Winnipeg | 2026 Civic election

[Sheepish]

Winnipegger...I was going to ask EXACTLY the same question. I voted for Murray - based on his past record - and what I THOUGHT he represented. In reality, I had no idea about his vision, until I heard his concession speech. If he had a vision, he failed to communicate it. Now, the fact is, we have a newly elected Mayor with a luke warm mandate. It is the responsibility of Murray and Loney, and TV, and others who are connected to keep him honest, and respecting the wishes and vision of the 73% that did NOT vote for him. Enough hand wringing. The sun came up this morning; the world did not come to an end. As Murray said, its time to get back to work at the things that are important. One more thing...Big Ideas are important, but taking care of the details should not be overlooked. They are not mutually exclusive.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Winnipegger

Personally, I'd love the urbanists on this forum like trueviking to specifically outline what Murray would have done to progress this city over-and-above what Gillingham will do, given Murray's committment to a tax freeze and instead opt for other marginal, hypothetical revenues.

So many people are acting like the sky is falling because the guy who won said he'd widen Keneston and Extend CPT. What would Glen have done instead - given the financial reality of our City - that would have been so transformative and amazing? More TIFs for the waterfront and exchange district? I can guarantee those not-really-transformative TIF programs will continue with Gillingham. Would Murray have suddenly found money to plow 3 extra lines of BRT through our City within the next 8 years? Doubtful. Would Murray somehow find the billions needed to fix mental healthcare and addictions, solving all of our city's social issues? I don't think so. Would Murray somehow approve 10,000 affordable dwelling units that would take all our marginalized and homeless people off the streets? Not likely.

At the end of the day, the Mayor is one vote on council with some additional influence on the EPC. And from there, the jurisdiction of municipal governments stops well before it reaches social housing, mental, and physical health. Murray or Gillingham, one man is not going to solve all the issues in Winnipeg. Rather, their ability to get other people along side their vision and goal at both a municipal and provincial level is going to be what matters most.

Murray's platform sounded nice to people who like bike lanes and patios, but don't understand the reality of our city's financial state and give too much credit to magical funding mechanisms like TIF, land value uplift, and "growing the economy" by pulling a non-existent lever in the Mayor's office at City hall.

Making everything about Keneston and CPT, and ignoring the other positions of Gillingham on various issues, and the fact that he is just one vote on council is painting a far darker and more "suburban" picture than what will actually happen.

Murray would have faced the same limitations as anyone else, and his platform indicated he didn't have any feasible solutions to those limitations, casting doubt on his ability to get anything done quite frankly.

Things change fast. Murray was in the right place at the right time in the late 90s when federal and provincial governments suddenly became flush with cash and started spreading that largesse around. Because of Murray and his particular vent, a lot of that money that trickled down to Winnipeg was redirected to urbanist projects. Winnipeg would have looked much different IMO if Peter Kaufmann had been in office during those years as compared to Murray.

Obviously if the feds and province are in hock then it doesn't matter much who the mayor is, you could have holographic Jane Jacobs as mayor and it still won't change things. But circumstances are improving. With a healthier set of books and possibly a change in provincial government, Council may have more latitude to effect change very soon. And that's when having someone like Murray in office would have made a big difference.

You are obviously a very intelligent person Winnipegger, but you do succumb to one of the biggest single weaknesses of this subforum in general... a tendency to believe that the status quo will always prevail. Things change.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by GreyGarden

Life is short. I started following this forum and Winnipeg planning issues about 10 years ago. In my opinion I had realistic hopes of what the city could look like 10 years later. It’s kind of depressing that we’re basically where we were and likely won’t change much for another 8 years. Ten years ago the gap between cities felt a little closer, but I think everyone has pulled ahead significantly. If we keep bleeding our educated progressive people it’ll be no surprise that we won’t be able to elect anyone other than conservative suburbanites.

Exactly this. I began paying attention to civic issues, planning issues in the mid 90s. I joined the forum in 2001.

