Connect with us


Red Deer, for many is “A nice place to work but they don’t want to live here”


8 minute read

October 16 2017 is the final exam for the current city council, mayor and the school boards. That is the day the citizens of Red Deer will elect a mayor, a city council and 2 school boards.
Some incumbents, will retire and not put their name forward, others may fail. Some will pass the exam solely on their personalities, good looks or connections, while others will work hard to pass and continue on for 4 more years.
What will they have on their resume?
The city has declined, dramatically while others have grown and prospered. The city shrank by 1%, (Blackfalds grew by 8%), unemployment is increasing, crime is increasing, vacancies are increasing, new home builds are down, businesses are leaving, and taxes are increasing. The north side of the river population 30,000, is still being discriminated against. No new schools in 30 years, still no high school, no new swimming pool in 30 years, no new indoor ice rink in 30 years. Blackfalds is fundraising for a second indoor ice rink, now with a population of only 9510.
I like to ask myself, why do these intelligent members of councils, school boards and mayors discriminate against sectors of Red Deer? I know that the north side of the river has been discriminated against both in operations and in planning, so when will my area be discriminated against, next year, next decade, or next election?
What will happen in the next nine months?
First of all this will be their final budget. The fiscal hawks, will have to show that they had what it took, to be fiscally responsible, these past 4 years. Can they square the circle of continuing tax increases, continued growth at city hall, continued increased spending, while the citizens are earning less, losing jobs, and ultimately leaving, with almost a 1,000 people moving out of Red Deer last year, 777 from north of the river.
Some will say that any decisions they make, you will not see any effect for 2 years. Fine, so what decisions did you make 3 years ago, that saw almost a thousand people leave the city last year, that saw our city become the second highest in crime rate across Canada. What decisions did you make 2 years ago that saw our unemployment rate increase last month, and businesses move from downtown to gasoline alley? What decisions did you make last year that would make you think that the city will not grow next year, negating the need for the annual census? Do not make those same decisions.
Apparently, for 700 former residents, it is better to fight rush hour traffic and drive back and forth to Blackfalds, than to live in Red Deer. What happened to make Red Deer; “A nice place to work, but I wouldn’t want to live there.”
Will the city increase taxes? Will they continue putting 1% in savings and blame that for increases? It shouldn’t because if they stayed with last year’s budget it would still be there. Will they expand staff levels, increase personnel, security, operations without reducing and redundancies? The city shrank by 1% and cost of living barely rose over 1%, 100 x 99% x101%= 99.99%. The fiscal hawks better have a good explanation for any tax increases.
The downtown protectionists, will have to explain why downtown businesses are leaving for areas like gasoline alley, after we spent so much, time, money and energy downtown. Roads, services, patios, entertainment, advertising, and businesses are leaving. What was our return on investment? Will we continue to pour millions into downtown projects at the expense of other areas and taxpayers?
Why is there no plans for a high school, north of the river? The area north of 11a will provide homes for 20,000+ more residents, meaning there will be 50,000+ residents north of the river, yet there is no plan for a high school. The incumbents will blame others, the city, the province, past-members, but they had 4 years to implement a plan. Why has fund raising become so necessary?
Nine months will see new initiatives brought forward, only to be forgotten on October 17. Incumbents will finally have an opinion, find a voice, and express their beliefs, before becoming mute again on October 17. New medias will offer more insight into the incumbents. The election of Notley in Alberta, Trudeau in Ottawa, and Trump in the USA will give a voice and optimism to the need for change, and give some awareness to re-election campaigns.
Perhaps in the next nine months leading up to the election on October 16, 2017, someone might say it is time. Instead of building the 7th or 8th indoor ice rink south of the river we could build a 2nd one north of the river. Instead of building the 5th and 6th high school south of the river we could build a 1st one north of the river. Instead of tearing down the recreation centre downtown so we can make the indoor pool bigger and the outdoor pool smaller we could build a 2nd pool north of the river.
Perhaps in the next nine months, an incumbent will say, the Collicutt Centre was a huge success, and kick started development in the south-east we should replicate that success in the north-west. We could build it by Hazlett Lake, fulfilling some of the needs of the residents, kick start development and give boost to our tourism and diversification desires.
The incumbents cannot say yes to every demand, and we do not expect them too. We would be outraged if for example, they only said yes to men and only said no to women. Would we be equally outraged if they only said yes to the south and only no to the north? Apparently not given the evidence of no high school ever, no new schools, indoor pools and indoor ice rinks in 30 plus years, north of the river.
The next nine months leading up to the municipal election on Monday October 16, 2017 will see some changes, will see stands taken, ideas proposed and many explanations. Will it be enough or is there enough impetus for change? We will have to see.
Thank you.

