Connect with us

Opinion

Opinion: The New Environmental Master Plan means City must move some major developments away from 30th Avenue

Published

3 minute read

This opinion piece was submitted by Red Deer Opinion Writer Garfield Marks

July 8 2019 Red Deer city council unanimously accepted an updated Environmental Master Plan which if followed would reverse a serious environmental misstep in their east end plans.
The city’s current plans and discussions could see maximum traffic noise, commuting and emissions, unintended consequences committing too much in one small area.
The potential trouble spot is a 4km. stretch or 40 blocks along 30th Avenue, at the east end of the city. Currently the discussion  and plans suggest the locating of 4 shopping centres, 4 gas stations, 4 grocery stores, numerous restaurants, bars, liquor stores, 5 high schools, 2 fire halls, pickle ball courts, Collicutt Centre and possibly the new multi-use aquatic centre.
Forget the downtown, forget Gaetz Avenue, the new “Strip” will be 30 Avenue between 28 Street and 68 Street.
The traffic on 30 Avenue will be heavy, the noise loud and the emissions extreme for the residents along that stretch but then comes the commuting from the other 2/3 of the city.
A city of over 100,000 residents to plan 5 out of 6 high schools in such a small east-end space with the 6th high school only 10 blocks away on 40th Ave.  is contradictory to the new updated Environmental Master Plan they unanimously accepted, so there is hope. The plan suggests building facilities like high schools throughout the city.
Collicutt Ctr. is the most popular recreation centre in Red Deer, used by 60% of the recreational sector of society and it is as I previously mentioned on the south-east corner of the city. This is unfortunate for those who do not live in that quarter of the city.
If the city continues down the road of focusing on the 4km. stretch of 30 Ave, then everyone could suffer. The long commutes, the increased traffic, the congestion, the emissions and the noise will affect everyone especially those living near 30 Ave.
There is hope. Perhaps the next high school will be built on the other side of town, perhaps the new aquatic centre will be built on the north-west corner of the city to book-end the highly popular Collicutt Ctr.
There is hope, the city spent $150,000 updating the Environmental Master Plan that the council unanimously accepted, so there is hope.
Or it could just sit on a shelf but I hope not.

​Garfield Marks​

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Bruce Dowbiggin

Collision Course: Boomers Love Canada. Millennials Want A Better Offer

Published on

Canada is a nation of fissures. East versus West. French versus English. White versus indigenous. For much of its 157-year history its has overridden those divides to stand as an independent nation. Its ability to do so has, however, made it a very complacent partner in security.

Donald Trump has now exposed a new fissure, and this one just might be the kill shot to Confederation. In his brazen attempts to exploit the many vulnerabilities imposed on Canada by the Justin Trudeau government  Trump has asked a question that petrifies the Canadian establishment.

Would Canadians rather join the powerful U.S. and abandon a rickety Canadian union? Which future holds the greater attraction, being a state/ partner of America or continuing to go it alone in a world of ambitious nations like China, Russia and India? Uncle Sam or Sir John A.? (Wait, Canada has tossed aside the founder of Confederation. Who else is there? We’ll have to get back to you on that.)

The polling results are bracing. Companies setting out to answer Trump’s existential question have discovered that while Boomers and their sunset media still see Canada as a land of Terry Fox, Anne Murray and the 1972 Summit Series, under 50s see something different and dangerous. And they are willing to listen to offers. A stunning 43 percent from the 18-35 Millennial demographic say they are willing to join the U.S. if offered citizenship and asset conversion to USD. In the +55 bracket just 17 percent of Canadians would trade their citizenship.

In 18-35 polling, 65 percent say Trump’s demand that Canada shape up to keep doing business with America has made them doubt the future of the nation. (35 percent +55) When asked if it’s just a matter of time till the U.S. consumes Canada 31 percent say yes (11 percent +55). And 35 percent say Quebec or Alberta will leave Confederation within the decade (22 percent +55).

These polls hew closely to current voter preferences in the (maybe) upcoming federal election. In the Super Boomer category (65+) 48 percent will vote for for the Mark Carnivores. In the 50-64 demo that number is 41 percent. But flip the age demographic and it’s the opposite. Conservatives lead the 18-35 bracket with 45 percent support versus 21 percent for Liberals and NDP 20 percent. Young people are pissed.

It’s hard to look at these numbers and not believe that the romantic notion of Canada being proposed by PMJT is running out of runway. And, irony of ironies, the young fresh face from 2015 is a main culprit for the disillusionment now gripping younger Canadians. But ten hard years of watching Happy Ways become Hippy Ways have convinced many among Gen-X and Millenials that, barring an inheritance, there is little to attract them to staying in Canada.

