Thank you for supporting us!

September 30, 2026

Them in the comments: Why are you so negative, they haven't even opened the bridge park yet?

Oh, you mean the Homeless Highway? hmm...

Me: Watching a homeless guy outside of my living room window spend two hours trying to stack broken dumpster items on top of a recycling bin because it has wheels, and then light the dumpster on fire at 2:00 in the morning.
​
There's only one out there instead of five because the bridge is still closed.

Well, that’s the first time I’ve called 911 emergency services in a while. I usually just call the non-emergency number when things start to go south here. This time though there was a fire involved in a dumpster so it warranted a more urgent response.

The dispatcher was friendly, professional and polite. Even though the fire was already out, they still dispatched the Red Deer Firefighters and RCMP.
The RDES arrived in less time than it took me to walk outside - I'd say under 3 minutes, even without running their lights or sirens (which they didn't need to).

I think they initially spooked the guy when they stopped on 53rd Avenue. He was still by the dumpster at first, but by the time the fire truck circled the block and came back, he was gone.

Since I was outside by then, I waved them down. The fire was completely out, but you could still smell the smoke in the air. After a quick check, they headed back to the station.

About a minute later, two police cruisers showed up.

I talked with one of the officers for a couple minutes, explained what happened, and showed them a picture of the individual. He said they would drive around the area to see if they could find him.

To all the naysayers out there: even though there was no immediate threat, the response time was still less than 5 minutes total, with the police arriving within 1 minute of the fire department leaving.
​
As always - thank you to the Red Deer Firefighters and the RCMP, for their quick response to yet another night of mischief down here on The Red Mile.

But hey, of course, I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to the daily crime in our city, right? Here is to the relaunch of the Homeless Highway!

September 30, 2026

I keep forgetting that we now live in a society where we are supposed to hate corporations, but when corporations drop the ball, we're supposed to feel sympathetic toward them.

Customer service was better decades ago because we demanded better customer service. I'm not talking about individuals; I'm talking about training, flexibility, and being accountable for your product or service.

These people who tell you that you should feel sorry, understanding, or sympathetic toward a company are the same people who will raise holy hell when things don't go the way they want them to. Or, they're so used to being told what to do that they just accept it and think everyone else should too.

It is okay for you to expect better results from companies that are charging you for their product or service.

I'm not talking unreasonable demands. I'm talking meeting the basic standard level of product quality or service that was around 25 years ago.

The pandemic gave corporations too much power to abuse their customers, and customers, for some reason, have refused to take that power back.

​

Are you afraid? 

September 30, 2026

With the proposed roundabout at 67th and Taylor Drive, is it just me or is this city still building for cars instead of making Red Deer a truly walkable city for pedestrians? It feels like we are locking ourselves into another 50 years of automobile dependency instead of designing for people.

​

We see this priority on cars everywhere. Our major roadways are dominated by massive, hostile intersections like the 30th Avenue roundabouts, while Gaetz Avenue and Taylor Drive function as giant physical barriers optimized to funnel fast traffic right past our core neighborhoods (including historic downtown).

Even our retail corridors are stuck in the past, ringed by obsolete service roads and vast expanses of asphalt parking lots that are never repurposed into smaller entrepreneur-friendly shops, parkland or even modest modular housing.

Even Capstone and the adjacent Cronquist Business Park, which were explicitly hyped as walkable urban neighborhoods, have missed the mark. When you actually try to walk through them, you are constantly battling cars driving everywhere and parking all over the place, completely ruining the impression of a pedestrian friendly community.

Instead of evolving, our infrastructure investments continually default to widening vehicle pipelines like the QE2 corridor while our existing natural green spaces are systematically paved over for more asphalt.

A city can technically have sidewalks, but true walkability requires an aesthetically pleasing environment with mature trees and grass, not just endless expanses of concrete.

While Red Deer has a great recreational trail network for weekend leisure, our actual street design ensures that daily commuting and basic errands remain completely hostile and remote to anyone who is not driving.

-K

What do you think? Is Red Deer becoming more or less of a walkable City? Was it ever walkable? 

September 20, 2026

SAVE NOW OR ELSE!

You can see how programmed people have become when they make comments like this.

McDonald's announces in the US better deals if you use the app.

One commenter: "you're wasting money if you don't use the app!"

My comment in reply: yes, but I save money if I don't shop there at all.

Apps and special deals do not save you money if they entice you into purchasing something you don't really need.

This is the biggest trap for people. Save money or you will suffer the fear of missing out! FOMO!

I don't think I've eaten at McDonald's in over a year now and I don't regret it.

It makes you wonder why places like McDonald's don't just lower their daily prices to get their customers back?

-K

PS I wrote this, but AI decorated it with emojis since society apparently requires colorful little pictures to comprehend basic text now. I apologize for being completely illiterate in this new, devolved dialect of the English language. I'm Gen X. I'll just use AI to keep posts like these translatable.

Wait a minute, I wonder? OMG it can!

emojis not convertible to weebly :( 

September 7, 2026

... so be on time for your shift or you are fired!

Statutory holidays should be mandatory paid days off for everyone, otherwise, what is the point of having them?

Aside from those essential workers in emergency services and critical infrastructure, expecting millions of people to spend Labour Day selling widgets and serving coffee completely defeats the purpose of the holiday.

We cannot truly call it a "celebration of labour" until regular, underappreciated workers are actually given the day off with pay.

Until then, it is just business as usual for most average lower-wage-earning people, not a real holiday.

Even I don't really get today off from Facebook like I wanted. I read a comment about today being a "celebration of labour", and I felt compelled to share this thought.

​

* Kevin

​image: Meta AI 

September 5, 2026

MY ORIGINAL POST:

Dear Property Developers in Red Deer,

Every time I post something about tiny homes I get a lot of positive likes and comments.

Something to think about, eh?

Isn't it time to bring the tiny home (500sqft and under) concept - home to Red Deer?

The growing majority of residents don't want, or can afford, 1,500 square foot $500,000 homes.

Know your buyers!

The City of Red Deer

-----

JB (another troll who isn't even from Red Deer trying to tell Red Deerians what they can and can not think): Just don’t own anything, ANYTHING…

-----

My reply: that's kind of a ridiculous statement that has nothing to do with this conversation.

-----

JB: it actually has everything to do with this conversation. These tiny homes look cute until you assess your actual needs as a human, we all have stuff, we accumulate stuff, there is absolutely no room for stuff in these sheds, this is becoming an increasingly larger issue throughout most new house builds, smaller and smaller footprints, these shacks just take it to the extreme. There is a direct correlation with the huge increase in demand for offsite storage, which would not be even a thing if we weren’t constantly being lied to and consequently lying to ourselves that we can live minimally. Humans have stuff, we require places to store stuff, these hovels do not have stuff storage, they are essentially a pretty slum building.

-----

My reply: you'd be amazed how much a human being can downsize crap as they get older. My entire life fits in a 586 square foot apartment which is one of the larger places that I have lived in in the last 15 years. I can tell you, from decades of experience, that if you you have more room you accumulate more crap. Most people over 50 years old are starting to get rid of the crap that does not bring their life any value. And if you can't afford the average home, but you can a tiny home, you probably don't have a great number of possessions. Just because it doesn't suit you and all your crap doesn't mean it doesn't suit 5 million other people who don't have a lot of stuff and would like to have their own roof over their heads.

-----

JB: Your entire argument is based on your personal lifestyle and Facebook engagement, then presented as evidence of what the housing market wants. You live comfortably in 586 sq. ft. Great. That proves you can live comfortably in 586 sq. ft. It tells us virtually nothing about what the majority of Red Deer homebuyers want. Likewise, people liking pictures of cute tiny homes on Facebook isn’t market research. I like pictures of $3-million lake houses. I’m not buying one Tuesday. And saying people simply need to “get rid of their crap” dodges the point. Possessions aren’t automatically clutter. Families have bicycles, hockey equipment, tools, winter tires, camping gear, Christmas decorations, freezers, hobbies, children’s belongings and countless other perfectly legitimate things that require space. A garage or storage room can be functional space, not some monument to consumerism. More importantly, square footage isn’t what makes housing expensive in a straight-line relationship. A 500 sq. ft. detached house still needs land, servicing, sewer, water, electrical, permits, foundation, kitchen, bathroom, heating and all the other expensive components of a house. Cutting a 1,500 sq. ft. house to 500 sq. ft. doesn’t magically cut the finished price by two-thirds. So the actual question isn’t whether somebody can live in 500 sq. ft. Of course they can. The question is whether enough Red Deer buyers want to sacrifice two-thirds of their living and storage space for the amount of money they’d actually save. Developers already have an extremely powerful incentive to discover that answer: money. If there’s this enormous untapped market you’re claiming exists, show the market research, sales data and achievable finished price. “My Facebook posts get lots of likes” isn’t evidence that developers don’t know their buyers.

-----

My reply:  Of course my opinion is shaped by my own needs and what I see happening to the real people around me. That is how normal humans work - we look at how the world affects us and our neighbors, and we try to find actual solutions.

I have no problem admitting that I couldn't even afford to buy one of these tiny homes outright myself, but I would absolutely rent one. So I'm arguing in favour of something that: a) exists in other places, and b) I probably still can't afford. Thinking of others - what a novel concept eh?

Caring about a crisis because it touches your own life and the lives of people who are struggling isn't a bad thing - it's just basic empathy, assuming you aren't a narcissistic prick who only cares about corporate profits.

