Thursday, December 11, 2008

R & S answers your questions!


Thoughts on the veto of the new apartments in North K and the River Heights by-election race?"

I haven't followed this story that closely. But I suspect that the developer will be in for a surprise if he thinks building a rental high(ish)-rise will be quick and easy in any other city.

Anyway, things should be approved based on precedent, and on what is appropriate for the surroundings, not simply on the squawkability of NIMBY's. Arguing that an apartment block is not good for a street that already has two is desperate. To make decisions on that argument is stupid.

This article does bring up a very good point: that the apartment vacancy rate in Winnipeg continues to be 1.1 per cent, and only 319 new units were created last year. Ending rent control is an obvious way to lessen this tight rate, and afford the City the ability to be a little bit pickier when it comes to development proposals. Reducing car dependency through building a rapid transit system (you know, a real one, that runs above or below grade) would also assure that high-density development is built on transit arteries, and not on little dead-end streets in North Kildonan.


The by-election in River Heights (sometime in February) will be the first election since the formation of the Winnipeg Citizen's Coalition. Will they put a candidate forward, or endorse one? River Heights is a ward that can go (and in the past has gone) either way, so it would be interesting to see if the WCC is "broad-based" enough to win there.

Will the Katz machine put someone forward? Maybe Jennifer Zyla will try again.

Looking to 2010, I suspect that whether or not dear ol' Harry Lazarenko retires, the Mynarski race will be the one to watch, with the Citizens Coalition and big Labour lining up to put someone in office in the cradle of socialism in Western Canada.

Also, since half of council apparently wants to be mayor in '10, the elections in the wards they vacate will bring new faces, too.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the WCC is going to be legitimate they will run Paul Hesse, a moderate Liberal, with some progressive cred on transit issues (even if it is BRT!) and not some far left CUPE member.

I expect to see some third tier NDP'er run for them.

6:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hesse? It's not happening. Maybe the WCC will endorse Benham's comeback if they can't find a third tier socialist?

6:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Didn't Hesse learn a lesson when Jen Howard smacked him around that he should stick to advocating for super duper buses.

9:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, we must buy a BRT of your choice so development can proceed...hmmm, lets see, spend half a billion plus so maybe a developer builds apartment buildings on the route to nowhere or let a developer spend 50 million bucks building apartments on a dead end street.

I got it. Just a tip, maybe you should rethink it.

6:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Only in Winnipeg has the definition of "rapid transit" become synonymous with "bus." Pathetic.

8:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Never heard of BRT?

You need to travel more.

12:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You weren't aware BRT is a joke? You need to travel more.

4:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Seriously. If Hesse ever runs for anything ever again we need to haunt him ever day and make him wear his stupid AMAZING BUS lane "rapid transit" plan.

He and his Rapid Transit Task Force have killed any hope of real progressive urban transportation in this city for at least 50 years. Ever thinking person knows Winnipeg needs a Subway, so let's get digging!

10:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A subway is about as insane as getting rid of trains crisscrossing and dissecting the City......hey wait a minute,if we get rid of one maybe we get half the other.

11:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah because an industrial city doesn't need freight rail lines....

12:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

sure they need em, but not in the middle of it.

Wait, don't tell me, you have a set of rails to your garage just so Walmart can deliver goods to you.

Riiiight, I get it.

More signs of a City trapped by its past.

2:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was thinking of that "industrial city" comment and quite frankly, the answer is no, we are not an industrial city.

Sure we have industry of sorts, window manufacturing, furniture manufacturing, some aerospace but on the whole, most people work for a government department at some level.I would say, possibly the highest percentage work for governement and if you include most of the projects in the last 5 years, that is a heck of alot of people working on the taxpayers dime, and not much was "industrial" by nature.

So,what does our industrial city look like ?

Surely, we can't just be a shunt station along the railines between to and fro. Or , as I suspect, we are.

SO tell me, for the amount of disruption the rails give us, the amount of land used in the core, 225 acres. the very real lack of city tax revenue from the rails, the downsizing of employment from the rails, the tragic seperation of our City, and the very real costs of getting over , under and around these rails, what benefit do we really get ?

Personally, I like trains hauling freight,it makes sense. I just don't like them going through the City as we plan a future that ignores this rail issue within the City.

8:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Railways built this city. They ain't goin nowhere.

11:44 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home