Cell towers, urban planning, and frustration

Opinion

For those of you concerned about the growing suppression of public dissent while casting your eyes southwards, sadly, one need look no further than the City of Winnipeg’s very own urban planning department for similar signs of the rise of autocracy.

Since last autumn, residents of south Winnipeg’s Fairfield Park and surrounding areas have been in an ongoing battle with the department in an effort to prevent the erection of a highly visible freestanding Bell MTS cell tower in the heart of a densely populated residential community. The city has turned a deaf ear to public sentiment, but that is only the tip of the iceberg.

The fact that the planning department has chosen to ignore the widespread public opposition to the tower is one thing, but their stubborn refusal to adequately address the public’s questions regarding the rationale for a new tower is dumbfounding.

If that was the only concern, one might simply chalk it up to bureaucractic issue avoidance. But the concerns do not stop there.

City planning has also decided to either ignore or override certain core requirements outlined in both the city’s antenna systems policy and established guidelines published by the federal government. Here are the unsettling specifics.

The city’s policy makes it clear that a tower applicant must provide details as to “potential alternative locations” to the proposed site. After a painstaking and through investigation of all the possible alternative sites, we discovered that city planning agreed to entertain Bell MTS’s proposal with absolutely no evidence of any alternate sites being considered. That’s correct, none!

The policy also clearly states that the applicant must explore the option of sharing space on an existing tower prior to submitting a proposal to the city. We spoke directly with Rogers Communications, which has an existing tower located at nearby 2656 Pembina Hwy. Once again, Bell MTS made absolutely no attempt to discuss sharing antenna space on the Rogers’ tower and the planning department failed to enforce this core requirement, too.

The policy also states that the landowners of property located within an 81-metre radius of the proposed tower must be advised in writing, along with similar notices sent to any tenants. In this instance, Bell MTS sent a notice to an incorrect mailing address for the landowner of the nearby Fairfield Apartments.

The city then neglected to compel Bell MTS to reissue a notice to the correct mailing address. If that were not enough, city planners refused to admit that tenants also needed to be notified. Only after repeated email requests did the planning department finally compel Bell MTS to do so.

One of the core “objectives” of the city’s antenna systems policy is to “ensures the City and members of the public contribute local knowledge that facilitates and influences the siting — location…” It also states that “local residents’ questions, comments and concerns are important elements to be considered …”

Unfortunately, these priorities do not appear to be either acknowledged or shared by the planning division. They have continually referred to clauses contained within the policy as only being “guidelines” and that they have the ultimate discretion as to whether or not they should be followed.

It is evident that some employees of the city’s city planning department feel that they have absolute veto power over policies approved by city council. Given this, the “tail is clearly wagging the dog” if the planning, property and development department has more power than city council in terms of determining public policy.

Although this issue relates to a Bell MTS cell tower proposal for 50 Barnes St., it should not be considered an isolated local issue. The ability of the city’s various departments to waive, or ignore, established procedures should be of concern to all Winnipeggers. (For more detailed information on the Barnes tower proposal, please visit www.change.org/p/petition-to-oppose-the-erection-of-a-bell-mts-cell-tower-at-50-barnes-street-in-winnipeg. Should you decide to add your name to the petition, your support would be greatly appreciated.)

It is obvious that both Bell MTS and the owner of the land that this cell tower is to be situated upon (Grace Communion Church) have a vested financial interest in seeing this tower erected. Why the city’s planning department is so dedicated to seeing this tower go up in this specific location remains a mystery.

The final decision regarding this tower now sits in the hands of the federal government’s Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED) division.

Hopefully, they will compel Bell MTS to go back to stage one and fulfil the requirements that city planning has ignored.

Jerry Woloshyn is president of the Barnes Area Residents Committee.