Because of that empathy, I can see that you completely missed the point of who this housing is actually for. I am not pitching tiny homes to family-focused oil and gas workers with three kids, two trucks, and a garage full of hockey gear, winter tires, and camping equipment.

I explicitly said these communities are for the homeless, seniors, veterans, and single people.

Are you seriously suggesting that a local veteran struggling to find a roof over their head or a 75-year-old widow trying to downsize is crying because they don't have enough storage space for a lawnmower and a set of skis?

According to official Statistics Canada data, almost 29% of all households in Red Deer are single-person homes. That is over 11,600 people living alone in our city right now [CENSUS]. They do not need - and many cannot afford - a 1,500-square-foot monument to consumerism just to satisfy a developer’s idea of an "average buyer."

As for your math lesson on land and utility costs: you clearly didn’t read my proposal.

Of course a developer can't magically cut a finished price by two-thirds if they are trying to stick a single 500-square-foot house on a massive, expensive plot of land. That is exactly why I explicitly proposed splitting the lots.If a 50 by 110-foot infill lot sits stagnant on the market for $119,000, nobody is saying a builder should buy it and sell one third of it for the full $119,000. That would be impossible to justify. The entire point is to subdivide that single property into three parcels, pricing each smaller lot at roughly $40,000 (with the condition of being specifically for a tiny home of certain requirements)..

Furthermore, these infill lots are right in the middle of existing neighborhoods, often where large old estates were already flattened. The main service lines are already sitting right beneath the street. It is not rocket science or a massive infrastructure project to connect services to a couple of compact dwellings on a lot that was already serviced before.

This isn't about what a wealthy homebuyer wants to purchase on a Tuesday. This is about providing dignified, permanent, and actually affordable roofs over the heads of vulnerable people who are being completely ignored by traditional developers.

-----

JB: You’ve written a very long response to an argument I never made.

Nobody said seniors, veterans or single people need 1,500-square-foot houses. Nobody said affordable housing isn’t needed. The question is whether your proposed solution actually produces affordable housing at the price you claim.

And this is where your argument falls apart.

You take a $119,000 serviced 50 × 110 lot, divide $119,000 by three, and suddenly announce three $40,000 building lots. That isn’t development economics. That’s a calculator.

Subdividing property doesn’t magically create three independently buildable, fully serviced parcels. There are subdivision requirements, zoning and setbacks, utility connections, servicing capacity, drainage, access, permits, site work and construction costs. The water and sewer being “under the street” doesn’t mean connecting three new dwellings is free.

Then there’s your Statistics Canada argument. Saying 29% of households are occupied by one person tells us exactly one thing: 29% are occupied by one person. It does not tell us they want tiny homes, can afford tiny homes, or would choose one over an apartment, condo, townhouse or conventional small house. You took a demographic statistic and quietly turned it into a market-demand statistic. Those are not remotely the same thing.

And bringing up homeless people, veterans and 75-year-old widows doesn’t repair the math. It just makes disagreement with your proposal sound heartless. I can believe affordable housing is desperately needed while also asking whether your particular idea is financially viable.

That’s the part you keep avoiding.

Show the numbers.

Take your $119,000 property. Show that it can legally be divided into three buildable parcels. Add subdivision and development costs. Add three sets of servicing costs. Add site preparation. Add the actual construction cost of three code-compliant homes. Add financing, permits, professional fees and a reasonable developer margin.

Then tell us the finished cost per dwelling.

If the numbers work, fantastic. You’ve demonstrated a viable affordable-housing model and I’ll happily acknowledge it.

But “$119,000 ÷ 3 = $40,000” followed by a lecture about empathy isn’t a feasibility study.

It’s long division with a guilt trip.

-----

My reply (final):

this is my final response on this because clearly you're not reading and comprehending what I say so I don't see any point in wasting my time with you further.

And since you only seem to understand a certain type of response I'll be happy to provide the same and return to you since that is the language you seem to use.

You’ve written a very confident response about "development economics," but you are confusing traditional corporate developer margins with basic city planning.

Let's address your condescending comment that my proposal is just "long division with a guilt trip."

Pointing out the actual target demographic, like seniors, veterans, and single people, isn't a "guilt trip". It’s defining the market. I know, facts scare people like you, it's okay you'll get over it.

If a business owner launches a product, the first thing they do is figure out who the customer is.

Traditional developers build 1,500 sq. ft. homes for traditional families.

My proposal is explicitly identifying an entirely different group of people. Ignoring who a product is built for isn't smart economics, it's just bad business.

Now, let's talk about the actual math and city planning facts that you claim I am avoiding.

First, the real mechanics of subdividing Infill lots:

You claim that dividing a $119,000 lot by three isn't development economics. Except towns and cities across Alberta do exactly this through narrow lot or small lot zoning.

The City of Red Deer has spent the last few years modernizing its Land Use Bylaw precisely to relax restrictions on alternative housing sizes, carriage homes, and narrow lot footprints to allow for more density in existing neighborhoods.

A 50 foot wide infill lot can absolutely be split into narrower pieces if council approves it. Cities do it all the time to fight urban sprawl.

Next, your Utility Illusion:

You claim connecting services to three dwellings isn't free. No one said it was.

But you are completely ignoring the massive cost difference between a brand new subdivision and an infill lot.

When a developer builds a standard neighborhood on the edge of Red Deer, they have to pay millions to run main water lines, sewer mains, build new roads, install streetlights, and handle massive stormwater issues before a single house even breaks ground.

With an infill lot, that massive main infrastructure is already paid for and sitting right under the asphalt. Connecting three small homes to existing street mains requires standard connection permits and local trenching.

The costs of doing that are a drop in the bucket compared to the massive infrastructure costs of opening up a brand new neighborhood.

3. Demographic Data vs. Market Demand

You claim that Statistics Canada showing 29% of Red Deer households being single persons doesn't equal market demand.

Respectfully, you are looking at the housing market backward.

Single people aren't choosing condos or apartments because they prefer shared walls and paying condo fees. They choose them because detached homes under 500 sq. ft. literally do not exist as an option on the market.

You cannot claim there is no demand for a product that developers refuse to build.

If over 11,600 people live alone in this city, offering a detached tiny home on a smaller lot creates a brand new option.

The Bottom Line

No one is asking a traditional corporate developer to cut their 20% profit margin out of the goodness of their heart.

The entire point of my simple and open letter to property developers and the City was to spark a conversation about changing local rules so that these builds become highly profitable for smart builders.

Your first response to that was a childish comment built on an ongoing conspiracy theory. As I pointed out such a ridiculous statement was not implied nor was it the intention of the original post. You did it simply because you are a troll and wanted to feel relevant for the 10 seconds it took you to write out that sentence. I have extended a courtesy to you by actually bothering to respond.

If the City provides the zoning, and a developer uses existing infill infrastructure, the finished cost makes complete financial sense.

Dismissing a viable municipal density model as shacks and slums isn't a critique of the economics. It just shows a complete lack of imagination for how modern cities are evolving to tackle the housing crisis.

I will end on the quote, from the movie Field of Dreams starring Kevin Costner. "If you build it they will come."

-Kevin

​

FIN.

-----

JB: You’ve written eight screens of text and still haven’t answered the economic question.

Yes, cities can permit narrow lots. Yes, infill can reduce infrastructure costs. Neither fact proves your proposed development is financially viable.

Take your $119,000 lot. Now give us the actual subdivision costs, servicing costs for three dwellings, demolition/site preparation if applicable, permits and development charges, construction cost per unit, financing and carrying costs, professional fees, contingency, selling costs, and the realistic sale price of each finished 500 sq. ft. home. Then calculate the developer’s return.

That is development economics.

And 11,600 people living alone is not evidence that 11,600 people want 500 sq. ft. detached houses. That’s demographic data. Market demand requires evidence about what those people actually want and what they can and will pay.

The funniest part is that after accusing me of not understanding economics, you finish with “If you build it they will come.”

​

That isn’t market analysis. That’s literally a movie quote about building something before knowing whether anyone will show up.

FIN indeed.

---------

My conclusion:

I don't have time for trolls. He had no intentional of having a reasonable discussion from his very first comment. I gave him my time and answers even though I knew for a fact he didn't care (or would even bother to read them or look into anything himself). Trolls never do. I told him he was done, but not to worry because it's all here on our website. 

BLOCKED 

September 5, 2026

Here are some things I’ve been thinking about to clarify exactly how we can use tiny homes to fix the housing situation in Red Deer.

First off, let’s be clear about what a tiny home actually is. A real tiny home shouldn't exceed 700 square feet, and honestly, most of them should be around 500 square feet or even less. I also want to make a big distinction here: I am not talking about tiny homes on wheels. We don't need more trailer parks or temporary camper setups in our city, and that isn't what I want to see built here.

I’m talking about permanent, high-quality structures. A great way to build them is up on stilts, simply because it gives you incredibly easy access to the plumbing, electrical, and services underneath the building. But to keep the neighborhood looking sharp, they should have a foundation wall built all the way around the bottom so the home looks completely permanent and neat from the outside.

When it comes to who gets to live there, I would like to see dedicated tiny home communities where qualified homeless folks, seniors, and veterans have absolute top priority. Once those groups are taken care of, then the homes can be available to everyone else. And frankly, I don't care what the current building codes are in Red Deer that people claim might prevent this.

Personally, I don't even believe there are codes stopping us, but even if there are, using uncited building codes as a reason to block progress is just a pathetic excuse for doing nothing. Tiny homes are being built safely all across Canada and right here in Alberta every single day. If our local bylaws and codes don't exist yet to handle them, then the solution is simple: create them!

