Winnipeg | 2026 Civic Election & City Affairs

[Danny D Oh]

Originally Posted by Winnipegger

Gonna have to disagree with you on that one. A big business shouldn't be able to just waltz right in to our city and demand massive infrastructure improvements that jump the queue, which aren't even on our already-prioritized and council-vetted infrastructure plan, all for an extra couple hundred grand in property taxes.

Let's do the math: Best case scenario, Amazon builds a warehouse worth what, $50 million? That adds roughly half a million dollars in property taxes to City coffers annually [(((50,000,000*0.65)/1000)*13.468)=$437,710]. BUT this is in exchange for a massive infrastructure upgrade that isn't even on the City's radar. Fine, we'll let Amazon jump the queue because think of all those delicious, low-paying barely above minimum wage order picker and warehouse jobs that will be created. Okay, so Waverley underpass was $145 million in total. Let's assume this underpass is less complex and construction inflation isn't an issue, and pretend this new underpass is $100 million. If the City splits it three ways, then it's responsible for about $33 million. If the entire thing is debt financed over 30 years using typical rates accessible to the municipality, then annual debt payments for 30 years will be roughly $2.4 million for the underpass.

To me, "bringing in Amazon" for an extra $500k/year in property tax in exchange for $2.4 million /year in debt payments seems like a bad deal for taxpayers, to the tune of a $1.9 million loss (a.k.a. corporate subsidy) every year. Why subject taxpayers to this kind of pain when plans are already in place and council approved to get working on servicing CentrePort? Sure, we might not get Amazon today since it's going to Rosser, but we're much better off building the infrastructure to service the much more attractive CentrePort area than diverting funds to build out the relatively low-value areas in Transcona. The only way this makes sense is if local residents and businesses agree that the infrastructure upgrade to the area is worth as much as or more than $1.9 million/year to them. And that's a pretty hard figure to determine.

In a real city with per-capita revenues and expenditures closer to the average for a large Canadian city, I'd argue that both should be done. We should be extending services to as many industrial areas as we can to accommodate growth and remain competitive. But for years council has chosen to limit the growth of municipal revenue and therefore infrastructure investments, and projects like these show them they are paying the price.

Of course each area councilor wants as much development in their area as possible, but when it comes time to pay up, their tune changes. If councilor's actually wanted to make Winnipeg an attractive area for investment, they would have raised taxes long ago and taken a stronger stance on area charges so that we'd actually have the money to build infrastructure and accommodate new investment. But they never did that, so we're left with businesses either demanding massive subsidies or threating to move on to some other city/municipality instead.

Now whether or not the administration should have done the math and then taken the result to council for public debate is another story. Transparency is important, but the net financial impact to the city and citizens also needs to be presented to the public instead of either just "this investment is good" or "this investment is bad". If elected officials want to approve corporate subsidies/demands that have a net negative impact on citizens, that's their choice and citizens can voice their approval and disapproval accordingly. But keeping this information from them may not be the best idea, but it's not worse than sharing only half the information so councilor's can make half-baked decisions without the backing data. I'd wager councilors like Klein or Nason would be eager to approve net-negative investments so as long as it makes them appear "business friendly" and gets them a ribbon cutting ceremony, but would be quick to quiet down when asked the true impact such projects have on the municipal budget and therefore taxpayers.

Council governs the city, doesn't operate it. Admin handled this perfectly.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by esquire

Or looking at it differently, the City lost the opportunity to get a contribution towards the costs of an underpass that would have been a significant improvement to the road network of that area.

Winnipeg isn't really having its cake and eating it too, because with Amazon locating in Rosser there will be a) no direct revenues from Amazon and b) no associated infrastructure improvements.

If this is as Nason and Klein say, then it's disappointing and a missed opportunity.

Couldn’t disagree more. We spent $400 million building a road specifically for this purpose. We don’t need to spend another $100 million + for one shipping warehouse. This ain’t the tech hub Amazon was shopping a few years ago. It’s a junk warehouse filled with minimum wage jobs.

If we’ve got $100+ million burning a hole in our pocket, I can think of much more socially or economically impactful things to spend it on than a low traffic underpass on the edge of the city.

[trueviking]

@ Winnipegger. Were you thinking in your calculations that the city would be able to convince the feds and province to split the cost? There would be no way the feds would contribute in my opinion. Not sure what would be in it for the province either to be honest.

