A few reasons why Molly Bannister Extension is needed, please help.

Guy Pelletier Regional Vice-President of Melcor Developments, at an information session held at the Bower Community Centre stated that if we remove the right of way now then the city would not be able to build the bridge, “When they need it”.

Melcor understands that the city will need the Molly Bannister Extension in the future but they want to make money. The kind of money, that 50 more houses backing onto Piper Creek, would bring.

Melcor is a business and that is understandable, but the city works for the people, the tax payers too. The Molly Bannister Extension has been polled, discussed, analyzed, studied, for decades and the majority of Red Deer residents have always supported it.

Granted there are a few who oppose it, and they have been vocal about it. Now we have big money involved so now there is a sense of urgency about it.

Let us talk about the trail. The trail is actually in the field on the west side of the creek. That would mean they would actually have to tear down trees to put the trail along the creek to go under the bridge. The trail is in the field across from this quarter. The trail would cross the road requiring a crosswalk with flashing lights.

So the option is have hikers, bikers and skaters wait 6 seconds for the flashing lights to come on or have thousands of drivers drive and extra 6 minutes every day.

Air pollution kills 4 million people every year. We encourage walking, transit etc. Now we want thousands of people to drive 6 more minutes every day so a few people don’t have to use a crosswalk.

The developer says removing the right of way will be more park space but in the next breath talks about replacing it with 50 houses backing onto Piper Creek. What these houses won’t be accessed by a road?

In Sunnybrook we have Selkirk Boulevard running along the woods. Deer cross it every day. Traffic slows down and stops for the animals. Even with all the traffic using as a short cut to avoid the 32 Street and 40 Avenue intersection.

If you remove the Molly Bannister Extension, you will most likely tie onto Selkirk Blvd at Springfield’s 3 way stop. Springfield is narrow and has a school but it has direct access to 32 Street. Selkirk is the most likely route as history shows.

We are talking about a 50 year old neighbourhood which was on the top neighbourhood list in Macleans magazine years ago. Now it has sidewalks which need to be weeded because the city cannot afford to maintain.

If you remove the Molly Bannister Extension, you will widen 32 Street to 6 lanes. Traffic will increase from 23,500 cars per day to over 40,000 when the population increases to 188,000. You are spending 3 million dollars repairing a shifted foundation wall on 32 St. near 47 Ave now at 4 lanes. How much will it cost to expand it to six lanes through Kin Canyon, Mountview school’s playground, etc.

You have mentioned a traffic circle at 40 Ave. and 19 St. at possibly 29-50 million dollars? A pedestrian bridge over 19 Street?

If you remove Molly Bannister Extension, what other unintended consequences will there be? Thousands upon thousands of vehicles travelling those 4 extra kilometres every day? For many, many years and decades? Isolating the animals in this wall less sanctuary, unable to roam?

Removing the Molly Bannister Extension is the first step. You know, as history shows, that 80% of the lots will request relaxations. Future traffic may require widening Selkirk Blvd, possibly hooking onto 32 Street at Spruce Drive.

Selective environmental concerns, affects us all, at one time or another. Years ago I would have been happy to remove the road alignment, but I changed with time. The traffic, death rate of animals crossing 32 Street, the noise, the alienation, the effects on seniors and children trying to cross 32 St. The homeless people leaving trash, needles, and furniture and invading our yards and stealing.

What will happen in the future, I do not know, you do not know, so why handicap future councils, future residents and future growth, when you don’t have to.

I will always remember Brian Mulrooney saying to John Turner; “No sir, you had an option, you could have said no.”

The city laid out 2 options but there are other options. You could just say no.

Unfortunately, the impression is that there are councillors who are so set in their ways, determined to remove the Molly Bannister Extension, that facts, reality, empathy, and options will have no effect.

So my question is, given that the majority of Red Deer residents as shown in the largest number of responses the city had received, support the Molly Banister Extension, will council represent the majority or represent the select few?

Thank you.

Garfield Marks

Follow Author

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.