We also need to get real about the cost of construction. A tiny home should never cost more than $175,000 retail. If a builder is charging more than $200,000 for a completely finished tiny home, they are completely overdoing it on the construction, using luxury finishes, and ruining the entire point of affordable housing.

To hit these lower price targets, we have to start considering splitting up larger properties specifically for tiny home developments. Why leave a huge quarter-acre lot sitting on the market at a high price that nobody is ever going to buy, when you could break it up and sell it for smaller, specifically zoned tiny homes?

For example, there is a property nearby right now listed for $119,000, and it’s 50 by 110 feet. It has just been sitting on the market. If that single property were split into three pieces, each portion could be sold for about $40,000, and it would have been off the market a long time ago. A split lot like that could easily hold anywhere from two to eight tiny homes.

To make that work and save space, some of these tiny home properties wouldn't be allowed to have individual vehicles, or there would just be one general parking space for the whole lot, limited to the number of tiny homes there. It just makes sense.

As I have always been for the past year, Admin for the Red Deer Observer,

​

-Kevin M. Klerks 

September 5, 2026

QUESTION: Do the people that want a tiny home want to own or rent the land the tiny house is set on?

MY ANSWER: I can't speak for other people who want a tiny home on whether they want to own the land, but I can speak for myself.

I’ve lived in an apartment for the last four years. I don’t own it, and I don’t own the land. Before that, I lived in a friend’s spare room with a shared kitchen and bathroom for five years, and before that, I was in company housing for four years. So, to answer your question as it relates to me: I’d love to own my own tiny house on my own property, but the reality is that I probably never will. Even so, if there were a guarantee that the rent would rarely increase and the lot was included, I would move into a tiny home in a heartbeat.

Do you think the average person likes living in chicken coop housing? I’m speaking for those over the age of 50 because I am one, but this applies to younger people too, who are just trying to make their way and maybe start a family in a larger home one day. If I could live in a 500-square-foot tiny home - even renting it - I would. That’s 86 square feet less than what I have now, but I'd still do it with no hesitation whatsoever.

Now, would someone rather pay a (maximum) $275,000 mortgage on a tiny home for themselves instead of $475,000+ for a 1,500 + square-foot home? (Evergreen townhouses are 1513+ sqft I believe) I have no idea, but I like to think that a common-sense person is smart enough to say no to that. Owning land isn't an option for me at this stage in life on a disability income, but I would certainly opt to rent a tiny home if the opportunity existed.

I think the the people who oppose tiny homes the most have either never lived in an apartment building or it’s been many years since they have and they’ve completely forgotten what it’s like.

-----

QUESTION: Do the tiny home living people want to live in an exclusively tiny home enclave? Maybe have some shared amenities like a group kitchen or a social gathering space?

MY ANSWER: Again, I can’t speak for 'the tiny home community' because I don’t currently live in one, but what a weird label to put on someone. It makes them sound like they are somehow different from people who live in homes with large square footage.

But I will say this: it’s a community, not a prison camp. Do the people who live in Evergreen or Capstone never leave their homes? Of course they do; it’s an ignorant question to even ask. A tiny home community is no different than anywhere else you might live. I live in an apartment building with 12 units. I casually know five people in this building. Of those five, I talk to two on a semi-daily basis, and of those two, I have only attended a social function with one of them. Just because you live in a 'community' doesn’t mean you are restricted to only socializing and functioning within that immediate circle.

-----

QUESTION: Is the tiny home placed on a permanent foundation or are they intended to be moveable and just set on screw piles and an insulated area is needed under the tiny home?

MY ANSWER: When it comes to construction, I only support two options: a stilt setup with a foundation built around it, or a structure attached directly to a permanent foundation or concrete pad. I am completely against putting tiny homes on wheels.

Stop treating this like it's rocket science. Millions of modular homes are scattered across North America, and a tiny home is nothing more than a small modular house.

The engineering for a ground-level build is already proven and easily summarized:

'When built without a basement, a modular home sits directly on a crawlspace or a slab-on-grade foundation, placing its ground floor close to the outside terrain. If a crawlspace is used, the home is secured on low concrete walls or piers... For a slab foundation, the home attaches straight to a flat concrete pad poured on the earth...'

All we need to do is apply these exact same structural principles to a smaller footprint.

-----

QUESTION: How much space does a tiny home need in their yard?

MY ANSWER: If we go by the minimum regulated standards for a 500-square-foot standalone tiny home, it requires a land parcel of 3,000 to 5,000 square feet.

To put that into perspective using the Red Deer housing market:

• A standalone 1-bedroom house (which is rare) requires 3,000 to 6,000 square feet of land.

• A standalone 3-bedroom house (the common average) requires 5,000 to 8,000 square feet of land.

-----

QUESTION: Do they want a driveway in the front and a closed-in yard in the back (for a dog), or do they want a driveway up the side of their lot to allow a car port or detached garage to protect their vehicle?

MY ANSWER: Once again, I can only speak for myself. I don't need a driveway. To put it in perspective, out of the 12 spaces in my apartment building, only nine tenants currently have cars—and that number has dropped down to four in the past. Clearly, parking isn't a universal necessity.

Tiny homes generally don't include outbuildings like garages or carports. A tiny home community usually relies on a general parking area where you leave your vehicle and walk to your unit, much like many apartment setups in Red Deer.

If I had a vehicle, I'd want a driveway, and the lot sizes I previously outlined provide plenty of room for one. The infrastructure is simple: utilities and services are buried underground, and the driveway goes right on top, just like anywhere else in Canada.

-----

QUESTION: Should there be architectural guidelines for the size, shape, exterior material and colours? Maybe some rules for not allowing older tiny homes that don’t meet new building codes?

MY ANSWER: Why do you think it would be any different than any other house?

If safety and structural rules exist for your house, then within reason, they would exist for tiny homes too. Besides, what even is an 'older tiny home'? When you construct a house, you don't follow building codes from 1975 - though maybe Red Deer does (sarcasm).

You build a new home according to current regulations.

At the end of the day, a tiny home is nothing more than a small home. I don't understand why people struggle to accept that a dwelling under 1,000 square feet is still structurally a house.

-----

QUESTION: Could we allow the industry to start growing by allowing tiny homes in people’s back yards?

MY ANSWER: We already allow similar concepts—carriage homes are permitted here, and other cities actively encourage residential infilling. The major difference is that in cities like Edmonton and Calgary, recent zoning changes allow developers to build a massive four-plex right in a standard backyard.

To put this in perspective, think about the many double lots we have right here in Red Deer, like the one right outside my living room window.

Under Edmonton's rules, a developer could split that double lot in two and build a towering, two-to-four-story multi-plex on the vacant half. In contrast, under a sensible tiny home policy, Red Deer could simply allow that homeowner to remove one to three of their backyard sheds and put up a modest tiny home instead.

When you look at it that way, tiny homes are a much better compromise for high-density infilling. Rather than throwing up a four-plex or six-plex that brings 4 to 12 extra vehicles and creates massive demands for fire, emergency, and utility access, you add a single, low-impact tiny home with a maximum of two vehicles. A tiny home could have street access through the service alley vs directly onto the street. When it comes to reasonable, sensible urban infilling, it really is a no-brainer.


Remember that a "tiny home" (by the definition and parameters I have been using for over a year now) is nothing more than a small house. Just pretend you built a 1,000 square foot house and then cut almost every room in half. That's it. It's far less of a prison cell or chicken-coop than a high-rise apartment complex. I don't understand why people can't just Google it and look beyond the ones with wheels under them. They exist by the thousands now.

-Kevin M. Klerks
Statistics from Google

===============================================================
I answered another question about tiny homes and Capstone, this is my reply:

​I asked Google about this one because the information is spread all over the internet. Specifically about the tiny home developments in Alberta at the end of this.

I really dislike the term "affordable housing" because the government/developers* use it as a blanket term. The problem isn't so much "affordable housing" as "housing you can afford". A point I made several times during my campaign.

There is a stigma, obviously, against 'affordable housing' and because of that so little is built at any given time. This allows developers* to build insanely priced neighborhoods and justify them by building one or two affordable houses.

Take The ALEX tower built at Capstone. Advertisements boast that "rents start under $1,000 a month", but they play with the numbers.

Out of the 62 total units in that building, only a handful sit at that baseline rate - which carries a massive waitlist. The rest of the 1 and 2-bedroom apartments scale all the way up toward $1,895 to $2,000 per month.

That is completely unaffordable for the average Red Deer resident. But if you look at all the paraphernalia about it, they never list the actual number of truly affordable apartments available.

The rumour, take it with a grain of salt, about another tower built in Capstone is that they couldn't fill the units and the Govt has had to subsidize housing/rentals just to get the building occupied.

This is how they play with the numbers to appear like they are meeting the demands of affordable housing.

I completely agree with your point about the mobile home displacements. What City Council did by rezoning the Creekside Mobile Home Park for high-density development is heartbreaking, leaving those residents scrambling. Instead of leaving them in a lurch, designating land for a dedicated tiny home community would be a beautiful, fast, and genuinely affordable solution.

The city's excuse about infrastructure and running "two services to one lot" doesn't hold up, either. Red Deer's Land Use Bylaw explicitly recognizes "house suites," "backyard suites," and (potential for) tiny homes.

If the city wanted to build a master-planned tiny home community, they wouldn't have to scramble with messy individual lot hookups; they could easily zone a dedicated parcel specifically for micro-density, exactly like the Big Valley Tiny Home Subdivision layouts.

