Connect with us

Opinion

A few reasons why Molly Bannister Extension is needed, please help.

Published

6 minute read

Guy Pelletier Regional Vice-President of Melcor Developments, at an information session held at the Bower Community Centre stated that if we remove the right of way now then the city would not be able to build the bridge, “When they need it”.

Melcor understands that the city will need the Molly Bannister Extension in the future but they want to make money. The kind of money, that 50 more houses backing onto Piper Creek, would bring.

Melcor is a business and that is understandable, but the city works for the people, the tax payers too. The Molly Bannister Extension has been polled, discussed, analyzed, studied, for decades and the majority of Red Deer residents have always supported it.

Granted there are a few who oppose it, and they have been vocal about it. Now we have big money involved so now there is a sense of urgency about it.

Let us talk about the trail. The trail is actually in the field on the west side of the creek. That would mean they would actually have to tear down trees to put the trail along the creek to go under the bridge. The trail is in the field across from this quarter. The trail would cross the road requiring a crosswalk with flashing lights.

So the option is have hikers, bikers and skaters wait 6 seconds for the flashing lights to come on or have thousands of drivers drive and extra 6 minutes every day.

Air pollution kills 4 million people every year. We encourage walking, transit etc. Now we want thousands of people to drive 6 more minutes every day so a few people don’t have to use a crosswalk.

The developer says removing the right of way will be more park space but in the next breath talks about replacing it with 50 houses backing onto Piper Creek. What these houses won’t be accessed by a road?

In Sunnybrook we have Selkirk Boulevard running along the woods. Deer cross it every day. Traffic slows down and stops for the animals. Even with all the traffic using as a short cut to avoid the 32 Street and 40 Avenue intersection.

If you remove the Molly Bannister Extension, you will most likely tie onto Selkirk Blvd at Springfield’s 3 way stop. Springfield is narrow and has a school but it has direct access to 32 Street. Selkirk is the most likely route as history shows.

We are talking about a 50 year old neighbourhood which was on the top neighbourhood list in Macleans magazine years ago. Now it has sidewalks which need to be weeded because the city cannot afford to maintain.

If you remove the Molly Bannister Extension, you will widen 32 Street to 6 lanes. Traffic will increase from 23,500 cars per day to over 40,000 when the population increases to 188,000. You are spending 3 million dollars repairing a shifted foundation wall on 32 St. near 47 Ave now at 4 lanes. How much will it cost to expand it to six lanes through Kin Canyon, Mountview school’s playground, etc.

You have mentioned a traffic circle at 40 Ave. and 19 St. at possibly 29-50 million dollars? A pedestrian bridge over 19 Street?

If you remove Molly Bannister Extension, what other unintended consequences will there be? Thousands upon thousands of vehicles travelling those 4 extra kilometres every day? For many, many years and decades? Isolating the animals in this wall less sanctuary, unable to roam?

Removing the Molly Bannister Extension is the first step. You know, as history shows, that 80% of the lots will request relaxations. Future traffic may require widening Selkirk Blvd, possibly hooking onto 32 Street at Spruce Drive.

Selective environmental concerns, affects us all, at one time or another. Years ago I would have been happy to remove the road alignment, but I changed with time. The traffic, death rate of animals crossing 32 Street, the noise, the alienation, the effects on seniors and children trying to cross 32 St. The homeless people leaving trash, needles, and furniture and invading our yards and stealing.

What will happen in the future, I do not know, you do not know, so why handicap future councils, future residents and future growth, when you don’t have to.

I will always remember Brian Mulrooney saying to John Turner; “No sir, you had an option, you could have said no.”

The city laid out 2 options but there are other options. You could just say no.

Unfortunately, the impression is that there are councillors who are so set in their ways, determined to remove the Molly Bannister Extension, that facts, reality, empathy, and options will have no effect.

So my question is, given that the majority of Red Deer residents as shown in the largest number of responses the city had received, support the Molly Banister Extension, will council represent the majority or represent the select few?

Thank you.

Follow Author

Digital ID

The Global Push for Government Mandated Digital IDs And Why You Should Worry

Published on

From StosselTV

Countries all over the world are imposing digital IDs. They tie your identity to everything you do. Spain’s Prime Minister wants “An end to anonymity online!”

Tech privacy expert Naomi Brockwell ‪@NaomiBrockwellTV‬ warns that’s dangerous. “Privacy is not about hiding,” she tells Stossel TV producer Kristin Tokarev. “It’s about an individual’s right to decide for themselves who gets access to their data. A Digital ID… will strip individuals of that choice.”

The new government mandated digital IDs aren’t just a digital version of your driver’s license or passport. “It connects everything,” Brockwell explains. “Your financial decisions, to your social media posts, your likes, the things that you’re watching, places that you’re going… Everything you say will be tied back to who you are.”

And once everything runs through a single government ID, access to services becomes something you need permission for. That’s already a reality in China where citizens are tracked, scored, and punished for “bad” behavior.

Brockwell warns the western world is “skyrocketing in that direction.” She says Americans need to push back now.

———

To make sure you receive the weekly video from Stossel TV, sign up here: https://www.johnstossel.com/#subscrib...