At that time, we were behind other Canadian cities of a similar size, but the gap was not that pronounced. All through the 2000s, it felt like things were improving. I think it kind of peaked around 2011 when the big projects were all either under way or just completed, and of course the Jets came back. But since then we've been sliding faster and faster, and the decline has accelerated even more since COVID. We're at a point now where a lot of the progress that was painstakingly achieved over the last 20 years has been lost. Places like Saskatoon and Halifax are catching up... Calgary has lapped us several times.

I don't expect to ever leave, I'm too settled in my ways. But I will definitely give my kids a gentle shove when the time comes. There's a big world out there.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by Winnipegger

Personally, I'd love the urbanists on this forum like trueviking to specifically outline what Murray would have done to progress this city over-and-above what Gillingham will do, given Murray's committment to a tax freeze and instead opt for other marginal, hypothetical revenues.

So many people are acting like the sky is falling because the guy who won said he'd widen Keneston and Extend CPT. What would Glen have done instead - given the financial reality of our City - that would have been so transformative and amazing? More TIFs for the waterfront and exchange district? I can guarantee those not-really-transformative TIF programs will continue with Gillingham. Would Murray have suddenly found money to plow 3 extra lines of BRT through our City within the next 8 years? Doubtful. Would Murray somehow find the billions needed to fix mental healthcare and addictions, solving all of our city's social issues? I don't think so. Would Murray somehow approve 10,000 affordable dwelling units that would take all our marginalized and homeless people off the streets? Not likely.

At the end of the day, the Mayor is one vote on council with some additional influence on the EPC. And from there, the jurisdiction of municipal governments stops well before it reaches social housing, mental, and physical health. Murray or Gillingham, one man is not going to solve all the issues in Winnipeg. Rather, their ability to get other people along side their vision and goal at both a municipal and provincial level is going to be what matters most.

Murray's platform sounded nice to people who like bike lanes and patios, but don't understand the reality of our city's financial state and give too much credit to magical funding mechanisms like TIF, land value uplift, and "growing the economy" by pulling a non-existent lever in the Mayor's office at City hall.

Making everything about Keneston and CPT, and ignoring the other positions of Gillingham on various issues, and the fact that he is just one vote on council is painting a far darker and more "suburban" picture than what will actually happen.

Murray would have faced the same limitations as anyone else, and his platform indicated he didn't have any feasible solutions to those limitations, casting doubt on his ability to get anything done quite frankly.

i personally dont care at all about what promises they made....its about who they are...gillingham's promises very much show who is....any real city-building issue is just added on as lipstick....i want to redevelop graham avenue....like...great....that's already happening.

murray has spent his entire adult life immersed in city building....he has lived and breathed it for 50 years....he knows what makes a vibrant, prosperous, sustainable city....he knows it down to its very minutiae...its who he is and everything he would have done would have been from that lens....he lives the life...central, no car....he gets it 100%.

gillingham is a professional church pastor with strong ties to the provincial conservative party, a party that hates cities....he has zero background in city building....he lives a suburban lifestyle and everything he will do will come from that background....he may add some generic buzz words that sound vaguely urbanist but in the end everything he will do will come from a suburban conservative lens.

if you believe that gillingham will find $1.5 billion to build two big roads, why don't you believe murray could have found that amount for three rapid transit lines....at least that would have been his priority...we know now that it isnt at all.

[drew]

Originally Posted by Sheepish

Winnipegger...I was going to ask EXACTLY the same question. I voted for Murray - based on his past record - and what I THOUGHT he represented. In reality, I had no idea about his vision, until I heard his concession speech. If he had a vision, he failed to communicate it. Now, the fact is, we have a newly elected Mayor with a luke warm mandate. It is the responsibility of Murray and Loney, and TV, and others who are connected to keep him honest, and respecting the wishes and vision of the 73% that did NOT vote for him. Enough hand wringing. The sun came up this morning; the world did not come to an end. As Murray said, its time to get back to work at the things that are important. One more thing...Big Ideas are important, but taking care of the details should not be overlooked. They are not mutually exclusive.

Mayors should never be tasked with the details - they are the vision. There are countless staff employed at the City to handle the details.

