Features
A tale of two streets that proved to be very attractive for Jewish families in years gone by
By BERNIE BELLAN Any longtime reader of this paper would know that nostalgia is a recurring theme in much of what you’re going to find in the pages of The JP&N (or on this website – as the case may be). We print stories about the history of our Jewish community here on a regular basis – and those stories usually elicit a flurry of responses from readers, often telling us what we got wrong!
Every once in a while we receive an email from someone asking us whether we can supply information about an individual or a particular story from the past. While we do maintain a digital archive on our own website, it has gaps in it as a result of the poor quality of many of the microfilms that were used to produce our archive.
Luckily, the Jewish Heritage Centre has now developed a much more comprehensive digital archive of all Jewish newspapers that may have existed in Winnipeg at one time or another. To be honest, I find it a little difficult to navigate their archive, but if you persevere, it does have a vast repository of priceless information about the history of our Jewish community.
We’re also lucky to have our very own chronicler of days gone by in the person of Gerry Posner. Six years ago Gerry wrote what proved to be a very popular story about one block of McAdam Avenue – that was populated almost entirely by Jewish families at one time.
Recently we were contacted by Shael Glesby, who wrote that he was looking for an article that appeared in the 1949 issue of The Jewish Post and which told the story how the street in East Kildonan where Shael grew up had first begun to be developed in the late 1940s. The thought occurred to me that juxtaposing the stories of the two streets might be interesting for our readers – even if the memory of Gerry’s McAdam Avenue story is still fresh in some of your minds.
Bredin Drive – one of the most beautiful streets in all of Winnipeg was a magnet for Jewish families in the late 40s and early 50s
Before the late 1940s there were very few Jews living in East Kildonan, but according to Shael Glesby some developers had the notion that by building what were then considered to be very upscale homes, the area could attract Jews who were thinking of moving from the north end.
As it turned out, the one street that fulfilled those developers’ dreams somewhat was beautiful Bredin Drive, which was bisected by another beautiful street that also became home to several other Jewish families.
Alas, other than those two streets, according to Shael, there was only a smattering of other Jewish families in East Kildonan. Shael suggested that the new area of south River Heights, which was also being developed starting in the 1950s, proved to be much attractive for young upwardly mobile Jewish families.
We were sufficiently interested by Shael’s email to want to read the article for which he had been searching. We did find it on the Jewish Heritage Centre website – and offer it here for your interest. Note the references by the writer of the article to the appearances of the women who lived on Bredin Drive whom she interviewed. How times have changed.
Here’s the article, from the November 17, 1949 Jewish Post:
“Bredin Drive Boasts City’s Newest Homes”
The following interesting account of some of Winnipeg’s newest homes appeared in a Winnipeg Tribune write-up by Lilian Gibbons in he Aug. 27 edition. – The Editor
Opposite the East Kildonan municipal office is a new housing development that has brought into the light a little secluded street hidden away for years. Bredin Drive today is U-shaped, with the loop on Red River and the arms ending in Henderson Highway; up the centre of the U comes Roosevelt Place with six new houses. For years the north arm of the U has been known as Bredin Drive, a tucked away retreat with a few houses on it. Old and new, the houses now number 26. The south arm is Elmwood Park, opposite the Roxy Theatre.
The smart new street is cut out of two old river-fronted farms, A. R. Bredin’s and Daniel Hamilton’s. Mr. Bredin lived in the big frame house with the verandahs which is now the municipal office of East Kildonan. Then he moved away to Muskegan, Michigan.
The biggest house is 300, the Max Freeds, built two years ago last April. For a long time it looked deserted there on the river. Now it has many neighbours. The house is of white colonial siding and rubble, with a big overhanging roof, a sweep of lawn with lifelike pelicans, and on the river side a patio with awnings, a glass pleasure house near the water. Pretty young Mrs. Freed is still coping with these amenities, matching lime green drapes to grey broadloom and taking care of two babies.
The first two houses, next to the park and the highway, 200 and 210, are the homes of William Wolchock and Cecil Smith, business partners in building. It was blond young Sidney Wolchock who received the reporter. “Gee, it must take a long time to write a whole street. No, I didn’t know the Municipal Office was the Bredin farm home but I do know it won’t be there much longer. My father is building blocks there.”