[pspeid]

^^This is the type of context and insight the media articles needed. Instead they parroted vague claims, apparently for the sake of click-bait. It's sad that, even if a follow-up article were written that had this type of information, most will remember only the "scandal" of the city "snubbing" Amazon.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Winnipegger

Gonna have to disagree with you on that one. A big business shouldn't be able to just waltz right in to our city and demand massive infrastructure improvements that jump the queue, which aren't even on our already-prioritized and council-vetted infrastructure plan, all for an extra couple hundred grand in property taxes.

Let's do the math: Best case scenario, Amazon builds a warehouse worth what, $50 million? That adds roughly half a million dollars in property taxes to City coffers annually [(((50,000,000*0.65)/1000)*13.468)=$437,710]. BUT this is in exchange for a massive infrastructure upgrade that isn't even on the City's radar. Fine, we'll let Amazon jump the queue because think of all those delicious, low-paying barely above minimum wage order picker and warehouse jobs that will be created. Okay, so Waverley underpass was $145 million in total. Let's assume this underpass is less complex and construction inflation isn't an issue, and pretend this new underpass is $100 million. If the City splits it three ways, then it's responsible for about $33 million. If the entire thing is debt financed over 30 years using typical rates accessible to the municipality, then annual debt payments for 30 years will be roughly $2.4 million for the underpass.

To me, "bringing in Amazon" for an extra $500k/year in property tax in exchange for $2.4 million /year in debt payments seems like a bad deal for taxpayers, to the tune of a $1.9 million loss (a.k.a. corporate subsidy) every year. Why subject taxpayers to this kind of pain when plans are already in place and council approved to get working on servicing CentrePort? Sure, we might not get Amazon today since it's going to Rosser, but we're much better off building the infrastructure to service the much more attractive CentrePort area than diverting funds to build out the relatively low-value areas in Transcona. The only way this makes sense is if local residents and businesses agree that the infrastructure upgrade to the area is worth as much as or more than $1.9 million/year to them. And that's a pretty hard figure to determine.

In a real city with per-capita revenues and expenditures closer to the average for a large Canadian city, I'd argue that both should be done. We should be extending services to as many industrial areas as we can to accommodate growth and remain competitive. But for years council has chosen to limit the growth of municipal revenue and therefore infrastructure investments, and projects like these show them they are paying the price.

Of course each area councilor wants as much development in their area as possible, but when it comes time to pay up, their tune changes. If councilor's actually wanted to make Winnipeg an attractive area for investment, they would have raised taxes long ago and taken a stronger stance on area charges so that we'd actually have the money to build infrastructure and accommodate new investment. But they never did that, so we're left with businesses either demanding massive subsidies or threating to move on to some other city/municipality instead.

Now whether or not the administration should have done the math and then taken the result to council for public debate is another story. Transparency is important, but the net financial impact to the city and citizens also needs to be presented to the public instead of either just "this investment is good" or "this investment is bad". If elected officials want to approve corporate subsidies/demands that have a net negative impact on citizens, that's their choice and citizens can voice their approval and disapproval accordingly. But keeping this information from them may not be the best idea, but it's not worse than sharing only half the information so councilor's can make half-baked decisions without the backing data. I'd wager councilors like Klein or Nason would be eager to approve net-negative investments so as long as it makes them appear "business friendly" and gets them a ribbon cutting ceremony, but would be quick to quiet down when asked the true impact such projects have on the municipal budget and therefore taxpayers.

I appreciate where you're coming from, but I don't see this as a case of Winnipeg supposedly doing Amazon's bidding so much as it would be capitalizing on an opportunity to get someone else to kick in towards the costs of something that is going to eventually get built anyway.

There aren't many major level crossings left on the CP and CN main lines through the city... Ravenhurst is maybe not the most pressing current need in that regard, but it is an important crossing that will grow in importance as the neighbourhood grows. Eventually it will get an underpass. So if someone is interested in setting up a business that can expedite that and reduce the project's cost, why wouldn't you consider it?

Yes the City would be in the red for $1.9 million assuming that your model is true, but that money wouldn't disappear into the ether... there would be a significant infrastructure improvement to show for it. At the end of the day the City would be buying an important asset that could leverage more investment in the area.

