Connect with us

Opinion

Public hearing on Molly Banister Extension moved to unknown location on Oct 27.

Published

4 minute read

The public hearing on Big Money vs. Quality of Life has been moved to an unknown location on Oct 27 2020.

Red Deer’s city hall is bending over backwards and expending a lot of capital and effort to accommodate a developer.

Why? 3 times the citizens have been polled by questionaire, responses, and debates and the majority has always supported the Molly Banister Extension. Since 1970s the issue has come up, and the need to accommodate growth, transportation and emergency services, won out.

During that time nearly 500 families backing onto 32 St. 19 St. and 40 Ave have seen increased traffic with no end in sight. Bower Mall was built as a buffer from the Molly Bannister Extension with the understanding that the Extension would be built to allow traffic to access the mall. CBC reported that our air quality was the poorest in Alberta which had the poorest air quality in Canada. Thousands of people have to detour around Sunnybrook and Southbrook to access south side commercial enterprises. 19 St has been expanded to facilitate access to Gasoline Alley, at the detriment to downtown businesses.

The hearing on whether to build 50 houses along the river or build the the extension will be held on Oct. 27 at 1 pm.

The trail is in the field on the west side of the trees near Barrett Drive. It comes out of the trees just about where the bridge would exit, and create a crosswalk for the trail. Solar powered crosswalk lights could be installed, but that would mean a six second delay for hikers, bikers and skaters, but that would save a reported 6 minutes of driving for thousands of people.

Along the east side of the creek, that is filled with dead fall, and blow down, is polluted and choked with weeds after flowing through 2 landfills and a cow pasture there is a fence, 6 foot barb wire topped game-proof fence that kept the cows in. The extension would run along a fence-less woodland but 50 houses would simply have new fencing.

50 houses would introduce non-native plants, grasses and weeds along with pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and pet waste. The extension would see a road in the future, possibly a bridge. 50 houses would use up about 16 acres while the bridge would take up 1 acre. 50 houses would need a road (albeit a residential road) like the extension.

Molly Banister borders mainly on commercial properties about 95% while 32 Street borders mainly on residential properties about 95% and the plan is for 6 lanes for 32 Street and 19 Street.

50 houses means bigger profits for big money but it means diminished quality of life for thousands of people for many, many, many years. The Molly Banister Extension still means big profits for big money. means a better quality of life to thousands for years and it helps lowers the emissions spewing into our air.

Please let the city know your thoughts by e-mailing [email protected].  Thank you.

See you at the hearing at its unknown location on October 27.

Follow Author

Addictions

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

Published on

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

Alberta

Alberta’s fiscal update projects budget surplus, but fiscal fortunes could quickly turn

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

According to the recent mid-year update tabled Thursday, the Smith government projects a $4.6 billion surplus in 2024/25, up from the $2.9 billion surplus projected just a few months ago. Despite the good news, Premier Smith must reduce spending to avoid budget deficits.

The fiscal update projects resource revenue of $20.3 billion in 2024/25. Today’s relatively high—but very volatile—resource revenue (including oil and gas royalties) is helping finance today’s spending and maintain a balanced budget. But it will not last forever.

For perspective, in just the last decade the Alberta government’s annual resource revenue has been as low as $2.8 billion (2015/16) and as high as $25.2 billion (2022/23).

And while the resource revenue rollercoaster is currently in Alberta’s favor, Finance Minister Nate Horner acknowledges that “risks are on the rise” as oil prices have dropped considerably and forecasters are projecting downward pressure on prices—all of which impacts resource revenue.

In fact, the government’s own estimates show a $1 change in oil prices results in an estimated $630 million revenue swing. So while the Smith government plans to maintain a surplus in 2024/25, a small change in oil prices could quickly plunge Alberta back into deficit. Premier Smith has warned that her government may fall into a budget deficit this fiscal year.

This should come as no surprise. Alberta’s been on the resource revenue rollercoaster for decades. Successive governments have increased spending during the good times of high resource revenue, but failed to rein in spending when resource revenues fell.

Previous research has shown that, in Alberta, a $1 increase in resource revenue is associated with an estimated 56-cent increase in program spending the following fiscal year (on a per-person, inflation-adjusted basis). However, a decline in resource revenue is not similarly associated with a reduction in program spending. This pattern has led to historically high levels of government spending—and budget deficits—even in more recent years.

Consider this: If this fiscal year the Smith government received an average level of resource revenue (based on levels over the last 10 years), it would receive approximately $13,000 per Albertan. Yet the government plans to spend nearly $15,000 per Albertan this fiscal year (after adjusting for inflation). That’s a huge gap of roughly $2,000—and it means the government is continuing to take big risks with the provincial budget.

Of course, if the government falls back into deficit there are implications for everyday Albertans.

When the government runs a deficit, it accumulates debt, which Albertans must pay to service. In 2024/25, the government’s debt interest payments will cost each Albertan nearly $650. That’s largely because, despite running surpluses over the last few years, Albertans are still paying for debt accumulated during the most recent string of deficits from 2008/09 to 2020/21 (excluding 2014/15), which only ended when the government enjoyed an unexpected windfall in resource revenue in 2021/22.

According to Thursday’s mid-year fiscal update, Alberta’s finances continue to be at risk. To avoid deficits, the Smith government should meaningfully reduce spending so that it’s aligned with more reliable, stable levels of revenue.

Continue Reading

Trending

X