Opposite is a bungalow of wide siding the color of new green apples, No. 201, home of J. B. Wolk. “We have no stove yet, only a hot plate, but isn’t it nice?” Friendly Mrs. Wolk invited the reporter in.” Five weeks ago today we moved in.”
No. 245 and 255 are another pair very alike, with the popular pink rubble stone at the entrance. Max Ratner built both, lives in the first, and will sell the second; the relative for whom he intended it can’t come to Winnipeg. No. 265 and 275, another pair, are the homes of brothers Ben Billinkoff and J. B. Billinkoff, who are building wreckers.
At the top of the middle street, 198 and 190 Roosevelt Place, are a pair of big square homes, M. Gutkin’s and A. Akman’s. Mrs. Gutkin was sitting on the steps with her mother and rocking her baby daughter’s carriage. “We’re pioneers,” she said stoutly. “We were here when there were only four houses. Linda was born here – she’s a native.”
Mrs. A. J. Averbach, at 330, is the sister of Mrs. Akman, 190 Roosevelt Place.
There are many new building materials displayed in these new homes; for instance, glass for door side-lights. Sometimes it’s fluted like Venetian blinds; sometimes criss-crossed like gingham. The young women are as good looking as the homes they occupy.
(Interestingly, on the same pages as the article appeared ads for mirrors, venetian blinds, and lamps. The article, however, never mentioned whether permission had been obtained from the Tribune to reprint its article.)
As a follow-up to the original email that I received from Shael Glesby, I asked him whether he could remember the names of all the families that lived on Bredin Drive when he was growing up there in the 1960s?
Here’s what Shael wrote back:
255 – Ratner (Max and Helen)
265 – Glesby (Bert & Silvia) original owners were Billinkoffs (Ben & Yetta)
275 – Billinkoff (Joe & Ann)
285 – Gobuty (James & Rae)
210 – Snaper (Mark & Ethel)
250 – Brownstein (Vicki)
260 – Wolchock (Bill & Rose)
300 – Freed (Max & Marion)
310 – Billinkoff (Ben & Yetta) after selling 265.
320 – Bellan (Sam & Marjorie)
There were 3 more Jewish families just north of 320, but I don’t know which houses were owned by which.
Swartz
Averbach
Jacobson
On Roosevelt Place:
Cristall
Duchon
Gutkin
Mrs. Tallman (I believe that Lorelei formerly Brenda, Bellan lives there now. Ed. note: Shael is correct.)
On Henderson Highway, just north of Bredin:
Tallman – Harvey & Louise (newer home built in the 60’s, I think)
Mrs. Tamara Wiseman – Vice Principal/ Principal of Talmud Torah.
There were other Jewish families scattered in the area.
Hespeler – Shore (Ben & Ruth)
Glenwood – Pukin
Streets unknown – Glass (Norm’s family), Moglove, Kaufman (Lala’s family)
See next story for a story about yet another street that almost totally Jewish at one time
Features
Hair straightening at Sets on Corydon
Features
Ontario Online Casinos Let Players Set Daily, Weekly and Monthly Deposit Limits
A deposit limit sets a ceiling on how much money someone can add to an online gambling account. In Ontario’s regulated market, players can choose limits covering 24 hours, seven days and one month, with the website’s system enforcing the amounts they select.
The settings are straightforward, but the timing deserves attention. A daily allowance may sit within weekly and monthly caps, while an increase can involve a waiting period. For adults using Chrome on a Chromebook, understanding these account rules starts with knowing where to find them.
Finding the Settings and Choosing a Period
Deposit controls sit within the gambling website’s account menus. The Tooniebet Ontario responsible gaming page is an operator-specific resource readers can consult alongside their account settings. ToonieBet is operated by Canadix Limited and regulated by the AGCO under an agreement with iGaming Ontario.
Ontario’s standards require an easy and obvious way to set financial and time limits during registration and afterward. Players must be offered deposit and loss limits when signing up, and the controls must remain easy to reach and change once an account is open.
