Development in Winnipeg

Democratic governments, in theory, are constructed to represent the interests of the majority of the people that have the power to vote. In practice, this is frequently not the case. In this paper, we will discuss the problem of city planning in Winnipeg and the stakeholders and positions involved with the building of new suburban developments. We will explore the roles government plays and consider why it appears as though the interests of the majority of the people are not being met.

A major problem observed in large cities, and beginning to affect Winnipeg, is that of urban sprawl. Urban sprawl, also known as the "donut effect," is the movement of a city's population to its suburbs, leaving the core of the city to wither. Urban sprawl contributes to social segregation because only the wealthy can afford to move into suburban developments, while the poor stay in the central regions. This results in higher rates of homelessness and crime in inner-city areas. Once this happens, a positive feedback loop is created wherein the wealthy now begin to avoid the core because of perceived danger, leading to even greater degrees of class differentiation and thus increased poverty and crime in central regions. So, one may ask, if this is so obviously a problem in many large cities, how could city planners in a growing city like Winnipeg not learn from the mistakes of those before them? The answer to this seemingly simple question is that, as with anything, there are a variety of different stakeholders affected by the creation of a suburban development. For the purposes of this paper, I have divided them into eight categories. They are: skilled labourers and developing firms, the municipal government, the provincial government, taxpayers, consumers of new homes in suburbs, consumers of homes outside of city limits, environmentalists, and small business owners.

Let's start by looking at skilled labourers and local development firms. A major problem for Manitoba as a province is interprovincial migration out of the province. Many of our skilled workers are moving to Alberta for work opportunities. The building of a new suburb provides work locally for many skilled workers including plumbers, electricians, carpenters, and landscapers. From the perspective of these skilled workers, the creation of new suburban developments is a good thing because it provides them with work to support themselves and their families without having to relocate. Similarly, development companies benefit from the work and act as intermediaries between the province and the skilled workers.

In the case of Waverly West, a new 13,000-home development in Winnipeg, the NDP provincial government has much to gain. As owner of approximately half the land being developed, the provincial government is investing a large sum for infrastructure development and building costs, money that should not only be recoverable but that will be supplemented by a portion of the new revenues generated from property sales. Being the party with the most to gain from this new suburban development, the provincial government is perhaps the stakeholder most strongly in its favour.

In theory, the municipal government will benefit financially from the development of new suburbs. More high value houses on high value lots mean more property taxes for the city, all other things being equal. Unfortunately, in the case of Waverly West, all other things are not equal. In fact, the costs associated with upkeep of the deteriorating city core will offset any tax revenues generated from the new development. Also, a major argument for the creation of suburban housing developments within city limits is that they will benefit the city by encouraging people to live within and improve upon it. Robert Galston, however, in his 2009 Winnipeg Free Press article, suggests that the development of Waverly West could have the exact opposite effect. Instead of keeping people in the city, it could bring convenience amenities just close enough to the perimeter to make living outside of the city limits more appealing. (Galston)

The next group of stakeholders to take into consideration are Winnipeg's taxpayers. The interests of this group run parallel to those of the municipal government since both have similar end goals in mind; to maximize the impact of each tax dollar spent. This leads us to an interesting conflict. Residents of the city, as taxpayers, have two conflicting desires. The first is to pay the minimum amount they can in taxes, and the second is to get the most utility they can from government spending. If building a new suburban development means a larger tax base for the city, and the marginal increase in tax revenue will be used in a way in which it is distributed equally throughout the city, then the development will benefit Winnipeg's taxpayers, who will either pay lower taxes or will be getting more utility from government spending. For this to be the case, two criteria must be met. The first is that the annual sum of all taxes paid on homes in the new development must exceed the development's annual variable costs to the city. A new development brings not only added tax revenue but added costs as well. There will be new roads to maintain, new garbage to collect, and new schools to pay for. The second criterion is that, assuming the first criterion is met, the added costs to the city caused by the design itself, including the potentially high ones of a deteriorating inner core, must be less than the tax revenue surplus required by the first criterion. In short, for city taxpayers to benefit, taxes paid in the new development must be greater than the sum of both the internal and external costs of the new development.

Consumers that will be purchasing the new homes are also a subset of the taxpayers. On first inspection, it would seem that they would be the stakeholders most in favour of the development. They want to buy new houses in the suburbs. The development is aesthetically appealing and the homes are well-built, with all the newest eco-friendly technologies installed. However, the mere fact that people want to purchase these houses doesn't necessarily mean that they are in favour of the development. Some buyers might not be aware of the negative implications associated with the new development. Others, who may be aware of the negative implications and who, given the choice, would have preferred the city to have directed its focus toward the upkeep and updating of existing areas rather than the development of a new one, nevertheless become buyers. Given that the development is already built, these people might simply rather choose to live in it than not, based on the logic that somebody is going to live in it, the damage is already done, so why shouldn't it be them? What's the harm in living in the nice new