Daily Caller

Former FBI Asst Director Warns Terrorists Are ‘Well Embedded’ In US, Says Alert Should Be ‘Higher’

Published on December 22, 2024

Todayville Content Team

Chris Swecker on “Anderson Cooper 360” discussing terror threat

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Hailey Gomez

Former FBI Assistant Director Chris Swecker warned Friday on CNN that terrorists are “well embedded” within the United States, stating the threat level should be “higher” following an attack in Germany.

A 50-year-old Saudi doctor allegedly drove his car into a crowded Christmas market in Magdeburg, Germany on Friday leaving at least two people dead and nearly 70 injured so far. On “Anderson Cooper 360,” Swecker was asked if he believes there is a potential “threat” to the U.S. as concerns have risen since the “fall of Afghanistan.”

“I think so,” Swecker said. “I mean, we’ve heard FBI Director Chris Wray talk about this in conjunction with the relative ease of getting across the southern border. And, you know, there’s no question that terrorists have come across that border, whether they’re lone terrorists or terrorist cells. And they’re well embedded inside this country.”

WATCH:

“I’ve worked terrorist cases. Hezbollah has always had a presence here. They raise funds here, and they can always be called into action as an active terrorist cell,” Swecker added. “So I think the alert here, especially around Christmas time, is elevated. It probably ought to be higher than what it is right now, because I mentioned that complacency earlier. And I fear that complacency as someone who has a background in this field.”

Concerns over the Biden-Harris administration’s handling of the U.S. southern border have raised questions over the vetting process of illegal immigrants entering the country.

On Tuesday United States Border Patrol (USPB) Chief Jason Owens announced in a social post that an unidentified South African national who was “suspected of terror” was arrested in Brooklyn, N.Y. The illegal immigrant had originally been detained in Texas for criminal trespassing but was released due to the “information available at the time.”

In August an estimated 99 individuals on the U.S. terrorist watch list had been released into the country after crossing through the southern border, according to a congressional report. The report found that between fiscal years 2021 and 2023 USBP agents encountered more than 250 illegal migrants on the terrorist watchlist, with nearly 100 of those individuals being later released into the U.S. by the Department of Homeland Security.

Alberta

Ford and Trudeau are playing checkers. Trump and Smith are playing chess

Published on December 21, 2024

Dan McTeague

By Dan McTeague

Ford’s calls for national unity – “We need to stand united as Canadians!” – in context feels like an endorsement of fellow Electric Vehicle fanatic Trudeau. And you do wonder if that issue has something to do with it. After all, the two have worked together to pump billions in taxpayer dollars into the EV industry.

There’s no doubt about it: Donald Trump’s threat of a blanket 25% tariff on Canadian goods (to be established if the Canadian government fails to take sufficient action to combat drug trafficking and illegal crossings over our southern border) would be catastrophic for our nation’s economy. More than $3 billion in goods move between the U.S. and Canada on a daily basis. If enacted, the Trump tariff would likely result in a full-blown recession.

It falls upon Canada’s leaders to prevent that from happening. That’s why Justin Trudeau flew to Florida two weeks ago to point out to the president-elect that the trade relationship between our countries is mutually beneficial.

This is true, but Trudeau isn’t the best person to make that case to Trump, since he has been trashing the once and future president, and his supporters, both in public and private, for years. He did so again at an appearance just the other day, in which he implied that American voters were sexist for once again failing to elect the nation’s first female president, and said that Trump’s election amounted to an assault on women’s rights.

Consequently, the meeting with Trump didn’t go well.

But Trudeau isn’t Canada’s only politician, and in recent days we’ve seen some contrasting approaches to this serious matter from our provincial leaders.

First up was Doug Ford, who followed up a phone call with Trudeau earlier this week by saying that Canadians have to prepare for a trade war. “Folks, this is coming, it’s not ‘if,’ it is — it’s coming… and we need to be prepared.”

Ford said that he’s working with Liberal Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland to put together a retaliatory tariff list. Spokesmen for his government floated the idea of banning the LCBO from buying American alcohol, and restricting the export of critical minerals needed for electric vehicle batteries (I’m sure Trump is terrified about that last one).

