HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #381  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2021, 11:12 PM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is online now
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 13,458
This development has nothing to do with widening Kenaston. If the city finds an extra half billion dollars somewhere and chooses to use it to add a 3km long lane to this street, they will have to negotiate a purchase for whatever land they need from all the various property owners.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #382  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2021, 9:59 PM
blueandgoldguy blueandgoldguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,759
I have been reading on another forum that the ICE ownership are in discussions to build a rink for the junior team with 1 or 2 smaller rinks attached. I guess it would be in the spot where they have a rink located in the layout of the site.

Anyone know anything about these discussions?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #383  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2021, 4:38 AM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,764
I've been following my local community centre, Valley Gardens, trying to build a Multiplex to replace Terry sawchuk. The city has backed away and has repaired TS. So VG is looking at private money and mentioned talks with below 50. But beyond that havent heard anything. Kapyong might be a good fit as they're still close to the south end money they desire.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #384  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2021, 2:41 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy View Post
I have been reading on another forum that the ICE ownership are in discussions to build a rink for the junior team with 1 or 2 smaller rinks attached. I guess it would be in the spot where they have a rink located in the layout of the site.

Anyone know anything about these discussions?
I raised this speculatively earlier. I don't think the developers of Kapyong are just going to build a tiny rink for atom games. They're more ambitious than that. And with 50 Below looking for a place to go now that they have apparently broken up with The Rink, this is a partnership that would make perfect sense... the location is way better than out near Oak Bluff when it comes to attracting fans.

If 50 Below teams up with the Treaty One group to build a complex with, say, one big junior spectator rink and a couple of smaller rinks attached, I could see them doing pretty good business not only with the WHL team, but also with tournaments, training, running their own leagues, maybe even an academy to compete with The Rink? There are a lot of possibilities. So this rumour doesn't surprise me in the least.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #385  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2021, 4:08 PM
wags_in_the_peg's Avatar
wags_in_the_peg wags_in_the_peg is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Posts: 3,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
I raised this speculatively earlier. I don't think the developers of Kapyong are just going to build a tiny rink for atom games. They're more ambitious than that. And with 50 Below looking for a place to go now that they have apparently broken up with The Rink, this is a partnership that would make perfect sense... the location is way better than out near Oak Bluff when it comes to attracting fans.

If 50 Below teams up with the Treaty One group to build a complex with, say, one big junior spectator rink and a couple of smaller rinks attached, I could see them doing pretty good business not only with the WHL team, but also with tournaments, training, running their own leagues, maybe even an academy to compete with The Rink? There are a lot of possibilities. So this rumour doesn't surprise me in the least.
last year, they bought up the 2 major "Spring hockey" and have rights to their tournaments, so they are capitalizing pretty good on that market
__________________
just an ordinary Prairie Boy who loves to be in the loop on what is going on
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #386  
Old Posted Jul 28, 2021, 4:18 PM
LilZebra LilZebra is offline
Orig. frm Alpha Pectaurus
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Assiniboia, Man.
Posts: 2,873
Was out on Kenaston near old Lippsett Hall site and saw some construction equipment (front end loader, digger) on the site.

Anyone kniow what's going on?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #387  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2021, 2:30 AM
BlackDog204's Avatar
BlackDog204 BlackDog204 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: west
Posts: 1,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by LilZebra View Post
Was out on Kenaston near old Lippsett Hall site and saw some construction equipment (front end loader, digger) on the site.

Anyone kniow what's going on?
A First Nations group won the right to the land, and is developing it into a mixed residential/commercial zone on the old barracks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #388  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2021, 8:52 AM
KellyEdwards KellyEdwards is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackDog204 View Post
A First Nations group won the right to the land, and is developing it into a mixed residential/commercial zone on the old barracks.
To be clear, Treaty First Nations won the right to 'first option' to the land.

First Nations, by mutual agreement with the Feds, must be offered the first option to purchase any land declared a surplus by the federal government.

This agreement was created under the Treaty Land Entitlement Framework (TLEF) after the Feds spent millions in fighting losing cases regarding Treaty negotiations that said an "x" amount of land were to be reserved for indigenous peoples.

Instead, the gov illegally stole land (sometimes entire reservations) and under-delivered on written Treaty promises with pretty much every tribe. The cost, if I remember correctly, to settle these cases costs more than $6 billion.

And these lawsuit settlements are based off of current indigenous population rather than the population of indigenous at the time of the signing of the respective treaty.

For Treaty 1 territory, the gov must payout the cash cost of 32 acres per member of the tribe or 160 acres per family of 5. And as the price of an acre rises through the years, so does the cash cost of settling these cases.

And rather than doing things the right way back in the 1870's when the indigenous populations were much smaller, these injustices mean Canada must payout the cash cost of acres for TODAY'S modern population--resulting in even larger sums of money being paid.

