee.

grumpy old man

grumpy old man
administrator
administrator

Yes, actually. Let's hold a plebiscite for some of the major projects. Take the Whellams Lane project. I wholly agree and understand the immediate neighbours concerns. But they only speak for themselves. Why not let the whole city or the entire neighbourhood decide in a plebiscite?

Maybe that project completely sucked for the immediate neighbours but provided much needed housing for the area?

Guest

Anonymous
Guest

The people who did not want it were heard then voted over by a committee, that has caused alot of anger. Maybe the city needs to have better planing controls .

Deank

Deank
contributor eminence
contributor eminence

" Maybe the city needs to have better planing controls ."

exactly
dont zone an area one thing and then allow a company to come in and change it over the will of the people who live there...

Guest

Anonymous
Guest

grumpy old man wrote: Why not let the whole city or the entire neighbourhood decide in a plebiscite?

Maybe that project completely sucked for the immediate neighbours but provided much needed housing for the area?
For the greater good eh Comrade.

This is a slope we should never consider going down imho....it smacks of what goes on in countries I do not wish to live in.

grumpy old man

grumpy old man
administrator
administrator

Really? How so comrade? You say such things just to push peeps buttons?

How is asking a neighbourhood to decide any different then the immediately concerned?

AGEsAces

AGEsAces
moderator
moderator

I'd agree.

If I was a property owner and some conglomerate decided to build a big apartment block next door. I'd probably protest as well. And if the city overrides my complaint...I'd probably try to file federally to get it blocked (or burn the place down).

"Good for the city" or not shouldn't matter if it depreciates an areas value, or perception of quality of life to the existing residents.

It's as bad as that stadium announcement for Point Douglas...though the Point Douglas area is run down and in disrepair...the owners of that property have rights too. And unless they are WILLING to sell their property for development...the city (nor any government) should be allowed to remove them for property enhancement or development.

http://www.photage.ca

Guest

Anonymous
Guest

grumpy old man wrote:Really? How so comrade? You say such things just to push peeps buttons?

It seems like the appropriate comment to me...sorry if it offends you but, to allow the little guy to be screwed over for "the greater good" sounds like something that comes out of a country where people call themselves this name.

How is asking a neighbourhood to decide any different then the immediately concerned?
Well, a neighbourhood is much different that the population as a whole, which a plebicite is all about.

When these people bought into the neighbourhood, certain conditions were in place. To change the rules during the game is blatantly wrong.

I wonder if the developer would be as enthusiastic if he had to compensate these folks with some ca$h? (which is an alternative no?)

grumpy old man

grumpy old man
administrator
administrator

Or as bad as that BRT proposal. Ooops. Maybe not that one. Or perhaps the dealership owner alone could scuttle something that might well be in the very best interest of the city as a whole?

We cannot be held hostage due to a few special interest groups. If a development will depreciate the value of one's property take the developer to court. Or the city. Or province... Or negotiate in advance. Maybe sell your property to the developer.

How in god's name does any city grow if development can be so easily nixed? The trick I believe is a well conceived plan. One that considers immediate needs and long range needs.

Guest

Anonymous
Guest

That's what a Planning Department does GOM. Very Happy

grumpy old man

grumpy old man
administrator
administrator

I wonder how many people are so naive as to think things will never change. I once bought a house in a neighbourhood of like houses (very small bungalows) up and down the street. A developer started buying up all the houses across the street with the aim of putting up a couple dozen row houses. And they did.

The density was needed but that was not the vision I had for the area. But certainly that is how cities grow and develop and maybe prosper. That is a reality.

Guest

Anonymous
Guest

A city will never prosper if it is run by developers. By definition.

grumpy old man

grumpy old man
administrator
administrator

Great leap to a conclusion. By definition.

AGEsAces

AGEsAces
moderator
moderator

The BRT is another prime example of the city overstepping it's authority.

Yes...that auto-dealer should be allowed to prevent the development of the BRT...and/or be adequately compensated.

My understanding is, he had plans for construction and expansion of the property...which would (hope) to increase his income. Those plans would be thwarted (and thus cause the owner a greater expense) should the BRT "FORCE" it's way through his land.

This is where they city planning committee should be more diligent. They should have reviewed the properties involved and approached the owners with the offer of a sales contract BEFORE announcing a confirmed route. They SHOULD have come to agreements (with the option to withdrawal) with the property owners PRIOR to threatening to TAKE the land away.

If I was that auto-dealer...I would be offended on a personal level...and probably block the BRT out of spite, even if I thought it was a good idea.

