Connect with us

Opinion

Our problems like high crime, high unemployment, andpoor air quality are not secrets.

Published

7 minute read

I am always surprised when local residents are amazed after being apprised of the following information. They are not secrets, they are widely known in national news stories, human interest articles and polls, and used in marketing tools by other cities and corporations.
One third of Red Deer’s residents live north of the river and they have the G.H.Dawe Community Centre developed in the 70s and built in the 80s.
Two thirds of Red Deer’s residents live south of the river and they have the Downtown Recreation Centre, Michener Aquatic Centre, Downtown Arena, Centrium, Collicutt Recreation Centre, Pidherney Curling Centre, Kinex Arena, Kinsmen Community Arenas, Red Deer Curling Centre, and the under-construction Gary W. Harris Centre. The city is also talking about replacing the downtown recreation centre with an expanded 50m pool.
One third of Red Deer’s residents live north of the river and there are no high schools current or planned.
Two thirds of Red Deer’s residents live south of the river and there are 4 high schools currently with 2 more high schools planned.
Alberta has the poorest air quality in Canada, and Red Deer region has the poorest air quality in Alberta. Given there are pockets like downtown Edmonton and Calgary that may show poorer readings and there are times like during a forest fire when Fort McMurray will show poorer readings but as a whole and chronically for years that Red Deer region has the poorest air quality.
Red Deer has an unemployment rate that is 10% higher than the provincial rate and 43% higher than the national rate.
Red Deer is the second most dangerous city in Canada after Grande Prairie.
Red Deer population shrank between 2015-2016. The population north of the river shrank by 777 or 2.4% and the population south of the river shrank by 0.25% according to the city’s municipal census. While communities all around Red Deer grew with Blackfalds being one of the fastest growing communities in Canada.
Lethbridge is only marginally smaller than Red Deer but they grew by 2% during the same period. Does anyone believe that they would not use that fact when trying to attract families and businesses to relocate to Lethbridge.
Our crime is up, and recently the province announced a new much larger courthouse will be built in Red Deer, but when it comes to our health care our hospital has been forgotten. Money is going to a health care facility in Sylvan Lake, (a growing community), and if you need to see a specialist or need surgery do not be surprised if you are referred to the Olds hospital, for example.
Red Deer has become complacent, often times smug. Our politicians are content to be big fishes in a small but still shrinking pond. Seldom do you see our elected officials on the provincial, national or international stages. We worry about appeasing the few without expanding the base. A community cannot grow without accommodating the diverse groups beyond the basic group. Without growth a city shrinks as seen by the last 2 municipal censuses.
October 16 2017 is the next municipal election and the next opportunity to hold the mayor, the 8 councillors and the school board trustees accountable. I have heard that some incumbents will not run again but there are subtle hints that they may all run again. So ask the incumbents questions like the following questions.
Why is our unemployment so much higher than the provincial average?
What role did you play in keeping all high schools south of the river?
What have you done to mitigate the poor air quality in Red Deer?
Why are all the recreation centres, indoor ice rinks and indoor swimming pools being built south of the river? Will you commit to building the next indoor swimming pool/recreation centre north of the river?
What role did you play in building the school destined for Johnstone Park, north of the river, to be actually built south of the river?
What root causes have you addressed that increased our crime rates to current levels.
We need to ask because the media outlets do not hire investigating journalists who ask hardball questions they have just reporters/stenographers quoting the politicians. News medias need advertising dollars and the city spends big bucks and carry this big stick effectively.
So we should not be surprised if someone in Vancouver mentions our crime rates or someone in Toronto acknowledges our poor air quality. We should start questioning the decisions and actions taken.
Does having all 6 high schools in one area, 5 along 30 Ave. forcing one third of the students to commute across the whole city twice a day during rush hour traffic, really help our air quality ? Probably not?
Does having all but the one recreational complex on one side of town, increase juvenile delinquency and increase crime rates? Probably, does need asking.
The election is only 6 months away. Questions need to be asked. Complacency and the status quo are not options. Issues are abundant, questions need to be asked and new candidates need to come forward, but most importantly residents should not allow these issues to be ignored or shoved into the back corner.
I will keep asking.

Follow Author

Business

FEMA paid for hotels housing Tren de Aragua, Laken Riley killer, Noem says

Published on

Kristi Noem, secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security

From The Center Square

By  and

Luxury hotels in New York City including the Roosevelt, recipients of $59 million from FEMA to house immigrants, were a base of operations for Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua and served as a residence of the convicted killer of Laken Riley.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem shared the startling revelation Wednesday afternoon, just more than 48 hours after the Department of Government Efficiency team led by Elon Musk revealed the payments. She specifically said the Roosevelt Hotel was utilized by the notorious Venezuelan prison gang with members among the highest priority in thousands of arrests and detainers from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement since the inauguration of President Donald Trump.

“I have clawed back the full payment that FEMA deep state activists unilaterally gave to NYC migrant hotels,” Noem wrote on social media. “FEMA was funding the Roosevelt Hotel that serves as a Tren de Aragua base of operations and was used to house Laken Riley’s killer. Mark my words: there will not be a single penny spent that goes against the interest and safety of the American people.”

Riley, a University of Georgia nursing student, was murdered while out jogging. Jose Antonio Ibarra, 26, was illegally in the country and subsequently found guilty in November 2024.

The murder became a rallying cry for conservatives and a central issue in Trump’s reelection campaign.

