Connect with us

Opinion

Thoughts from Tom Chapman on keeping the Molly Banister Extension

Published

4 years ago

5 minute read

The Molly Banister extension should not be removed from the City plan for the following reasons:

  1. This street extension was included in the original development plan at the time of the Bower Centre Mall and the Bower subdivision, recognising the need to provide proper future access to the shopping centre and commercial developments both north of the Mall and on Gaetz Avenue, as well as the projected population growth in future eastern residential subdivisions.
  1. The City has continued to grow in those areas, with planning currently as far as 20th Avenue, and the need for increased access to the Bower Mall and neighboring businesses will continue.
  2. The current left turn access for westbound traffic to the Mall from 32 Street via 47th Avenue was opposed by many, and hotly debated by Council at the time. Clearly access via Molly Banister would take a traffic load off 32st., and 47th Avenue which was never designed to provide access to the Mall.
  3. If the extension is removed from the plan and the lands are converted to residential use the ability to provide proper access to businesses in Bower and on Gaetz Avenue will be forever lost, unless the City is prepared to go to the huge costs of a future expropriation.
  4. Unless there has been some changes to planning legislation, City development bylaws, or required standards, the developer is required to dedicate lands for all roads required for it’s development, as well as a percentage for park and playground areas.
  5. The Developer, with decades of experience in the City, would be well aware of this requirement in determining what it was prepared to pay for the land.
  6. Clearly, If the Developer can persuade Council to remove the extension this will result in housing development on the extension area, increased profit for the developer, and long term detriment of the City. A huge benefit for the developer!
  7. Currently 19th Street provides direct convenient access to Gasoline Alley to the detriment of City businesses and particularly the downtown. By eliminating the ability to develop the extension and push more traffic on to  19th Street the City will increase the attractiveness of Gasoline Alley for more businesses to develop there or relocate from within the City downtown and other areas, and will not take any pressure off 32 street. I would think that the Downtown Business Association should be concerned, as well as businesses along south Gaetz Ave.
  8. The next concern is 32 street. The City proposal to expand 32 street  would require six lanes over Piper Creek. Otherwise keeping it at 4 lanes creates a bottleneck that would restrict traffic flow and increase traffic on 47 Avenue. The impact of this expansion upon the value of adjacent homes cannot be underestimated.  Currently hundreds of thousand dollars are being spent to stabilize the current structure over Piper Creek. I prefer to an early start on construction of the extension and spending the money on a proper overpass of Piper creek on the extension route rather than expansion of the current overpass on 32  Street.

Removal of the Extension is a mistake!

Respectfully submitted

Thomas Chapman

I think it will be really important for your group to get strong representation from Bower Mall

which I think would be most adversely affected if the eastern access from 22 street to Molly Banister is eliminated.

I think they have always relied on the promised Molly Banister extension being built, and

I can’t imagine that they proceeded with the recent upgrades to the Mall without this in mind.

They may have had some discussions or assurances from City planners?

Also there are other businesses in the area such as Sim’s Furniture, new businesses in the

former Legion building and on Geatz Avenue which may have concerns.

One point I did miss is that the westerly end of Molly Banister leads to direct access to Taylor Drive

and this could take pressure off 32 Street.

Tom

Related Topics:

Follow Author

More from this author
Opinion / 2 years ago

The city is growing? The population isn’t, so is it growing?

Garfield Marks / 2 years ago

Dear Council; Reinstate the Arterial Road connection from 22 St. & 40 Ave. to Molly Banister

Opinion / 2 years ago

Molly Banister extension is before council again on Monday for the umpteenth time. Exhausting.

Business

Broken ‘equalization’ program bad for all provinces

Published on November 21, 2024

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Alex Whalen  and Tegan Hill

Back in the summer at a meeting in Halifax, several provincial premiers discussed a lawsuit meant to force the federal government to make changes to Canada’s equalization program. The suit—filed by Newfoundland and Labrador and backed by British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta—effectively argues that the current formula isn’t fair. But while the question of “fairness” can be subjective, its clear the equalization program is broken.

In theory, the program equalizes the ability of provinces to deliver reasonably comparable services at a reasonably comparable level of taxation. Any province’s ability to pay is based on its “fiscal capacity”—that is, its ability to raise revenue.

This year, equalization payments will total a projected $25.3 billion with all provinces except B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan to receive some money. Whether due to higher incomes, higher employment or other factors, these three provinces have a greater ability to collect government revenue so they will not receive equalization.

However, contrary to the intent of the program, as recently as 2021, equalization program costs increased despite a decline in the fiscal capacity of oil-producing provinces such as Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador. In other words, the fiscal capacity gap among provinces was shrinking, yet recipient provinces still received a larger equalization payment.

