Letters, Nov. 27

One vote only

Re: Tories want to give cottage owners votes in school board elections (Nov. 26)

When I read the headline, I was transported back in time to 2012, when I was working on my master’s of education in education finance, and cottage owners didn’t want to pay school tax.

Back then, the argument was cottage owners should be exempt from school board taxation because they were already paying school tax on their primary residence. The argument against the exemption was that owning more than one property is a form of wealth, and to exempt cottage owners was unjust enrichment.

Now back in opposition (as they were in 2012) the PC party is again attempting to provide unfair influence for the wealthy, this time in the form of votes. This new bill, even if it doesn’t pass, should make every Manitoban, nay every Canadian, pause. Under the Charter, we have one vote in elections, at every level of government, in the jurisdiction of our primary residence. Passing this bill would provide multiple property owners, the wealthy, at least a second vote, but potentially many votes, in multiple jurisdictions. Once we have eroded the electoral process at the school board level, what’s next? Municipal elections? Provincial? Federal?

The PC party should be embarrassed for presenting this classist and undemocratic bill, and retract it immediately. One person — one vote.

Gailene Glanfield

Gillam

Poor planning

Re: McDrive-thru-only would be Canadian McFirst (Nov. 26)

I cannot believe the city traffic department doesn’t foresee problems with a drive-thru McDonald’s at the corner of Grant and Kenaston. Have they ever been to that corner in the morning or evening ? It’s a nightmare, with cars turning from Grant onto Kenaston not to mention the congestion in the parking lot.

Lunacy.

Russel Hinds

Winnipeg

Tax trouble

Re: Higher school taxes a preventable problem (Think Tank, Nov. 25)

In regard to Deveryn Ross’s column, he’s right. A new formula must be used to fund the public school system. It doesn’t treat, at present, every member of the province equally or fairly.

May I suggest, increasing the provincial sales tax by two per cent, take it off of property owners, therefore everyone in Manitoba could be responsible for funding our school system, be it a new car, a new home or a sandwich for lunch. Any extra funds could be topped up by increased business taxes, of which, businesses could be allowed to write off.

Everyone pays, everyone benefits.

Right now, only property owners pay. This isn’t fair. Are we listening, premier?

Jim Temple

Cooks Creek

I stand to be corrected, but didn’t the previous Pallister PC government cut the education taxes without a plan to replace them, beyond misappropriation of historically massive federal transfer funds meant for other purposes like social and health care? And with their austerity budgets had ignored wage increases for those in the education and health-care sectors and other areas for many years, basically kicked the can down the road?

It seems to me that most of our news at all three levels of government is related to tax cuts (which disproportionately benefit the wealthy), basically buying votes with our money to ensure their re-election, which is a politician’s raison d’être. The real question that needs to be asked every time is, “We never asked for a tax cut, so what services are you cutting, and how are they going to bite us long term?”

It’s why reserve funds were not put aside to upgrade and build sewage lagoons as everyone busily worked on population growth (no tax increases in Winnipeg for a decade or more), medical professional training neglected across the board provincially and federally as the demographic of baby boomers and immigrants blared the need for decades to plan ahead, and we got quotas for knees, hips, etc, etc, to balance paltry budgets due to tax cuts instead. And it’s why Deveryn Ross wrote this article on the state of school board budgets.

Perhaps there should be a law federally, provincially and municipally, that freezing taxes, or worse still cutting them, should automatically be subject to a referendum of the taxpayers/voters that needs a two-thirds majority in favour in order to be implemented. That would hopefully stop the knee-jerk euphoria and get the above question asked and debated so an informed electorate would be voting. And likely eying the flavour of the day politicians who suggested it in a different light. This would stop the tax cut/freeze being a prelude to an election and future budget cuts and more erosion of services.

Andy Maxwell

Winnipeg

Fossil fuel flim-flam

Re: We don’t need fossil gas energy (Think Tank, Nov. 25)

Thank you to James Wilt and Laura Cameron for the facts on this gas generation project. It is especially important as people ar trying to gaslight us on this gas plant.

We’re told that a comparatively simple $100-million highway interchange will take several years to design and build, but that a much more complicated $3-billion gas generating station will only take a few years longer. And then it can operate a few years until it breaks our promises to ourselves. But that’s OK because we can run it renewably in the future.

So let’s say it takes six years to build the plant, and we are told, three to five years to get renewable natural gas in sufficient quantity. Why would we ever run it on natural gas? Because they do not really believe in the renewable natural gas angle.

If they, and you know who you are premier, are so ready to flim-flam us on this, what else?

Peter Kidd

Winnipeg

Generating power

Re: Big data, big footprint (Nov. 14)

Saturday’s long and very informative article by Julia-Simone Rutgers demonstrates some of Manitoba Hydro’s failings and poor direction. If there is a mushrooming need for electricity, which there certainly is with the growth of EVs etc., then why is Hydro not encouraging as much citizen help as possible? I point out that in other jurisdictions where electricity is much more expensive than here in Manitoba, hydro companies pay more for electricity from solar panels — on the roofs of homes and in solar farms — than they charge for that same electricity.

Manitoba Hydro should be doing likewise, but presently pays only 4.39 cents per KWH while charging homeowners in Winnipeg (I know not the cost out of town) 9.587 cents.

If Manitoba is to find enough electricity to fulfil its future needs it is absolutely necessary to incentivize homeowners (and other enterprises) to install solar panels and provide electricity to Hydro free of the costs of generation, transportation/transmission, maintenance, and investment. It is beyond blind and idiotic not to encourage a fair return to homeowners for providing what could eventually be a huge source of electricity to the province.

Hydro dams need to be understood as storage facilities for “dark” times and battery storage needs to be constantly expanded.

Of course, as we at the same time try to meet our environmental commitments, it would also be nice if the province supported the adopotion of EVs with better infrastructure for highway charging , street charging and home battery storage.

Shane Nestruck

Winnipeg