Not-so-friendly Brandon

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 13/02/2025 (268 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

On Monday evening, I attended an information session put on by Shared Tower, a company that is proposing to put up a telecommunications tower between two residential properties on Parkdale Drive. Before the meeting, I had an approximate idea on where the tower was being proposed and knew it would not be a very popular location.

All the same, I attended the session out of curiosity. I wanted to know how the proposal would be presented, what the justification was for the site selection and the general format of these sorts of sessions.

What stood out to me was that the presenters were very explanatory in nature. They were not trying to persuade the attendees into thinking that the site was a good one for the tower — far from it. They were very candid that they evaluated many alternative sites and all of these were ruled out. The two biggest reasons why sites were ruled out were either that sites were too close to existing towers or city-owned land could not be secured. Shared Tower was soliciting feedback in writing from those opposed or in favour of the site so that they could go back to their customer (Rogers) to come up with the next steps.

However, this did not deter those in attendance from straw-manning the presenters into a kind of villain, accusing them of trying to “ram through” such a change without appropriate public consultation, while forgetting they were engaged in the very public engagement they were complaining about.

To go over every example of mistrust and misunderstanding would be exhausting, so I will fast forward to the reason for this letter.

Towards the end of the session, one attendee claimed that Shared Tower was misrepresenting our zoning bylaws and only barely stopped short of calling them liars. I’m no expert on the legislation in play, but from what little I gleaned from the session, municipal zoning laws don’t veto what the federal government chooses to do with respect to the development of telecommunications infrastructure. This makes sense given that our constitution delegates so called “residual powers” to the federal government — not to the provinces.

There is danger in calling visitors — for-profit entities or otherwise — liars, crooks, or any similar inflammatory term. Such ad hominem attacks when devoid of hard facts are only harmful to everyone involved.

The representatives of Shared Tower in this case are visitors to Manitoba, Westman and Brandon. Those who attended the session were representatives of our area in turn. I dare say the guests of our city were more cordial, respectful and accommodating than we were to them.

I’ll take a moment to recognize that not everyone attending the session matches the above description and there were quality, relevant questions asked. The trouble is that was the minority of the tone. We must remember that we are competing against the world for development and talent. Brandon, Manitoba, is not exactly in a position to be choosy with who we work with or who wants to develop here. Whether that’s telecommunications development, housing, medical professionals, or the attracting of industry — we can’t afford to be corrosive to newcomers and visitors.

Don’t think for a moment that examples like this don’t create a lasting impression upon outsiders. A federal election will be here soon that will likely bring many visitors and opportunities for debate.

If this kind of reception becomes the standard, the “friendly” in “Friendly Manitoba” will be replaced by a different F word.

The development application for the tower can be found on the City of Brandon website — search for “353 Durum Drive Ward 7” to find the application, consultation package and how to provide comments.

JAMES EPP

Brandon