The bipartisan Laken Riley Act – authorizing law enforcement to detain people illegally in America arrested for committing theft, assaulting law enforcement, or causing serious injury or death to another person – was the first major bill the 47th president signed into law on Jan. 29.

In the wake of the Trump administration’s findings through DOGE, four federal workers at the Federal Emergency Management Agency were fired Tuesday. The embattled agency previously ran by Alejandro Mayorkas in the Biden administration is a major agency within Noem’s DHS.

Homeland Security, in an emailed statement to The Center Square on Tuesday, said the firings included FEMA’s chief financial officer, two program analysts, and a grant specialist.

“Under President Trump and Secretary Noem’s leadership, DHS will not sit idly and allow deep state activists to undermine the will and safety of the American people,” the DHS said in its email.

Tren de Aragua is designated a foreign terrorist organization.

According to ICE, the Tren de Aragua gang is known for engaging in various criminal activities such as drug trafficking and violent crimes – including murder. Multiple reports indicate its operation is nationwide, the volume in certain locales greater than in others.

A couple of the gang members were tied to assaults on New York Police Department officers in Times Square last year. The attack garnered national outrage after four of the Venezuelan migrants indicted in the attack were apprehended by federal law enforcement but were released without deportation.

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

UK Could Weaken Online Censorship Law To Avoid US Trade Battle

Published on

logo

By

London weighs free speech against trade as Washington pressures Labour to amend online censorship laws.

As European leaders scramble to shield their economies from impending US tariffs, the UK’s Labour government appears ready to make significant concessions. Facing the risk of economic fallout, Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s administration has reportedly signaled to Washington that it is open to revising the controversial and dangerous Online Safety Act — legislation critics have described as an aggressive censorship regime.
The Act, which gives UK regulators the power to fine tech companies for failing to remove vaguely defined “harmful content,” has been a major point of contention between the two allies and has become a major threat to free speech online. The Trump administration has been especially vocal in its opposition, viewing the law as an affront to free speech and a potential financial burden on US tech giants.
According to The Telegraph:
“Downing Street is willing to renegotiate elements of the Act in order to strike a trade deal, should it be raised by the US, The Telegraph understands. The law has been heavily criticized by free speech advocates and economists, who argue its broad provisions to tackle harmful online content could lead to excessive censorship and deter investment from American tech giants.”
The Online Safety Act arms UK media regulator Ofcom with sweeping new authority over social media platforms, enabling the imposition of multimillion-pound fines for failing to police content according to government directives. While supporters claim the law is necessary to protect users, critics argue that its vague wording and punitive approach encourage preemptive censorship — where platforms remove lawful content simply to avoid regulatory punishment.
President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has intensified scrutiny of the law. The president, who has been highly critical of social media censorship, has surrounded himself with influential voices in the tech world, including Elon Musk, whose platform, X, is already preparing to challenge Ofcom’s authority.
“Another source close to the Trump’s (sic) administration suggested the act was viewed as ‘Orwellian’ in the US and could become a flashpoint in negotiations. ‘To many people that are currently in power, they feel the United Kingdom has become a dystopian, Orwellian place where people have to keep silent about things that aren’t fashionable,’ they said. ‘The administration hate it [Online Safety Act]. Congress has been saying that [it is a concern] ever since it was enacted. Those in the administration are saying the exact same thing.’”
Musk has publicly condemned the Act, and with Ofcom set to gain new enforcement powers in March, tensions between US tech firms and the UK government are likely to escalate. The entrepreneur recently welcomed Trump’s presidency as a potential counterweight to the UK’s regulatory crackdown.
Free speech advocates on both sides of the Atlantic have long warned that Britain’s approach to online regulation represents a stark departure from the First Amendment protections enjoyed in the US. The Free Speech Union and groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) argue that the law’s restrictions on “harmful but legal” speech will lead to widespread content suppression, limiting open debate and investigative journalism.
Lord Young of Acton, the founder of the Free Speech Union, underscored the looming confrontation between UK regulators and US tech leaders:
“If that happens, Trump will side with his tech bros and tell Sir Keir that if he wants a trade deal, he’ll call off his dogs.”
Labour has previously doubled down on online regulation, with its election manifesto promising additional measures to “keep everyone safe online.” However, in the face of potential US trade repercussions, the government’s stance appears to be softening.
From Washington’s perspective, the Online Safety Act has become an obstacle to trade negotiations, raising concerns that UK regulatory overreach could deter American investment. Andrew Hale, a trade policy expert at the Heritage Foundation, confirmed that this issue has been a recurring theme in discussions with US officials.
“Every meeting I have to discuss trade policy with people either in the administration or Congress, they always raise that. They say, ‘This is a huge roadblock’.”
With Ofcom’s enforcement powers set to take effect soon, Britain faces a fundamental choice: cling to its stringent online censorship policies or prioritize economic cooperation with the US. The decision could shape the future of free speech in the UK for years to come.
You subscribe to Reclaim The Net because you value free speech and privacy. Each issue we publish is a commitment to defend these critical rights, providing insights and actionable information to protect and promote liberty in the digital age.

Despite our wide readership, less than 0.2% of our readers contribute financially. With your support, we can do more than just continue; we can amplify voices that are often suppressed and spread the word about the urgent issues of censorship and surveillance.

Consider making a modest donation — just $5, or whatever amount you can afford. Your contribution will empower us to reach more people, educate them about these pressing issues, and engage them in our collective cause.

Thank you for considering a contribution. Each donation not only supports our operations but also strengthens our efforts to challenge injustices and advocate for those who cannot speak out.
Thank you.
Continue Reading

Trending

X