Winnipeg Issues

Developing the CP rail yards still an Opportunity

Last month the Manitoba government terminated the task force set up under the previous government to consider moving the Canadian Pacific rail yards out of inner city Winnipeg. While we don’t know what will happen next, this move was expected and is needed.

Considering what can be done about the rail yards is a huge, complicated and costly matter. Setting up a public task force to deal with all of these issues under the leadership of former premier Jean Charest was premature. High level negotiations will be needed to direct any change in land use, but strategic positioning and timing are important. The former government went public when a great deal of work behind the scenes was needed first.

The current government had to create its own process for addressing this opportunity. It’s customary that new governments put their brand on important on-going initiatives.

Second, the government needs to get its own intelligence in place on the technical, logistical, commercial and political requirements involved and on how to effectively manage a development process. As the Social Planning Council of Winnipeg reported in 2012, a feasibility study is needed to provide research based knowledge on what can be done to move the rail yards. This knowledge is needed to give all levels of government the perspective needed to make preliminary decisions, and to replace speculation with substance. This advice is even more pertinent today.

The SPCW report pointed to research needed for assessing the costs of moving the rail yards, soil remediation, building new infrastructure and measuring the impact on local industry. Equally important, the report also advocated investigating the tax potential of residential and commercial development, cost savings of avoiding bridge replacement, alternative uses of the rail right of way through the city (rapid transit for example), energy reduction savings and other opportunities for generating revenue from this land.

In 2012 when public discussions were facilitated by the Free Press on the merits of a rail yard development, two things were clearly evident. On one hand people were operating on the basis of supposition and personal opinion rather than facts or research. This approach persists today. On the other hand, once we started taking about practical possibilities and tangible opportunities, everyone agreed a development of the rail yards property would be a tremendous benefit for the city and all residents into the next century.

Third, any change for the rail way through the city has to be initiated by the City of Winnipeg according to the federal Rail Relocation and Crossings Act (1985). Therefore, the Province and the City need to think through their interests and common issues involved in moving the rail yards. While the Mayor and Council are more visionary than the last regime and will be receptive to considering a development process, they also need basic information before committing to negotiations with CP Railway.

A paced approach to developing this property can also respond to evolving conditions. Ongoing expansion of CentrePort in particular will make a huge difference in how the railway sees benefit in moving. Having business oriented governments at three levels now may also lead to more support for developing the rail yards for community as well as corporate benefit. And public concern with the safety of rail traffic through urban areas only adds to the motivation for railway relocation.

With a new approach to this issue, I hope we can shift the focus from just moving the rail yards to exercising an opportunity to address city needs. For Winnipeg to grow and meet the needs of citizens, depends on how we turn problems into potential, and the CP property can be one asset in a collective vision.

So let’s be patient but supportive and encourage the city and provincial governments to develop this parcel of real estate for the good of citizens, all levels of governments, local business and the railway corporation. I think the economic, environmental and social benefits of a change in land use can justify the costs and effort involved, but let’s do the research and collective thinking to make sure.

Kapyong CFB – conflict where collaboration should rule!

The Free Press has been reporting on the lack of progress in deciding the future use of the Kapyong barracks, and exposing the annual cost of maintaining the grounds and buildings of this important community space.
This property has sat vacant for eight years – property with a huge potential to deal with major community needs. This location presents Winnipeg with a tremendous opportunity to address urban growth and Aboriginal issues.
However this potential is in limbo because of government mishandling and what appears to be a conscious effort to leave the Aboriginal community out in the cold. The federal government is responsible for developing the Kapyong site, but it has passed the buck to the court to decide who should be involved in its development, when there should be a willingness to involve all stakeholders.
It seems to me that the federal government has created the conflict over the use of the land and therefore the delays, because of a basic lack of confidence in the public. Instead of seeing the important opportunity in the redevelopment of the former CFB property and letting citizens work out a solution to the use of the land, the government has forced Aboriginal leaders to use the only institutional means available to them to be included.
The Federal Government should have and could have brought all the relevant parties to the same table, to work on a collective solution to utilizing the land. A collaborative process could bring stakeholders together to lay out their needs and proposals, identify options for use, consider how to maximize benefits of the resource and to ultimately lay the basis for implementing a development plan.
Recently, federal government and Aboriginal representatives in Ontario agreed to involve aboriginal groups in the redevelopment of the former CFB Rockcliffe. While there are legal and constitutional requirements to respect in addressing Aboriginal land claims, it seems reasonable to expect that similar negotiations could take place in Winnipeg.
As early as 2003 there were plans to hold public consultations on what should be done about the Kapyong barracks and housing. The City of Winnipeg and the Canada Lands Company (CLC) developed a planning approach to engage citizens on what should be done. All consultation plans were put on hold as the federal government mulled over the approach to take and then the court challenge took place that brought the prospects of any rational discussions to a grinding halt.
In the 1990’s the CLC took on the Garrison Woods development in Calgary that is an example of how large federal land could be constructively and creatively handled. There was a large and extensive public process that resulted in a modern mixed-use development without the conflict of the Kapyong and Rockcliffe CFBs.
A more recent example of how diverse stakeholders – community, business, aboriginal, political – can work together to create valuable solutions to land redevelopment took place in Edmonton. The Boyle Renaissance process has created a plan for developing a large section of the inner city, where agreement rather than acrimony has ruled.
So the federal government could clearly have chosen a collaborative process for Kapyong, rather than a competitive one. Officials in both Liberal and Conservative led governments could have led efforts to create a cooperative solution, rather than create the competitive relations that we now have. All three levels of government, Aboriginal organizations, housing activists, business people and local residents could be brought together to find a common solution.
We can predict more delay and cost as the current process unfolds. If the different stakeholders are forced to compete over the land there is going to be resistance to change, public criticism, more legal action and in the end very little creative thinking about how to balance the various needs of our community.
Instead of prolonging the court process, the Federal government should get on with negotiations to develop the Kapyong site, and let all the parties work together to address our serious urban development and Aboriginal issues.

Advertisements

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