Winnipeg City Councillor Janice Lukes is right about Bridgwater Forest, but that’s not the half of it

According to the Winnipeg Free Press, smart, hard-working Winnipeg City Councillor Janice Lukes

estimated there are over 200 shrubbery beds in the Bridgwater neighbourhoods that the city isn’t maintaining. Grass mowing of open fields has also suffered…

It’s not just an issue restricted to the Bridgwater area, she said… “It’s happening in Amber Trails, in Sage Creek. If we don’t change the way we’re doing things, we’re going to have a much bigger problems than the bushes in Waverley West.”

But then Ms. Lukes misses the mark:

This issue is not part of the “who pays for growth” debate, she said… “People are paying for this and I don’t know where the money has gone.”

The problem is that Winnipeg taxpayers aren’t paying for growth. Successive city councils agree to proposals for new subdivisions without properly considering the real costs. For a fuller account of the problems Winnipeg faces, and a discussion of solutions, click here and here.

3 responses to “Winnipeg City Councillor Janice Lukes is right about Bridgwater Forest, but that’s not the half of it

  1. what is a better alternative? cement and dandelions?

    • I’m glad you asked that question. The better alternative would be for City Council to base its decision on whether to approve a new development on a calculation that included all the costs of the new development, not just parks, roads, bridges, and underground municipal services. Some of the other costs that should be considered, but aren’t, are transit services, community centres, library branches, fire protection, police, paramedics, snow removal, grass cutting, and insect control.

      That’s not a complete list, but it’s enough to give you some idea of how much new developments are subsidized by the rest of us. If you’re interested enough in this subject to pursue it a little further, click here and here.

      I appreciate any questions you or others ask, because this is an important issue that can only be addressed if the public takes an interest in it.

  2. Recommendation that the city conduct a simple cost analysis and comparison to determine savings in costs by replacing the missing lilac shrubs in the entrance of bridge water forest, and the round about , compared to the current ongoing weed removal. The weed removal and clean up is currently conducted by numerous workers and their equipment several times a season.
    The shrubs at a cost of $20. Each would be a permanent solution.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s