Opinion

3,000 acres of farmland, yet nowhere to build a pool.

Published

6 years ago

8 minute read

There are 3000 acres but nowhere to plant a pool. Councillor Buchanan asked Mr. Curtis the city manager, during budget deliberations November 20, 2018, if there was anywhere north of the river to build a pool, Mr. Curtis said no. Four years ago I was appointed to sit on the Community Action Committee to look at the need or recommendations for an Aquatic Centre in Red Deer. A new Mayor and a new Council and time was of the essence.

The city wanted in 2014 to renovate the downtown pool and it was obvious by the paperwork and answers. They repeated, Michener pool was owned by the province. Timberlands had no room available as it was filled with 3 planned high schools and sports fields. Hazlett Lake was too many years down the road, and the Canada Games was in 2019. It had to be built downtown.
That was 4 years ago and we are no closer to having a 50m pool, than we were 4 years ago. But now the city wants it built in Timberlands near the high schools. It would be like the Collicutt Centre near high schools. Also it will be like the Collicutt, in that it will be east of 30 Ave, between 29 Street and 69 Street. 30 Ave will become like Calgary’s Deerfoot Trail with all that traffic.
In about 300 acres we will have 3 high schools, sports fields, pickle ball courts and an aquatic centre, but in 3,000 acres north of 11A there is no room to park a pool.

Councillor Wong asked about, in my mind, the perfect spot just north of 11a near Hazlett Lake, visible to the QE2 and Mr. Curtis said the road allowance would be too narrow and they would have to buy private land to accommodate the pool and services. That would add uncertainty to the costs, but they do not mention that costs uncertainty when they talk about buying 2.5 acres of private land in the Timberlands. Is it a done deal, have they already made a conditional seal subject to council approval? I do not know.

Mr. Curtis reminded council that the city has had 2 opportunities to build a 50m pool in the last 20 years and they were squandered away. One when building the Collicutt and again when they renovated the downtown pool. Will they do it again?
The city just built the Servus Arena and the college just opened a new ice facility and the city wants to build a new rink to replace the Kinex arena when it fails. The Mayor says Red Deer services what it has. Looks like we will get another new arena, slated for the Dawe but many are expressing doubts about the feasibility of that venture and feel that it will be ultimately built by the Collicutt Centre.

In 2001 the city opened it’s 4th and last pool with a population of about 70,000 people. The city services what it has. If you read the financial statements you will notice 2 things that our population is just shy of 100,000 people and that they expect the Michener Pool will be closed at some point in the next capital budgetary cycle. Leaving us with 3 pools.
If we renovate downtown pool we could be downtown to 2 pools for awhile then back to 3 pools for many years to come. We only build or renovate pools every 20-30 years and by then the Dawe and Collicutt pools will be 70 and 50 years old.
Using the Aquatic Centre as a catalyst to spur development if we built it north of 11a where development has yet to start. Shoehorning it in with 3 new high schools, new sports fields and pickle ball courts will not get the same bang for the buck.
Why not combine the new ice rink and 50 meter pool into a Collicutt style complex in an empty field on the north west corner of Red Deer like we did with the Collicutt Center on the south-east corner of Red Deer.

Spurring development and enjoyed by 60% of recreation facility users in Red Deer, far surpassing all other pools combined.
This will not happen, because the city is too focused on process and awaiting good fortune to come a calling. I watched the debate and I noticed that council sits in a semi-circle facing in and I marvelled at how their attention is focused in and not out.
I also noticed that the Mayor and City Manager sit so much higher than council, reigning supreme over the lowly council. Enforced in my mind by little actions like the Mayor telling a councillor his question has taken 6 minutes, though there are no time lines to follow. Shouldn’t an elected councillor in his elected duties as guardians of the public purse be allowed the same latitude and time as the equally elected mayor?

We have 9 strong and very intelligent elected members looking after our well being, should they not be allowed to bring their strength to the table? We have people trained in law, economics, planning, business, agriculture, politics, law enforcement, education, history, to name but a few. Showcase them don’t muzzle them.

If they have concerns don’t dismiss them or limit their time, get to the bottom of it, that is why we elected them. The city has for many years survived the booms and busts of the Alberta economy but we have not recovered and are not enjoying the rebounding economy like the rest of the province for the last few years, why? Our economy is failing while everyone else is enjoying growth and our declining population is facing more doom and gloom while those around us our seeing positive growth. Perhaps it is time to stop waiting for potential future development to land in our lap and make Red Deer attractive to businesses, residents, tourists and athletes to name but a few.

As one gentleman wrote about us hosting the Canada Games but we can’t hold some of the events, and we are showcasing to the country what we don’t have. Poor publicity. If only we had looked outward and acted those other times. Just saying.

Related Topics:feature Hazlett Lake pool Red Deer

Up Next

When it comes to the Aquatic Centre’s location can we compare Apples to Apples? Please?

Don't Miss

I will miss those 3 years…….

Follow Author

Next federal government should reverse Ottawa’s plastics ban

Business / 3 hours ago

Trump walks back tariffs on Mexico, Canada for another month

Agriculture / 7 hours ago

Dairy Farmers Need To Wake Up Before The System Crumbles

Business

Next federal government should reverse Ottawa’s plastics ban

Published on March 6, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari

As noted by the Trudeau government, plastic substitutes contribute to lower air quality and “typically have higher climate change impacts” due to higher GHG emissions.

