Letters, Nov. 24

Overbearing oversight

Re: Municipal Board needs oversight (Think Tank, Nov. 21)

I’m writing to say thanks for Daniel Leonard’s opinion piece.

Actually the problem here may be too much oversight. It’s strange that the previous Progressive Conservative government, which campaigned against “red tape,” actually expanded the oversight powers of the Manitoba Municipal Board in 2021’s Bill 37. That bill granted the board the power to override the city of Winnipeg’s planning decisions — like their proposed affordable housing next to the Granite Curling Club.

Chatter in development and planning communities at the time suggested Bill 37 was pushed by the development community. This is supported by the fact the first draft of Bill 37 gave the right to appeal land-use decisions to landowners (developers) only — later thankfully changed to allow members of the community to appeal. The result has been the board’s vetoing of high-profile development projects, in response to community appeals. Probably not the result the bill’s drafters had intended.

It is heartening to see the curling club’s own members arguing that they (with a membership drawn from across the city) should not stand in the way of affordable housing, which is so desperately needed for folks in the inner city. That housing is needed to alleviate a dire shortage of affordable housing — a shortage likely exacerbated by the social housing policies of the same government that passed Bill 37. I wonder how much more housing could be built if the club wasn’t there at all? They are after all only lessors of the land.

Some might argue that the city itself — under previous administrations — has placed unfair restrictions on developers who wanted to build housing. My point isn’t to argue that the city is always right. But in this case they are.

The city should have a right to develop their own land — our land — for affordable housing. If the Municipal Board or the Granite Curling Club can’t support that, perhaps it’s time for one, or maybe both of them, to go.

Lawrence Bird

Winnipeg

The City of Winnipeg has volumes of bylaws and regulations to dictate what can and cannot be on any property within the boundaries of the city.

There are bylaws that dictate the width, depth and height of any structure that is proposed by private individuals or developers. They set out the style of the facade so that is conforms to the neighborhood, even though that is rarely followed. The height of fence, the approach to the property and even the type of vegetation and trees are required on the permit. A small army of city employees pour over the plans to determine if the permit application and building plans do indeed meet the city’s codes and bylaw. Should the application fail, the applicant must go back to the drawing board and make changes that comply.

The city has blocked developments before, and unless the applicant yields, the application is denied. It appears, however, that the city believes that it should not be restricted by the regulations and bylaws that they impose on all private property owner and developers and simply do whatever they want.

The Granite is a case in point. City council has made a deal with the University of Winnipeg Community Renewal Corporation to have them develop the most expensive land in the city to so-called affordable housing. The city, as the owner of the property and the administrators of all the bylaws and regulations, believes it is entitled to do whatever it wants with “its” property, yet is comfortable restricting everyone else.

Thankfully the Municipal Board exists as a safeguard against a council that is bound and determined to do what ever they want.

Gilles Nicolas

Winnipeg

Nuclear not all it’s cracked up to be

Re: A low-carbon future — with nuclear power (Think Tank, Nov. 6)

I worked for 20 years as a scientist in the area of radiation and industrial safety and nuclear fuel waste management at the Whiteshell Nuclear Research Establishment.

Christa Rust in her op-ed on a low carbon future with nuclear power omits that the cost, including waste management and decommissioning, is grossly non-competitive with renewable energy even with storage. Storage of renewable energy could be minimized by power sharing over large distances enabled by a national electrical transmission power grid. Base load backup for wind and solar could be supplied by hydro power and increased use of deep borehole geothermal power.

Many other countries are increasingly relying on affordable, rapidly installed, renewable power that carries no risk of radiation exposure, catastrophic nuclear meltdown and nuclear weapons proliferation. The excessive cost of nuclear energy in Canada would result in an uncompetitive economy burdened with interminable construction times and unmanageable nuclear waste, impoverishing our nation.

The industry trope that the total volume of nuclear waste produced in a person’s lifetime would fit in a 250 ml coffee cup is absurd. The planned nuclear waste repository at Ignace, Ont., at a projected cost of $26 billion, would dispose of up to six million used fuel bundles. That is a lot of very expensive, lethal coffee cups.

Not included is the cost of a deep geological repository for low and intermediate level waste planned by Ontario Hydro and a large near- surface disposal facility near Chalk River. All are subject to legal challenges. Low and intermediate level waste is bulky, difficult to quantify, dangerous to handle and expensive to store.

Much of it continually releases unmonitored, airborne tritium, carbon 14, and other volatile radionuclides.

Large amounts of tritium, carbon 14 and radioactive particulates are routinely emitted to both air and surface water during routine nuclear reactor operations.

The industry relies on very large dilution factors to be under the allowed derived release limits. The accumulation of these radionuclides from continued environmental deposition is not accounted for.

Decommissioning of power reactors in Canada has never been demonstrated and likely far beyond any current cost estimates. Planned in situ disposal of the WR-1 reactor at Whiteshell and the first heavy water reactor, NPD, in Ontario are risky endeavors used to avoid the prohibitive cost of safer deep geological disposal recommended by the IAEA.

The expensive small-modular, federally funded BWRX-300 reactor at Darlington with a projected build time of at least seven years has never been built elsewhere. It is American technology requiring enriched uranium fuel manufactured offshore that would add to our deficit.

Wake up, Canada. Do not fall for the nuclear industry propaganda designed to enrich a small foreign corporate elite at our expense.

Dennis LeNeveu

Selkirk

Hard choices

Re: From the judge’s chamber to the beer vendor (Nov. 20)

Scott Billeck’s article relates Viktor Bratasyuk’s journey to be reunited with his family. Mr. Bratasyuk made a difficult choice to be with family. It is a choice we should all accept and respect.

Welcome, Mr. Bratasyuk. I hope that our legal community recognizes an obvious opportunity and you find a satisfying career in our community.

Tom Pearson

Winnipeg