Menu names differ between sites. Published examples place deposit limits under account settings or responsible-gaming tools, where players can select an amount and a period.
Each type of limit measures something different. Deposit limits cap money added to the account. Loss limits restrict net losses after winnings are taken into account, while time limits govern playing time. iGaming Ontario’s player guidance explains all three.
For Chromebook users, these settings are managed through the website’s account interface. Chrome’s own permissions handle separate browser functions, such as access to location information.
How Several Limits Apply to One Deposit
Players can have daily, weekly and monthly limits running together. A deposit must fit within every active cap.
Take a hypothetical account with limits of CAD $40 daily, CAD $100 weekly and CAD $250 monthly. These figures illustrate the process.
If someone has already deposited CAD $90 during the weekly period, the remaining weekly allowance is CAD $10. That becomes the most they can add, even when the daily limit has more room. Reaching the monthly cap would likewise block another deposit until some monthly allowance becomes available.
This is why checking all active limits matters. A new day may bring fresh daily capacity while the weekly or monthly total remains close to its ceiling. The longer periods continue to apply as the shorter one refreshes.
When Money Drops Out of a Rolling Window
The next question is when previous deposits stop counting toward a cap. Some sites use rolling periods, which track elapsed time from individual deposits.
Published Ontario policies include daily windows of 24 hours, weekly windows of 168 hours and monthly windows of 720 hours, equivalent to 30 days. Under that approach, each deposit frees up its corresponding allowance once it falls outside the window.
Suppose someone has a CAD $100 rolling weekly limit and deposits CAD $25 on Friday, followed by CAD $75 on Saturday. Seven days after Friday’s deposit, CAD $25 becomes available again. The other CAD $75 returns seven days after Saturday’s deposit.
Leaving the restored Friday allowance unused means it combines with Saturday’s restored amount. At that point, the full CAD $100 is available. Reviewing deposit dates and times helps explain how much room remains within a rolling period.
Changing a Cap Takes a Separate Step
A limit refreshing follows the schedule already attached to the account. Raising that limit requires a request and a wait.
Ontario’s standards require at least 24 hours before a player’s request to relax or remove an established limit can take effect. The existing limit remains enforceable during the cooling-off period.
Operators publish their own timings. Documented examples include a seven-day wait for deposit-limit increases or removals. Another published schedule allows increases after one day for a daily cap, seven days for a weekly cap and 30 days for a monthly cap.
Lower limits take effect immediately under these published policies. Some policies also restart the waiting period when a player requests another increase while an earlier change is pending. The effective date shows which amount currently applies.
Other Controls and Support
Deposit limits work alongside loss limits, time limits, short breaks and self-exclusion. Together, these give players ways to restrict account funding, gambling activity or access.
Ontario-regulated online casino play is restricted to adults aged 19 and older who are physically in Ontario. Gambling involves financial risk.
For concerns about your gambling or someone else’s, ConnexOntario offers free, confidential information and referral support around the clock. Call 1-866-531-2600 or text CONNEX to 247247. Standard message and data rates may apply.
Features
What “Best Odds” Really Means When Comparing Gambling Review Websites
The phrase best odds appears frequently in gambling discussions, but it is surprisingly easy to use imprecisely. MonsterBetList is primarily a casino review and rankings website, not a dedicated live sportsbook odds comparison terminal. That difference is central to evaluating what its reviews can and cannot establish. A casino rating may explain payout conditions, licence information and bonus restrictions, while a claim about the best available price on a sporting outcome requires a different kind of evidence altogether.
Odds and ratings answer different questions
Sports betting odds represent a price offered on a specified outcome. A review rating is an editorial judgement built from multiple criteria. These two numerical systems cannot be substituted for one another. A bookmaker rated highly for service may offer a less competitive price on a particular match, while a service with a more attractive price may impose different limits or verification rules.
Similarly, a casino review can discuss return-to-player statistics, but RTP is not the same as sportsbook odds. RTP describes a theoretical long-run percentage built into a game model. It does not tell a reader what will happen in one session and it is not an individually negotiable market quotation.
What makes sports odds comparable?