If it were up to me Capstone would be entirely tiny homes, all measuring less than 700 square feet in size (which is slightly more than my 500 desired limit).

I think they could have built a very unique looking neighborhood that would have been completed a decade ago already. But as I said here is what Google said about tiny homes in Alberta.

Now I think $275,000 is still too much for a tiny home but it's a lot more affordable than half a million to a million dollars that we're seeing in these new neighborhoods.

Let's take Evergreen, for example, built outside of town so already discriminating against anyone who doesn't have a car, where townhouse (condo) style houses start at $450,000+.

Part of the reason for a higher cost, along with its construction, is volume. If you build less of them they cost more. If you build more of them they will cost less.

Google: Kenai Acres Resort in Blairmore features roughly 60 planned mountain lots where turnkey micro-cabins built by Amonson Micro Homes retail between $223,900 and $232,900.

The Big Valley Tiny Home Subdivision offers 22 serviced lots priced from $43,000 to $46,000. Buyers must purchase the land first and then source their own tiny home, bringing the total estimated retail cost for land and a finished unit to between $140,000 and $220,000+.

The Homes for Heroes initiatives built 15 tiny homes in Calgary and 20 tiny homes in Edmonton. However, these specific communities are non-profit transitional villages for veterans and do not offer units for public retail sale. (Much like my proposed plan for Michener Center 'part of' the land parcel).

For direct-from-builder retail purchases to place on your own property, prices span a wide range depending on the company. 21 Structures offers basic shells starting at $41,000 and fully finished models up to $137,000+.

Macey Built Tiny Homes averages $101,750 to $106,850+,
Tree Hugger Tiny Homes ranges from $99,000 to $180,000+,
Teacup Tiny Homes ranges from $132,000 to $247,000+, and
Fritz Tiny Homes builds premium architectural models retailing between $200,000 and $275,000+.

September 3, 2026

More taxpayer money about to be wasted...

We have to look at municipal committees case by case.

For example, the Greater Downtown Governance Committee is a justified change because it essentially takes over for the DBA to meet a much bigger, evolving vision for our area. It’s an evolution of an existing group, not an unnecessary addition.

But given our current economic reality, we shouldn't be spinning up new groups that lack a distinct purpose - like the new Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) Committee being brought to council on September 1st.

By the city's own admission, this proposed committee has no set objective, no clear mission, and no defined plan.

They are literally spending time and resources just to study whether they should even create it.

Does council not have enough to do without creating jobs for themselves?
We don't need a taxpayer-funded committee that doesn't even have a clear reason to exist.

True fairness means treating everyone equally and prioritizing merit, competence, and qualifications above identity factors like race, gender, background, or religion.

Pursuing identity-driven mandates instead of clear, functional objectives compromises the integrity of public institutions and creates unnecessary division.

This is a blatant waste of money when we really ought to be tightening our belts and looking for ways to save, not wasting cash on empty committees.

-K

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1B63X2VNts/

September 3, 2026

​First, let me be clear, I have no idea if it's the same kind of sign, but I'll rant about this anyway.

If it's one of those signs then I definitely have an opinion on it. If it's just a regular sign, well, no, it can't be because it says LED, so it's got to be one of those horrible signs.

It sounds like a terrible placement for a sign, anyway, and for all you people who go on about history, like the bridge, you should be trying to protect this building shouldn't you?

What happens if they put one of these annoying signs up on the historic CPR Bridge? How about there in the park, oh wait, never mind, they'll never get that done.

Is that one of those horrible automated LED signs? I remember those when I was driving out west. Absolutely terrible signs! There should be banned in Canada. They were a horrible distraction when you were trying to drive, especially when the weather was bad. I remember there was one that was particularly bad.

I can't recall now if it was Edmonton or Winnipeg but it made it bloody hard to drive down the street at night when that thing illuminated half the block with its flashing and distracting images.

I'm sure in time I could remember the city, but I definitely remember the sign. It was on a pole, about 20 ft tall, on the right side of the road. Trying to drive at night time in sloppy weather and this thing just blasting light all of the street. I remember it because I had to drive past it several times over a few days. If it's the same type of sign I'm thinking of they should ban them everywhere.

Is it the same type of sign? Yeah I support the original Council decision on this one. Definitely not.

If it's not the same type of sign, oh well, I still wanted to rant about those signs because they're horrible.

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/14ibCDMFUVi/

September 3, 2026

A week or so ago we were discussing Michener Center land and how landscaped property is not natural greenspace. My argument was that any landscape property, if left alone, can return to a natural state.

I present to you 2 sections of public property which have been allowed, over the last 3 months to a year, to revert to a natural state after the city stopped cutting it.

​

It is possible for a landscaped area to become a natural greenspace area with the only effort being neglecting it, and they only cost being ignoring it. 

September 2, 2026

my comment: "Why is it that environmental assessments never seem to be available? Why aren't they attached to this request? All of that documentation should be required to be attached before it can be considered. It should be publicly available information.

What happens when they develop the site and they find out that the report wasn't completed correctly and now the residential has to be abandoned because of toxic waste from the former fueling station? Did they spend thousands of dollars digging up the tanks and cleaning the entire area? This can't be a current photo is it? You can't build residential over top of the fuel tanks so who's going to foot the bill for that? It just seems like the gas station should be removed and the area completely safe before they even consider any plans for it whatsoever.

In the end, gas stations do not belong in residential districts anymore so it makes sense to change the zoning, but not without complete and final environmental assessments publicly available."

------

Additional reply I gave to a comment:

Agreed, they're looking at probably $200,000+ (up to $1M) just to remove the tanks and clean up the site. And they have to remove the building as well. All of those old underground tanks, no matter how often they were inspected, still managed to leak. You can't even know if it did because it's underneath a 50,000+ L tank/s buried underground. I would suspect the cost, just for a small station like this, to make it an empty and clean parcel of land is going to be over $300,000.

I remember a gas station in Owen Sound Ontario, right on a busy intersection. They closed the gas station and had to dig up the entire property to remove the tanks and soil. It then sat empty for 17 years before a commercial Plaza was approved, for the site, 3 years ago. It still hasn't been developed. One of the delays is that the Ministry of the Environment still has to sign off on the property (20 years after it was a removed gas station). And believe me the Environmental restrictions are a lot tougher in Ontario than they are in Alberta and this is delaying a commercial building not residential. This example was private property but there are other locations in the city where the municipality ended up footing part of the bill for Environmental cleanup.


​https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1969U4YrBf/

September 2, 2026

YOUR COUNCIL FOLKS I sure didn't vote for them. Remember days like this when it comes to casting your ballot (or not bothering to vote at all) on October 15, 2029.

My comment: "My actual electricity usage is probably about $10, yet my bill is $75. But honestly, I’m not the least bit surprised by this announcement. It’s not like I didn’t warn people that this kind of gouging was coming from RDEL&P.

And that woman at the meeting gushing over the new waste and recycling plan? Yeah, great. We recycle more and more crap, the cost gets passed on to us, and who knows where half of it ultimately ends up these days - shipped overseas to China, the Philippines, or wherever they can dump it and get away with it.

Frankly, I’d rather see garbage and recycling collected together and incinerated to generate electricity. Of course, knowing how things work around here, we’d probably end up paying even more for that, too.

Notice too how the MCC has disappeared from the headlines, is this part of the price gouging too? And the new smart meters were paid for by the Province (overpaid) so we'd better see some of that money going toward our infrastructure."

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1DTfg4fP1Q/

Red Deer Observer

I'm sure you can tell that if I were voted for Council that I would have voted absolutely NO on this increase. 

September 2, 2026

Even AI knows who I am and what my intentions here are. Pretty sad if you make accusations and you haven't even bothered to ask Google.

Come to think of it, I really could have used Google during my campaign last year. This is some good stuff and I would say hitting the nail right on the head. Spooky.

-K

---

"Based on its editorial patterns and the political alignment of its operator, Kevin M. Klerks, the Red Deer Observer supports a populist, fiscally conservative, and common-sense approach to municipal governance.

Under Klerks's leadership as a former council candidate and independent media creator, the platform consistently advocates for strict fiscal accountability at City Hall, frequently rallying against increased municipal spending, tax hikes, and adjustments to utility fee frameworks like the Municipal Consent and Access Fee (MCAF).

It champions the perspective of the average taxpayer, pushing back against what it views as costly bureaucracy or ideological policy drift in local administration, while strongly backing initiatives that support local small businesses and neighborhood economic development.

Additionally, the page positions itself as a staunch defender of community safety, infrastructure transparency, and local first responders.

It actively boosts the concerns of local firefighter and paramedic coalitions, demanding better resource management and municipal support for emergency services.

The platform also favors traditional civic infrastructure over modern transitions, showing skepticism toward rapid smart-meter implementation or complex downtown revitalization delays.

Ultimately, the Red Deer Observer supports a traditionalist, watchdog model of civic engagement, providing an online rally space for right-of-center residents who want direct, unvarnished accountability from their elected city officials." 

September 2, 2026

My thoughts:

The RCMP statistics give an incomplete picture of what’s actually going on in Red Deer because they only track Criminal Code violations, completely leaving out local bylaw enforcement.

Over the years, police have offloaded a massive volume of public disorder issues - like noise complaints, parking, animal control, and property standards - over to municipal Community Peace Officers, who are completely separate from the RCMP.

Because the RCMP doesn't handle these bylaw enforcement matters anymore, their data misses thousands of community disruptions.