The past decade or so should demonstrate to everyone here what happens when the Provincial government and municipal governments take care of the details in Winnipeg. The rotting of the core just continues to expand.

My hope was that the stars were going to align again with a progressive Mayor and more urban focused Provincial government bringing meaningful change to Winnipeg.

[trueviking]

placing faith in the councilors is even worse....the only hope is a strong mayor who can push an agenda forward....almost all the councilors are in it for their own ward and have no interest in big urbanist ideas to move the city forward.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by drew

My hope was that the stars were going to align again with a progressive Mayor and more urban focused Provincial government bringing meaningful change to Winnipeg.

this is why I am so sad....so did I....i had real hope....when i heard CTV say Murray won, I was so optimistic for the future of my city....for the first time in literally decades.....

[Highwayman]

I'm personally rather worried with our new Mayor.
1- he's on the police board. That's just an invitation for giving in to their demands for more money. I'm sure he would say no lol.
2- he goes on about centreport saying we are losing city taxes so we need to build a road ( which we do need ) and that will help Centreport grow. Well two things. No one is going to use Cheif Peguis for semis. They'll be coming from the Perimeter or Centreport Way. Two, what taxes ? The majority of Centreport is in the RM of Rosser FFS....didn't he look at a map ???? Maybe the RM would like to find Cheif Peg extension lol.

I'm all for new roads but we need to get the ones we have fixed first like Bishop which is a mess. There are many other main roads that need help before we start breaking ground for a new road.

I guess though he won't be as stale as Bowman.

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by trueviking

this is why I am so sad....so did I....i had real hope....when i heard CTV say Murray won, I was so optimistic for the future of my city....for the first time in literally decades.....

Same. I thought finally a mayor that will do something with downtown. And instead we get one that he will basically forget all of downtown aside from anything around the police HQ

[pacman]

Originally Posted by trueviking

i personally dont care at all about what promises they made....its about who they are...gillingham's promises very much show who is....any real city-building issue is just added on as lipstick....i want to redevelop graham avenue....like...great....that's already happening.

murray has spent his entire adult life immersed in city building....he has lived and breathed it for 50 years....he knows what makes a vibrant, prosperous, sustainable city....he knows it down to its very minutiae...its who he is and everything he would have done would have been from that lens....he lives the life...central, no car....he gets it 100%.

gillingham is a professional church pastor with strong ties to the provincial conservative party, a party that hates cities....he has zero background in city building....he lives a suburban lifestyle and everything he will do will come from that background....he may add some generic buzz words that sound vaguely urbanist but in the end everything he will do will come from a suburban conservative lens.

if you believe that gillingham will find $1.5 billion to build two big roads, why don't you believe murray could have found that amount for three rapid transit lines....at least that would have been his priority...we know now that it isnt at all.

The issue I have with this tone of reply is that there is literally no arguing with it. "Suburban lifestyle" and everything that comes with it is inherently bad and that is the lens that you see things which means anything that suburban pastor dude says that could potentially appeal to you is just buzzwords with no substance. The irony is that for all the knowledge, experience, and urban living and breathing that he has done for 50 years, Murray could not articulate a plan without spewing generic buzz words and even then could not make it sound remotely realistic.

To answer your question... Gillingham's promises to build big roads are somewhat realistic because there is precedence in tri-level government funding for similar large infrastucture projects. On top of that Gillingham campaigned on paying for his other promises on the back of the largest tax increase of any of the candidates. This builds credibility and makes people believe it can be done. Lastly he actually made promises with quantifiable deliverables.... People like me determined that Murray was less believable because first of all he promised a tax free in the midst of a period of high inflation which is tantamount to a tax cut. He also promised that his promises would be funded by the provincial government whom he has no authority over and more importantly have no previous precedence of handing over 1% of the PST no strings attached so that the City could spend at their discretion, and most importantly he did not promise 1.5 billion for three rapid transit lines as far as I know. What specific quantifiable deliverables did he promise assuming he magically received that PST funding? The guy talks a great game and I'm sure he would deliver great things for Winnipeg, but when you ask why would we believe Gillingham over Murray, the answer is that his promises are more believable, period.

