RMs ask province to let them out of Manitoba’s Metro Plan20-50

Article content

There was unprecedented public and media attention on Niverville after a mandatory public hearing was postponed last week. Now the town that hosted the gathering for the Winnipeg Metropolitan Region says it wants out- and that Plan20-50 needs “a sober second look.”

Article content

The WMR, seeking to mandate 18 municipalities to follow their new development and infrastructure blueprint, had to scrap the second and final public hearing into Plan20-50 on Aug. 8 when the group only planned for half of the 500 people who showed up.

An “official response to Plan20-50” released on Wednesday announced, “The town of Niverville council does not support Plan20-50 without significant amendments to protect the interests of Niverville.”

Protesting the “forced involvement” of the town with the WMR after Manitoba Bill 37 compelled participation, the response called the town’s inclusion “an error” and wants the province to amend the planning act to abolish forced membership. The council also wanted changes to ensure “final land-use planning decisions remain in the hands of locally elected officials at the community level.”

Article content

Article content

Representing more than 5,000 residents about 27 miles southeast of Winnipeg, they also refused to be put on the hook to pay for proposed studies and reports, and demanded “absolute cost certainty” before entering the plan. They called on the NDP government to “convene a meeting with all councils of the Winnipeg Metro Region and present a plan to address the local level challenges.”

Another dissenting Metro member spoke out on Wednesday. The City of Selkirk told a resident concerned with the potential over-reach of Plan20-50, that like Niverville, Selkirk intended to escape the grasp of the WMR entirely and has already asked the Province to cut them loose.

On Thursday, the RM of St. Andrews joined the chorus of dissenters.

Article content

“Although St. Andrews supports the concept of a regional plan, more communication of Plan20-50 to the public must take place before it can be finalized, as the RM of St. Andrews does not support the plan as it is currently written,” said the RM in a statement posted online.

The email explained that rules giving Winnipeg Mayor Scott Gillingham, a Plan20-50 booster, final say on the board of directors is a no-go.

“The regulation sets out how voting on the board works, including providing Winnipeg with an effective veto over resolutions of the board.”

This contradicts an FAQ published after the Niverville hearing was postponed, in response to what WMR executive director Jennifer Freeman called “misinformation”.

Article content

The FAQ on the group’s website denied there is any transfer of power from elected RM councils to Winnipeg’s mayor.

“Does my local mayor/reeve and council still have authority on what goes on in my community? Absolutely.”

The Selkirk reply said, “All municipalities in the Capital Planning Region were included without consultation or consent,” echoing Niverville’s protests.

The email explained that the board Gillingham is holding a veto over has “sweeping powers, including the right to expropriate land, including lands held by municipal governments, and the ability to impose fees the municipalities then must pass on to taxpayers.”

In a radio appearance on CJOB on Wednesday morning, Selkirk Mayor Larry Johannson acknowledged “It’s a hot button topic” and that opponents of Plan20-50 showed up at the city council meeting the day before.

Article content

“Once we explained the city of Selkirk, we want out of Plan20-50, we want out of the Metro region … once they realized we’re all on the same page, it went well.”

Emphasizing business trade with St. Andrews, St. Clements and Interlake communities, Johannson asserted “this is our true region out here.”

Last week, the RM of Headingley posted their opposition to Plan20-50.

“Headingley Council does not support the plan in its current form,” it declared on Aug. 9. “The WMR Board has not acknowledged Headingley’s desire to maintain a semi-rural environment.”

The prosperous RM on Winnipeg’s west border voted to split off from the city in 1993 and one reason was to control costs. The statement explained how under Plan20-50, “Transitioning to an inner metro area will strain both our hard (e.g., municipal sewer and water systems) and soft (e.g., recreational facilities) infrastructure capacity.”

Article content

The RM also slammed the WMR for failing to complete their due diligence:

“Has the WMR board estimated the costs, timelines, and staffing required for municipalities related to preparing regional context statements, updating development plans, updating zoning by-laws, updating secondary plans, and updating sewer and water plans?”

Noting the “potential for confusion and legal challenges”, Headingley also protested that “The plan is being advanced without comprehensive background studies in crucial areas such as regional servicing, transportation, housing, network assets, climate action, and agriculture.”

Last week both Mayor Gillingham and WMR executive director Jennifer Freeman urged sceptics to read the plan document to dispel their “misconceptions.”

In an interview with SteinbachOnline released on Wednesday morning, Freeman conceded, “a planning document like a regional planning bylaw can be hard to read when it’s not your field.”

Have thoughts on what’s going on in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada or across the world? Send us a letter to the editor at wpgsun.letters@kleinmedia.ca

Article content