I have no particular personal stake in this, I can probably count the number of times I've been on Ravenhurst on one hand, and still have fingers left over. But it does strike me as a compelling opportunity that is worth considering.

[trueviking]

Even if Amazon decided they would pay for half of an underpass. They never would but for argument’s sake. Spending $50+ million to add an underpass that very few people would use is not a good investment. Even if that money went to roads, there are more impactful places to spend it.

It’s like a vegetarian using a coupon to buy steak sauce. Yeah you got a deal on the steak sauce but wouldn’t it have been better to spend the money on some fresh vegetables? (Or whatever it is vegetarians like)

[thebasketballgeek]

Whenever I hear these corporations wanting some sort of rebate I always wonder what you could do with $50 million in new AT infrastructure or to revitalize dilapidated neighborhoods?

Idk Downtown is kinda a shithole and we are severely lacking in transit shelters throughout the city I feel there are better ROIs available especially when Amazon built at Centreport anyway. Who cares if the RM of Rosser gets a few bucks in property tax most of the economic generation will occur in Winnipeg because most workers are in Winnipeg, and it still benefits Manitoba in general.

Pandering for corporations is shameful. If they want to invest they can do it in their own volition without requiring public funds. Also, they were asking for a TIF which is not the appropriate situation or location to use such a policy.

[Danny D Oh]

Originally Posted by pspeid

^^This is the type of context and insight the media articles needed. Instead they parroted vague claims, apparently for the sake of click-bait. It's sad that, even if a follow-up article were written that had this type of information, most will remember only the "scandal" of the city "snubbing" Amazon.

Bart is probably on a hiking trail writing the story in his mind and spitting fire.

[Danny D Oh]

Originally Posted by esquire

I appreciate where you're coming from, but I don't see this as a case of Winnipeg supposedly doing Amazon's bidding so much as it would be capitalizing on an opportunity to get someone else to kick in towards the costs of something that is going to eventually get built anyway.

There aren't many major level crossings left on the CP and CN main lines through the city... Ravenhurst is maybe not the most pressing current need in that regard, but it is an important crossing that will grow in importance as the neighbourhood grows. Eventually it will get an underpass. So if someone is interested in setting up a business that can expedite that and reduce the project's cost, why wouldn't you consider it?

Yes the City would be in the red for $1.9 million assuming that your model is true, but that money wouldn't disappear into the ether... there would be a significant infrastructure improvement to show for it. At the end of the day the City would be buying an important asset that could leverage more investment in the area.

I have no particular personal stake in this, I can probably count the number of times I've been on Ravenhurst on one hand, and still have fingers left over. But it does strike me as a compelling opportunity that is worth considering.

I think they'll spend infrastructure money on a better connection north and east to Perimeter for commuters in that area, put the over/underpass directly on the Perimeter.

If anything Ravenhurst will likely dead end before the tracks as it's kind of a road to nowhere (2 lane Dugald). It's not a route we want commuters on.

[Winnipegger]

Originally Posted by trueviking

@ Winnipegger. Were you thinking in your calculations that the city would be able to convince the feds and province to split the cost? There would be no way the feds would contribute in my opinion. Not sure what would be in it for the province either to be honest.

Yes, I was assuming the cost would be split one-third across all three levels of government, which I agree is unrealistic for this project at this time. But I was presenting a "best case" scenario since the counter-argument from those siding with Klein seems to be the City carelessly ignored a "growth opportunity" that could have leveraged all three levels of government to build a large piece of infrastructure. I don't agree with this argument for my aforementioned reasons, but thought I'd play into it regardless.

Originally Posted by esquire

I appreciate where you're coming from, but I don't see this as a case of Winnipeg supposedly doing Amazon's bidding so much as it would be capitalizing on an opportunity to get someone else to kick in towards the costs of something that is going to eventually get built anyway.

Your logic would make sense if all these considerations existed in a vacuum and both the Provincial and Federal Government had unlimited funds to give away. But they don't, and there are competing interests for infrastructure investments. Every major infrastructure project we consider here in Winnipeg has an opportunity cost - that is, for every project that gets done, another project (or five) does not get done. And given both the municipal and provincial's government propensity for fiscal conservatism and our city's large infrastructure deficit, the opportunity cost of each infrastructure project is quite massive.