[PaulR]

I think in reality, Murray would not have been able to deliver on most of his promises either, based on his proposed unrealistic funding scheme. This in turn would have upset many or most who had voted for him and then come next election, and someone like Gillingham would have been voted in.

The sad reality is that there were no legitimate visionary candidates in this election. None. Zero. Murray was the least terrible of a horrible bunch. There are simply no visionaries in the city who are willing to step up with real concrete plans to project the city into the 21st century and help it become competitive with other major Canadian cities. When will this actually happen? Watch this space.

[pspeid]

Okay, so we don't have a forward-thinking Mayor....again. Is there anything positive that can give us hope Gillingham will not be a complete disaster?

He is realistic about needing more tax revenue for the city. Probably a good thing.

He has claimed he wants to use city-owned land to provide shelter for the homeless. Have to wait and see what actually happens, but at least he's, maybe, not totally ignoring the issue? We'll have to wait and see what his "solution" is.

He claimed he wanted to see Graham continue to be developed. Have to wait and see but maybe "not bad"? Maybe the old St. Regis project gets a little support? Maybe?

He claimed to want to see movement on Portage Place. Have to wait and see, but again, maybe some positive movement?

P & M-unless the stakeholders on the corner really put the screws to him I can't see anything proactively happening, but maybe he'll be happy to just allow the barriers to stay down after underground repairs are done, in the name of cost savings? Maybe?

His approach to crime & poverty issues......I really dunno. His position on joining the police board and being a "law and order" kind of guy makes me think the police budget will just swell again.

My "day after" feeling; disappointment, not much hope, but I'm not ready to raise the white flag just yet.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by pacman

The issue I have with this tone of reply is that there is literally no arguing with it. "Suburban lifestyle" and everything that comes with it is inherently bad and that is the lens that you see things which means anything that suburban pastor dude says that could potentially appeal to you is just buzzwords with no substance. The irony is that for all the knowledge, experience, and urban living and breathing that he has done for 50 years, Murray could not articulate a plan without spewing generic buzz words and even then could not make it sound remotely realistic.

To answer your question... Gillingham's promises to build big roads are somewhat realistic because there is precedence in tri-level government funding for similar large infrastucture projects. On top of that Gillingham campaigned on paying for his other promises on the back of the largest tax increase of any of the candidates. This builds credibility and makes people believe it can be done. Lastly he actually made promises with quantifiable deliverables.... People like me determined that Murray was less believable because first of all he promised a tax free in the midst of a period of high inflation which is tantamount to a tax cut. He also promised that his promises would be funded by the provincial government whom he has no authority over and more importantly have no previous precedence of handing over 1% of the PST no strings attached so that the City could spend at their discretion, and most importantly he did not promise 1.5 billion for three rapid transit lines as far as I know. What specific quantifiable deliverables did he promise assuming he magically received that PST funding? The guy talks a great game and I'm sure he would deliver great things for Winnipeg, but when you ask why would we believe Gillingham over Murray, the answer is that his promises are more believable, period.

again....i dont care about promises....elections are not promise shopping.

The federal government has already rejected Kenaston twice....they are funding rapid transit all over the country...not roads....Gillingham's promise to add a line item on everyone's property tax bill is ridiculous...you really think people in transcona are going to agree to a $200 line item for ten years to pay for a road in west kildonan?...those roads will never get built...it was just to get you to vote for him.

you wont get an argument from me that murray ran a dumpster fire of a campaign, but his resume and pedigree speaks for itself...i didnt need promises.

[EdwardTH]

Originally Posted by Highwayman

I'm personally rather worried with our new Mayor.
1- he's on the police board. That's just an invitation for giving in to their demands for more money. I'm sure he would say no lol.

Gillingham wasn't my first choice but I have to admit I don't understand this view. It seems a lot of people don't really get what the police board is?

The board isn't appointed by WPS. They're appointed by council, the same council that sets the WPS budget. They're (supposed to be) on the city's side, not WPS's side, they don't really have anything to gain from sucking up to WPS and if they did that would conflict with their whole purpose of keeping WPS accountable... not that they do that very well but still.

