Right in theory, wrong in practice

New Winnipeg bylaw is more trouble than its worth

JACQUES MARCOUX, VOLUNTEER STAFF

A new bylaw, passed by city council on Jan. 23, could have negative repercussions for all students residing in Transcona with a rusted-out Trans-Am in their driveway.

The new bylaw, dubbed the “Neighbourhood Liveability Bylaw,” is the amalgamation of 17 existing “quality-of-life” bylaws into one single bylaw. These joined bylaws were originally designed to deter citizens from committing petty infractions such as littering, idling, excessive noise, snow-clearing and grass-cutting and, of course, leaving derelict vehicles on private property.

What are the ramifications of combining all 17 bylaws into one? It will allow the city to streamline enforcement of the bylaws with a single, dedicated enforcement unit by removing a level of bureaucracy and uncertainty over which department is responsible for the bylaw in question.

In theory, I fully support this initiative by the city. The rationale behind the bylaw is well-founded and is based on evidence from several social-scientific studies. The “broken window theory,” as it has been coined by criminologists, was implemented in New York City during the height of violent crime waves in the early-’90s as a desperate effort to curb delinquent behaviour. The premise of this theory is that disorder invites more and greater levels of disorder, and that by attacking it at the root cause, future headaches can be avoided entirely. In fact, the violent crime rates in New York City dropped by over 75 per cent during the following decade; whether you believe it is the direct result of the “broken window theory” or not is entirely another debate.

Assuming the theory is as effective as the numbers seem to show, Winnipeg is on the right track. This is one of the first strong initiatives put forth by the city that classifies as a proactive approach rather than our traditional reactive position on reducing crime. Social problems, such as crime, tend to behave like infectious diseases when the surrounding environment is void of any order — then lawlessness takes over. By cracking down harder on petty infractions, this forces citizens to clean up their act, thereby making neighbourhoods more conducive to proper social and economic development. The best example is the parking-patrol units. They essentially keep everyone in line for fear of an immediate repercussion. If they stopped enforcing parking laws so diligently we would almost immediately see a chaotic shift in parking behaviour.

In theory, this approach gets a thumbs up. However, in practice it is very unlikely that this enforcement effort will succeed. Firstly, in order to have the desired effect, it will require a sizeable enforcement unit, which is unlikely given the current strains on the city’s budget. Secondly, the bylaws in themselves are so vague and nuanced that any form of enforcement action is completely subjective and up for interpretation. The amount of small claims court challenges could quickly outweigh the cost of handing out a $30 ticket.

The other foreseeable problem (if you see this as a problem) stems from the fact that most derelict properties in the city are concentrated in the inner-city area, therefore targeting mostly lower-income families that may not have the necessary resources to upkeep their homes according to the bylaw standards. To some, this new bylaw will appear to unjustly target lower-income individuals. Would the city then need to develop yet another funding-assistance program to help these homeowners cover the cost of repairing their property? This also raises the question of whether or not funding to pay for the enforcement unit could otherwise be better spent on economic development or the city’s own crumbling community infrastructure. Given the fact that we know that most of the crime stems from these poorer communities, should we redirect these funds towards community development rather than community punishment?

Another important question that cannot be overlooked is whether or not businesses will be policed as closely as individual homeowners. As pointed out by the host of The Great Canadian Talk Show, Marty Gold, Winnipeg has already amended some of the “quality-of-life” bylaws to accommodate big-box stores in the city. What about the lineups at Tim Hortons in the mornings that spill over onto the streets? Should the business be responsible to foot the ticket for the 25 or so vehicles idling needlessly for a double-double worth $1.50? These are all questions that need to be asked.

As you can see, the Neighbourhood Liveability Bylaw introduces a whole slew of potential problems that will no doubt arise in the future. Certain, more objective infringements could easily be enforced such as businesses leaving graffiti on their outside walls or blatantly inappropriate waste disposal. However, one thing is certain: the city should take a lesson from the U of M parking-patrol book and understand that unless this policy is fully followed through, it will flounder and become ineffective just like the original 17 bylaws were in the first place.

Jacques Marcoux is a commerce graduate.