Conversation with a sitting Councillor - September 10, 2025

Points during a conversation with a Councillor today at City Hall.
First, and without my intent, they brought up the animosity between those of us who support the Firefighters and City Hall. Fair enough.

But then we got into a discussion on wasteful spending, and of course the CPR Bridge came up.

My argument – we didn’t need to spend $11M on it.

Their argument – ‘we needed the bridge’

On the subject of historical value, they brought up the line, ‘are you from Alberta?’ No, I’m not originally. I come from a province with hundreds more historical buildings than Alberta. In Ontario, we had residential car garages older than most of the buildings in Red Deer. But that’s not really the point, is it?

If you want to protect historical buildings, I’m all for it—within reason. The irony is, I’ve heard this same argument before. In Kincardine, they argued the Lighthouse had to be preserved for its ‘historical value’—and they were right. But then they approved stripping off all the old wood shingles and replacing them with vinyl. That’s not preservation, that’s erasure.

And now we’re seeing the same thing here with the so-called 'historical' CPR Bridge. A building, bridge, or landmark isn’t 'historical' just because you declare it—it’s historical because of its age, its materials, and its original craftsmanship. Once you replace all of that, you’ve erased the very history you claimed to protect.

but as I noted –

1. The bridge was abandoned by the CPR in the 1990s because they knew it would cost too much to maintain – the Councillors response: ‘we weren’t responsible for it’ (acquiring the bridge from CPR)

2. I said, “if the bridge is so historical then why did they tear down the 57th street overpass portion, on the south end, the street that was removed to make way for the condo tower and the water treatment plant” – the Councillor: ‘didn’t know anything about it’, which is strange given their argument was on the ‘historical value of the bridge’ and they likely voted on the project to rehabilitate the bridge.

3. On the bridge rehabilitation and historical value, I noted that “when you replace the deck with new materials, you replace many of the steel girders, you tear down part of the bridge (the overpass built at the same time as the bridge) and you move the bridge then you have erased most of its’ ‘historical’ value”. – no rebuttal

4. The Councillor argued that “it would have cost $8 Million to remove the bridge” – okay, versus the $11 Million it is costing us? I said that people could cross at Gaetz Avenue then (as we are now for 1.5 years). Why did we have to remove the bridge at all? It was still structurally stable for its use as the ‘homeless highway’ (that’s an upgrade from it’s original name as “The stabby bridge” by the way).

The Councillor said that ‘if we removed the CPR bridge that we would have to build another one at Bower’. Why? Both Gaetz Avenue and Taylor Drive bridges have large pedestrian sidewalks on them? If someone wants to cross the river they could easily cross at one of these two very safe, already paid for bridges. We could have spent a few hundred thousand dollars building a really nice path and stairs up to Taylor Drive from Bower and Capstone to make it look all pretty for the tourists. Instead we’re proposing number 5.

5. I pointed out that the Bridge at Bower-Capstone has been debated since 2012, and we are not going to agree to spend $50 million to build it. The Councillor acted as though they weren’t familiar with the latest proposal but still claimed they didn’t support the project. Well, if that’s true, then why not speak up more? If Councillors don’t support something, they should be doing everything they can to stop it. Don't just kill the project - bury it.

What I got instead was the excuse that it’s a ‘complicated process.’ But I’ve worked with municipalities before—the process is only as complicated as you make it. If Council says ‘no,’ then it’s no. It really isn’t that complicated. Just because money is offered doesn’t mean you have to take it.

We just saw this with the Accelerator Fund: the condition that ‘Fourplex is a right’ was voted down by Council. That proves you can reject federal funding if it’s not in the best interest of Red Deerians.

6. I said, “98% of the people I’ve spoken to do not support this project.” The Councillor then asked if I had spoken to the residents of the Elements Tower. (I didn’t even know it had a name—I’ve always just called it the ‘million-dollar condos tower.’)
No, I haven’t—but those residents can walk across the river at Gaetz, just like everyone else. Is the Councillor really suggesting that the opinions of a handful of people who can afford million-dollar condos should outweigh the voices of the overwhelming majority who cannot?

Even if I included that building—where many office spaces still sit empty because the owners were desperate enough to offer free rent—it wouldn’t change much. Maybe the opposition goes from 98% to 97%. Fine. Duly noted.

6. The Councillor brought up the ‘events’ that were once held on the bridge. Would that be the $1,000-a-plate dinners where police were sent in beforehand to clear out the homeless? They haven’t held those for a couple of years now—probably got tired of the graffiti and of the so-called ‘undesirables’ looking on. If I recall correctly, the last one was before the pandemic—but don’t quote me on that.

7. The Councillor said, “If we didn’t use the $11 million from the Federal Government, we would lose it.” I just shrugged. So you’re justifying spending $11 million in Red Deer taxpayer money simply because you didn’t want to miss out on ‘this round’ of federal funding? The Federal Government hands out hundreds of millions of dollars every year for infrastructure projects.

And according to this Councillor, “there was no other project we could spend the money on.” Really? At that time, there were no other infrastructure needs in the entire city? None at all? That’s hard to believe.

8. When they started defending Carney and all the so-called hard work he’s done (compared to the previous Government, which was basically the same people), the conversation got tense, and the Councillor quickly found an excuse to move on. I’m not usually rude, but when they said (with all the formal politeness that accompanies this line), ‘Good luck getting elected,’ I replied, “Good luck if I don’t.”

Let me be clear—I won’t give up or disappear if I lose. I’ll keep fighting for Red Deerians and standing firm in what I believe. But the reality is this: our Mayor and the entire Council need to be replaced in this election. Even if you don’t support me, I strongly urge you to vote for a new Mayor and Council. Red Deer deserves real change.

7. I’ve heard the excuse (from someone else I spoke to), 'we need to keep a few seasoned councillors to guide the new ones,' but that’s not a good idea. All that does is pull fresh, motivated councillors with new ideas back into the same old status-quo that has failed Red Deerians. We deserve better than that.