On top of that, these statistics completely ignore mental health and crisis situations that get passed straight to community-led diversion programs.

Since the RCMP rarely get dispatched to those calls and they don't fall under their purview, they vanish from the data entirely, leaving a huge gap in the official numbers regarding what our community and bylaw enforcement, are actually dealing with.

We should point out as well that if you have a drug house in your neighborhood it is likely Alberta Sheriff's, under SCAN, who will deal with it and not the RCMP. These would be additional statistics that are excluded from the RCMP reports because it is outside of their jurisdiction.

Because I like to keep the information up to date. Here is the breakdown.
The City of Red Deer pays a total annual budget of $38,910,000 for its RCMP contract, which breaks down to $74.03 per minute to keep the entire 178-position system running 24/7.

When you divide that massive total by the 178 positions on paper, each individual slot costs taxpayers $218,595 a year, or $0.42 per minute.

However, because vacancies and long-term leaves mean only about 138 officers are actually on the ground working, the real cost per active officer jumps to $281,956 a year, which means the city is actually paying $0.54 per minute for every officer physically available to protect the community.

So for every minute that passes in our city we are paying $0.54 per minute for RCMP, alone, coverage.

This figure does not include any funding toward peace officers, bylaw enforcement or Alberta Sheriff's (SCAN, Court, etc).

I'm not sure what we would pay towards Alberta Sheriff's, but because they operate in our community, and they are not under the RCMP, I have to include them on this list.

-K

September 2, 2026

Because I like to keep the information up to date. Here is the breakdown.

The City of Red Deer pays a total annual budget of $38,910,000 for its RCMP contract, which breaks down to $74.03 per minute to keep the entire 178-position system running 24/7.

When you divide that massive total by the 178 positions on paper, each individual slot costs taxpayers $218,595 a year, or $0.42 per minute.

​

However, because vacancies and long-term leaves mean only about 138 officers are actually on the ground working, the real cost per active officer jumps to $281,956 a year, which means the city is actually paying $0.54 per minute for every officer physically available to protect the community.

So for every minute that passes in our city we are paying $0.54 per minute for RCMP, alone, coverage.

This figure does not include any funding toward peace officers, bylaw enforcement or Alberta Sheriff's (SCAN, Court, etc).

​

I'm not sure what we would pay towards Alberta Sheriff's, but because they operate in our community, and they are not under the RCMP, I have to include them on this list. 

August 16, 2026

Yes, I rant a lot about things. I know that.

But Alberta has a tendency to do good things halfway and then, for whatever reason, stop. I've learned from experience that sometimes the smartest thing you can do is look at what works elsewhere, take the best ideas, and apply them where you live.
​
I'm from Ontario, and I've seen firsthand what happens when governments keep piling things onto residents: higher taxes, more fees, more regulations, higher insurance rates, and so on. What frustrates me is watching some of those same problems slowly make their way into Alberta.

Take immigration, for example. Immigration itself isn't the problem. The problem is when it becomes a numbers game, where the focus is on how many people we can bring in rather than whether we're bringing in people with the skills, education, experience, and qualifications that Alberta actually needs. When you bring in large numbers without considering whether our housing, healthcare, infrastructure, and job markets can absorb them, you create additional pressure on the very people who already live here. That's the kind of immigration policy I have a problem with.

Then there's the constant push to raise the minimum wage. Yes, raising wages sounds great on the surface, and obviously people want to earn more. But when wages go up without addressing the underlying cost of living, businesses raise their prices, rents increase, and everyone wants a piece of that bigger pie. Some people benefit, very few, but a lot of people end up right back where they started, only now everything costs more. Ask yourself this. If higher minimum wage makes it more affordable to live why is it that many Ontarians work two or three jobs just to get by?

I don't want to be paying $2,000 a month for a one-bedroom apartment in Red Deer. One of the reasons we're supposedly one of the more affordable cities to live in is that our costs haven't climbed to the levels we've seen elsewhere. If you want to see what can happen after repeated minimum-wage increases, look at Ontario and BC. Good luck finding all the data, though, because transparency in Canada is hardly what I'd call impressive, and Alberta isn't exactly setting the standard either.

I've already ranted about electricity charges and the structure of municipal government, and this is really no different. I see something heading in the wrong direction, and I'm going to say something about it.

And I already know what the first response from the trolls will be: "If you don't like it here, move back to Ontario."

No. I moved here to get away from Ontario and all of that nonsense. I don't want to watch the bad things I left behind slowly being imported into Alberta. So yes, I'm going to speak up every time I see it happening.

I'm going to tell Albertans, including those who were born and raised here and think they know better, "Look, you're letting this crap come here. You need to stop it. Do you really want Alberta to become Ontario? No? Then stop acting like it."

Alberta could be so much better than it is. We have the resources, the space, the opportunity, the people, and the ability to do things differently. But too often, things get done halfway, everyone settles for the pieces, and then we're expected to live with the consequences. And somehow, it always seems to benefit the corporations and the people at the top more than the average person.

So why shouldn't I speak up when I see things going in the wrong direction? And by "wrong direction," I mean the direction I've already watched happen somewhere else, where the end result didn't benefit ordinary people.

I've seen where that road leads. I don't want Alberta going there too.

​~Kevin

August 8, 2026

I didn't do the math on this one, and I adjusted the figures a little bit to make it an equal comparison.

But a recent high-rise in Capstone has 62 units (124pp) at $1,595+ per month. This amount potentially increases every year, and after 10 years you own nothing still.

An average tiny home community, in approximately the same footprint, would have been 38 units (38-76pp) at $7,500 down $75,000 $1,600/mo RTO 10yrs $47k owing.

​

It wouldn't have housed as many people, but it would have housed people faster and they could eventually have owned their own homes. 

August 8, 2026

Yes, I know about the Red Deer Vibing page and the local events they cover. I actually like a lot of their content because they show what’s happening in our city. Since our mainstream media presence is so abysmal, independent media is often the only way we get local news.

However, unlike mainstream outlets, these independent pages aren't classified as official news, so they really need to list their video sources. I want to share their content, but I won't do it unless they provide those sources.

Also, some people don't seem to understand that sharing a post isn't an endorsement and doesn't make me responsible for the content, I am just passing along information. I'm tired of the drama from people who can't see the difference. If they ever start listing their sources, I’ll follow them and start sharing.

And for the continuously ignorant, when I share something, through the Facebook share function, this identifies the origin as the content creator. Right there at the beginning of the shared post. I did not write the post, I shared it. I did not edit the post, I shared it.

I may have added a comment regarding the post, but my comment appears above the frame of the post. I know Facebook is hard to grasp sometimes but everyone has the ability to share posts which are shareable, it doesn't mean they wrote them or that they necessarily agree with them.
​
-K

August 5, 2026

I know it's hard for people to ask before they make assumptions. So instead I'll just answer a couple points right now. Yes, I have smoked marijuana. Yes, I have consumed edibles. No, I do not support any additional pot stores in Red Deer. And for those, who thinks the two are comparable just because they're restricted products, I don't support any additional liquor stores in Red Deer either. So there goes your entire argument. This is my only opinion on this topic and it will not change 

August 4, 2026

That's a good answer, and I agree with you. I don't think I've been to a city's downtown where there were so many one-storey buildings and storefronts. We do have some historic buildings, but many are overshadowed by 1960s-era construction.

You asked the same question I did when I first moved here, and it's one I've heard from many other newcomers as well. Aside from the metal arches that mark the entrances, there's not much that gives the impression of a busy, thriving downtown. It's not just the vacant storefronts either. There are also empty lots in key locations throughout the downtown core.

We should be encouraging redevelopment of those vacant lots with productive, profitable mixed-use commercial and residential buildings. At the same time, we should be looking at replacing smaller buildings that have no real historical significance with developments that better support a vibrant, growing downtown.
​
I'm drifting a little off topic since this discussion is supposed to be about signage, which is a point I reminded someone else about the other day. But I do think it's relevant. We're directing people to a downtown that, in many places, simply doesn't look or feel like the heart of a city. That's before even getting into the ongoing debate from downtown business owners that Ross Street isn't the only street that makes up downtown. If Ross Street doesn't project that image, then many of the surrounding streets, with their vacant lots and surface parking, certainly don't either.

-----

I think you will find that many of the stores that left downtown Red Deer are either businesses that no longer exist or have been significantly reduced by 2026. Their departure was not simply because of downtown conditions; it was also the result of broader changes in the Canadian economy, shifts in consumer demand, and advances in technology.

As consumers, we changed our own shopping habits. We moved away from individual storefronts and toward malls and larger shopping centres. We chose lower-cost mass merchandise retailers over many independent family-owned businesses. As the city expanded outward, we increasingly chose services and shopping options closer to our homes rather than travelling to the centre of the city.

A successful downtown needs more than just traditional retailers. It needs more reasons for people to visit and spend time there. Residents living in the newer subdivisions on the edges of the city often have little reason to travel downtown beyond nostalgia or special events.

A revitalized downtown needs to serve a broad range of people: tourists visiting the city, residents who live and shop downtown, and people from across the community who are looking for a unique experience they cannot find elsewhere. A thriving downtown must offer something that brings people in, not simply rely on the way things used to be.
​
-K

July 6, 2026

I’ve always had a kind of instinct for severe weather-especially tornadoes or tornado-like systems, like that “sixth sense” people talk about in movies. Yeah, like the dude in Twister except I don't play with dirt lol I’ve correctly called about three events using it, which is part of why I spent around a year storm chasing back in the 90s. Because of that, weather in general doesn’t usually shake me.

