Letters to the Editor
Letter to the editor — Non-concurrence by council sought for proposed cell tower
4 minute read Thursday, Aug. 28, 2025Non-concurrence. A word most of us are not familiar with, but one that has become critical in determining whether a telecommunications (cell) tower is installed in our southwest Brandon neighbourhood. Shared Tower Inc., a company that builds cell towers and then leases out the space on the tower, has applied to locate a 35-metre tower at 1009 34th St., adjacent to Elviss Crescent. This site is in a residential area with 31 homes within a radius of 100 metres, and many residents have small children. According to Shared Tower, this tower will house multiple carriers. Once built, this tower can be increased in height by 25 per cent to 43.7 metres without public consultation. No information has been provided as to the number of antennas, receivers and transmitters and other equipment that might be added.
A vote of non-concurrence (non-agreement) by city council would mean the cell tower application would be turned down. We are told that cell tower approval is under federal jurisdiction being Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED). However, when a member of Parliament asked for clarification, he received a written response from ISED clarifying the local government’s responsibilities. Local authorities are empowered and required to take into account both the land use and the public’s concerns to arrive at their decision. Further, ISED notes “If the Land Use Authority indicates to the proponent that it concurs with the proposal … the tower site is approved. This means the council’s vote for non-concurrence is critical to stopping this tower from being built.
Council can, and should, say “no.” Other Canadian municipalities have voted non-concurrence based on public opposition, a cell tower being unsightly and diminishing enjoyment of property, an unsuitable location and health concerns.
Our community is overwhelmingly opposed to this proposed cell tower. The images provided by Shared Tower are blurry and shown from distances of 150 and 220 metres. What about the view from the home that is 20 metres away? There are 31 homes within 100 metres that will have their views affected by this eyesore. The tower is also not compatible with the natural beauty of the walking path many residents enjoy with their children and pets.
Advertisement
Weather
Brandon MB
11°C, Cloudy with wind
Look beyond headlines before casting vote
3 minute read Preview Monday, Aug. 25, 2025MP on board with HMCS Brandon effort
2 minute read Preview Friday, Aug. 15, 2025Support for plan to bring ship here
2 minute read Preview Monday, Aug. 11, 2025Nation-building efforts are there
2 minute read Monday, Aug. 11, 2025Bob Zimmer of the Winnipeg Sun just wrote: “Nothing has happened. No projects have been announced. No regulatory obstacles have been removed. No ‘nation-building’ list has been made public.”
Shall we take a look?
First, there’s the liquified natural gas (LNG) shipment to Korea.
There’s the passage of the new One Canadian Economy Act. The purpose of this act is to promote free trade and labour mobility by removing federal barriers to the interprovincial movement of goods and provision of services and to the movement of labour within Canada while continuing to protect the health, safety and security of Canadians, their social and economic well-being.
Extend turning lane before it’s too late
2 minute read Preview Monday, Jul. 28, 2025Letter to the editor — Spruce Woods deserves representation
2 minute read Preview Wednesday, Jul. 23, 2025LETTER: North Cypress-Langford council opposed to R-CUT
4 minute read Preview Tuesday, Jun. 24, 2025SROs foster safer, stronger schools
4 minute read Preview Wednesday, Jun. 18, 2025Neelin students were well prepared for what happened
2 minute read Preview Saturday, Jun. 14, 2025LETTER TO THE EDITOR — Another excuse from city
3 minute read Preview Friday, Jun. 13, 2025LETTER TO THE EDITOR — Jackson petition misses the mark
2 minute read Preview Friday, Jun. 13, 2025LETTER TO THE EDITOR — Students must learn empathy, compassion
2 minute read Preview Friday, Jun. 13, 2025LETTER TO THE EDITOR — Can you make a positive impact on local government?
4 minute read Preview Saturday, Jun. 7, 2025LETTERS TO THE EDITOR — Bike lane decision brings disappointment
4 minute read Preview Friday, Jun. 6, 2025Claims to Turtle Mountain area won’t go unchallenged
4 minute read Saturday, May. 10, 2025Recently, on April 22, 2025, the Canupawakpa Dakota First Nation (CDFN) filed a statement of claim in the Manitoba Court of King’s Bench claiming exclusive ownership and Aboriginal title over lands in Manitoba. This is just the latest claim. Since Nov. 6, 2023, CDFN, Dakota Tipi First Nation (DTFN), or both have filed nine similar claims with that court.
This series of overlapping claims — a scattered approach — filed by CDFN and DTFN (together the “Dakota”) is like a handful of jelly thrown against the wall with the hope that something will stick. The approach is quite incoherent and without apparent logic, and callously ignores the rights and interests of those who currently live on, and have historically used, the land. Some would suggest this is an abuse of the court’s and other parties’ resources.
The land at issue in the latest April 2025 claim is Turtle Mountain. CDFN states the Dakota has Aboriginal title to this portion of Manitoba. On the contrary, the Dakota have no claim to lands north of the present Canada-U.S. border in today’s Manitoba, including the Turtle Mountain area.
The other recent claims by the Dakota are for southern Manitoba, including Portage la Prairie (Southport) and The Forks in present-day Winnipeg. These three areas at various times were occupied and controlled by the Cree, Assiniboine, Chippewa (aka Anishinaabe, Ojibway, Saulteaux) and the Red River Métis.
LOAD MORE