The longer Canada waits to settle these lawsuits the more it will cost taxpayers because of these two factors.

The tribe's government receives this cash from these lawsuit settlements/wins to purchase land to rightfully re-allocate towards its total allowable reserve size. Sometimes the tribe votes to spend the cash towards investing into businesses and/or paying out all individual members of the tribe.

This helps the reserve become more financially independent and thus self-determined. It also temporarily assists with alleviating some poverty.

Indigenous peoples pay for the land just like anyone else and at a fair market price too just as the TLEF states. This money received was rightfully and legally won in Canada's own courts with Canada's own agreements.

First Nations are not given the land in any way. First Nations must purchase the land from the Feds. This is why only a section of the total Barracks are owned by First Nations and the rest to other developers. And First Nations who have signed a TLEF have a limited number of acres they can re-convert back into reservation land (as outlined by their case) since Canada forbids First Nations from expanding their reservations.

These are the reasons are why First Nations have no interest in acquiring the land directly up against the current property line of Route 90 & the Barracks. Route 90 Kenaston is going to be widened. It doesn't make sense for the First Nations to use their limited capital and limited land allocation on land that needs to be acquired by the city. The legal costs and time of this alone just don't make sense. It provides no benefit for First Nations to purchase the land where the Kenaston will be widened.

In fact, it's a burden!

Remember, this is a business investment for First Nations to pull themselves out of poverty, debt and to become self-determined nations like they once were before colonization. They need the increased traffic and mobility to the site if they wish to capture more market share. This project also needs to be efficiently managed better and constructed quicker.

Every year that goes by means one less year of business revenue, an extra year of debt interest and hardship for many indigenous peoples living in poverty.

Supporting indigenous projects like this means supporting their financial independence and thus less financial reliance on Canada.

Remember, we're independent, but connected, nations. The Treaties are a nation-to-nation agreement between multiple separate indigenous nations and Canada.

As Canada holds up the Treaties as receipt/proof it has rights to use or own the land, it also proves the nationhood of indigenous governments. Indigenous nations are not a subordinate branch of the Canadian government, they're nations--the 1st (First) nations here.

And the 7 separate, independent nations that signed the first numbered treaties (Treaty 1) with Canada that makeup this new Kapyong Barracks reservation all must negotiate amongst themselves while also negotiating with the Feds, the province, the city, the public and other involved bodies.

Remember: As separate indigenous nations, we also have different priorities and we are all at different stages with our land settlements. Peguis for example has their case settled whereas Sagkeeng does not. Roseau River got their land settlement done in 2 weeks whereas Sagkeeng has been waiting 100+ years.

The difference between the two is that one has an oil pipeline route running through their reservation and one does not. The gov has the resources and ability to resolve these issues but obviously neglects to do so probably just to 'balance the budget' during their tenure in office.

So, if things are going slow or not smoothly at all, it's likely the fault of the folks Canadians voted for.

It's safe to assume that all First Nations are very eager to settle their cases, build business and get moving whereas Canadian politicians burning through billions of dollars to settle these land cases in a single tenure would likely damage public opinion and thus hurt their re-election chances.

If public opinion was in favor of immediately settling these land claims and paying out billions, we could save hundreds of millions of dollars in legal costs over the next century. The benefits for all parties would be astronomical.

Fighting the solution just drags out the problem even longer--just like folks who fight solutions that could end the pandemic.

Anyway, that's my TedTalk. Hope that brought insight.

PS; I'm not on here often so I will likely not see any replies until weeks or months later.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #389  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2021, 1:26 AM
buzzg buzzg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 7,799
I’ve heard that apparently MMF is upset they were not given any options on the land and may make a play for some, which could cause even more delays.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #390  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2021, 7:00 PM
KellyEdwards KellyEdwards is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzg View Post
I’ve heard that apparently MMF is upset they were not given any options on the land and may make a play for some, which could cause even more delays.
They filed a motion last in 2019 and entered into negotiations with the Feds. The Feds and MMF agreed on cash compensation a few months ago already.

I personally don't like or support the MMF. When my former business partner and I were seeking funding for our business, it was incredibly easy to obtain a Metis card.

In fact, my former business partner didn't even provide any proof of ancestry and met the guy in a bar in St. Boniface. By the end of the week, he had a Metis card and he qualified for funding meant for indigenous peoples.

Mind that I say my former business partner is probably the whitest you could ever be when it comes to features and ancestry. Blonde hair, blue eyes, whiter than a ghost and no qualifiable proof of indigenous ancestry.

The MMF is very controversial in the to treaty nations. They even gave out Metis cards via a mobile food truck and in my opinion undermine efforts that should be furthering indigenous peoples.

