Connect with us

Opinion

Thoughts from Tom Chapman on keeping the Molly Banister Extension

Published

5 minute read

The Molly Banister extension should not be removed from the City plan for the following reasons:

  1. This street extension was included in the original development plan at the time of the Bower Centre Mall and the Bower subdivision, recognising the need to provide proper future access to the shopping centre and commercial developments both north of the Mall and on Gaetz Avenue, as well as the projected population growth in future eastern residential subdivisions.
  1. The City has continued to grow in those areas, with planning currently as far as 20th Avenue, and the need for increased access to the Bower Mall and neighboring businesses will continue.
  2. The current left turn access for westbound traffic to the Mall from 32 Street via 47th Avenue was opposed by many, and hotly debated by Council at the time. Clearly access via Molly Banister would take a traffic load off 32st., and 47th Avenue which was never designed to provide access to the Mall.
  3. If the extension is removed from the plan and the lands are converted to residential use the ability to provide proper access to businesses in Bower and on Gaetz Avenue will be forever lost, unless the City is prepared to go to the huge costs of a future expropriation.
  4. Unless there has been some changes to planning legislation, City development bylaws, or required standards, the developer is required to dedicate lands for all roads required for it’s development, as well as a percentage for park and playground areas.
  5. The Developer, with decades of experience in the City, would be well aware of this requirement in determining what it was prepared to pay for the land.
  6. Clearly, If the Developer can persuade Council to remove the extension this will result in housing development on the extension area, increased profit for the developer, and long term detriment of the City. A huge benefit for the developer!
  7. Currently 19th Street provides direct convenient access to Gasoline Alley to the detriment of City businesses and particularly the downtown. By eliminating the ability to develop the extension and push more traffic on to  19th Street the City will increase the attractiveness of Gasoline Alley for more businesses to develop there or relocate from within the City downtown and other areas, and will not take any pressure off 32 street. I would think that the Downtown Business Association should be concerned, as well as businesses along south Gaetz Ave.
  8. The next concern is 32 street. The City proposal to expand 32 street  would require six lanes over Piper Creek. Otherwise keeping it at 4 lanes creates a bottleneck that would restrict traffic flow and increase traffic on 47 Avenue. The impact of this expansion upon the value of adjacent homes cannot be underestimated.  Currently hundreds of thousand dollars are being spent to stabilize the current structure over Piper Creek. I prefer to an early start on construction of the extension and spending the money on a proper overpass of Piper creek on the extension route rather than expansion of the current overpass on 32  Street.

Removal of the Extension is a mistake!

Respectfully submitted

Thomas Chapman

I think it will be really important for your group to get strong representation from Bower Mall

which I think would be most adversely affected if the eastern access from 22 street to Molly Banister is eliminated.

I think they have always relied on the promised Molly Banister extension being built, and

I can’t imagine that they proceeded with the recent upgrades to the Mall without this in mind.

They may have had some discussions or assurances from City planners?

Also there are other businesses in the area such as Sim’s Furniture, new businesses in the

former Legion building and on Geatz Avenue which may have concerns.

One point I did miss is that the westerly end of Molly Banister leads to direct access to Taylor Drive

and this could take pressure off 32 Street.

Tom

Follow Author

Business

Storm clouds of uncertainty as BC courts deal another blow to industry and investment

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Jason Clemens

Recent court decision adds to growing uncertainty in B.C.

A recent decision by the B.C. Court of Appeal further clouds private property rights and undermines investment in the province. Specifically, the court determined British Columbia’s mineral claims system did not follow the province’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA), which incorporated the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) into law.

DRIPA (2019) requires the B.C. provincial government to “take all measures necessary to ensure the laws of British Columbia are consistent with the Declaration,” meaning that all legislation in B.C. must conform to the principles outlined in the UNDRIP, which states that “Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.” The court’s ruling that the provincial government is not abiding by its own legislation (DRIPA) is the latest hit for the province in terms of ongoing uncertainty regarding property rights across the province, which will impose massive economic costs on all British Columbians until it’s resolved.

Consider the Cowichan First Nations legal case. The B.C. Supreme Court recently granted Aboriginal title to over 800 acres of land in Richmond valued at $2.5 billion, and where such aboriginal title is determined to exist, the court ruled that it is “prior and senior right” to other property interests. Put simply, the case puts private property at risk in BC.

The Eby government is appealing the case, yet it’s simultaneously negotiating bilateral agreements that similarly give First Nations priority rights over land swaths in B.C.

Consider Haida Gwaii, an archipelago on Canada’s west coast where around 5,000 people live—half of which are non-Haida. In April 2024, the Eby government granted Haida Aboriginal title over the land as part of a bilateral agreement. And while the agreement says private property must be honoured, private property rights are incompatible with communal Aboriginal title and it’s unclear how this conflict will be resolved.

