Letters, Dec. 6

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 06/12/2023 (1011 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Forms of denial

Re: Denialism law unworkable (Letters, Dec. 5)

In his letter, Steve Teller unknowingly illustrates exactly why there needs to be a discussion around the criminalization of residential school denialism.

Bad-faith actors often take one aspect of an issue that normally does not affect the issue as whole, try to dispute that aspect and then use that aspect as a wedge to dispute the issue as a whole. This appears to be what Mr. Teller is doing here.

Mr. Teller’s statement that “There have been no exhumations that have proven that Indigenous children were murdered and buried in these alleged grave sites. That is not hate speech — it is the mere statement of a fact.” is factually disingenuous.

While Mr. Teller states that because there have been no exhumations, there cannot be any conclusion that there are buried children in these sites, he leaves out that there have been several residential schools where unmarked graves were discovered, exhumed, and confirmed between the 1970s and the 1990s.

He also conveniently leaves out that the ground radar searches were done by technicians skilled in the use of the equipment and interpretation of the data (as opposed to random letters to the editor writers).

What Mr. Teller is doing is arguably the same thing as residential school denialism — using a small part of the issue to expand into a larger argument against the effect of residential schools in this country. If there are people who are still arguing from that position, then perhaps we do need to think about criminalization.

Brian Gilchrist

Winnipeg

Infill concerns

Re: Infill and imperfection (Think Tank, Dec. 4)

I applaud Erna Buffie’s op-ed. In addition to the loss of green spaces and mature trees, I add these concerns.

Our housing “crisis” is really a lack of affordable housing. Unfortunately this core issue is not being addressed by the current raft of infills.

I lived on Vivian Avenue in Old St. Vital (Glenwood neighbourhood) which has become ground zero for infill development. This is a working class, modest neighbourhood where the vast majority of homes are well maintained. At 700 to 1,200 square feet, and you can still buy a house here for $230,000.

These affordable houses are being torn down at an alarming rate and thrown into the landfill (how sustainable is that?) and replaced by towering three-storey skinny houses that start at $500,000.

Many mature, healthy trees are gone, as are the little yards that supported pollinators and other urban wildlife (not to mention, safe places for kids and pets). The backyards are now cement parking pads. This is creating ideal conditions for heat islands. At three-stories, the houses all require air-conditioning so this is not sustainable design.

These new houses are not accessible. Who can navigate three-stories? Not seniors, not people with mobility issues. So with an aging population, that is not forward looking or inclusive.

Lastly, this is not equitable. New suburbs like Sage Creek come with bike paths and meadows and constructed lakes for the health and enjoyment of people. Residents in Tuxedo and Crescentwood and other wealthy areas have successfully lobbied city hall against any infill development (and will continue to do so). So somehow working class people with the smallest footprint are being told they have to bear the brunt of “density”… losing their green spaces and trees and the neighbourhoods they love. Then to add insult, when they try to complain and voice their legitimate concerns, they are told they are NIMBYs.

I am baffled why we suddenly think handing over the keys to developers to do whatever they want in our neighbourhoods, with no input from residents allowed, is “progressive” urban policy.

In short, a well-developed new bylaw on infill development must result in homes that are affordable, accessible, varied, sustainable, and be implemented across the city equitably and with genuine public engagement.

Diane Poulin

Winnipeg

Underground solutions

Whenever the Arlington Bridge issue pops up, everyone involved seems to exhibit tunnel vision. Upon further thought, though, it seems all the stakeholders have a large degree of bridge vision.

If the cost of replacing a crossing over the CP yards is prohibitive, why has no one considered going under it? “Can’t be done” is the first reflexive response, but I would invite people to explore the recently built tunnel under the CN Fort Rouge tracks that is part of the South Rapid Transit Corridor. We are not chewing through rock or going under a river, so from an engineering stand point, a .6-kilometre tunnel going through soil would be relatively straight forward and quite possibly far cheaper than a vehicular bridge (also a lot cheaper to maintain far into the future).

Pedestrian and bicycle traffic could be accommodated in safety by using the old bridge pillars to support a new dedicated elevated active transportation corridor, like was done in the Disraeli Freeway rebuild. As with any problem, there is usually more than one way of solving it, I think any deep analysis of the Arlington Bridge replacement should, in fact, go deep.

Andrew McIlraith

Dugald

Think critically

Re: Conspiracy theories popular in Canada: survey (Dec. 4)

I find it sad to read that a number of Canadians believe in conspiracy theories. People seem to losing their critical thinking skills.

Social media doesn’t help with as the algorithms seem to push conspiracies. This has lead to a rise in measles because anti-vaxxers or people worried about “15-minute cities” which is really about urban planning.

Schools need to educate about critical thinking and on social media use.

Leanne Hanuschuk

Winnipeg

Lemay issue long-festering

As a former longtime resident of St. Norbert, I too am concerned about the future of the Lemay Forest.

This issue has been festering for the better part of 20 years if not more — ever since the financially-pressed Oblate Fathers sold off their 30-acre-plus retreat along the Red River to developers.

It’s beautiful old-growth, river-bottom forest dating back to the days of Louis Riel and the annual buffalo hunts. Its development would be both ironic and criminal for all the reasons letters to the editor have noted; not the least of these because the City concurrently has plans to plant a million trees to mitigate climate change.

When the first set of developers ran into community resistance, sewer capacity and access problems, they cut their losses and sold off the property to an unsuspecting foreign buyer with a pocket-full of money for two or three times its assessed value as developable land. Herein lies the City’s dilemma. Ideally, it should purchase the land from the current owner to preserve it as a natural area in perpetuity.

Or alternatively, trade it for a parcel of city-owned property of equivalent market value. Either way, the current owner would incur a significant financial loss. Meanwhile, the land is private property and zoned for development. The owner is free to fence it, prohibit visitors and cut down every tree if he wishes.

It’s the Parker Lands issue all over again. Perhaps the Manitoba Habitat Heritage Corporation should consider taking on this project as its mandate is to “ensure Manitoba’s natural infrastructure is protected for good forever.”

Robert (Bob) Roehle

Winnipeg