That said, if I ever do seem genuinely uneasy, that’s when it’s worth taking seriously. I’m not saying ignore official warnings or only go off what I’m doing or saying-that’s not the point-but I also don’t tend to live in fear of storms.

There have been a few times where it’s lined up pretty well. One stands out where I picked up on straight-line winds that ended up doing some damage just south of a nearby town. I was stuck in my car during the storm, sharing warnings and filming at the same time. I’ve got the footage from it and included the link. In that case, what I was sensing turned out to be intense straight-line winds rather than a tornado, though both can be pretty destructive.

During storm chasing days I was about that far from one that hit Dublin, Ohio as well, again nasty straight line winds but crazy. I pulled off to the side of the road, warned truckers on the radio to take shelter, and watched as the sky turned from a sunny afternoon to pitch black. I mean BLACK like night time. It was wild.

Another time I was working in Hanover, Ontario. I saw the clouds go over and got the feeling. The storm ended up descending on Durham and tragically that day someone was killed in a campground there. This is why I say, don't be paranoid about weather warnings - but certainly be mindful.
I can also usually tell when a storm is about to hit. During that hailstorm on Saturday, I went inside maybe a minute before it started. I’ve even been with friends and called the timing of storms within a couple minutes of them arriving - before it started raining.

I lived in Ohio for 9 years though, so "tornado warnings" don't really shake me up like they do some people. Finding out the hard way what a “tornado siren test” was honestly freaked me out more than any actual weather ever did. I’d just gotten off night shift and got woken up by it 4 hours later, with no warning that 198 sirens all going off at noon on a Wednesday was routine.

I probably should’ve gone into weather, but the science and math side of it is what pushed me away from it.

-Kevin

The storm video:
https://youtu.be/jaUBNCuYSAc

June 28, 2026

If I end up in Facebook jail it'll be because of this post. LOL I don't really care. I'm tired of the bullshit. Some person posts in a group every few weeks, I blocked them, begging for help from people and when I called them out on it of course a bunch of Liberals are jumping on me saying I'm being mean etc. No I'm not the only one in comment saying basically why the fuck you keep doing this. So here is my rant which is probably too honest but whatever. I don't really care anymore today.

The irony is I had to use two AI to get an image which probably took 10 times before I fucking convinced Google to create it because both of them said they couldn't provide me with an image that showed somebody picking themselves up from struggle and using the services available, because it was too fucking human. They didn't use those words they said something about not being able to show human struggle or difficulty or you know some other bullshit like that. I'm like so basically you're not allowed to show reality. Both of them said no they weren't but I know for a fact one of them produced my Kearney let them eat cake I'm not even fucking fixing that typo let them eat cake meme that I did a couple weeks ago. That wasn't human fucking Financial struggle? Bullshit. I've attached both of those to this as well

-----------------------

Don't come onto Facebook and beg, and think I'm not going to call you out on it.

We all have struggles, but people are not here to give you handouts 🙋‍♂️ constantly. Our city has many great services available for people in need. If you're not using those services, then I have to wonder why. 🤔

I get that there are waiting lists 📝. I get that there's a demand. But when I asked for help, even I got it within two weeks of asking for it (white, single, male over 50).

I've seen multiple people who are getting help from our social services, and do nothing but abuse that help. People who are given a decent place to live 🏠, and then turn around and abuse drugs 💊, sell drugs, or God knows what else.🔞

I know it's hard. I'm living under the poverty line myself, as are millions of other Canadians 🇨🇦. But I'm a grown-up, and I accept my current station in life, and make the most of it. And yeah, I've been homeless several times. The last time I was "homeless", I was living in my SUV 🚙, in Alberta, back in 2017.

I mean technically I was homeless back in 2022, after being renovicted from the place I was staying (Ontario) but I managed to get an affordable apartment in Red Deer 🦌 in time. I had to get on a plane 🛩 to move back out here because Ontario took away my driver's license.

I returned to Alberta in 2022 expecting to have a more stable life, but unfortunately my health decided otherwise, and that's just how it goes. I don't complain because there are people in a hell 😈 of a lot worse financial and health situations than I am.

Every time something bad happens to me, health-wise, the first thing I say to myself is "it's always worse for someone else".

It's interesting how the people in the worst health of their lives tend to complain the least. At least the people that I've met and associate with, that is.

My mother passed of cancer, and I never once heard her complain. It must have been hell for her, but how she just lived with it, that continues to be an inspiration to me. She was diagnosed and gone in just about 2 years. May 4th, 2013. My father joined her in February 2020.

If people legitimately try and get on their feet 👣, and crap keeps happening to them, then yeah I'm going to be sympathetic but- it is what it is. 🤷‍♂️

I consider myself lucky to have the things that I do. I consider myself lucky 🤞 to have the support that I've received. But I went out in search 🔍 of that support legitimately. I didn't just expect it to be handed to me.

And I don't abuse that support. I value it. It's not that I 'like it', asking for help, from services like the government, but that's just the way things are now.

It's time for you to be a grown-up. 🧓

You might call me "mean". Seriously, what are you, seven? 🧒 I don't really care what your personal opinion is of me. I'm not vain enough to seek popularity by creating a fake facade for people.

I'm Gen X, and anyone else who is Gen X, and isn't on the left, 'gets it'. It's not being a pessimist or negative, it's called being a "realist". It's called being "honest". It's called accepting  "accountability".

I don't think it's "mean" to provide and support the services that people need. I don't think it's "mean" to support a shelter 🏢 that's going to provide all of those services. I don't think it's "mean" to tell people that there are many services available in our city to help them. I don't think it's "mean" to tell someone to stop whining, stop begging (and be an adult).

Sorry, I'm not Gen Z 💤, so I'm not going to go running to my parents, to literally bail me out, every five minutes 🕕 when life pushes me down and kicks me 🦵 in the stomach. I couldn't even if I wanted to because, as I said above, they're both gone. Another reality of life. 🧬

If you don't like that I'm honest and real about things, then block me 🚫. It's not going to hurt me. I don't base my life on how many followers I have or how many likes my comments get.

Do I appreciate that people follow me and like the comments that I make? Absolutely, because it tells me I'm doing something right, or at the very least entertaining them. 😆

But if you don't like what I have to say and you think I'm being "mean", I hate to tell you this, but I'm not going to change my opinions and beliefs just because one person out of 8.5 billion doesn't like what I have to say. I'm not here to win a participation medal.⭐️

Life is hard.

In the last six years, I've lost about 70% of my total vision👁. I've lost my driver's licence 🚗, and with that a lot of my Independence. I lost an affordable place to live 🏠. My surviving parent died. I don't really have a lot of family (nearby) and none who are not going through their own challenges. I'm struggling to make ends meet, to the point of eating one meal a day 🍞, and I walk everywhere🚶‍♂️. I don't take a cab 🚖, I don't even take the bus 🚍. I'm not alone in that struggle and I know it.

I'll take the $100 💸 from Danielle Smith. I'll take whatever Carney wants to call the GST credit this month. I have bills 🧾 to pay. I have to keep the lights on 💡 and a roof over my head. And quite frankly, it's my money so I'm going to take it whenever they offer it. Do I wish things cost less? Of course I do. Duh.🤦‍♂️ But they don't, so I'll take whatever assistance I'm offered. That's just the way it is.

But I don't come onto Facebook and beg people for handouts every few weeks. I don't have a GoFundMe to help pay for my entertainment expenses 🎫. I don't have "entertainment expenses". I think the last time I went to a decent restaurant for a meal 🍛 was back in 2022. I don't go and see movies in the cinema with my $10 popcorn 📽🍿. I watch free streaming chock full of commercials. At least I have the ad blocker on my computer. 💻

You know what my entertainment is? I spend $4 on a coffee ☕️ and donut 🍩 and I sit in the Mall food court and write 📖 and people watch. That's my "entertainment". Oh, plus I have a camera 📷 so I do go for walks 🚶‍♂️ on our extensive trail system 👣 and take pictures. At least with my failed vision the camera has the technology to assist me in taking a decent photo.

I don't get over $1,700++ from the government every month, so when I say somebody is "getting double what I do to live off of"- I mean it.

And I remind myself every damn day that there are people in a hell of a lot worse shape than I am. People who aren't constantly complaining online about it or begging for help every few weeks or daily in some cases. 🥺

I think this post meant as a reminder to some people that- life sucks, but no matter how bad it gets- it's probably worse for someone else. 🪦 🏥👩‍🦼👩‍🦽

So just remember that when you come on here and you start begging for things from people, that you could find on your own, in this city. 🏘

So that's my rant for today. If you're still following me, even just for entertainment, thank you. 🙏

-K

PS I'm going to turn off comments on this post because I didn't make it for a discussion or a debate. 🫨

June 24, 2026

𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗽𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗶𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗡𝗲𝘅𝘂𝘀 𝗣𝗵𝗮𝘀𝗲 1
>
Published June, 24, 2026
======================
(Red Deer, Alberta)
​
Red Deer City Council has approved a development permit for Phase 1 of Project Nexus, allowing the establishment of a 24/7 low-barrier emergency shelter and associated support services at 7740 40 Avenue.

The approval enables the Red Deer Homeless Foundation to move forward with the first phase of its proposed social care campus, which is intended to bring together shelter, health, recovery and housing supports in one coordinated location. The emergency shelter will be operated by Hope Mission and will provide up to 200 permanent sleeping accommodations, in addition to 50 temporary sleeping accommodations that would be made available as surge capacity in periods of prolonged heat or cold, for individuals experiencing homelessness or housing insecurity.