Moreover, the Eby government attempted to pass legislation that effectively gives First Nations veto power over public land use in B.C. in 2024. While the legislation was rescinded after significant public backlash, the Eby’s government’s continued bilateral negotiations and proposed changes to other laws indicate it’s supportive of the general move towards Aboriginal title over significant parts of the province.

UNDRIP was adopted by the United Nations in 2007 and the B.C. Legislature adopted DRIPA in 2019. DRIPA requires that the government must secure “free, prior and informed consent” before approving projects on claimed land. Premier Eby is directly tied to DRIPA since he was the attorney general and actually drafted the interpretation memo.

The recent case centres around mineral exploration. Two First Nations groups—the Gitxaala Nation and the Ehattesaht First Nation—claimed the duty to consult was not adequately met and that granting mineral claims in their land “harms their cultural, spiritual, economic, and governance rights over their traditional territories,” which is inconsistent with DRIPA.

According to a 2024 survey of mining executives, more uncertainty is the last thing B.C. needs. Indeed, 76 per cent of respondents for B.C. said uncertainty around protected land and disputed land claims deters investment compared to only 29 per cent and 44 per cent (respectively) for Saskatchewan.

This series of developments have and will continue to fuel uncertainty in B.C. Who would move to or invest in B.C. when their private property, business, and investment is potentially at risk?

It’s no wonder British Columbians are leaving the province in droves. According to the B.C. Business Council, nearly 70,000 residents left B.C. for other parts of Canada last year. Similarly, business investment (inflation-adjusted) fell by nearly 5 per cent last year, exports and housing starts were down, and living standards in the province (as measured by per-person GDP) contracted in both 2023 and 2024.

B.C.’s recent developments will only worsen uncertainty in the province, deterring investment and leading to stagnant or even declining living standards for British Columbians. The Eby government should do its part to reaffirm private property rights, rather than continue fuelling uncertainty.

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute

Jason Clemens

Executive Vice President, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Business

Conservative MP warns Liberals’ national AI plan could increase gov’t surveillance

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis raised concerns about the Liberals’ major investment in AI, which could lead to digital ids and loss of freedoms.

Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis is sounding the alarm over the Liberals’ nearly billion-dollar AI infrastructure investment, which could lead to digital IDs

In a December 2 post on X, Lewis raised concerns over the Liberals’ 2025 budget, which funds a $925.6 million “Sovereign Canadian Cloud” and national AI compute infrastructure at the same time as the Liberals are pushing digital identification on Canadians.

“Who audits the algorithms behind government’s new digital systems?” Lewis challenged. “What protections exist for Canadians in this new infrastructure? Who builds it? Who controls it? Who owns the data?”

“Good technology isn’t the issue, our freedoms, surveillance and good accountable governance in a digital era are the real issues,” she warned.

“Digital infrastructure is power, and it must never be implemented in secrecy or without parliamentary scrutiny,” Lewis declared.

Despite spending nearly one billion taxpayer dollars on the project, Prime Minister Mark Carney provides surprisingly few details on how the infrastructure will work and what its purpose will be.

“Budget 2025 proposes to provide $925.6 million over five years, starting in 2025-26, to support a large-scale sovereign public AI infrastructure that will boost AI compute availability and support access to sovereign AI compute capacity for public and private research,” the budget read.

“The investment will ensure Canada has the capacity needed to be globally competitive in a secure and sovereign environment,” it continued.

Alarmingly, the funding comes at the same time as Liberals are moving forward with digital identification systems, despite warnings that they will infringe on Canadians freedoms.

Additionally, the Canadian government hired outside consultants tasked with looking into whether or not officials should proceed with creating a digital ID system for all citizens and residents.

Per a May 20 Digital Credentials Issue memo, and as noted by Blacklock’s Reporter, the “adoption” of such a digital ID system may be difficult.

Canada’s Privy Council research from 2023 noted that there is strong public resistance to the use of digital IDs to access government services.

Nonetheless, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre sounded the alarm by promising to introduce a bill that would “expressly prohibit” digital IDs in Canada.

Critics have warned that the purpose of such IDs is actually to centralize control over citizens. This opinion seems to be mirrored by the general public, with a Bank of Canada survey finding that Canadians are wary of a government-backed digital currency, concluding that a “significant number” of citizens would resist the implementation of such a system.

Digital IDs and similar systems have long been pushed by globalist groups like the World Economic Forum, an organization with which Carney has extensive ties, under the guise of ease of access and security.

Continue Reading

Trending

X