Letters,

Multiple approaches required downtown

Re: Frustration, not fear, swells in Exchange after drug crackdown (July 9)

The recent coverage of Winnipeg’s drug crisis makes it sound as though compassion and public safety are somehow opposites. They are not.

One business owner said she was “absolutely enraged” by the police response and insisted, “This is not an unsafe situation” because she was not personally seeing violence.

That is a remarkably narrow way to judge public safety.

Open drug use, trafficking, discarded needles, severe intoxication and repeated overdoses are safety issues, even when nobody is being assaulted at that exact moment. The article described a business owner who has been assaulted twice while helping people, including being struck in the neck with a two-by-four. It also describes people overdosing outside businesses and a woman standing incapacitated in the middle of traffic.

That is not a safe or acceptable situation.

The business owner’s personal experience matters, but it does not erase the experiences of residents, workers and other business owners who have been asking police for help. Compassion for people struggling with addiction should not require everyone else to pretend that public disorder is harmless.

It is fair to criticize police for not co-ordinating the operation properly with outreach and health agencies. Moving people from one area to another without treatment, shelter or medical support will not solve the crisis.

But saying police action “doesn’t do anything” is also simplistic. Police are being asked to respond to trafficking, warrants, public intoxication and disorder created by failures in health care, housing and addiction treatment.

The answer is not enforcement alone. It is also not to normalize open drug use and expect ordinary citizens and business owners to manage overdoses and dangerous behaviour themselves.

Winnipeg needs enforcement, outreach, treatment, shelter and health services working together. Denying that a serious public-safety problem exists does not help anyone.

Marc Robichaud

Winnipeg

Winnipeg needs a new urban vision

As Winnipeg approaches its civic election, the departure of several city councillors should be viewed as more than a routine political transition. For too long, Winnipeg’s urban development has been shaped by short-term decisions rather than a clear, long-term vision.

Our city continues to face major challenges: aging infrastructure, increasing traffic congestion, urban sprawl, inadequate public transit, and a growing need for affordable housing.

These problems did not appear overnight, but they reflect years of planning choices that have often prioritized expansion over sustainability. Winnipeg cannot continue spreading outward while struggling to maintain the roads, services, and infrastructure needed to support existing communities.

The next council must seriously reconsider how the city grows. Building more suburban developments without ensuring access to reliable transit, schools, parks, and essential services only increases costs for taxpayers. A stronger focus is needed on creating complete communities where people can live, work, and access services without depending on a vehicle for every trip.

Public transit is another area where Winnipeg has fallen behind. A modern city requires a transit system that is dependable, frequent, and accessible. What Winnipeg truly needs is a comprehensive transportation strategy that reduces congestion, supports economic development, and provides residents with realistic alternatives to driving.

Housing affordability also demands urgent action. A growing city must provide a range of housing options for seniors, families, students, and low-income residents.

The arrival of new councillors brings both uncertainty and hope. While experience at city hall has value, voters should expect new representatives to challenge outdated approaches and bring practical solutions. Candidates should be judged not only by their promises but by their understanding of responsible urban planning, financial management, environmental challenges, and the needs of diverse communities.

This election should not simply be about replacing councillors; it should be about deciding what kind of Winnipeg we want to build.

Yog Rahi Gupta

Winnipeg

Public vs. private pipelines

Re: Pipelines must be paid for by oil companies (July 9)

I agree with the writer and his assessment of the damage the burning of fossil fuels is doing to the environment, and it is desirable to reduce these noxious greenhouse gases as soon as possible to save the planet. Transition to an electric future is de rigueur.

But what must be emphasized is that oil is going to be around for a long time. Its uses extend far beyond gasoline or diesel being burned in internal combustion engines. It is used for everything from plastics, lubricants, waxes, paints, pharmaceuticals, medical equipment … the list goes on. No substitutes for oil for these needs are on the horizon. And some will still be needed for jet fuel and large ships, in spite of how much we want to reduce their emissions. Yes, demand will decline but the timeline is not clear. Certainly decades, hopefully sooner.

To insist that oil companies pay for the pipelines is not the right way to go. The government, the Canadian public, should and must own the pipelines. That will guarantee that any benefits will accrue to Canada and not leave the country or fatten the bank accounts of the billionaire class. In fact, all energy should be owned and controlled by our government. Any private or foreign ownership is unacceptable.

These energy sources include hydro (already government-owned in Manitoba), solar, wind, and possibly nuclear energy.

We are close to ownership now of our oil resources. The Trans Mountain pipeline is owned by the Canadian government and the tar sands, except for extraction processes, are Canadian-owned, albeit privately. And yes, profits are still leaving the country at an unacceptable level. All the more reason for public ownership, which will curtail this outflow and allow for an orderly and profitable transition to an electric tomorrow, somewhat similar to what Norway is doing. The revenues and profits from its oil resources are being saved for the future. That is a direct result of Norway’s almost total control over oil. Let’s get on with it.

Robert Milan

Victoria, B.C.

Leave well enough alone

Re: “Time to move on?” (Letters, July 10)

Letter writer Kerry Arksey thinks we need to get rid of the monarchy. I disagree. I think the system we have is working very well.

We have much more important problems to deal with than a monarchy/constitutional issue — such, as poor productivity, which is making us all less wealthy, inflation, expensive housing and food, to name a few.

Then we have homelessness, violence that is escalating quickly, judges who release violent offenders to re-offend, a legal system that releases dangerous sex offenders into our society so they can hurt more people rather than declaring them dangerous offenders and keep them out of society, a medical system that has huge problems.

If I were to make a longer list, I don’t think the monarchy “issue” would be in my Top 20. If Arksey thinks we need to be a republic, take a closer look at the U.S.A. and ask if that is an improvement to what we have. Not in my books!

What we have is just fine. Let’s solve real problems and leave window dressing for the next century or later.

Ray Hignell

Winnipeg