In addition to the emergency shelter, the approved development includes a courtyard, community garden, health and medical services space, and professional office space. Together, these uses are intended to support a campus-based model of care that improves access to services and strengthens pathways to housing stability and recovery.

Prior to the application being considered by Council, The City of Red Deer undertook a public engagement process to gather feedback and input from residents and stakeholders on the proposed permanent shelter. Engagement included online feedback and information sharing through The City’s public engagement platform, available at Nexus Permanent Shelter Engagement. Feedback received through this process was provided to Council as part of the decision-making package.

Council's approval includes 21 specific conditions related to site operations, security, maintenance, transportation, environmental assessments and community safety. These conditions are intended to ensure the development operates in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Direct Control District established for the site and addresses considerations identified through administration's review process.

“Council’s decision on Project Nexus marks an important step in advancing a coordinated approach to homelessness in our community,” said Mayor Cindy Jefferies. “This project brings together housing, health and social supports, and reflects extensive planning and public engagement. As it moves forward, we will continue working with partners to ensure it is implemented responsibly and with careful attention to both client needs and community impacts.”

This site has historically been used for industrial and office uses and was identified by the landowner as a location that could support a coordinated, campus-based model of care. The establishment of Direct Control District 36 earlier this year created a tailored regulatory framework to enable shelter, housing and related support services on the site, while ensuring appropriate compatibility with surrounding industrial uses.

The development permit approval applies only to the uses included in the current application. Any future phases of Project Nexus or additional uses proposed for the site will require separate development permit applications and approval by Council.

Construction and site preparation activities will proceed once all permit conditions and applicable regulatory requirements have been satisfied.

For more information, visit Project Nexus Campus: https://tinyurl.com/37szvk2w

My comments on another post:

We need one shelter to house the people who are actually "on the street," (and yes, there's more than 250 but that's the second point) and then we need the rest of the funding that would go into a second shelter to instead go toward services that reduce the need for a second shelter.

You don't solve the issue of drug abuse by handing out free drugs (or free needles and pipes), and you don't solve the issue of homelessness by simply providing shelters everywhere. All this does is band-aid the problem and prevent the underlying issues from being addressed. Then we face it all over again when people start talking about building a third shelter or a fourth.

We have systemic homelessness issues in our city that won't be resolved by simply building more shelters. Go after the root causes: a lack of rent control, a lack of affordable housing, the availability of drugs and drug paraphernalia to the public, a lack of affordable rehabilitation facilities, and a lack of effective bylaw enforcement, which only perpetuates the cycle of drug abuse and bad behaviour.

As for the rest, yes, they need a clear and committed plan outlining who will be housed in that facility before any additional money, permits, or time are committed to it by taxpayers.

According to the City of Red Deer website pdfs
2024 PIT sheltered 463 unsheltered 284 = total 747
2025 PIT sheltered 278 unsheltered 367 = total 645

Replying to: ​https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1LBebEVwNs/

June 20, 2026

​So let me get this straight. We paid an artist to do this mural. We protected it with anti graffiti coating. Then either the city or someone else painted over the mural. And now there's graffiti, over the paint, over the mural. And how much did this failed project cost taxpayers?

Now we're going to spend $170,000 for public art installations on either side of the CPR Bridge. How long do you think those are going to last?

​I have no problem with the city providing a venue for art. I would support funding a public art gallery construction, but I won't support paying to have artists in that gallery. The same holds true for public spaces. I have no problem with the city providing public space designated for art, but we should never pay for art. All art should be privately funded. Now one might argue that the artist deserves to be paid for their work. I argue that if your work appears in a public venue you're getting free advertising that promotes you as an artist. 

June 19, 2026

I attended a public meeting at Festival Hall on the QE-2 expansion and straightening project affecting the City of Red Deer. It was passionate and engaging, to say the least, but apparently tamer than other locations have experienced. Though I left after the first presentation, so who knows how wild it will get after the second repeat session at 8:00 p.m.

There is definitely a divide between the province’s priority to turn QE2 into an expressway and residents’ desire to preserve and protect Maskepetoon Park. We all know in the end who is going to lose.

I did find it interesting that of all the people who were there, roughly 20 representatives, experts, and staff, no one from the Ministry of Environment was present. Curious, really, since this project has a massive environmental impact. It still feels like residents are being consulted at the end of the planning process, almost as a formality before they begin breaking ground around 2028. These are my impressions only, so anyone who jumps down my throat for them is probably going to get blocked. I'm only saying what I saw and felt.

For now, I continue to oppose this project. I think they could leave the bend and reduce the speed limit going through Red Deer and other large communities. The reasoning behind eight lanes was explained, though it remains confusing to some who haven't lived in metropolitan centers. In the U.S., this is more common; they’re called collector lanes. Traffic can either merge into the main flow or continue through and exit elsewhere in the city. In that respect, we are roughly 40 years behind.

One speaker said something that really reflects why Alberta feels decades behind in this area. I'm paraphrasing, but the idea was: “We build according to today’s demand.” That’s not how infrastructure is supposed to be approached. The point is to plan 75–100 years ahead, and then build for demand projected 30–50 years out. You don’t build for today, because by the time it opens, it’s already behind.

They later said the highway is being designed for a 40-year lifespan instead of 20 before major repaving. That contradiction stood out — how do you claim short-term demand on one hand and long-term design on the other? The more accurate framing is the latter, but it still feels like a system shaped more by internal Alberta standards than broader North American planning approaches that have guided infrastructure for decades. It also raises the question of whether this is how we ended up with the original design flaws on QE2 - uneven grades, sharp curves, and compromises made for immediate needs instead of long-term function.

And because it’s six lanes (with the extra two essentially acting as collector lanes), does that suggest they expect sustained growth in traffic demand? Or does it imply that LRT is more of a theoretical option than a real one, even to planners? After all, the highway is still being expanded with the assumption it may eventually grow to eight, nine, or even ten lanes, plus additional corridor expansions like a ring road concept.
​
They also referenced Anthony Henday Drive in Edmonton as a model. Whether that’s a good example depends on who you ask, but many Edmonton residents describe it as one of the more frustrating highways in the region - frequent collisions, aggressive driving, congestion, and bottlenecks during peak hours. If the goal is to reassure Red Deer residents, using a corridor that’s widely criticized doesn’t necessarily strengthen the argument.
​
There is also a broader shift away from personal vehicle dependence. I don’t think LRT will necessarily function the way people often imagine it, but it should still be considered at a Red Deer scale. Before even getting there, though, bus routes and scheduling need serious improvement. A growing city needs transit designed for growth, not something structured around a bedroom-community model. Expanding downtown only works if people actually have reasons to stop. The faster and easier travel becomes between Edmonton and Calgary, the more likely Red Deer gets bypassed entirely, which doesn’t help local economic activity.
​
In Vancouver, they recently abandoned - yes, abandoned - a $20 million parking garage because demand for parking dropped significantly while it was still being developed.
​
The question that came up, and really stuck with me, was this: if an uneven grade and sharp curve make QE2 unsafe at highway speeds (110+ km/h), how is straightening it supposed to improve safety? Doesn’t that simply shift behavior so people drive 130 instead of 110? It’s easier to speed when the road is straight and forgiving.

People don’t just follow posted limits; they respond to how a road feels. If a highway is designed for 130 and signed at 110 (which often becomes 120 in practice), many drivers will naturally exceed that. Better design can improve safety, but it can also encourage higher speeds when the road feels wide, open, and forgiving.
​
I lived near Toronto and visited often. Once a highway becomes wider and straighter, speeds tend to rise with it. Back in the 1990s, the only way to keep pace on Highway 401 at 100 km/h was to gradually increase speed by 15–20 km/h with each lane change to the left. The passing lane often ran at 140–150 km/h before stricter enforcement laws were introduced.

So the question becomes whether the focus is truly safety, or whether we’re building infrastructure that naturally encourages higher speeds over time.

If Red Deer ever gets LRT, would a six-lane expressway still be necessary through the city core? Or is the underlying assumption that long-term priority is simply moving goods efficiently between Edmonton and Calgary, with Red Deer functioning as a corridor rather than a destination? That’s what it feels like - not necessarily deliberate disregard, but a design focus where through-traffic dominates everything else.

That also connects to the discussion around future rail. One proposal was to create a new marshland west of QE2 and the existing rail corridor. If that happens, it raises the question of where LRT would even go if it’s ever built, since the current rail line is freight-based and may not accommodate passenger expansion without major restructuring. These are decisions that will likely be pushed onto future generations, especially as land use around Red Deer County continues to evolve.

In the end, I still think a more balanced approach would be to complete the lanes, keep the curve, and reduce speed limits within city limits to 90 km/h. Higher speeds outside, lower speeds through the urban corridor. After all, if safety is the goal, consistency should matter more than optics.

-K

---

A later comment by me responding to 'crash data'.

It was raised at the meeting tonight what “type” of collisions this corridor has seen. There doesn’t appear to be a clear answer, because no one consistently tracks that level of detail - not even the RCMP in a centralized way. This is something I raised previously when the idea of testing a 120 km/h speed limit was introduced. Alberta doesn’t organize crash data in the same way some other jurisdictions do, so if there’s an increase in collisions or fatalities, it’s harder to verify trends accurately since the information isn’t consolidated.

