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

Censorship Industrial Complex

US Under Secretary of State Slams UK and EU Over Online Speech Regulation, Announces Release of Files on Past Censorship Efforts

Published on

logo

By

Sarah Rogers’ comments draw a new line in the sand between America’s First Amendment and Europe’s tightening grip on online speech.

Speaking during an appearance on The Liz Truss Show, Rogers said Washington intends to respond to the UK’s communications regulator Ofcom after it sought to bring the website 4chan under its jurisdiction.
She said the situation “forced” the US to defend its constitutional protections, warning that “when British regulators decree that British law applies to American speech on American sites on American soil with no connection to Britain,” the matter can no longer be ignored.
Rogers called it “a perverse blessing” that the dispute is forcing a renewed transatlantic conversation about free expression, observing that “Britain and America did develop the free speech tradition together.”
Rogers announced that the State Department will soon publish a collection of previously unreleased internal emails and documents describing earlier US government involvement in social media moderation efforts.
The release is part of what she termed a “truth and reconciliation initiative” that will include material linked to the now-defunct Global Engagement Center, which she said had coordinated with outside organizations to identify content for takedown.
That operation was “immediately dismantled” after she assumed her current post.
She argued that foreign governments have moved from cooperation to coercion in their dealings with US companies. “Europe and the UK and other governments abroad are…trying to nullify the American First Amendment by enforcing against American companies and American speakers and American soil,” Rogers said, referring to the EU’s fine against X and Ofcom’s recent enforcement campaigns.
On domestic policy, she criticized the UK’s Online Safety Act, saying that it is being sold as child protection legislation but in practice functions as a speech control measure.
“These statutes are just censoring adult political speech is not the best way to protect kids and it’s probably the worst way,” she said.
Rogers noted that under such laws, even parliamentary remarks about criminal networks could be censored if regulators deem them harmful.
Turning to Ofcom’s ongoing 4chan case, Rogers said its legal position effectively claims authority over purely American websites.
She offered a hypothetical: “I could go set up a website in my garage…about American political controversies…and Ofcom’s legal position nonetheless is that if I run afoul of British content laws, then I have to pay money for the British government.”
Rogers said she expects the US government to issue a response soon.
Throughout the interview, Rogers framed the current wave of global online regulation as an effort to suppress what she called “chaotic speech” that emerges with every major communications shift.
“People panic and they want to shove that innovation back in the bottle,” she said, warning that such attempts have “never worked.”
Her remarks mark one of the strongest rebukes yet from a senior American official toward the growing European model of compelled content moderation.
Rogers suggested that this model not only undermines open debate but also sets a precedent for governments worldwide to police political speech beyond their borders.
Continue Reading

Business

“Magnitude cannot be overstated”: Minnesota aid scam may reach $9 billion

Published on

MXM logo MxM News

Federal prosecutors say Minnesota’s exploding social-services fraud scandal may now rival nearly the entire economy of Somalia, with as much as $9 billion allegedly stolen from taxpayer-funded programs in what authorities describe as industrial-scale abuse that unfolded largely under the watch of Democrat Gov. Tim Walz. The staggering new estimate is almost nine times higher than the roughly $1 billion figure previously suspected and amounts to about half of the $18 billion in federal funds routed through Minnesota-run social-services programs since 2018, according to prosecutors. “The magnitude cannot be overstated,” First Assistant U.S. Attorney Joe Thompson said Thursday, stressing that investigators are still uncovering massive schemes. “This is not a handful of bad actors. It’s staggering, industrial-scale fraud. Every day we look under a rock and find another $50 million fraud operation.”

Authorities say the alleged theft went far beyond routine overbilling. Dozens of defendants — the vast majority tied to Minnesota’s Somali community — are accused of creating sham businesses and nonprofits that claimed to provide housing assistance, food aid, or health-care services that never existed, then billing state programs backed by federal dollars. Thompson said the opportunity became so lucrative it attracted what he called “fraud tourism,” with out-of-state operators traveling to Minnesota to cash in. Charges announced Thursday against six more people bring the total number of defendants to 92.

Among the newly charged are Anthony Waddell Jefferson, 37, and Lester Brown, 53, who prosecutors say traveled from Philadelphia to Minnesota after spotting what they believed was easy money in the state’s housing assistance system. The pair allegedly embedded themselves in shelters and affordable-housing networks to pose as legitimate providers, then recruited relatives and associates to fabricate client notes. Prosecutors say they submitted about $3.5 million in false claims to the state’s Housing Stability Services Program for roughly 230 supposed clients.

Other cases show how deeply the alleged fraud penetrated Minnesota’s health-care programs. Abdinajib Hassan Yussuf, 27, is accused of setting up a bogus autism therapy nonprofit that paid parents to enroll children regardless of diagnosis, then billed the state for services never delivered, netting roughly $6 million. Another defendant, Asha Farhan Hassan, 28, allegedly participated in a separate autism scheme that generated $14 million in fraudulent reimbursements, while also pocketing nearly $500,000 through the notorious Feeding Our Future food-aid scandal. “Roughly two dozen Feeding Our Future defendants were getting money from autism clinics,” Thompson said. “That’s how we learned about the autism fraud.”

The broader scandal began to unravel in 2022 when Feeding Our Future collapsed under federal investigation, but prosecutors say only in recent months has the true scope of the alleged theft come into focus. Investigators allege large sums were wired overseas or spent on luxury vehicles and other high-end purchases. The revelations have fueled political fallout in Minnesota and prompted renewed federal scrutiny of immigration-linked fraud as well as criticism of state oversight failures. Walz, who is seeking re-election in 2026 after serving as Kamala Harris’ running mate in 2024, defended his administration Thursday, saying, “We will not tolerate fraud, and we will continue to work with federal partners to ensure fraud is stopped and fraudsters are caught.” Prosecutors, however, made clear the investigation is far from finished — and warned the final tally could climb even higher.

Continue Reading

Trending

X