Follow Author

Brownstone Institute

CDC Quietly Ends Differentiation on Covid Vaccination Status

Published on

From the Brownstone Institute

Thursday, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) quietly ended its policy of differentiating within COVID-19 prevention guidance between those who have received Covid vaccines and those who have not.

NPR says CDC

CDC’s COVID-19 prevention recommendations no longer differentiate based on a person’s vaccination status because breakthrough infections occur, though they are generally mild, and persons who have had COVID-19 but are not vaccinated have some degree of protection against severe illness from their previous infection.

nonpharma interventions

As explained by the CDC’s Greta Massetti, lead author of the new guidance:

Both prior infection and vaccination confer some protection against severe illness, and so it really makes the most sense to not differentiate with our guidance or our recommendations based on vaccination status at this time.

Someone might want to tell the millions of workers who lost their jobs, the millions of students who received injections out of anticipation for school mandates, and the millions of law-abiding citizens who have been, and often continue to be, excluded from everyday life activities and basic medical care due to their unwillingness to show proof that they received an mRNA shot they neither wanted nor needed, a differentiation that the CDC now admits does not make sense. All cool, I’m sure.


  • Michael P Senger is an attorney and author of Snake Oil: How Xi Jinping Shut Down the World. He has been researching the influence of the Chinese Communist Party on the world’s response to COVID-19 since March 2020 and previously authored China’s Global Lockdown Propaganda Campaign and The Masked Ball of Cowardice in Tablet Magazine. You can follow his work on Substack

Continue Reading

Bruce Dowbiggin

Presumed Authority: Would We Say Something That Wasn’t True?

Published on

Sign up today for Not The Public Broadcaster newsletters. Hot takes/ cool slants on sports and current affairs. Have the latest columns delivered to your mail box. Tell your friends to join, too. Always provocative, always independent. 

“The journalistic priesthood that’s spent the last 6-7 years denouncing these people and their voters has done the opposite, proudly aligning itself with the hated inside, celebrating credentialism, and worst of all, cheering a censorship movement that’s now proven to be an abject failure.”— Matt Taibbi,

Were the American Revolution fought today, not in 1776, it’s likely that the current American establishment that raids the homes of former presidents would side with Mad King George III, not with the hot-blooded pursuers of freedom and independence in the Constitution. The Media Party’s love of power, elitism and entitlement— from Stephen Colbert to SNL’s appointed fools— would make even the 18th century British snobs seem like everyday folk.

Canadians (under the United Empire Loyalists tag) were still content to be ruled at long distance by an autocratic monarch incapacitated with porphyria. (Unless Joe Biden were available in Washington DC, in which case they might accept the zombie at close range.)  Deference to authority has been Canada’s abiding trait the past 235 years for those who skedaddled from Jefferson, Washington and Adams. In whatever guise— nutty Mackenzie King, huffy Pierre Trudeau or foppish Justin Trudeau— prime ministers have been able to count on the obsequious support of everyone from the original Confederation four-pack— and its media— if the alternative was being American.

Being American meaning a propensity for noisy debate, showy display and siccing the FBI on enemies. This sniffy condescension to all things American— while lapping up their charity— solidified the Family Compact’s presumed superiority over those it governed.

