Opinion

Red Deer, for many is “A nice place to work but they don’t want to live here”

Published

8 years ago

8 minute read

October 16 2017 is the final exam for the current city council, mayor and the school boards. That is the day the citizens of Red Deer will elect a mayor, a city council and 2 school boards.
Some incumbents, will retire and not put their name forward, others may fail. Some will pass the exam solely on their personalities, good looks or connections, while others will work hard to pass and continue on for 4 more years.
What will they have on their resume?
The city has declined, dramatically while others have grown and prospered. The city shrank by 1%, (Blackfalds grew by 8%), unemployment is increasing, crime is increasing, vacancies are increasing, new home builds are down, businesses are leaving, and taxes are increasing. The north side of the river population 30,000, is still being discriminated against. No new schools in 30 years, still no high school, no new swimming pool in 30 years, no new indoor ice rink in 30 years. Blackfalds is fundraising for a second indoor ice rink, now with a population of only 9510.
I like to ask myself, why do these intelligent members of councils, school boards and mayors discriminate against sectors of Red Deer? I know that the north side of the river has been discriminated against both in operations and in planning, so when will my area be discriminated against, next year, next decade, or next election?
What will happen in the next nine months?
First of all this will be their final budget. The fiscal hawks, will have to show that they had what it took, to be fiscally responsible, these past 4 years. Can they square the circle of continuing tax increases, continued growth at city hall, continued increased spending, while the citizens are earning less, losing jobs, and ultimately leaving, with almost a 1,000 people moving out of Red Deer last year, 777 from north of the river.
Some will say that any decisions they make, you will not see any effect for 2 years. Fine, so what decisions did you make 3 years ago, that saw almost a thousand people leave the city last year, that saw our city become the second highest in crime rate across Canada. What decisions did you make 2 years ago that saw our unemployment rate increase last month, and businesses move from downtown to gasoline alley? What decisions did you make last year that would make you think that the city will not grow next year, negating the need for the annual census? Do not make those same decisions.
Apparently, for 700 former residents, it is better to fight rush hour traffic and drive back and forth to Blackfalds, than to live in Red Deer. What happened to make Red Deer; “A nice place to work, but I wouldn’t want to live there.”
Will the city increase taxes? Will they continue putting 1% in savings and blame that for increases? It shouldn’t because if they stayed with last year’s budget it would still be there. Will they expand staff levels, increase personnel, security, operations without reducing and redundancies? The city shrank by 1% and cost of living barely rose over 1%, 100 x 99% x101%= 99.99%. The fiscal hawks better have a good explanation for any tax increases.
The downtown protectionists, will have to explain why downtown businesses are leaving for areas like gasoline alley, after we spent so much, time, money and energy downtown. Roads, services, patios, entertainment, advertising, and businesses are leaving. What was our return on investment? Will we continue to pour millions into downtown projects at the expense of other areas and taxpayers?
Why is there no plans for a high school, north of the river? The area north of 11a will provide homes for 20,000+ more residents, meaning there will be 50,000+ residents north of the river, yet there is no plan for a high school. The incumbents will blame others, the city, the province, past-members, but they had 4 years to implement a plan. Why has fund raising become so necessary?
Nine months will see new initiatives brought forward, only to be forgotten on October 17. Incumbents will finally have an opinion, find a voice, and express their beliefs, before becoming mute again on October 17. New medias will offer more insight into the incumbents. The election of Notley in Alberta, Trudeau in Ottawa, and Trump in the USA will give a voice and optimism to the need for change, and give some awareness to re-election campaigns.
Perhaps in the next nine months leading up to the election on October 16, 2017, someone might say it is time. Instead of building the 7th or 8th indoor ice rink south of the river we could build a 2nd one north of the river. Instead of building the 5th and 6th high school south of the river we could build a 1st one north of the river. Instead of tearing down the recreation centre downtown so we can make the indoor pool bigger and the outdoor pool smaller we could build a 2nd pool north of the river.
Perhaps in the next nine months, an incumbent will say, the Collicutt Centre was a huge success, and kick started development in the south-east we should replicate that success in the north-west. We could build it by Hazlett Lake, fulfilling some of the needs of the residents, kick start development and give boost to our tourism and diversification desires.
The incumbents cannot say yes to every demand, and we do not expect them too. We would be outraged if for example, they only said yes to men and only said no to women. Would we be equally outraged if they only said yes to the south and only no to the north? Apparently not given the evidence of no high school ever, no new schools, indoor pools and indoor ice rinks in 30 plus years, north of the river.
The next nine months leading up to the municipal election on Monday October 16, 2017 will see some changes, will see stands taken, ideas proposed and many explanations. Will it be enough or is there enough impetus for change? We will have to see.
Thank you.

Up Next

Report suggests our Downtown lives or dies at whim of the provincial economy. 100 million wasted?

Don't Miss

Alberta Media Shun Coverage Winning Local Cowboys at NFR

Follow Author

State of federal finances make NATO spending target very challenging

Business / 4 hours ago

Trump’s executive orders represent massive threat to Canadian competitiveness

International / 8 hours ago

RFK Jr. fires back in defense of vaccine stance amid heated Senate confirmation hearing

armed forces

State of federal finances make NATO spending target very challenging

Published on January 29, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

Defence Minister Bill Blair recently claimed the federal government could “absolutely” achieve the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) defence spending target of 2.0 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP—a measure of the size of the economy) by 2027. However, the dismal state of Canada’s finances makes this accelerated timeline very costly to Canadians.

First, some background. In 2014, Canada (along with the other NATO members) formally pledged to increase spending on defence up to a target of 2.0 per cent of GDP by 2024. At the time, Canada spent 1.01 per cent of GDP on defence. A decade has passed and Canada has failed to fulfill that pledge. Indeed, based on the current defence spending plan and the latest GDP projections, Canada’s defence spending is expected to reach just 1.34 per cent of GDP ($41.0 billion) in 2024/25.

Based on the latest spending estimates from NATO, Canada is one of only eight NATO members (out of 31 in total) to spend less than 2.0 per cent of GDP on defence. As the large majority of the alliance has now met the spending target, and President Donald Trump has called for the target to be raised even further to 5 per cent of GDP, Canada will have to dramatically increase defence spending (lest we be at complete odds with our allies).

However, meeting the NATO 2.0 per cent target by 2027/28 would require billions more in annual federal spending (see the following figure).Over the next three years, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO), the federal government will increase defence spending from a projected $41.0 billion in 2024/25 to $53.5 billion in 2027/28—with the majority of this increase occurring in the first year. This means, based on the current plan, Canada’s defence spending would only reach 1.55 per cent of GDP by 2027/28.

To reach 2.0 per cent of GDP in 2027/28, the government would need to spend $68.8 billion on defence during that fiscal year. Assuming the initial jump remains the same, this implies the government would need to increase annual defence spending by $16.5 billion from 2025/26 to 2027/28—$15.3 billion more than currently planned.

The federal government plans to run four consecutive budget deficits from 2024/25 to 2027/28 that add up to $151.9 billion in expected borrowing. In other words, the government already plans to spend more than it collects in revenues. Assuming the government adopts the spending plan shown in the above figure, reaching the NATO target by 2027/28 would require an additional $22.7 billion in borrowing.

Increasing the amount borrowed will impose substantial costs on Canadians. In the near-term it results in higher debt interest payments. Government must pay interest on its debt—same as a family with a mortgage—and rising interest costs leave less money available for programs and services. For perspective, largely due to past borrowing under the Trudeau government, federal debt interest payments are expected to equal all Goods and Services Tax (GST) revenues (and then some) in 2024/25. Longer-term, an increase in borrowed money will also burden future generations of taxpayers who will likely face higher taxes to pay for today’s spending.

Clearly, borrowing money to fund higher defence spending will only worsen the state of federal finances, meaning Canada is in a lose-lose situation when it comes to meeting the NATO 2.0 per cent target—risk the consequences of further disappointing our allies or take on billions more in debt.

Instead, Ottawa should identify and cut wasteful spending and use those savings for national defence. Simply put, smaller and smarter government spending could help get Canada out of this lose-lose situation.

Business

Trump’s executive orders represent massive threat to Canadian competitiveness

Published on January 29, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Donald Trump had a busy first day back on the job. From his desk in the Oval Office, President Trump signed a suite of executive orders including on energy and regulation, with major implications for Canada. He’s clearly rejected the primacy of a regulatory state (in favour of the legislative state), put a lock on the growth of U.S. regulation, and launched regulatory and cost controls. Essentially this means the U.S. will systemically deregulate while Canada is regulating its economy ever more heavily and broadly, making our economy even less competitive with the U.S.

Trump has also put paid to the fallacy of the great electric vehicle (EV) transition by pulling the plug on the U.S. EV mandate and federal consumer subsidies for EVs. Of course, now that the U.S. will not mandate EVs in large numbers, the massive investments Canada has made in EV and battery technology and manufacturing—on the expectation of selling EV parts and vehicles in the U.S. market—will likely see little return.

Trump’s withdrawal (for a second time) from the Paris climate agreement also puts U.S. policy further at odds with Canada. While Canada will spend huge amounts of money to attempt to comply with its climate commitments under the agreement, and hurt its energy and natural resource sectors in the process, the U.S. will not. In fact, the Trump administration will likely undo many of the things that have been done in the name of implementing the Paris agreement.

Trump‘s declaration of an energy emergency and his call for a massive increase in energy production by is also a direct threat to Canada’s energy economy. As we have seen in the past, the Americans can move very quickly to increase the supply of oil and natural gas when they put their mind to it and when regulations don’t stand in the way. A U.S. energy surge could lead to a flood of oil and gas production pretty quickly, leading the U.S. to need less and less Canadian oil and gas (as Trump has flamboyantly proclaimed).

Trump also wants to expedite energy project reviews and approvals, the exact opposite to the Trudeau government’s approach, which has frustrated the building of new pipelines and other projects. This will facilitate the U.S. ability to increase energy and natural resource production at a pace Canada cannot hope to match.

Simply put, setting aside Trump’s threatened tariffs, his day-one executive orders pose a serious threat to Canada’s energy and natural resource sectors, which remain a vital source of prosperity and revenue, and merit an immediate response from our federal government.

In an ideal world, Canada would harmonize its policy approach to the U.S. on energy and natural resources, which has, in fact, been a historical norm. But unfortunately for Canadians, the Trudeau government will likely reject Trump’s policy reforms and continue its pro-administrative state, anti-energy, anti-resource economic philosophy. And given Prime Minister Trudeau’s recent actions to prorogue Parliament, President Trump’s executive-order barrage won’t face a meaningful Canadian response for months, letting the U.S. steal a massive march on energy, natural resource and regulatory policy reforms over a Canada sitting on its hands.