Recently at the White House, President Donald Trump signed an executive order reversing the Biden administration’s plan to phase out plastic straws. The Trudeau government, however, continues with its plan to ban single-use plastics, even though this prohibition will have minimal impact worldwide, will actually increase waste in Canada, and force a transition to alternatives that impose greater environmental harm. Rather than doubling down on a flawed policy, the next federal government should reverse Trudeau’s plastic ban.

In 2021, the Trudeau government classified plastic items as “toxic,” paving the way for the ban on the manufacturing, importing and selling of checkout bags, cutlery, stir sticks and straws—all single-use plastics. In 2023, the Federal Court deemed the designation “unreasonable and unconstitutional”—but the Trudeau government defended the measure and is appealing, with a ruling expected this year.

According to the latest available data, Canada’s contributes 0.04 per cent to global plastic waste. The United States contributes 0.43 per cent—more than 10 times Canada’s share. But neither country is a major contributor to global plastic waste.

According to a 2024 article published in Nature, a leading scientific journal, no western country ranks among the top 90 global plastic polluters, thanks to their near-total waste collection and controlled disposal systems. Conversely, eight countries—India, Nigeria, Indonesia, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Russia and Brazil—generate more than half of global plastic waste. And nearly 75 per cent of the world’s ocean plastic comes from Asia with only six countries (Philippines, India, Malaysia, China, Indonesia and Myanmar) accounting for most of the world’s ocean plastic pollution.

The Trudeau government’s own science assessment, cited in the court appeal, states that 99 per cent of Canada’s plastic waste is already disposed of safely through recycling, incinerating and environmentally-friendly landfills. Despite these facts, plastic has become a target for blanket restrictions without fully considering its benefits or the downsides of switching to alternatives.

Consider this. Plastics are lightweight, durable and indispensable to modern life. From medical devices, food packaging, construction materials, textiles, electronics and agricultural equipment, plastics play a critical role in sectors that improve living standards.

Alternatives to plastic come with their own environmental cost. Again, according to the government’s own analysis, banning single-use plastics will actually increase waste generation rather than reduce it. While the government expects to remove 1.5 million tonnes of plastics by 2032 with the prohibition, it will generate nearly twice as much that weight in waste from alternatives such as paper, wood and aluminum over the same period. Put simply, the ban will result in more, not less, waste in Canada.

And there’s more. Studies suggest that plastic substitutes such as paper are heavier, require more water and energy to be produced, demand more energy to transport, contribute to greater smog formation, present more ozone depletion potential and result in higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

As noted by the Trudeau government, plastic substitutes contribute to lower air quality and “typically have higher climate change impacts” due to higher GHG emissions.

While plastic pollution is a pressing global environmental issue, Canada is not a major contributor to this problem. The rationale behind the Trudeau government’s plastic ban lacks foundation, and as major economies including the U.S. go back to plastic, Canada’s plastic prohibition becomes increasingly futile. The next federal government, whoever that may be, should reverse this plastic ban, which will do more harm than good.

Julio Mejía

Policy Analyst

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute

Business

Trump walks back tariffs on Mexico, Canada for another month

Published on March 6, 2025

Todayville

From The Center Square

By Brett Rowland

Stocks sunk Thursday afternoon despite President Donald Trump’s decision to grant major exceptions to the 25% tariffs he put on Mexico and Canada earlier this week.

All three major U.S. market indexes were in the red by the time of Trump’s afternoon bill signing. Trump said Thursday in the Oval Office that steel and aluminum tariffs were on track for next week without modifications.

Trump shrugged off the stock losses, blaming the decline on “globalists.”

“I think it’s globalists that see how rich our country is going to be and don’t like it,” he said.

Trump has promised that his tariffs would shift the tax burden away from Americans and onto foreign countries, but tariffs are generally paid by the people who import the products. Those importers then have a choice: They can either absorb the loss or pass it on to consumers through higher prices. He also promised tariffs would make America “rich as hell.” And he’s used tariffs as a negotiating tactic to tighten border security.

Trump granted temporary tariff relief to both Canada and Mexico on Thursday by exempting goods under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement from tariffs until April 2.

On April 2, Trump plans to announce broader reciprocal tariffs against countries that impose tariffs on U.S. goods or keep U.S. goods out of their markets through other methods.

Since imposing his latest round of tariffs on top of trading partners this week, Trump has been paring them back. On Wednesday, Trump said the Big Three automakers – Ford Motor Co., General Motors Co. and Stellantis NV – would be exempt from his tariffs for a month.

In February, Trump took a step forward on his plan to put reciprocal tariffs on U.S. trading partners by signing a memo directing staff to come up with solutions in 180 days. Trump previously said he would put those tariffs in place on April 2 to avoid any confusion on April 1.

In his joint address to Congress on Tuesday, Trump said all countries would have to either make their products in the U.S. or be subject to tariffs.

“Whatever they tariff us, we tariff them. Whatever they tax us, we tax them,” Trump said. “If they do non-monetary tariffs to keep us out of their market, then we do non-monetary barriers to keep them out of our market. We will take in trillions of dollars and create jobs like we have never seen before.”

The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA, governs trade between the U.S. and its northern and southern neighbors. It went into force on July 1, 2020. Trump signed the deal. That agreement continued to allow for duty-free trading between the three countries for products largely made in North America.

U.S. goods and services trade with USMCA totaled an estimated $1.8 trillion in 2022. Exports were $789.7 billion and imports were $974.3 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with USMCA was $184.6 billion in 2022, according to the Office of the United States Trade Representative.