———

Continue Reading

International

China Stages Massive Live-Fire Encirclement Drill Around Taiwan as Washington and Japan Fortify

Published on

Sam Cooper's avatar Sam Cooper

Taiwan says 89 Chinese military aircraft and 28 PLA Navy and coast guard vessels surged into the island’s air and maritime approaches.

Following massive military sales from Washington to Taiwan and rapidly scaled defensive preparations from Japan, Beijing on Monday launched a sweeping show-of-force including live-fire activity around Taiwan.

The encirclement-style operation brought 89 Chinese military aircraft and 28 PLA Navy and coast guard vessels into the waters and skies around the island, one of the heaviest single-day tallies reported in more than a year.

Taiwan’s Presidential Office condemned the operation as a “unilateral provocation” that destabilizes regional peace, while stressing that Taiwan’s security agencies had “complete situational awareness” and had made preparations. Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense said it activated an emergency response posture and conducted immediate readiness drills.

Beijing, for its part, framed the action as a warning—an operation the PLA’s Eastern Theater Command dubbed “Justice Mission 2025,” involving the army, navy, air force, and rocket force, with designated zones for live-fire activity and sea-and-airspace restrictions.

Global coverage described the drills as rehearsing the mechanics of isolation: blockade-style pressure against key approaches and ports, integrated sea-air patrols, and “deterrence” aimed at what the PLA calls “external interference.”

In a statement circulated by former Taiwanese foreign minister Joseph Wu, now head of the nation’s national security council, the message from Taipei was readiness to deploy force.

“As China ramps up military threats against Taiwan, our armed forces are conducting Rapid Response Exercises in response,” Wu stated Monday morning. “We remain resolute and unafraid. We’ll defend our sovereignty and democracy at all times.”

Across international coverage, analysts assessed Beijing’s actions as escalation through rehearsal, designed to demonstrate a capacity to encircle Taiwan, with live-fire elements and disruption to regional routes. Coverage also emphasized the “stern warning” language aimed at “Taiwan independence” forces and foreign actors, and Taiwan’s elevated alert posture.

The choreography of this operation matters as much as the raw numbers.

The PLA appears to be practicing the operational geometry of denying outside forces access—the kind of posture meant to complicate U.S. and allied intervention in a blockade or assault scenario. That emphasis has been widely noted in contemporaneous coverage, including reporting that the Eastern Theater Command’s messaging explicitly framed the drill as “deterrence” against “external interference.”

This helps explain why the drill lands amid a knot of accelerating pressures.

A number of analysts speculated that Washington’s major arms package and Japan’s “re-militarization”—Tokyo’s rapid defense buildup in response to Beijing’s expanding military footprint—now feed into an escalating drill cycle in which China aims to demonstrate that outside support can be deterred, delayed, or priced prohibitively high.

One clear trigger is the Trump administration’s newly announced $11.1 billion arms package for Taiwan, which Beijing cast as proof of U.S. “interference.”

Another is Japan.

Regional reporting and analysis have framed the drill as a warning shot aimed not only at Taipei but at the alliance architecture around it—especially as Japanese leaders and planners speak more openly about a “Taiwan contingency” and expand defense spending and capabilities that Beijing portrays as destabilizing.

A third is the longer arc Beijing itself has helped set.

U.S. officials have repeatedly stated their assessment that Xi Jinping has directed the PLA to be capable of taking Taiwan by force by 2027—a milestone that continues to shape planning assumptions across the region.

In reporting The Bureau gathered during a September 2023 visit to Taiwan, Taiwanese military experts and officials warned that Beijing’s pressure campaign had reached a new plateau: Chinese aircraft and vessels were crossing into—and remaining in—Taiwan’s territory longer, in actions they described as cognitive warfare designed to erode the public’s will to resist.

“China makes many excuses to conduct military exercises around Taiwan, and I don’t think this is only political,” said Dr. Tzu-Chieh Hung of the Institute for National Defense Security Research, a think tank funded by Taiwan’s government. “I think they are expanding the area of their military operations.”

“We think they are trying to create a new normal, when we will become numb to their actions, and make it a fait accompli,” another senior Taiwanese official told The Bureau.

Those warnings sit directly beneath Monday’s encirclement-style operation. Beyond the raw tallies—89 aircraft and 28 PLA Navy and coast guard vessels—Taiwan’s defense community sees a pattern of repeated rehearsals that stretch time, distance, and ambiguity, steadily conditioning the region to accept blockade-style actions as irreversible.

Yet the fatalism that Taiwan cannot be defended has not been the conclusion in major U.S. war-game work—and Washington’s $11-billion Taiwan arms package signals an intent to strengthen deterrence.

Back in 2023, a widely cited wargaming study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies found Taiwan could repel a Chinese invasion—if Taiwan is prepared to fight immediately, and the United States and Japan move fast to deliver overwhelming air and missile firepower against the fleets that would attempt a blockade and landing.

“There is no question, two years ago most people would have said China has the ability to conquer Taiwan in a fait accompli,” Mark Cancian, one of the study’s authors, told The Bureau in 2023. “But we showed that is not true.”

“The Chinese defensive bubble at the start of the war is so strong, that Taiwan needs what it has to fight with for the first month or two,” Cancian said. “And the United States has to participate en masse and quickly. Japan must at least provide base capacity for U.S. forces, and Taiwan must defend itself.”

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

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

Continue Reading

Trending

X