Connect with us

Opinion

Red Deer died a little last year. Where is the plan? Can we talk about it?

Published

6 minute read

Red Deer died a little last year. 975 more people moved out of Red Deer last year than moved into Red Deer. 777 of that loss was felt north of the river. Where is the discussion, where is the plan to stop this outward migration of residents? Does anyone at city hall care?
I see in the budget being presented on April 18, 2017 that there is almost 2 million dollars set aside for downtown revitalization. That is on top of the approximately 50 million for development around the arena, 50 million for road re-alignment, already completed. Lest we forget the 135 million to relocate the public works yard out of downtown, throw in the over constructed bus station and we are going to spend another million or two on revitalization. Next year or 2 they will be spending 100 million or so on the downtown recreation centre, 5 million on the railway bridge. They are talking about building a 23 million dollar footbridge a few hundred metres from the Taylor bridge. All that means that the city will have, is, and will be spending a half billion dollars downtown.
North of the bridge, where we have a huge problem, the last school was built in 1985, the last recreation centre was built before that, and there is no high school, now or planned. What is the plan?
In 1985 40% of the city’s population lived north of the river. It was an economic hub for central Alberta, now only 30% live north of the river. Where is the plan?
North of the river the residents have only the Dawe Centre for indoor facilities, no high school gyms to offer young people, but south of the river they will see their 4th high school opening this fall and 2 more on the books. They also have the Downtown Recreation Centre, Michener Aquatic Centre, Downtown Arena, Centrium ice, 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.
Are we so blinded by bias against the north and biased for the downtown, that we do not care, we have no plan, and can only focus on the residents south of the river?
I have been talking about Hazlett Lake. Red Deer’s largest lake, located north of the river, north of Hwy 11a because it is up for development. It is a diamond in the rough, with potential that is being ignored at our cost. Lethbridge turned a slough into a lake into Henderson Park into a tourist attraction and they were the 5th fastest growing city in Canada, and they are only slightly smaller than Red Deer now and could overtake Red Deer this year.
Red Deer has a lake that they want to wrap with residential and industrial land. The city wants to spend a cool hundred million turning the downtown recreation centre into an aquatic centre. Why not build an Aquatic Centre on a lake?
The Gary W. Harris centre will be visible from Hwy 2, as is the sports Hall of Fame, as is Hazlett Lake. If Lethbridge can turn a slough into a tourist attraction why can’t Red Deer turn a lake into a tourist attraction.
Hazlett Lake is about the same distance from the Riverlands development as the Collicutt Centre. The Collicutt Centre came about because the city decided that with 55,000 residents the city needed a 4th recreational centre. It also spurred development in the south east and now 60% of the residents use it.
The development north of 11a would bring the total population north of the river to 55,000 if we stop the exodus of residents, but there is no plans for a 2nd recreation centre let alone a 4th north of the river.
There is no plan, no discussion to stem the outward migration in Red Deer. I sense that the bias against the north is so deep, so entrenched that they do not worry about it.
I mentioned this quite a few times, suffered some negative comments and have been told that the residents living north of the river can drive across town or take a bus. I guess the residents south of the river can’t.
The city will not do their annual census this year. It costs money, and if the city shrank even more they would lose provincial money and it would look bad just before the October 16 2017 election.
The city died a little last year, can we talk about it? Please.

Follow Author

International

Bill Maher Breaks His Silence on His Private Meeting With President Trump

Published on

 The Vigilant Fox

You won’t believe what you’re about to hear.

Bill Maher just spilled the beans about his private meeting with President Trump on his show, Real Time, describing Trump as “different” in person than he expected.

On March 31, Maher met Trump at the White House, arranged by his friend Kid Rock.

And it turned out to be a surprisingly warm, candid, and friendly one-on-one conversation.

Maher was shocked when he presented Trump with a list of past insults Trump had hurled at him over the years.

And in epic fashion, Trump signed it—all in good humor.

“So, okay, so meet up in person. Maybe it’ll be different. Spoiler alert. It was. First good sign. Before I left for the Capitol, I had my staff collect and print out this list of almost 60 different insulting epithets that the President has said about me.

“Things like, stupid, dummy, low life, dummy, sleazebag, sick, sad, stone cold crazy. Really? A dumb guy, fired like a dog. His show is dead. 60. I brought this to the White House because I wanted him to sign it, which he did.

“Which he did with good humor. And I know, as I say, that millions of liberal sphincters just tightened. Oh, my God, Bill. Are you going to say something nice about him? What I’m going to do is report exactly what happened.

“You decide what you think about it. And if that’s not enough pure Trump hate for you, I don’t give a f***,” Maher said.

Bill Maher continued to explain that he was stunned to see Trump treat him warmly—and laugh like he’s “never seen him laugh in public.”

“When I got there, that [Mean tweet] guy wasn’t living there. Now, does Trump want respect? Of course, who doesn’t? My friend said to me, ‘What are you going to wear to the White House?’ I said, ‘I don’t know, but I’m not going to dress like Zelensky, I’ll tell you that.’

“Just for starters, he laughs. I’d never seen him laugh in public, but he does, including at himself. And it’s not fake, believe me, as a comedian of 40 years, I know a fake laugh when I hear it,” Maher said.

Want more posts like this? Join the email list and get hard-hitting stories like this delivered straight to your inbox.

To summarize the meeting, Maher’s mind was completely blown, saying Trump is much more self-aware and personable than he ever imagined.

Everything I’ve ever not liked about him was, I swear to God, absent,” Maher said.

