Fund the change Winnipeg needs

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 27/06/2024 (459 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

My kids picked up the Summer 2024 “Priceless Fun Free Programs” guide at the library. It was a thin booklet.

There are fewer options than in the past, though Winnipeg families struggle with higher household costs and stagnant wages. The guide’s size indicates a much bigger problem. While costs rise, free recreation options are not keeping up. The current city government’s priorities don’t fix the systemic problems that result. As officials debate spending priorities, few politicians grasp the cause and effect of their actions. Crime, housing, homelessness, lack of transportation or amenities are all crucial problems. The city and province budgets do not solve these issues.

Crime is on the agenda. As a parent, I see what kids get up to without readily available, convenient activities that are free or low-cost. Even ‘good’ kids can get into trouble with unstructured time. No amount of law enforcement expenditure keeps crime down when there’s nothing productive for unsupervised youths to do. The best crime reduction may be redirection. Support programs at non-profits run by qualified workers can help.

Many downtown facilities which support kids, like Art City or the Neighbourhood Centre, in West Broadway, are threatened with funding cuts. These non-profit facilities rely on city grants to support operating costs. Non-profits provide cooling spaces and creative, innovative programming. These workers offer low-cost learning activities to keep kids busy. Cut their operating costs and those kids end up doing far less productive things with their time.

Another example is the Happyland Pool closure in St. Boniface. This was a free recreation option that could be operated and maintained at low cost. Community members even raised over $85,000 to contribute to this year’s cost. The pool could increase hours, offer swimming lessons, and bring more value to a lower income area. Instead, the city closed this facility entirely. Note: this week, the city and province announced the construction of two new tennis/pickleball courts in Waverley West at a cost of $293,500. This money would have covered the upkeep and repair of an already existing amenity that serves far more users in St. Boniface.

There’s increasing and necessary pressure from the federal government to create infill to meet our country’s housing shortage. New dense housing areas, in established neighbourhoods, could fix this problem. However, our city actively removes amenities like community centres, pools, and youth supports to help fund expensive projects in newer suburban areas.

If one consults a tax map though, our core city neighbourhoods pay high taxes. That money trickles out of the downtown based on current budgeting. Instead, it goes to recreational facilities and big roads for the new, city-edge neighbourhoods.

New upscale development isn’t providing sufficient affordable housing to meet current needs, never mind anticipating future federal immigration goals. Instead, we’re facing emergencies with existing housing, such as Birchwood Terrace. A city that prioritizes upkeep, inspections, restoration and requires repair of housing stock saves money and infrastructure. If maintained properly, updating older structures can cost less than building new. It avoids unnecessary demolition. Better upkeep keeps these buildings out of the landfill. It’s better for the environment. ‘New’ is not always better.

We’re losing our diverse cityscape, full of historic housing, to new luxury condo fourplexes in this infill process. Yes, older buildings require upkeep. Yet, big cities like Paris, London, and New York manage to maintain their older housing stock through maintenance, repair, and regulation. Fund city housing inspectors. Create tax breaks for maintaining and upgrading existing housing.

Our city is also considering an enormous project on Kenaston Boulevard, funded in large part by long-term debt. Building bigger roads on the outskirts of our city doesn’t improve active or public transportation. It encourages more vehicles on the road. If we densify our city, according to the federal funding requirements, we must invest in better transport in the core instead.

If our city’s concerns are crime, affordability, housing and homelessness, amenities and transportation, our leaders must reconsider their budget choices. Actions have consequences.

For many, fewer “free city programs” means more work for parents. We want busy and productive kids. For others, fewer pools and community centres, less social housing, and lack of public transportation means a boost in people without safe cool spaces in heatwaves and an attendant crime increase. Reconsider where we direct funding. We need fewer highways to big recreation centres that put our city in debt. Instead, we need lower cost, more dependable inner-city infrastructure. Boost amenities to meet the needs of our growing city.

Joanne Seiff is an opinion writer and author from Winnipeg.