But Ford’s most dramatic threat was his announcement that Ontario is prepared to shut down energy exports to the U.S., specifically to Michigan, New York, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, if Trump follows through with his plan. “We’re sending a message to the U.S. You come and attack Ontario, you attack the livelihoods of Ontario and Canadians, we’re going to use every tool in our toolbox to defend Ontarians and Canadians across the border,” Ford said.

Now, unfortunately, all of this chest-thumping rings hollow. Ontario does almost $500 billion per year in trade with the U.S., and the province’s supply chains are highly integrated with America’s. The idea of just cutting off the power, as if you could just flip a switch, is actually impossible. It’s a bluff, and Trump has already called him on it. When told about Ford’s threat by a reporter this week, Trump replied “That’s okay if he does that. That’s fine.”

And Ford’s calls for national unity – “We need to stand united as Canadians!” – in context feels like an endorsement of fellow Electric Vehicle fanatic Trudeau. And you do wonder if that issue has something to do with it. After all, the two have worked together to pump billions in taxpayer dollars into the EV industry. Just over the past year Ford and Trudeau have been seen side by side announcing their $5 billion commitment to Honda, or their $28.2 billion in subsidies for new Stellantis and Volkswagen electric vehicle battery plants.

Their assumption was that the U.S. would be a major market for Canadian EVs. Remember that “vehicles are the second largest Canadian export by value, at $51 billion in 2023 of which 93% was exported to the U.S.,”according to the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers Association, and “Auto is Ontario’s top export at 28.9% of all exports (2023).”

But Trump ran on abolishing the Biden administration’s de facto EV mandate. Now that he’s back in the White House, the market for those EVs that Trudeau and Ford invested in so heavily is going to be much softer. Perhaps they’d like to be able to blame Trump’s tariffs for the coming downturn rather than their own misjudgment.

In any event, Ford’s tactic stands in stark contrast to the response from Alberta, Canada’s true energy superpower. Premier Danielle Smith made it clear that her province “will not support cutting off our Alberta energy exports to the U.S., nor will we support a tariff war with our largest trading partner and closest ally.”

Smith spoke about this topic at length at an event announcing a new $29-million border patrol team charged with combatting drug trafficking, at which said that Trudeau’s criticisms of the president-elect were, “not helpful.” Her deputy premier Mike Ellis was quoted as saying, “The concerns that president-elect Trump has expressed regarding fentanyl are, quite frankly, the same concerns that I and the premier have had.” Smith and Ellis also criticized Ottawa’s progressively lenient approach to drug crimes.

(For what it’s worth, a recent Léger poll found that “Just 29 per cent of [Canadians] believe Trump’s concerns about illegal immigration and drug trafficking from Canada to the U.S. are unwarranted.” Perhaps that’s why some recent polls have found that Trudeau is currently less popular in Canada than Trump at the moment.)

Smith said that Trudeau’s criticisms of the president-elect were, “not helpful.” And on X/Twitter she said, “Now is the time to… reach out to our friends and allies in the U.S. to remind them just how much Americans and Canadians mutually benefit from our trade relationship – and what we can do to grow that partnership further,” adding, “Tariffs just hurt Americans and Canadians on both sides of the border. Let’s make sure they don’t happen.”

This is exactly the right approach. Smith knows there is a lot at stake in this fight, and is not willing to step into the ring in a fight that Canada simply can’t win, and will cause a great deal of hardship for all involved along the way.

While Trudeau indulges in virtue signaling and Ford in sabre rattling, Danielle Smith is engaging in true statesmanship. That’s something that is in short supply in our country these days.

As I’ve written before, Trump is playing chess while Justin Trudeau and Doug Ford are playing checkers. They should take note of Smith’s strategy. Honey will attract more than vinegar, and if the long history of our two countries tell us anything, it’s that diplomacy is more effective than idle threats.

Dan McTeague is President of Canadians for Affordable Energy.