Residential growth survey a pointless exercise

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 28/06/2018 (2662 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Our mayor wants you to think the city cares about your neighbourhood. However, the latest OurWinnipeg survey is more of a how-to guide for justifying big developments near you. 

As a neighbourhood activist for the past 10 years, I have never heard any planner or councillor or developer (or mayor) jump up and cheer, “Put that humongous project right next door to me!” 

Instead, the city’s recently closed survey wanted you to tell them to put it pretty much on top of your house. 

The city’s first premise was conjecture: “Winnipeg’s population is expected to grow by 200,000 over the next 20 years.” Who exactly was doing this expecting, and on what evidence? 

From the start, beware green bait-and-switch tactics like “We need the taxes!” “Let’s prevent urban sprawl!” and “We need housing!” 

Some facts. Did you know that housing already exists, and we used to be able to get city renovation rebates? Mind you, development is not about housing. Developers sell, not to residents, but to entrepreneurs, who sell to smaller businesses, who sell to others then keep bartering ad infinitum. Also, the tax-increase ploy is not what you think. Taxes from your community go back to developers in grants, subsidies, free land, tax freezes (12 years) and outright gifts ($6 million for the SkyCity condo project). And suburban homes appeal to a different market than inner-city condos. Developers follow the money. 

Back to the survey. First question: Prioritization Criteria. It gave you a lot of cleverly disguised “Would you rathers.” Build where it is feasible, or not? Support the walk/bike potential, or not? Is proximity to destinations important or not? This one was stupidly clever; it made you want high-rises in mature neighbourhoods instead of density-immune suburbs.

Next, let’s all hold hands and reduce city costs… or not. In spite of everything residents tell the planning department, the answer the city seeks is: “Rip up that useless golf course for gigantic towers to rejuvenate our under-achieving sewers!” The very last question wanted you to applaud, “Build loads more condos along off-piste developer-led transit routes!” In summary, these prioritization criteria made you agree with everything the city does for… not you. 

And yet, Winnipeggers are passionate about their quality of neighbourhood life. We say so at every public consultation. We keep asking the city to collaborate with us. We have valuable lived experience that can cut costs and improve projects. 

So, wouldn’t it be a wonderful surprise to see, when a resident offers current, local and accurate evidence, the faces of a city planner light up with glee? 

While waiting for that happy day, consider the second half of this survey: prioritization sub-criteria. First, it asked you in a charming way to support skyscrapers near large employment centres. That means in mature neighbourhoods, because they surround downtown. The city coyly forgot to mention this. How close will 200,000 more people want to be to shopping? You know the answer. Will people want to live near grocery stores and banks? Say yes, and again yes. What about leisure — won’t these new folks want to be near a rink or a park — if any remain? The final question was serious. Will all these people (and their service trucks, babies in strollers, student boarders, visitors and relatives coming for holidays) appreciate living beside bowling alleys? At last, something any reasonable citizen can support. 

You might want to have a bit of fun writing the OurWinnipeg team, just to let them know how you feel about surveys that discredit community needs. The Office of Public Engagement will be interested, also.

Say that overpopulation, traffic congestion, lack of children’s safety, heavy construction, pollution, sewage backups and wiping out urban forests all really stink. 

Tell the city this survey was biased, disrespectful of public input and unfair. Offer your lived experience. It is far more valuable than this kind of conjecture-based developer-led decision-making. 

Bev Pike is a neighbourhood activist who believes the city should take back its designation of Lord Roberts as an Area of Major Transformation, which was made without public input.