Why? Because a “fixed-growth rule,” introduced by the Harper government in 2009, ensures that payments grow roughly in line with the economy—even if the gap between richer and poorer provinces shrinks. The result? Total equalization payments (before adjusting for inflation) increased by 19 per cent between 2015/16 and 2020/21 despite the gap in fiscal capacities between provinces shrinking during this time.

Moreover, the structure of the equalization program is also causing problems, even for recipient provinces, because it generates strong disincentives to natural resource development and the resulting economic growth because the program “claws back” equalization dollars when provinces raise revenue from natural resource development. Despite some changes to reduce this problem, one study estimated that a recipient province wishing to increase its natural resource revenues by a modest 10 per cent could face up to a 97 per cent claw back in equalization payments.

Put simply, provinces that generally do not receive equalization such as Alberta, B.C. and Saskatchewan have been punished for developing their resources, whereas recipient provinces such as Quebec and in the Maritimes have been rewarded for not developing theirs.

Finally, the current program design also encourages recipient provinces to maintain high personal and business income tax rates. While higher tax rates can reduce the incentive to work, invest and be productive, they also raise the national standard average tax rate, which is used in the equalization allocation formula. Therefore, provinces are incentivized to maintain high and economically damaging tax rates to maximize equalization payments.

Unless premiers push for reforms that will improve economic incentives and contain program costs, all provinces—recipient and non-recipient—will suffer the consequences.

Authors:

Alex Whalen  and Tegan Hill
Continue Reading

Addictions

Ontario to restrict Canadian government’s supervised drug sites, shift focus to helping addicts

Published on November 21, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Doug Ford’s Progressive Conservative government tabled the Safer Streets, Stronger Communities Act that will place into law specific bans on where such drug consumption sites are located.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford is making good on a promise to close so-called drug “supervision” sites in his province and says his government will focus on helping addicts get better instead of giving them free drugs.

Ford’s Progressive Conservative government on Monday tabled the Safer Streets, Stronger Communities Act that will place into law specific bans on where such drug consumption sites are located.

Specifically, the new bill will ban “supervised” drug consumption sites from being close to schools or childcare centers. Ten sites will close for now, including five in Toronto.

The new law would prohibit the “establishment and operation of a supervised consumption site at a location that is less than 200 meters from certain types of schools, private schools, childcare centers, Early child and family centers and such other premises as may be prescribed by the regulations.”

It would also in effect ban municipalities and local boards from applying for an “exemption from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Canada) for the purpose of decriminalizing the personal possession of a controlled substance or precursor.”

Lastly, the new law would put strict “limits” on the power municipalities and local boards have concerning “applications respecting supervised consumption sites and safer supply services.”

“Municipalities and local boards may only make such applications or support such applications if they have obtained the approval of the provincial Minister of Health,” the bill reads.

The new bill is part of a larger omnibus bill that makes changes relating to sex offenders as well as auto theft, which has exploded in the province in recent months.

In September, Ford had called the federal government’s lax drug policies tantamount to being the “biggest drug dealer in the entire country” and had vowed to act.

In speaking about the new bill, Ontario Minister of Health Sylvia Jones said the Ford government does not plan to allow municipal requests to the government regarding supervised consumption sites.

“Municipalities and organizations like public health units have to first come to the province because we don’t want them bypassing and getting any federal approval for something that we vehemently disagree with,” Jones told the media on Monday.

She also clarified that “there will be no further safe injection sites in the province of Ontario under our government.”

Ontario will instead create 19 new intensive addiction recovery to help those addicted to deadly drugs.

Alberta and other provinces have had success helping addicts instead of giving them free drugs.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, deaths related to opioid and other drug overdoses in Alberta fell to their lowest levels in years after the Conservative government began to focus on helping addicts via a recovery-based approach instead of the Liberal-minded, so-called “safe-supply” method.

Despite public backlash with respect to supervised drug consumption sites, Health Canada recently approved 16 more drug consumption sites in Ontario. Ford mentioned in the press conference that each day he gets “endless phone calls about needles being in the parks, needles being by the schools and the daycares,” calling the situation “unacceptable.”

The Liberals claim their “safer supply” program is good because it is “providing prescribed medications as a safer alternative to the toxic illegal drug supply to people who are at high risk of overdose.”

However, studies have shown that these programs often lead an excess of deaths from overdose in areas where they are allowed.

While many of the government’s lax drug policies continue, they have been forced to backpedal on some of their most extreme actions.

After the federal government allowed British Columbia to decriminalize the possession of hard drugs including heroin, cocaine, fentanyl, meth and MDMA beginning January 1, 2023, reports of overdoses and chaos began skyrocketing, leading the province to request that Trudeau re-criminalize drugs in public spaces.

A week later, the federal government relented and accepted British Columbia’s request.

Continue Reading

Trending

X