Americans now have snobs, too. Whether sequestered at Hyannis Port, Hollywood, Aspen or Napa the special people thrive on punching-down elitism. But even before the Mar-A-Lago raid there was a sense the Media Party’s noblesse oblige might have hit its expiry date. The vox populi is restless. Substack writer Matt Taibbi has seen it coming. “Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders both surged in 2016 when they described a country divided into a small corrupt establishment and everyone else, and declared themselves on the side of everyone else.”

The Trump election by “everyone else” in 2016 signalled the shift. Gatekeepers accustomed to choosing the elected on Sunday morning talk shows became irrelevancies. They thought they’d dust Trump faster than you could say “raid Mar-A-Lago”. Bad assumption. Somehow they failed to see how reviled they’ve become as they thrust Hillary Clinton or Al Gore at a totally disinterested world.

Taibbi chronicles the reason for the rapid 2016 decline of the self-appointed. “The mechanism that launched (Trump) from small plurality to victory in the general was a coverage avalanche that conferred elite disapproval in massive doses. The more times outlets like incorrectly insisted Trump couldn’t be nominated because “voters are paying more attention,” or the Washington Post ran headlines like, The three times Donald Trump demonstrated he was unfit for the presidency in last night’s debate, the more he gained.” Ending in stunning election.

Rather than amend their loathed status Team Obama continued to conjure up ciphers like Kamala Harris, Beto O’Rourke, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar and Liz Cheney as the next great thing, unaware how repellent the governing class has become to regular America. When that failed they launched a censorship campaign.

This backwards strategy kept Trump populism alive. Example: The Trump era seemed over when he was removed from Twitter and Facebook shortly after Jan. 6. Instead, “Silenced Trump has only improved his electoral viability since”. Orange Man Bad is now tracking in the 42-45 percent approval band— above anything during his presidency. His polling with blacks and latinos is at an all-time high.

Media Party attempts to use Florida governor Ron DeSantis to quell the Trump revival have been hampered by DeSantis refusing to play Topo Gigio to PBS/CNN/ MSNBC and the printed press. After the fraudulent Russiagate narrative it marks an end of their presumed privilege. Daffy King George would be proud.

In Canada the irrelevance of the Trudeau-bought media is still a buried story. To those paying attention the Trucker Convoy was the watershed. The anointed CBC/ CTV/ Global shills in the 416/613 praised Trudeau’s abrogation of civil rights against mainstream Canada and cheered the jailing of Convoy leaders. (One CBC host, who suggested the Convoy was a Putin plot, was promoted.) A withering international barrage of criticism from even the Bill Mahers of U.S. media failed to sober them to their corrupt irrelevance.

The current attempt to tame populist fires is the left-leaning media’s swooning for played-out 1990s man Jean Charest as the answer to Conservative electoral dreams. Charest is what a liberal thinks a Conservative should be. Namely, defeated. But CBC panels and G&M editorials caution against rejecting Charest’s sober experience in favour of fiery Pierre Poilievre.

“Canada is different” says the Ottawa consultant class when faced with the Trump menace. Not if you’ve paid attention since social media freed up voices banned from “proper” journalistic society. Trudeau’s plunging polls and Liberal collapse are written off as a cycle that will disappear. Don’t count on it. Just ask Doug Ford.

Taibbi sums up the wilful denial. “This new press that forgives its own mistakes but cheers lifetime bans for others needs to realize it’s achieving negative influence in the process. Failure to stare that dynamic in the face means they’re sure to repeat the error over and over, remaining in their beloved roles as gatekeepers, only in reverse.”

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, he’s a regular contributor to Sirius XM Canada Talks Ch. 167. Inexact Science: The Six Most Compelling Draft YearsIn NHL History, , his new book with his son Evan, was voted the eighth best professional hockey book of by . His 2004 book Money Players was voted seventh best, and is available via


Continue Reading