While Boomers desperate to embrace Carney plaintively ask, “what was so bad about Trudeau?” the current children or grandchildren of Boomers have a long list of grievances from his chaotic time in the PMO. Inaccessible housing, escalating taxes, refusing to retire, self-absorbed culture appropriation (blackface), DEI/ ESG effect on white people, over-reliance on outdated government and hoarding healthcare facilities and doctors… the list is long.

American psychologist Lawrence R. Summers has heard Millennials in his practice. “Boomers hogged the economy and the world’s resources for their own financial gain and/or consumptive habits… They are often seen as greedy and wasteful, with no regard for what future generations will inherit.

“To put it another way, they’re frequently viewed as dinner guests who’ve eaten and drank pretty much everything set out on the table, leaving only scraps for those who came later to the party, even their own children.” A cursory look at inflated real estate prices— houses serving as cash boxes for Boomers— serves to illustrate this deep frustration.

Before you say, well, this disaffection with Boomers is the same everywhere, remember that 78-year-old  Donald Trump swung the youth vote last November, moving it 20 percentage points in his direction. Going on alternative podcasts and social media that young people identify with blunted what had always been a Democratic party asset, exposing its fossilized leadership.

Boomers are cranky about Elon Musk employing teenaged whiz kids to ferret out corrupt USAID spending. Democrat geezers driven crazy by the Musk DOGE youngsters then are reminded of the ages of some of the Founding Fathers in 1776.

James Monroe, 18

Henry Lee III, 20

Aaron Burr, 20

John Marshall, 20

Nathan Hale, 21

Banastre Tarleton, 21

Alexander Hamilton, 21

Benjamin Tallmadge, 22

Robert Townsend, 22

Gouveneur Morris, 24

Betsy Ross, 24

James Madison, 25

Henry Knox, 25

Oops. The Canadians generation gap is hopelessly self inflicted. While America still retains a core culture, Trudeau has made sure Canada is seen more as a hotel than a nation. Bragging that Canada is a postmodern entity with no core culture (outside of hockey and equalization) he has demonized Canada’s founders as racist and genocidal by flying the Canadian flag at half mast for six months to assuage “settler guilt”. He has diluted the culture, importing millions who see Canada as a way stop to America or a place to launder money/ deal drugs.

He has glorified globalism through climate and gender agendas. He has continued his father’s alienation of the West and its energy industry. He has allowed the nation to be the world’s choice destination for laundering dirty money so that, now, few in the world trust the Canadian government on security and defence.

That’s seemingly okay with his aging core. Bu the question now is can 45-year-old CPC leader Pierre Poilievre ride the culture wave? Can he be bold and make its his own as Trump made 18-35 year olds his shock troops in 2024? Poilievre has done a sober, predictable rollout of policy.  What he needs, however, is to emulate Trump, showing the Liberals as geezers, the NDP as enablers and the decrepit media as propagandists. It’ll take courage. He won’t get CBC/ CTV/ G&M to help him quit so what?

Donald Trump is going to crucify the Libs/ NDP.  He wants to hear from a different partner in negotiations. Poilievre has to ignore the noise and negotiate a future that young Canadians can buy into.

Bruce Dowbiggin @dowbboy is the editor of Not The Public Broadcaster  A two-time winner of the Gemini Award as Canada’s top television sports broadcaster. His new book Deal With It: The Trades That Stunned The NHL And Changed Hockey is now available on Amazon. Inexact Science: The Six Most Compelling Draft Years In NHL History, his previous book with his son Evan, was voted the seventh-best professional hockey book of all time by bookauthority.org. You can see all his books at brucedowbigginbooks.ca.

Continue Reading

conflict

U.S. Tells Europe To Handle Its Own Defense

Published on

Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets  By J.D. Tuccille 

The U.S. is no longer willing to subsidize prosperous countries that won’t defend themselves.

The Trump administration’s foreign policy gambits can be baffling: Why rename the Gulf of Mexico? What is this fixation on annexing Greenland? Does anybody really want to find out what happens if we add Canadians to the U.S. Senate? But the president is right that allies have been allowed to shift the costs of their defense to the United States for decades, and they’ve relied on the U.S. to resolve what are largely European problems. With the U.S. government spending far beyond its means, it’s time for our NATO allies to step up, as U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth recently suggested.

Blunt Word for Europe

“The United States remains committed to the NATO alliance and to the defense partnership with Europe, full stop,” Hegseth, who served as an infantry officer in Afghanistan and Iraq before taking high-profile roles with Fox News and then with the Trump administration, commented last week at a meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group held in Brussels. “But the United States will no longer tolerate an imbalanced relationship which encourages dependency.”

Hegseth went on to say that any security guarantees negotiated for Ukraine after almost three long years of war between that country and invading Russian forces “must be backed by capable European and non-European troops,” but only “as part of a non-NATO mission….To be clear, as part of any security guarantee, there will not be U.S. troops deployed to Ukraine.”

