Letters, May 20

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 20/05/2022 (1261 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Russia may have to negotiate

Re: Ukraine faces formidable future (Opinion, May 13)

Reading this opinion piece, I feel Daniel Drezner omitted a possible scenario. Ukraine does not face shortages, thanks to the generous contributions from NATO countries of advanced weaponry, while Russia fields its mostly outdated weapon systems, along with their lacklustre use of demoralized and undisciplined draftee soldiers.

It is not inconceivable to imagine that Ukraine could force Russia to retreat across its border, abandoning most of southeastern Ukraine. American-supplied modern howitzers (along with advanced drones for target spotting) can out-range Russian artillery, and are more accurate as well.

Add the crippling sanctions, and Russian President Vladimir Putin might soon be forced to the bargaining table.

Michael Dowling

Winnipeg

Politicians need editors

Re: Deputy premier issues apology for sexist remark (May 16)

So here we go again, another so-called “apology.” You cannot tell me that these people who apologize after the fact didn’t know that what they were saying or doing beforehand, unless ignorance or no forethought replaced their common sense.

How long has MP Cliff Cullen been in the public eye? These people should have a couple of editors to ensure that their text is acceptable to all. Give me a break!

Eva Haddad

Winnipeg

Voltaire was right

I recall that the Washington Post’s fact-checkers revealed Donald Trump told more than 30,000 lies during his tenure as U.S. president. And his torrent of lies continued to flow without abatement after he lost the election.

The January 6, 2021, storming of the U.S. Capitol building by Trump supporters is an example of how misinformation and disinformation can lead to dangerous consequences when some people allow their minds to become polluted with falsehoods. Following the Jan. 6 insurrection, Donald Trump was banned from Twitter and Facebook.

We seem to be living in an era where false information is often paraded as truth, and truths are derided as “fake news.” I recall one of Trump’s surrogates describing his lies as “alternative facts.” One analyst recently commented that Trump’s strategy is not only to blatantly lie, but to repeat the lies over and over with the hope that they would be eventually believed. And, unfortunately it seems to work as he continues to have strong support among many Republicans.

Trump still continues to describe the media as “enemies of the people.” Without a free and independent media our democracy would be in jeopardy.

Elon Musk recently indicated that he would lift Twitter’s ban on Donald Trump in the interests of preserving “free speech.” He seems to be ignoring the fact that social media content without oversight can often be toxic and lead to harmful consequences, as we have seen so many times.

The French philosopher Voltaire said: “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” Seems he was right.

Michael Cudjoe

Winnipeg

Carbon tax questions

I, like most caring citizens, am very concerned about climate change, and the future of our physical world if we do not drastically reduce the amount of harmful gas emissions that we are emitting into our environment. The level of carbon tax that we have paid so far has not made a discernible difference, as the emissions keep increasing. And I doubt that the future proposed carbon tax hikes will make much difference either.

My question is: “What is the point of giving the carbon tax back to the producers of the harmful gases, which would be us?” How does this influence our decisions surrounding fossil fuel consumption? Shouldn’t the carbon tax be invested in green technology, such as helping cities purchase electric buses and electric vehicles, building charging stations and funding green research?

With the current policy of giving the carbon tax back to the polluters, what good are we really doing? Isn’t it time to try something different that actually has a chance of reducing our harmful emissions?

Al Prokopowich

Winnipeg

Density benefits debatable

Re: More city than we can pay for (Opinion, May 16)

Once again I find myself taking exception to rationale Brent Bellamy uses in support of his “urban density” model as a solution to the city’s problems. And while he may have passed Grade 9 math, his calculation regarding 10 taxpayers paying for either 100 metres or 150 metres of road is wrong. That’s not how our civic taxation system works.

Taxpayers need to understand that their property taxes are primarily based on the value of the property and the home erected upon it. There is a secondary tax component, which is incremental, called the frontage levy. And this tax is based on the number of frontage metres of each property, such that homeowners who have larger properties pay more in frontage levy taxes.

What this means, and what Bellamy never seems to acknowledge, is that those properties in our older, more dense neighbourhoods actually pay less in property taxes, because the property itself is worth less and the home, not being as large, is also proportionately worth less. But the frontage levy component is the same. The city collects the same amount of frontage levy tax for 100 metres of frontage, regardless of whether there are one, two, three or four homes on it.

And it is also these older, more dense neighbourhoods that require the greatest share of road-renewal dollars. I submit that a case could be made that the newer “urban sprawl’ neighbourhoods Bellamy criticizes may actually be paying more than their fair share of taxes, by virtue of the greater value of the homes and the size of the property upon which they are built.

In addition, his statement that in the 1970s the population increased by 37 per cent but the built area of the city almost doubled, is very misleading. In this instance, it was the coming of age of the baby boomers, of which I am one. In the late ’40s and in the ’50s and ’60s, we were included in the population statistics but lived with our parents. But in the ’70s and ’80s, we came of age and needed a home to start our own lives. Many grandparents were still alive, probably living in older, smaller homes in one of Winnipeg’s older neighbourhoods. The newer neighbourhoods caused the city to expand outwards.

Let’s face it, we’re all in this together. The infrastructure in need of ongoing maintenance is already in place, and cannot be abandoned, as is the existing stock of residential and commercial properties along that infrastructure. And I challenge Bellamy to identify, instead of just talk about, “infill opportunities” that would be equal to the number of new homes currently under construction in the outer/urban sprawl areas of our city.

Bob Nichols

Winnipeg

GIMBY?

Now that food has become a luxury item, city council’s decision to nix the raising of poultry in our back yards seems particularly short-sighted.

However, the likely banning of cosmetic lawn chemicals opens up another opportunity to circumvent the milk and meat supply chains: goats. They will eat anything, including your weed-infested lawn.

Perhaps a clever mayoral candidate, should there be one, will run on the slogan “a goat in every yard.”

Norman Brandson

Winnipeg