So, when MMF filed their motion, it largely wasn't welcomed by the Treaty 1 First Nations because they are an entirely different demographic who do not have the same rights as those with treaty nations.

While there are genuine Metis people who actually do need representation, I do not believe the MMF embodies that. This isn't a special case for Manitoba either, but for all of Canada. There have been 'Metis' people who are actually fully Caucasian attempting to be indigenous for financial and tax benefits.

This was even the case for my last employer in Winnipeg (a high-end used car dealership) where they got Metis cards to try make themselves income tax-exempt using the card.

Unfortunately, the federal tax code for exemptions don't apply to Metis people which the MMF is attempting to change forever now. In fact, tax exemptions don't even apply to a lot of indigenous peoples themselves because, yes, Canada is that strict.

Since Winnipeg has the largest indigenous urban population in Canada, that also means there are more indigenous taxpayers in the city than anywhere else in the country.

As an indigenous person myself, I'm glad MMF is not a part of this development project. They just wanted money and that's exactly what they're getting.

For indigenous nations with nationhood dating back before colonization, they wanted their lands back but the government offered them money because the gov didn't want to expropriate the land from private entities where the reserve lands once were.

If treaty nations were to get their lands back in Manitoba alone, entire and partial towns/cities like Pine Falls and Selkirk would be expropriated from the general population just to reconcile. The next best compensation option was cash, maybe empty/useless crown land and first option to purchase any surplus federal lands within the nation's historical territory.

And that's where we are today.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #391  
Old Posted Aug 23, 2021, 5:14 PM
The Unknown Poster The Unknown Poster is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 996
Quote:
Originally Posted by KellyEdwards View Post
To be clear, Treaty First Nations won the right to 'first option' to the land.

First Nations, by mutual agreement with the Feds, must be offered the first option to purchase any land declared a surplus by the federal government.

This agreement was created under the Treaty Land Entitlement Framework (TLEF) after the Feds spent millions in fighting losing cases regarding Treaty negotiations that said an "x" amount of land were to be reserved for indigenous peoples.

Instead, the gov illegally stole land (sometimes entire reservations) and under-delivered on written Treaty promises with pretty much every tribe. The cost, if I remember correctly, to settle these cases costs more than $6 billion.

And these lawsuit settlements are based off of current indigenous population rather than the population of indigenous at the time of the signing of the respective treaty.

For Treaty 1 territory, the gov must payout the cash cost of 32 acres per member of the tribe or 160 acres per family of 5. And as the price of an acre rises through the years, so does the cash cost of settling these cases.

And rather than doing things the right way back in the 1870's when the indigenous populations were much smaller, these injustices mean Canada must payout the cash cost of acres for TODAY'S modern population--resulting in even larger sums of money being paid.

The longer Canada waits to settle these lawsuits the more it will cost taxpayers because of these two factors.

The tribe's government receives this cash from these lawsuit settlements/wins to purchase land to rightfully re-allocate towards its total allowable reserve size. Sometimes the tribe votes to spend the cash towards investing into businesses and/or paying out all individual members of the tribe.

This helps the reserve become more financially independent and thus self-determined. It also temporarily assists with alleviating some poverty.

Indigenous peoples pay for the land just like anyone else and at a fair market price too just as the TLEF states. This money received was rightfully and legally won in Canada's own courts with Canada's own agreements.

First Nations are not given the land in any way. First Nations must purchase the land from the Feds. This is why only a section of the total Barracks are owned by First Nations and the rest to other developers. And First Nations who have signed a TLEF have a limited number of acres they can re-convert back into reservation land (as outlined by their case) since Canada forbids First Nations from expanding their reservations.

These are the reasons are why First Nations have no interest in acquiring the land directly up against the current property line of Route 90 & the Barracks. Route 90 Kenaston is going to be widened. It doesn't make sense for the First Nations to use their limited capital and limited land allocation on land that needs to be acquired by the city. The legal costs and time of this alone just don't make sense. It provides no benefit for First Nations to purchase the land where the Kenaston will be widened.

In fact, it's a burden!

Remember, this is a business investment for First Nations to pull themselves out of poverty, debt and to become self-determined nations like they once were before colonization. They need the increased traffic and mobility to the site if they wish to capture more market share. This project also needs to be efficiently managed better and constructed quicker.

Every year that goes by means one less year of business revenue, an extra year of debt interest and hardship for many indigenous peoples living in poverty.

Supporting indigenous projects like this means supporting their financial independence and thus less financial reliance on Canada.

Remember, we're independent, but connected, nations. The Treaties are a nation-to-nation agreement between multiple separate indigenous nations and Canada.

As Canada holds up the Treaties as receipt/proof it has rights to use or own the land, it also proves the nationhood of indigenous governments. Indigenous nations are not a subordinate branch of the Canadian government, they're nations--the 1st (First) nations here.

