Letters, March 24

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 24/03/2025 (372 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

No need to vandalize

Re: City Tesla drivers feeling the heat (March 21)

I am absolutely outraged at the actions of Elon Musk and U.S. President Donald Trump. Having said that, there is no place in my world for violence and vandalism. Many people bought Teslas not as a political statement, but as a way to reduce their impact on the environment. The car owners were striving to be more energy efficient.

The man with the sign is perfectly acceptable to me. Don’t buy Teslas now. He has a right to peacefully protest! It is never right to harass drivers and vandalize their vehicles. Please be kind!

Catriona M. Younger

Winnipeg

Minority government not so bad

Re: “Visions of the same old, same old” (Letters, March 21)

I respectfully disagree with the letter writer who suggests that a minority government is undesirable, “same old, same old.” The recent past minority Liberal government, supported by the NDP (supply and confidence agreement), was a very successful government, despite the animosity toward Justin Trudeau. Progressive legislation was enacted, pharmacare and dental care immediately come to mind. The centrist Liberals needed a push from the NDP.

This in itself demonstrates the value of a minority government. It is as close to proportional representation as our present system allows. Bill Blaikie, longtime Manitoba NDP member of Parliament, was a champion of fighting for proportional representation and he lauded the positive aspects of minority governments.

With a federal election pending, his thoughts and words need to be heeded. Given the dead heat between the Liberals and Conservatives as per the polls, a Liberal minority government supported by the NDP would be desirable. We would have strong leadership with Mark Carney to deal with Trump and a government that would have to pay attention to the needs of ordinary Canadians.

Robert Milan

Victoria, B.C.

Alarming mismanagement

It is alarming to witness the continued mismanagement of city and provincial funds related to the implementation of large projects. The Bay redevelopment, MPI’s Project Nova, and the north end sewage treatment plant, for example.

As an aside, our city sewer and water billings go to city general revenues and not to this project!

The intersection of highways 1 and 5 near Carberry is still being considered for a $100-million overpass option … how about a simple, reduced-speed roundabout? The Southwest Transitway overpass over McGillivray Boulevard in Winnipeg. Why not a simple “railway crossing signalling and arms,” similar to the City of Calgary LRT system that goes through downtown Calgary at a much higher frequency than our rapid-transit buses cross McGillivray?

All of this begs the question, who is carrying out fiscal management on our major projects? Where are the responsible project managers? Are politics driving common-sense decisions? You can partly blame supply-chain increases and requirements creep, but these are thinly veiled excuses. Most projects seem to start with pie-in-the-sky estimates, with the hope that, once “hooked,” funding partners will cover the future escalation. But year-by-year doubling is unconscionable.

From my experience in private industry, it was usually upper management that arbitrarily interfered with detailed planning and estimates, in order to achieve competitive or political pressures. The result … subsequent cost increases and schedule delays.

Our evolving “world model” should be a wake up call that we cannot afford to ignore our local “history” and to repeat our failures. We need to learn from our mistakes to not repeat them.

Ian Walkty

Winnipeg

Notes on sustainability

Re: Infill housing is not the enemy of nature (Think Tank, March 20)

Emma Durand-Wood argues in her piece that Winnipeg was established through harmful, nature-destroying practices, but that view overlooks a major part of the city’s history.

While early development did clear land, it also prioritized green space on a massive scale. Under leaders like Edward L. Drewry and the Parks Board, Winnipeg purchased hundreds of hectares for public parks in the decades after amalgamation — in the form of Central Park, St. John’s Park, Victoria Park, Kildonan Park, Assiniboine Park, and many others — which were all intentionally created as the city grew. These are massive swaths of land — and they were significantly larger proportionally when the city was at least seven times smaller by footprint. If Winnipeg’s early city planning was truly as environmentally reckless as she suggests, these parks simply wouldn’t exist.

But while she overlooks this history, Durand-Wood also misses a key principle of sustainability: the greenest building is one that already exists. Instead of prioritizing the restoration of Winnipeg’s historic homes — many of which are in mature, walkable neighborhoods — the city is pouring funding into demolition and new builds in exchange for hundreds of millions in funding from the federal government. If she and the city are concerned about a more environmentally friendly future, they should be advocating for the same level of funding and policy support for renovation and restoration of old homes that is currently going to infill projects. Winnipeg has thousands of vacant homes that could be retrofitted into energy-efficient, affordable housing, reducing waste and preserving the character of its older neighborhoods.

At the same time, if we want to talk about sustainability, we should also be asking why Winnipeg has failed to add green space at the scale it did in its early years, despite rapid sprawl. A citywide push for new parks (at the scale of Kildonan, St. Vital, and Assiniboine parks) and restored natural spaces — something that kept pace with development in the past — should be part of this conversation. True sustainability means preserving what works, investing in what already exists, and expanding green space alongside growth.

That’s the approach Winnipeg needs now.

Kenneth Ingram

Winnipeg

Unconvinced by Trump’s remark

Re: Russians mock U.S. election allegations as Putin teasingly says he supports Harris (Sept. 5, 2024); Trump says Liberal government would be easier, says Poilievre is ‘no friend of mine’ (March 19)

In the lead-up to the U.S. presidential election, the Free Press quoted Russian President Vladimir Putin as saying he would rather see Kamala Harris elected than Donald Trump. I didn’t believe him.

Trump is saying he would rather deal with the Liberals under Mark Carney than the Conservatives under Pierre Poilievre.

I don’t believe him.

Laurel Ridd

Winnipeg