This would be like saying someone is going to be unfairly pro-union because they're part of the management that negotiates against the union. Doesn't make a lot of sense.

[bomberjet]

The same council who completely fucking caved to the Police union EVERY SINGLE YEAR. Bigly, hugely. We could pay for a lot of stuff instead of more police officer salary. When crime is still a huge problem. They take their money and run to ESP and La Salle.

We have the exact same cast of characters running the City again. Is probably the biggest disappointment. One new voice in Charleswood. Russ Wyatt back in Transcona. Not sure who is worse, him or Nason. Maybe Wyatt's tone has changed since his personal struggles took over.

[bomberjet]

The overarching problem is this: who really wants to be mayor or councilor?

Not me. I make more money in the private sector. I wouldn't want to work even for the City engineering people. I make more money than all of them except the director and maybe some senior managers.

We end up with these people who are in it for the decent pay cheque. The mayor makes more than me. But hell no I'd not want that job. If I was so capable of being the mayor, I'd be making more than them in the private sector.

So you get these halfwits who are in charge of everything. The people in charge of transit, for example, really do not impress me. Their ideas are stale. Same with the roads people.

[WinCitySparky]

Originally Posted by trueviking

How do you mute someone on this forum?

I muted him ages and ages ago and it makes an incredible difference

[esquire]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

The same council who completely fucking caved to the Police union EVERY SINGLE YEAR. Bigly, hugely. We could pay for a lot of stuff instead of more police officer salary. When crime is still a huge problem. They take their money and run to ESP and La Salle.

People gripe about the cops, but the sad fact is that we are a high crime city. We need the cops to prevent this place from turning into a scene from Mad Max, and anyone who thinks that safe injection sites and social workers will change that is living in a dream world. The cops know it. That's why there are so many of them.

If crime dropped 25% next year then yeah, a pile of them could get pink slips. But sadly, we need a police presence to keep some semblance of order.

Originally Posted by bomberjet

The overarching problem is this: who really wants to be mayor or councilor?

Not me. I make more money in the private sector. I wouldn't want to work even for the City engineering people. I make more money than all of them except the director and maybe some senior managers.

We end up with these people who are in it for the decent pay cheque. The mayor makes more than me. But hell no I'd not want that job. If I was so capable of being the mayor, I'd be making more than them in the private sector.

So you get these halfwits who are in charge of everything. The people in charge of transit, for example, really do not impress me. Their ideas are stale. Same with the roads people.

I've heard it said that we should pay more. But mayor and council are not exactly subsisting on a poverty wage. $110K-$125K for council. $200K for mayor. Besides, if some genius law/engineering/accounting firm partner won't leave their lucrative practice to be a councillor for $110K, what makes us think they'll do it for $220K? How high would you have to jack up salaries for the money to start drawing that calibre of candidate?

At the end of the day I think council is relying on people who aren't in it only for the money. The City can never compete with the top professional services firms when it comes to remuneration.

[WinCitySparky]

Originally Posted by damnedmenno

Sad not one incumbent lost. In my riding for St Mathews not one person I knew wanted Cindy Gilroy back, but she won. Also Transcona now has Russ Wyatt again, so more of the status quo. Let's build better roads at the expense of urban renewal to make it faster for people to leave for better cities and complain about Winnipeg from afar.

I’m also St Matthews and everyone I talk to hates Cindy, but obviously none of them could be bothered to vote. Fuck Cindy Do-Nothing Career Politician Gilroy. Even slumlord Sal would have been better.

[PaulR]

Originally Posted by esquire

People gripe about the cops, but the sad fact is that we are a high crime city. We need the cops to prevent this place from turning into a scene from Mad Max, and anyone who thinks that safe injection sites and social workers will change that is living in a dream world. The cops know it. That's why there are so many of them.

If crime dropped 25% next year then yeah, a pile of them could get pink slips. But sadly, we need a police presence to keep some semblance of order.

Then what is the answer? We've seen throwing more cops at the situation doesn't help. Even the current(?) said that citizens need to accept the high crime levels and basically live with it. What does that tell you?