And the 7 separate, independent nations that signed the first numbered treaties (Treaty 1) with Canada that makeup this new Kapyong Barracks reservation all must negotiate amongst themselves while also negotiating with the Feds, the province, the city, the public and other involved bodies.

Remember: As separate indigenous nations, we also have different priorities and we are all at different stages with our land settlements. Peguis for example has their case settled whereas Sagkeeng does not. Roseau River got their land settlement done in 2 weeks whereas Sagkeeng has been waiting 100+ years.

The difference between the two is that one has an oil pipeline route running through their reservation and one does not. The gov has the resources and ability to resolve these issues but obviously neglects to do so probably just to 'balance the budget' during their tenure in office.

So, if things are going slow or not smoothly at all, it's likely the fault of the folks Canadians voted for.

It's safe to assume that all First Nations are very eager to settle their cases, build business and get moving whereas Canadian politicians burning through billions of dollars to settle these land cases in a single tenure would likely damage public opinion and thus hurt their re-election chances.

If public opinion was in favor of immediately settling these land claims and paying out billions, we could save hundreds of millions of dollars in legal costs over the next century. The benefits for all parties would be astronomical.

Fighting the solution just drags out the problem even longer--just like folks who fight solutions that could end the pandemic.

Anyway, that's my TedTalk. Hope that brought insight.

PS; I'm not on here often so I will likely not see any replies until weeks or months later.
Well said. The government should settle these issues and honour their commitments fully. And they should do so pro-actively and willingly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #392  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2021, 5:22 PM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is online now
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 13,458
the model really shows how unwalkable the plan really is.

That does not look like very connected and progressive urbanism....most of the green will be asphalt.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #393  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2021, 5:24 PM
optimusREIM's Avatar
optimusREIM optimusREIM is offline
There is always a way
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,851
Only a few kms off for their Waverly West development in all seriousness though, I really hope that the design can be improved, because this parcel represents a massive opportunity.
__________________
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm."
Federalist #10, James Madison
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #394  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2021, 5:44 PM
thebasketballgeek's Avatar
thebasketballgeek thebasketballgeek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Rimouski, Québec
Posts: 1,645
Yea the initial model doesn’t provide much confidence in promoting active transportation. However, there are some positive elements with the buildings being directly on the Taylor and Grant streetscapes.

There also seems to be enough flexibility in the current placement of buildings to further intensify the density of the site. Hopefully they don’t follow this plan too strictly and implement an additive approach where needed. Still loads of potential on the site (as long as the NIMBYs don’t get in the way).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #395  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2021, 6:34 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking View Post
the model really shows how unwalkable the plan really is.

That does not look like very connected and progressive urbanism....most of the green will be asphalt.
I can't say I'm surprised. This is why I am not a huge fan of railyard relocation... when land is not that scarce/valuable, you just end up with this kind of super inefficient waste.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #396  
Old Posted Oct 18, 2021, 11:56 PM
thurmas's Avatar
thurmas thurmas is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Posts: 7,598
Sorry can someone give me the coles notes on this so are they widening Kenaston or not? Couple of months ago it was no and now they might be doing it?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #397  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2021, 12:31 AM
WildCake WildCake is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 829
Quote:
Originally Posted by thurmas View Post
Sorry can someone give me the coles notes on this so are they widening Kenaston or not? Couple of months ago it was no and now they might be doing it?
The city still has to buy the land to widen it but all the Kapyong land models and planning documents account for a wider Kenaston. The city also needs to find like a billion dollars in funding since this project will also have to include the st james bridge rebuild and widening on top of the many property acquisitions along the way.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #398  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2021, 12:49 AM
thurmas's Avatar
thurmas thurmas is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Posts: 7,598
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildCake View Post
The city still has to buy the land to widen it but all the Kapyong land models and planning documents account for a wider Kenaston. The city also needs to find like a billion dollars in funding since this project will also have to include the st james bridge rebuild and widening on top of the many property acquisitions along the way.
Ahh gotcha so this will likely never happen then.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #399  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2021, 1:31 AM
OTA in Winnipeg's Avatar
OTA in Winnipeg OTA in Winnipeg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Silver Heights
Posts: 1,631
^It has to happen. It's the proper high speed extension of Route 90. And I know, lots don't like that. But we're a growing city and some things are going to have to change.

Otherwise, gridlock everywhere.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #400  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2021, 1:35 AM
thebasketballgeek's Avatar
thebasketballgeek thebasketballgeek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Rimouski, Québec
Posts: 1,645
Yea the route 90 expansion is necessary simply because they’re planning to add fully- separated bike paths to Polo at the very least. It also makes it viable to put rapid transit on the route at a later time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:06 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.