Ironically...the city would be allowed to install an elevated rail or monorail system ABOVE his property...and even drive piles and pillars for support ON his property, without even asking for permission. Because they city already owns "Right-of-way" variances over ALL property within the city limits above and below ground levels.

http://www.photage.ca

rosencrentz

rosencrentz
uber-contributor
uber-contributor

Winnipeg has too many "loserpegs", people who do not want anything different! City Council is there to look after "proper" developments!
i have been to one council meeting where 57 people were against a condo development on an abandoned bridge because there would be too much traffic on their street! give me a break!
Anything that will generate tax income for the city should be looked at, as well as local concerns regarding building height etc. Too much traffic is such a lame ass concern, and the council approved the condos on the bridge about 3 years ago, and if you drive over the St James bridge today you can see the beautiful result! That Alec Katz, architect, from Stechasin, Katz was a visionary in purchasing that rust bucket of an unused railway bridge!!

Good for him, and his company!!
It probably didn't hurt that Alec Katz and Mayor Katz are brothers, are both from the North End, and attend the same synagogue!

http://www.elansofas.com

grumpy old man

grumpy old man
administrator
administrator

AGEsAces wrote:Yes...that auto-dealer should be allowed to prevent the development of the BRT...and/or be adequately compensated.
Just so I'm clear ONE person should be able to scuttle the BRT? If that was a reality Winnipeg would extend from Selkirk to the US border and from Ontario to Saskatchewan.

NO, fortunately common sense prevails. And thankfully expropriation is allowed.

Please don't jump to any conclusions. As I said earlier peeps need to negotiate fair value. Same applies to dealership dude...

Guest

Anonymous
Guest

And our taxes will pay for all the compensation. I think if he had wanted 2or4 story blocks he might have got it he wanted 15 I believe .



Last edited by Pavolo on Tue Dec 30, 2008 5:42 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : added)

grumpy old man

grumpy old man
administrator
administrator

Yes. That is one reason for paying taxes. To help in the development and betterment of our city.

Guest

Anonymous
Guest

yes but if we pay to much then the peeps will complaine that someone got more then they did and why is he or she getting subsidise and on and on you know look at the CMHR. Crying or Very sad

AGEsAces

AGEsAces
moderator
moderator

Expropriation is a long ambiguous word for theft, extortion, and forced taxes.

It is (in essence) armed robbery...because if the guy who purchased the land legally, pays his bills, pays his taxes decides to stand up and say "I will not give you MY land". The Government will TAKE the land, and if the guy shows up to stop them, armed thugs (the cops) will be directed to prevent him from doing so.

I do agree that the city needs to have room for development, and that one individual preventing things can prove to be costly and annoying. But it is one of the advantages to live in a "free" country, where land ownership is held individually instead of by the government. Where in other countries, the government OWNS all the land, and the people are only "leasing" it for use.

This is why many newer local governments in the US have "Incorporated". They filed land claims to cover their town/city limits in order to allow for expropriation without recourse from "owners". What the "owners" don't read when they purchase a home and property, is that the town/city actually owns right-of-way variances for development or expansion.

http://www.photage.ca

grumpy old man

grumpy old man
administrator
administrator

Your argument is extremist and alarmist AA. Expropriation is rarely used to acquire land in Winnipeg. I understand that action was last taken 30 - 40 years ago? In this case that one business owner should never be allowed to stop that transit corridor.

We best be careful how we are proceeding regarding the development of this city. We will get so completely bogged down as to stop anything of significance.

There are not dozens of peeps with fistfuls of money knocking down our doors with offers to invest in Winnipeg. Every single member of the sandbox screams for improvements to the city as long as it is a) not in my back yard and 2) no public money is spent.

I grow weary of this fight. Imagine how developers feel.

Deank

Deank
contributor eminence
contributor eminence

grumpy old man wrote:Your argument is extremist and alarmist AA. Expropriation is rarely used to acquire land in Winnipeg. I understand that action was last taken 30 - 40 years ago? In this case that one business owner should never be allowed to stop that transit corridor.

We best be careful how we are proceeding regarding the development of this city. We will get so completely bogged down as to stop anything of significance.

There are not dozens of peeps with fistfuls of money knocking down our doors with offers to invest in Winnipeg. Every single member of the sandbox screams for improvements to the city as long as it is a) not in my back yard and 2) no public money is spent.

I grow weary of this fight. Imagine how developers feel.

uhh.. no it was just a few years ago.. right downtown...

grumpy old man

grumpy old man
administrator
administrator

Name it DeanK... Date and place sil vous plais. And a link. Yeah a link. We must have links.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 5]

Go to page : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum