Connect with us

Opinion

A PANACEA: is what Red Deer’s Riverlands is not.

Published

5 minute read

Definition of panacea. : a remedy for all ills or difficulties : cure-all.
The Riverlands is often being touted as the cure-all for our city’s ills. It will bring businesses to Red Deer. It will stem the exodus of our residents, reversing the decline in population. It will put Red Deer on the map. It will bring people downtown.
23 acres will save Red Deer from it’s current decline, it may help, but only if seen as a portion of the solution.
Concentrating on one area of Red Deer is detrimental to other areas in Red Deer. Pulling businesses from the north side to downtown will only hurt the north side businesses that cannot move downtown, like Parkland Mall. It punishes the residents who live on the north side because they will have to travel further to do business.
The city will say that the Riverlands will allow residents to live, work and recreate in their neighbourhoods. But that is not important, if you live north of the river.
The North is not some enemy, some disease that needs to be fought or contained. Why not allow one third of our city to live, work and recreate in their neighbourhood? You also determined that there should be an indoor ice rink for every 15,000 people. Apparently that also does not apply, north of the river. They have 1 for every 30,000 residents while the south side has 1 for every 10,000 residents.
The city will not plan for a high school or another swimming pool north of the river even though they expect the population will hit 55,000 residents. What family will plan on moving to the north side if they see that they will have to commute across the city for every necessity of life, like going to high school?
The Riverlands, will be a nice extra, but it is not a nice necessity, and that is where the city is failing. The money that went into re-aligning the traffic, could have paid for a high school for the north side communities. Investing in sports tourism, incorporating areas like Hazlett Lake. Building a competitive aquatic centre might attract more tourism dollars than a 20 million dollar footbridge for Riverlands residents.
The problem is that the city has blinders on when it comes to the downtown. A restaurant owner moved out of downtown, because he felt that he was out of the small group that controlled the decision making for downtown. He moved to the outer suburbia, or enemy territory.
He, like myself may be dismissed as cantankerous old men, ignored by the media and decision makers. But if one was to take all the symptoms, the trends, and events together and try to establish a commonality, then we might agree and find a way to reverse this decline.
Businesses leaving, 975 residents moved out of Red Deer, 777 residents moved out of the north side of the river, increasing unemployment, 10% vacancies, increasing crime, and bad air, will not end because the Riverlands is being developed.
There is no panacea, perhaps it is time to reconsider other options, too. Let us start listening, seriously, to a larger group. Find out why Blackfalds grew by 700 residents while Red Deer shrank by 975? Why is Gasoline Alley becoming a powerhouse while our downtown needs subsidization?
In 1970s, Parkland Mall made Red Deer a shopping destination for Central Alberta, 40% of the population lived north of the river, then we abandoned the north. The last school was built in 1985, the last indoor ice rink and pool was built in the 1980s, now they are neglected still 3 decades later. Only 30% live north of the river, today.
Could this have contributed to the decline of Red Deer? Possibly but no one wants to talk about it. Perhaps it is time we did? Maybe, being nice, ignoring the problems and putting all our eggs in the downtown basket, is not part of the solution but is part of the problem?
Forget the idea of a panacea, and start a real discussion, and the real solutions might see some daylight. Time to take the blinders off. Thank you.

Follow Author

conflict

Trump Threatens Strike on Khamenei as Israel Pounds Iranian Military Command

Published on

‘UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER’: Trump Warns Iran as Israel Kills Top General

In a dramatic escalation Tuesday, President Donald Trump issued a direct and unprecedented warning to Iran’s leadership, stating that U.S. intelligence has positively identified the location of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and could kill him—though, for now, the U.S. is choosing not to.

“We know exactly where the so-called ‘Supreme Leader’ is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there — We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now,” Trump posted to his Truth Social account Tuesday afternoon. “But we don’t want missiles shot at civilians, or American soldiers. Our patience is wearing thin. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

Minutes later, Trump posted again: “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!”

The remarks came after Trump met with top national security officials in the White House Situation Room, following fresh reports from the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies indicating that Iran is preparing further ballistic missile launches after Israeli strikes rocked key military sites in Tehran.

The president’s language—a blend of strategic ambiguity and a raw, public threat against a sitting head of state—appears unprecedented in modern diplomatic history, and marks the clearest signal yet that the United States is prepared to intervene militarily if Iran refuses to abandon its nuclear enrichment program or if American forces come under attack.

Meanwhile, Germany’s political leadership broke its relative silence with statements backing the U.S.-Israel alliance and condemning Tehran. Chancellor Friedrich Merz, still at the G7 meetings in Alberta that Trump abruptly left Monday night, said in a blunt interview with ZDF: “This is the dirty work Israel is doing for all of us. We are also victims of this regime. This mullah regime has brought death and destruction to the world.” Merz warned that unless Iran backs down, “it will mean the total destruction of its nuclear program — which Israel cannot achieve alone, not without the United States.”

The conflict, now in its fifth day, has reportedly claimed nearly 300 lives—about 240 in Iran and more than two dozen in Israel. Israeli military sources say a “third wave” of operations is underway, focusing on Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps units and missile launchers in western Iran. The Israeli Air Force has reportedly conducted deep-penetration strikes using U.S.-built F-35 stealth fighters.

Meanwhile, Israel claimed Tuesday that it had killed another top Iranian military official, and international monitors said Israeli strikes had inflicted greater damage to a key Iranian nuclear facility than previously understood. Since Israel began bombing Iran on Friday, it has effectively crippled Iran’s military leadership—killing at least 11 senior generals—and disrupted command-and-control operations tied to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

On Tuesday morning, the Israel Defense Forces announced it had killed Maj. Gen. Ali Shadmani, describing him as the most senior military commander in Iran. Shadmani had reportedly been appointed to his position just four days earlier, replacing another general killed in an Israeli strike on the first day of hostilities.

While Israeli bombardment shows no signs of slowing, Iran’s retaliatory missile barrages appear to have diminished in intensity over the past 48 hours.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy The Bureau, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

Invite Friends

Continue Reading

Business

The CBC is a government-funded giant no one watches

Published on

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy Media By Kris Sims

The CBC is draining taxpayer money while Canadians tune out. It’s time to stop funding a media giant that’s become a political pawn

The CBC is a taxpayer-funded failure, and it’s time to pull the plug. Yet during the election campaign, Prime Minister Mark Carney pledged to pump another $150 million into the broadcaster, even as the CBC was covering his campaign. That’s a blatant conflict of interest, and it underlines why government-funded journalism must end.

The CBC even reported on that announcement, running a headline calling itself “underfunded.” Think about that. Imagine being a CBC employee asking Carney questions at a campaign news conference, while knowing that if he wins, your employer gets a bigger cheque. Meanwhile, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has pledged to defund the CBC. The broadcaster is literally covering a story that determines its future funding—and pretending there’s no conflict.

This kind of entanglement isn’t journalism. It’s political theatre. When reporters’ paycheques depend on who wins the election, public trust is shattered.

And the rot goes even deeper. In the Throne Speech, the Carney government vowed to “protect the institutions that bring these cultures and this identity to the world, like CBC/RadioCanada.” Before the election, a federal report recommended nearly doubling the CBC’s annual funding. Former heritage minister Pascale St-Onge said Canada should match the G7 average of $62 per person per year—a move that would balloon the CBC’s budget to $2.5 billion annually. That would nearly double the CBC’s current public funding, which already exceeds $1.2 billion per year.

To put that in perspective, $2.5 billion could cover the annual grocery bill for more than 150,000 Canadian families. But Ottawa wants to shovel more cash at an organization most Canadians don’t even watch.

St-Onge also proposed expanding the CBC’s mandate to “fight disinformation,” suggesting it should play a formal role in “helping the Canadian population understand fact-based information.” The federal government says this is about countering false or misleading information online—so-called “disinformation.” But the Carney platform took it further, pledging to “fully equip” the CBC to combat disinformation so Canadians “have a news source
they know they can trust.”

That raises troubling questions. Will the CBC become an official state fact-checker? Who decides what qualifies as “disinformation”? This isn’t about journalism anymore—it’s about control.

Meanwhile, accountability is nonexistent. Despite years of public backlash over lavish executive compensation, the CBC hasn’t cleaned up its act. Former CEO Catherine Tait earned nearly half a million dollars annually. Her successor, Marie Philippe Bouchard, will rake in up to $562,700. Bonuses were scrapped after criticism—but base salaries were quietly hiked instead. Canadians struggling with inflation and rising costs are footing the bill for bloated executive pay at a broadcaster few of them even watch.

The CBC’s flagship English-language prime-time news show draws just 1.8 per cent of available viewers. That means more than 98 per cent of TV-viewing Canadians are tuning out. The public isn’t buying what the CBC is selling—but they’re being forced to pay for it anyway.

Government-funded journalism is a conflict of interest by design. The CBC is expensive, unpopular, and unaccountable. It doesn’t need more money. It needs to stand on its own—or not at all.

Kris Sims is the Alberta Director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.

Continue Reading

Trending

X