A fair odds comparison starts with identical selections: the same event, outcome, market rules and settlement conditions. Comparing a three-way football result with a draw-no-bet price is invalid because the products pay under different circumstances. The observation time also matters; displayed prices can change quickly as market information or trading decisions evolve.
The numerical format should be standardised. Decimal odds provide one convenient representation, but American and fractional formats express the same underlying idea differently. Converting these formats is straightforward. What matters is the net price, the operator’s rules and whether the quoted offer remains available when reviewed.
Overround explains the hidden cost of many markets
In a simplified two-outcome market, dividing one by each decimal price produces an implied probability. If the implied probabilities add to more than 100%, the excess is commonly described as the bookmaker’s overround. It is one way of understanding the margin embedded in prices, although individual market structure and adjustments can complicate the interpretation.
This concept explains why the word best should not be attached to a price without context. A strong headline may look appealing yet represent an ordinary margin after calculation. More importantly, any single quote is time-dependent. Genuine comparison requires a dated observation and equivalent market rules; broad editorial praise is not enough.
What casino rankings can establish instead
MonsterBetList publishes casino reviews and guides addressing licences, bonuses, payout experiences and responsible gambling. Those topics are relevant to evaluating consumer risk and service quality. A report about the length of a withdrawal process, for example, can be useful if its methodology is transparent. A bonus review can help identify restrictive wagering requirements that marketing headlines omit.
However, a casino ranking should not be presented as evidence that its highest-rated operator consistently offers the best sports prices. Unless a site publishes repeated market-by-market comparisons, that conclusion is not supported. Readers benefit when publishers clearly distinguish what was measured from what readers might assume was measured.
Bonuses can complicate comparisons
A sportsbook may offer free-bet tokens, cashback or other promotions. Their effective value depends on conditions rather than the largest number printed in a banner. Some credits are not withdrawable as cash; others require qualifying selections, minimum odds or a deadline. Casino welcome bonuses often introduce wagering requirements, game-contribution rules and limits on withdrawals. Combining these products under one generic promotional score can hide important differences.
For instance, a large matched deposit might require extensive play before bonus-related funds become eligible for withdrawal. The required betting volume is not a promise of profit. The presence of a promotion may therefore make comparisons more complex instead of simpler. Clear disclosures should precede any judgement about value.
Editorial independence and methods
Review sites sometimes state that rankings are editorially independent. Such a statement is relevant but does not replace evidence of consistent testing. Readers should look for the criteria used, the date of each review, whether real transactions were examined and how negative findings are treated. If one platform receives detailed testing while another is scored on marketing copy, the ranking loses comparability.
Commercial incentives should also be visible. Referral relationships or sponsorships do not automatically make every observation inaccurate, but they create reasons to ask how rankings are insulated from revenue. A publication that explains its methodology and corrections process gives readers a stronger basis for trust than one that simply declares its winners.
Licensing and dispute rights before price claims
A marginally attractive price is of limited value when the operator is not legally available to the reader or does not provide meaningful avenues for redress. Regulations vary by jurisdiction, and a licence in one country may not authorise service in another. It is prudent to verify the legal entity behind a brand and the current status of any licence through official records.
Consumers should also review identity verification, account restrictions and dispute resolution procedures. These operational conditions influence the actual experience of using a gambling service. A sensible evaluation includes them before discussing promotions or theoretical market advantages.
Why guaranteed-profit language is a warning sign
No ordinary review or odds list can guarantee that an individual will win money from gambling. Claims of certain returns often omit the fact that results are uncertain, prices move and transactions are subject to restrictions. Casino games generally incorporate a house advantage, and sports outcomes remain uncertain regardless of a persuasive analysis. The safest response to absolute promises is scepticism.
Readers should also avoid treating gambling as a means of addressing financial problems. Chasing previous losses and increasing stakes to recover money can deepen harm. Consumer-oriented coverage is more valuable when it explains risk and offers realistic options for stepping away.
Conclusion: define the claim before ranking the service
“Best odds” is a specific comparative proposition, not a synonym for a high casino rating. MonsterBetList can be examined for its published casino research, review structure and risk disclosures, but those materials should not be stretched into claims they have not tested. Clear definitions, dated evidence and honest limitations are the foundations of trustworthy comparison journalism.