But what really brought the message home for attendees was when the U.S. defense secretary emphasized that America has security obligations throughout the world, particularly regarding China. That means, with NATO, the U.S. would focus on “empowering Europe to own responsibility for its own security.” To that end, Hegseth urged U.S. allies to exceed the 2-percent-of-GDP target for defense spending set by the alliance—which most fail to meet—and to aim for 5 percent.

Hegseth’s speech threw “the world’s biggest military alliance into disarray,” according to the A.P. But the message wasn’t unanticipated, nor was the reality of competing demands on American resources entirely unappreciated. France’s President Emmanuel Macron quickly called a meeting of European leaders “to discuss European security.” NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte agreed Europe and Canada “have not paid enough over the last 40 years…. The U.S. is rightly asking for a rebalancing of that.”

Poland, which has historical reasons to fears Moscow’s intentions, is already near the 5 percent target for defense. Last March, Poland’s President Andrzej Duda praised the U.S. role in defending Europe and supporting Ukraine, but asked other NATO countries to join his country in building military capability.

Unequal Commitments to Defense

At least since the end of the Cold War, most European countries have skated by on minimal military expenditures, counting on the United States to handle any threats that might emerge. That situation continued even after Russian troops poured into Ukraine.

“The British military—the leading U.S. military ally and Europe’s biggest defense spender—has only around 150 deployable tanks and perhaps a dozen serviceable long-range artillery pieces,” The Wall Street Journal reported in December 2023. “France, the next biggest spender, has fewer than 90 heavy artillery pieces, equivalent to what Russia loses roughly every month on the Ukraine battlefield. Denmark has no heavy artillery, submarines or air-defense systems. Germany’s army has enough ammunition for two days of battle.”

NATO’s last annual report revealed the U.S. represents 53 percent of the GDP of all countries in the alliance. But the U.S. makes 67 percent of alliance defense expenditures. NATO sets a goal for members to spend 2 percent of their GDP on defense. Even with rising tensions, only 11 of the alliance’s 32 members hit that benchmark in that report (the next report should show more meeting the goal).

Among the countries not hitting the 2 percent mark are Canada, France, and Germany—all wealthy countries that could significantly contribute to the alliance’s defense. Germany claims to have hit the 2 percent target in its latest budget. But Canada’s government reportedly told NATO that it “will never” hit the target. Writing about that admission, The Washington Post‘s Amanda Coletta noted that “nearly all of Canada’s 78 Leopard II tanks ‘require extensive maintenance and lack spare parts.'”

In supporting Ukraine, European countries gave somewhat more than the U.S. But Europe emphasized financial and humanitarian aid, so the U.S. has offered slightly more military assistance at €64 billion ($62.1 billion U.S.) compared to Europe’s €62 billion ($65 billion U.S.), according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy.

The U.S. Can’t Afford To Continue as Europe’s Protector

As Hegseth emphasized in Brussels, the U.S. has security concerns around the world, especially in the Pacific with China, while European worries are more regional. But the U.S. has another big concern: The federal government spends far too much. After entitlements, defense spending is a major recipient of tax dollars—or, more accurately, of money borrowed from the future given the massive deficit. According to the Congressional Budget Office, “the federal budget deficit in fiscal year 2025 is $1.9 trillion. Adjusted to exclude the effects of shifts in the timing of certain payments, the deficit grows to $2.7 trillion by 2035.” Debt will also soar if the gap between spending and receipts continues.

Last year, the Cato Institute broke down federal spending, showing that Medicare, Medicaid, and other health entitlements make up 28 percent of the federal budget, Social Security is 22 percent, defense and income security account for 13 percent each, and net interest on the debt is 11 percent. Everything else makes up the remaining 13 percent. It’s going to be very difficult to balance the federal government’s books without addressing entitlements and defense spending.

Undoubtedly, with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) turning its attention to the Pentagon, loads of waste, fraud, and abuse will be uncovered. But it’s impossible that so much financial mismanagement will be uncovered as to make up for trillions in deficits all by itself. Some priorities will have to be rejiggered to get spending controlled.

So, Hegseth’s blunt reminder to Europeans that their continent is their responsibility to defend is justified. Countries that together almost equal U.S. GDP and are mostly clustered together should be making more serious arrangements for their own defense.

Not all Trump administration pronouncements were so well-considered. The U.S. reportedly plans to meet with Russian envoys to discuss Ukraine’s future—without inviting Ukraine or European allies. That’s presumptuous and runs the risk that Ukraine just won’t stop fighting if it doesn’t like the terms.

In response, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called for the creation of an “armed forces of Europe” to defend the continent. French President Macron’s security meeting suggests Europeans are thinking along similar lines.

That could work out for everybody except the Russians. If Europeans assume greater responsibility for defending their continent and for supporting Ukraine, Washington, D.C. would likely be very happy.

Continue Reading

Trending

X