Letters, April 23

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 23/04/2024 (873 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Tax credit idea better approach

Re: Fears rise and fires rage (April 19)

Coun. Sheri Rollins insists that “the city is taking a tough-as-nails approach to vacant buildings,” stressing that “the neighbours don’t want them anywhere around.”

Unfortunately under the current bylaw, few vacant property owners will attempt renovations if they are required to pay for the fire department’s response to arson. A much better approach would be John Prystanski’s idea to allow tax credits for donors of vacant properties to the city.

With the current misguided city policy, many more “tough nails” will likely be required to board up vacant properties, placing firefighters and neighbours at risk.

Wayne Manishen

Winnipeg

Another look at housing numbers

Trudeau promises to build 3.87 million new homes over the next seven years. For ease of calculation I will round it out to four million. It takes an average of 30 to 40 trees to construct an average house. Take an average of 30 trees per house; that’s 120 million trees. When is the best time to plant a tree? The answer is 20 years ago. How many trees has Trudeau’s government planted since his first election? Take into account that it takes an average of around 30 years for a tree to grow to maturity in our climate. Clearly Trudeau’s housing plan is many years ahead of his sustainability plan.

It takes 1,000 to 3,000 man hours to construct a single house, so I will use 2,000 man hours per house. Four million homes, eight billion man hours. That does not include infrastructure. Constructing a new house likely emits on the order of 50 to 100 tons of Co2 emissions. That’s a fraction of what an inefficient house will emit over its lifetime. Clearly you have to ensure these new homes are very energy efficient, so that will balloon the cost to construct. How does this plan stack up alongside of the Climate Action Plan?

The capital required to construct four million homes using a low end cost of $300,000 per home — not including finance, legal and infrastructure — is $1.2 trillion. This is a low-end cost using present dollars. The pressures of shortages of manpower, transportation and materials will choke supply chains and cause inflation to rise like a homesick angel. An increase in the capital gains tax on the wealthy is not even close to fund this housing plan. Who will build them? What is the plan?

The only plan that is understandable is a political one. The increase in capital gain taxes is meaningless to poverty-stricken individuals. It will undermine investment incentives for those who are trying to plan ahead to secure their own retirement. Seniors with investments sheltered for retirement income will quickly unload their investments, and the wealthy will grab them to hold forever.

The Canada Housing Plan, like the COVID-19 pandemic and the carbon tax rebate program, is on a collision course to collide with reality. The plan is redistribution of wealth that will benefit a large segment of the voting public. It’s a sand castle not designed for survivability. It’s designed to take this government to the next election; no plan beyond qualifying a whole lot of MPs for their taxpayer-funded pensions.

Robert K. Froese

Winnipeg

Try walking in someone else’s shoes

Re: Unrealistic expectations (Letters, April 20)

I recently read a letter to the Free Press with great interest. Letter writer Stewart Jacques is assuming that an entire generation is complaining about gas prices while over-consuming car purchases. That this is the problem. That this generation is selfish, is purchasing beyond their means.

I would like to remind him that it wasn’t that long ago where a $30,000-per-year salary would support an entire family. That an average working person was able to “get ahead” and make a life. This is no longer an option for most Canadians who are starting out.

I would love for him to live on our salary, to buy groceries and support a family while trying to purchase a home and see what his life is like. See if he still agrees with his comments.

I dare say, he would not.

Jennifer Shepherd

Winnipeg

Expensive condos won’t fix core

Re: Affordable housing in the core (Letters, April 20)

Not so similar to Jim Clark, I have also lived downtown for 30 years.

If expensive condos were going to rehabilitate the core, the area would not be in the state that it is at this time.

The downtown needs a variety and income spectrum of people and households.

It must also have a mix of many types of retail and service businesses, plus government access and supports.

During my walkabout on Thursday, I observed that the basic food courts at Portage Place and City Place were full, while the fancy food court at True North Plaza was empty.

I had batteries replaced in six watches and bought two more inexpensive watches at a quaint little jewelry store that I patronize in Cityplace. There ended up being a long lineup behind me. A fancy new jewelry store that opened right next door had no customers.

Living in a pricey condo and/or working in a big corporate office does not mean that people spend much money downtown. Driving to malls and getting purchases delivered from afar contributes nothing locally.

The busiest stores cater mostly to local residents and commuters buying mostly necessities.

For many years there has been a high turnover and exodus of merchants selling expensive merchandise downtown.

Generally, it is average ordinary people who spend regularly and consistently.

On the street, they can also be seen to be the most concerned for, and generous to, those in need.

Holly Bertram

Winnipeg

No time for magical thinking

Re: The courts and climate change (Editorial, April 19)

While apparently in support of action to forestall climate change, I was disappointed by an underlying premise in the editorial more likely to hinder than help — the premise that governments are at fault for inaction.

The reality is that governments in democratic societies reflect the will of the people. Political parties seek to, in effect, buy votes with favours. While often decried, what is a better alternative than choosing from among competing candidates? Woe to the candidate who does not offer to provide voters whatever it takes to win the majority of votes. The government is us!

A problem is that many voters engage in “magical thinking” — that one can get something for nothing. So called “motherhood issues” easily receive everyone’s support, until the bill comes due. Then the argument is made, “Not me; I cannot afford it; someone else must pay.”

As governments do not wish to alienate voters, and there is no “other,” a consequence is — inaction. Is it really fair to blame government?

A tax on carbon pollution is the arguably the best way to move people to alternatives, but how to persuade voters that this tax is in their best interest when it starts to cost them? In the face of the mindless “Axe the Tax” sloganeering and the magical thinking of an apparent majority of voters, if the polls are accurate, is it fair to blame the government for offering a rebate instead of “investing (revenue) toward greener tech?” While it might be the right thing to do, it is simply not possible given the politics of the day.

My hope is that responsible media, and I see the Free Press in that category, will continue to seek to educate, to call out “misinformation,” and help to create an informed and responsible electorate. And that voters will ultimately choose responsible candidates and be willing to pay what is required.

Rudy Peters

Winnipeg