Our list of infrastructure needs is huge, and the list of wants is even bigger. So if the province and feds only give away $X every year (or every election cycle) for infrastructure projects in Winnipeg, those scarce dollars need to be properly prioritized based on what will benefit citizens and businesses the most. This project does not do that. There are fifty other high-priority projects that need to get done that serve a much wider user-base and therefore deserve to done sooner to maximize tax-payer benefits.

If we were flush with cash and a more-friendly, more-cooperative provincial government, sure we could leverage this opportunity to build out multiple nodes for future employment lands. But the reality is neither of those things are true, so leveraging $33 million in municipal dollars to bring in $67 million from the province and feds to build a fictitious $100 million underpass in a relatively low-value, little-used area means a dozen other, high-priority projects for citizens and businesses get bumped down the list and their shovels-in-the-ground date gets pushed forward several years, causing potential beneficiaries to those projects to lose out simply because a large international corporation came here swinging it's brand recognition around to try and force infrastructure prioritization to forgo due-process.

I think everybody, regardless of political stripe, wants to be seen as a job creator. Nobody, ranging from the laissez faire conservative fiscal hawk to the tax-and-spend welfare-state new democrat, wants to turn down job creation because more good jobs benefit everyone. But what is important to evaluate is the balance between subsidizing "job creators" and the net impact on taxpayers - the ones who ultimately subsidize the "job creators".

Of course, the simple media-driven narrative will be that the "city hates job creators" no thanks to Klein and Nason, but digging into the numbers (something most people don't do) will paint a much different picture. But of course, I think we've all learned over this past decade of politics is that she/he who screams the loudest will get the most attention with little question.

But at the end of the day, it sounds like we still got all those amazing, high-paying-with-benefits Prime delivery driver and order picking jobs that will all be automated in 10 years, without having to pay out a bunch of cash to build out an un-needed piece of infrastructure. So overall, a win-win for the CMA. The only losers are the area councilors who won't get to cut the ribbon and shovel a single scoop of dirt (pretending they know what work is) for a photo-op.

[esquire]

Unless the long-term plan is to cut Ravenhurst off at the tracks, it will eventually get the grade separation treatment... at least in theory. As I understand it, that is the end-state plan for all level crossings along the CN and CP main lines.

So at some point, the city, province and feds will likely have to pay the entire bill themselves for an underpass at Ravenhurst.

[Biff]

I would bet that having an underpass at Ravenhurst would be at about 1000 on the City's list of priorities for infrastructure needs.

[Danny D Oh]

Originally Posted by Biff

I would bet that having an underpass at Ravenhurst would be at about 1000 on the City's list of priorities for infrastructure needs.

Yeah and there's no chance any provincial or federal money should go into that road while we have a level crossing a block down on a highway that has a 100 speed limit.

Ravenhurst is not an arterial road.

[esquire]

^ It is a Metro Route which implies some significance above, say, the level crossings of the CN main line in Charleswood at Harstone, Community Row, etc.

[TimeFadesAway]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ It is a Metro Route which implies some significance above, say, the level crossings of the CN main line in Charleswood at Harstone, Community Row, etc.

So 998 on the priority list?

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by Biff

I would bet that having an underpass at Ravenhurst would be at about 1000 on the City's list of priorities for infrastructure needs.

I mean, it would cut a few minutes off my time to go from slow pitch at Buhler to the Pandora every Thursday night....

[Danny D Oh]

Originally Posted by trueviking

I mean, it would cut a few minutes off my time to go from slow pitch at Buhler to the Pandora every Thursday night....

So long as it hasn't rained in the last week flooding out Pandora east of Redonda.

[zalf]

"{Mayoral candidate} promises {policy}, despite {policy} not being within the mayor's powers" seems to be a running theme this election.

[3de14eec6a]

Originally Posted by zalf

"{Mayoral candidate} promises {policy}, despite {policy} not being within the mayor's powers" seems to be a running theme this election.

Sometimes it's the media framing it that way. Not saying that none of the candidates have done it; but a few times I've seen an article where the headline and first few paragraphs don't match with any of the actual quotes.

[cllew]

Sounds like the Amazon project is just wishful thinking. Wpg Free Press is saying for Saturdays paper Amazon has no idea of what Kelvin Klien and Shawn Nason are talking about. They are happy with their two last mile distribution terminals in Winnipeg.

Klien for his part said that he verified the project was real as his 25 years of news media experience taught him to check with 3 unrelated sources.