He explained, “He’s much more self-aware than he lets on in public. Look, I get it. It doesn’t matter who he is at a private dinner with a comedian. It matters who he is on the world stage. I’m just taking as a positive that this person exists, because everything I’ve ever not liked about him was, I swear to God, absent.

“At least on this night with this guy, Bob, Kid Rock told me the night before, he said, ‘If you want to get a word in edgewise, you’re going to have to cut him off. He’ll just go on.’ Not at all. I’ve had so many conversations with prominent people who are much less connected.

“People who don’t look you in the eye, people who don’t really listen because they just want to get to their next thing. People whose response to things you say just doesn’t track. Like what? None of that with him. And he mostly steered the conversation to, ‘What do you think about this?’ I know your mind is blown. So is mine.”

Maher added that he felt far more comfortable speaking with Trump than he ever would have with Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

He explained that contrast speaks volumes—and is “emblematic of why the Democrats are so unpopular these days.”

“I never felt I had to walk on eggshells around him. And honestly, I voted for Clinton and Obama, but I would never feel comfortable talking to them the way I was able to talk with Donald Trump. That’s just how it went down. Make of it what you will. Me, I feel it’s emblematic of why the Democrats are so unpopular these days,” Maher said

During their conversation, Maher told Trump, “Well, Mr. President… I didn’t like what you were doing regarding Obama’s birth origins. I thought that was low.”

To his shock, Trump responded with grace and no anger, Maher revealed. “Just a little smile as if to say, ‘Yeah, I get it.’”

The moment Maher described as the “most surreal” came after the meeting, when he watched Trump on TV—because the man Maher met in person, he says, was nothing like the one he sees on screen.

“Why can’t we get the guy I met to be the public guy?” Maher asked.

He explained, “The most surreal part of the whole night was when I got home. I flew back right after the dinner, and I’m in bed watching 60 Minutes from the night before. And there’s Trump in one of their stories, standing at a podium in a room that looked to me like one of the rooms and places we’d just been in.

“And he’s ranting, ‘Disgusting.’ ‘You’re a terrible person.’ And I’m like, who’s that guy? What happened to Glinda the Good Witch? And why can’t we get the guy I met to be the public guy?” Maher asked.

“And I’m not saying it’s our responsibility to do that. It’s not. I’m just reporting exactly what I saw over two and a half hours. I went into the mine, and that’s what’s down there.

A crazy person doesn’t live in the White House. A person who plays a crazy person on TV a lot lives there, which I know is f*cked up. It’s just not as f*cked up as I thought it was,” Maher said.


Thanks for reading.

If you appreciate this kind of reporting, follow me for more insights and stories you won’t find anywhere else.

Continue Reading

Carbon Tax

Trump targets Washington’s climate laws in recent executive order

Published on

From The Center Square

By 

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday targeting state-level climate policies – including Washington state’s Climate Commitment Act – calling them unconstitutional and harmful to domestic energy production

The executive order directs attorneys general to take action against state laws and policies that address climate change or involve environmental justice, carbon or greenhouse gas emissions, and funds to collect carbon penalties or carbon taxes.

That includes Washington’s CCA that requires emitters to either reduce their carbon footprint or purchase “allowances” via a cap-and-trade program, which sets a limit on emissions from the state’s largest polluters: oil refineries, utilities, and manufacturers.

The CCA’s cap lowers over time with the goal of getting to carbon neutrality by 2050. While the program has generated billions in revenue, only 11% directly funds emissions-reducing projects, with the rest supports climate resilience, public health programs, and infrastructure planning, as previously reported by The Center Square,

According to a press release from The White House, the executive order targets these state laws and policies because they “burden the use of domestic energy resources and that are unconstitutional, preempted by federal law, or otherwise unenforceable.”

Gov. Bob Ferguson does not believe the executive order has enough teeth to impact the state’s CCA.

“Voters upheld the Climate Commitment Act by a landslide, with 61% approval,” Ferguson told The Center Square in an email. “I am confident we will be able to preserve this and other important laws protecting our climate and investments in clean energy from this latest attack by the Trump administration.”

The Washington Department of Transportation told The Center Square it is working with federal and state partners to seek clarification about the implications and next steps of federal funding actions.

The Department of Ecology did not respond to The Center Square’s request for comment.

If U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi does go after the CCA and other environmental policies, Washington officials may argue that it’s within the state’s authority to regulate emissions for public health.

For example, The federal Clean Air Act allows states, including Washington, to adopt more stringent motor vehicle emission standards than the federal minimums in certain circumstances.

The 2007 Supreme Court decision Massachusetts v. EPA affirmed states’ standing to sue over carbon emissions, ruling that greenhouse gases endanger public health and are subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act.

This wouldn’t be the first time the state defended its environmental laws against federal challenges from the Trump administration.

Washington also fought emissions rollbacks during the first Trump administration when Ferguson was state attorney general.

One key victory came in 2024, when Washington helped defend California’s right to set stricter vehicle emission standards.

While Ferguson has not commented on the executive order, New York Governor Kathy Hochul and New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham – co-chairs of the U.S. Climate Alliance – issued a joint statement on Tuesday that states that the federal government cannot “unilaterally strip states’ independent constitutional authority.”

“We will keep advancing solutions to the climate crisis that safeguard Americans’ fundamental right to clean air and water, create good-paying jobs, grow the clean energy economy, and make our future healthier and safer,” the statement said.

Continue Reading

Trending

X