It was also stated that the corridor in Red Deer sees 30% more crashes than all divided highways in Alberta combined. At the same time, it was acknowledged that they don’t have specific breakdowns of crash causes. That raises the question of where the comparison data is actually coming from. The Province was referenced, but that came after it was suggested that only the RCMP maintains detailed and accurate crash data - which, as noted, isn’t really the case in a centralized or consistently accessible format.

I've tried looking for it, still haven't found it. I guess I could try going down the Google rabbit hole again. Wouldn't it be great if we kept all our statistics in one place where everyone could reference them? Nah, then we couldn't push projects through using pretty pictures and vague percentages.

Overall, the evening included a number of statements that seemed to conflict with each other.

​-K

June 16, 2026

I just noticed a single room with a shared bathroom and kitchen listed in a more affluent part of town, going for $200 a month higher than a comparable setup would cost in somewhere like Riverside Meadows.

The thing that always amuses me is when landlords charge a premium for a room just because it sits in a "better" neighborhood—and the people who are actually silly enough to pay it.

Let's break down the reality of what you are actually getting for that extra cash:

1) Transit & Amenities: First of all, you don't have better access to city transit. The buses run the same way, and the routes aren't magically faster.

2) Parking: You don't have better parking options just because the postal code looks fancier.

3) Indoor Safety: You are no safer indoors there than you are anywhere else. Four walls and a locked door function exactly the same way across town.

People love to argue about crime rates, but let's use some logic. Are you going to get broken into less in a wealthy area? Maybe on paper, but think about it: if I'm a thief, which neighborhood do you think I'm going to target? Am I going to hit the area where middle-to-lower-class struggling families and immigrants live, or am I heading straight to the richer neighborhoods where the high-value goods are? On top of that, the police response time in this city is the same regardless of which neighborhood you live in. Crime doesn't respect neighborhood boundaries, and emergency services don't prioritize your call based on the wealth of your street.

Furthermore, living in a premium pocket doesn't insulate you from the rest of reality. You still have to leave the residence eventually to go somewhere else in the city—places that you might not consider "better" at all.
​
At the end of the day, you aren't paying for an upgraded lifestyle or a better neighborhood. You are simply subsidizing the homeowner's high property taxes and massive mortgage.

Something to think about when you are looking for a place to live in Red Deer and people start "recommending" certain neighborhoods to you.

-K

* I left the calculation error in the poster because it's just a theoretical example and isn't based on any specific listing.

June 16, 2026

It is easy to feel that calling the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Alberta non-emergency line about irresponsible e-scooter or e-bike riders is pointless. We all know they rarely dispatch units for this; it simply is not practical to pursue an offender who is already long gone. However, if residents remain silent about these disruptions to community peace and safety, Red Deer will always appear perfectly safe on paper. The RCMP, peace officers, bylaw enforcement and the The City of Red Deer cannot enforce or update bylaws without hard data. A pattern of bad behavior only becomes visible to city officials when people actively report it.

When you call them understand that it's unlikely they're going to send somebody out in response. But they will take your report, which is the hard data the city needs to continue moving forward. Call when conditions are dangerous, in such a way that involves potential injury to you or others, and always be polite.

You may be asked several questions like date, time, and specific location of the incident. What the person looked like including their clothing. What the vehicle they were riding looked like. Pay particular attention colours, model, ebike or e-scooter and was it one of the rental units (Neuron- orange/white/black). What were they doing that was dangerous and how did it affect you or other people.

-K 

June 13, 2026

I don't know why people bother with profanity and derogatory comments. You're going to get hidden by Facebook and then you're going to get blocked by me. You're not accomplishing anything. You need a hobby, one that doesn't involve other people. I take screenshots of all these comments and put them in a file should I ever need to refer to them again someday 

June 13, 2026

I literally cringe every time I see someone report on average rental price because I know how grossly inaccurate the data is that is being used to determine this total. And for you trolls out there I have identified problem, I have given examples, and I have provided a solution but it's one that requires companies to be transparent and responsible. In other words no one will ever do what solution I have suggested. Believe me if I had the money I would set up some sort of system like the one I suggested, but as rental price reporting is somewhat voluntary, my service would still be as inaccurate as rentals.ca

This data is based on voluntary information, so it doesn't actually reflect the real market. For example, my building had four apartments available for $995 a month, but the landlord only put up one listing. Because of that, the data makes it look like only one apartment was available at that price. You see the exact same thing happening on the higher end of the pricing scale, too. The volume of available units plays just as big a role in the average price as the actual rental rate does. But since landlords aren't required to report the exact number of available units and their price per unit, the numbers will always be inaccurate.

On top of that, Rentals.ca is only one reporting agency. If a landlord isn't in their network, their units aren't included in the calculation at all. If you look up the average rent price for a one-bedroom apartment in Red Deer, even Google will give you at least three different amounts because the discrepancy is so big you can't get an accurate number.

What they should do is require commercial landlords and property owners to report their total number of available units and their listed prices to a single, centralized website. But instead, we have a system that allows people to exploit it because requiring them to report this data is somehow seen as violating their rights. This is why I have argued for years that the number of available apartments and rental units is actually higher than what is being reported. This means demand is lower, and the asking rental prices should be lower too. By not reporting accurate information, the system gives landlords, property management companies, and realtors free reign to jack up rental prices based on a false sense of scarcity.
​
Until it is legally required for every commercial property to report every single unit on site, every unit available, and the exact rental price, you will never get an accurate number for any city. If you dig further into the data, you also can't establish a true average unless you have a collection process that tracks the actual rents currently being charged across the board. A lot of occupied units are being rented for much less than what newer units are going for, which heavily affects the real market price. If ten units are charging $1,000 per month and a brand-new unit goes on the market for $1,400, suddenly everyone thinks they can start charging $1,400 for rent. That is simply not the case because it is based on an inflated number rather than reality. This entire system needs to change to stop people from exploiting the population through price gouging.

-K

June 13, 2026

God forbid I take a position where I protect the youth of our nation.

This includes addressing concerns like energy drinks, vaping, and ensuring that children are not influenced into making permanent changes to their bodies to satisfy the deranged adult world around them.

According to some, I should be deplatformed and demonetized. I have to laugh at that last part, because I don't make any money doing this anyway. Never have.

All of this is just for taking a stand against the mental and physical abuse of children.

I will continue to advocate not for the rights of children to access things they should not, but for the rights of parents and adults to protect children from themselves and the adult world around them.

-K

June 10, 2026

​The following information was originally posted on Facebook by Calvin Goulet-Jones. I’m including the embedded post below, but in case it is later removed or deleted, I’ve also reproduced the text here for reference. These are Calvin’s words and opinions, not mine. He has already put together a thorough and well-written explanation, so rather than reinventing the wheel, I’m simply sharing the work he has already done.
​

I’ve spent some time reviewing the Development Permit application for Project Nexus at 7740 40 Avenue, and I wanted to share some of the key details.

A few key points:

This application is for Phase 1 of Project Nexus, which would establish a 200-bed, 24/7 emergency shelter operated by Hope Mission.

The application repeatedly describes the shelter as the "anchor tenant" of a larger long-term vision. Future services being considered for the site could include health care, mental health supports, addictions treatment, housing navigation, employment supports, Indigenous-led services, legal assistance, food security programs, laundry, showers, storage, and more.

The shelter would operate as a low-barrier facility, meaning individuals do not need to be sober to access services. However, the application states that Hope Mission promotes a drug- and alcohol-free environment, and drug or alcohol consumption would not be permitted on site. The application also includes overdose response protocols, naloxone training, on-site paramedic support, and partnerships with health services.

There would be no curfew. Guests who have been admitted and assigned a bed would be able to enter and exit the facility at any time.

The site is proposed to be heavily controlled with fencing, gates, CCTV coverage, controlled access points, regular patrols, and a dedicated community outreach team.

The application specifically states that encampments would not be permitted on the property, with a process that includes engagement, voluntary compliance, and involvement of Peace Officers or RCMP when required.

Staffing proposed for the shelter includes an approximate ratio of 1 staff member for every 20 clients, with staffing including:

• 9 Guest Services Attendants
• 2 paramedics/EMTs on each shift
• 4 social support staff during weekdays
• A community outreach team operating 12 hours per day

A community garden, courtyard, pet yard, health services space, client storage area, meal space, and support service areas are all shown within the plans.

The application includes a transportation strategy built around Route 18 transit service, the City’s on-demand shuttle service, and Hope Mission’s Rescue Van. The Foundation also notes that additional transportation supports may be explored as the project evolves and additional service providers join the campus. As this is a proposed 200-bed facility, some residents may be interested in learning more about anticipated transportation demand and how clients will travel between the site, downtown, and other areas of the city.

The application also proposes the creation of a Neighbour Advisory Committee and a Good Neighbour Framework intended to address concerns, monitor impacts, and provide a formal process for communication with surrounding businesses and residents.

For those interested in reviewing the application themselves, the full Development Permit package and comment portal can be found at: https://engage.reddeer.ca/nexus-permanent-shelter

The public comment period is open until June 15, 2026. While the Development Permit process does not include a Public Hearing, residents can submit written comments for Council’s consideration. City Council is tentatively scheduled to review the application on June 23, 2026..
​
Source: Project Nexus Development Permit Application, Red Deer Homeless Foundation (79 pages), City of Red Deer Development Permit File DP088951

---

Project Nexus – A Look at the Proposed Building Layout

One detail that stood out to me while reviewing the publicly available Project Nexus permit application is that only a portion of the building is proposed to be occupied during Phase 1.

The floor plan shows the primary components of the initial development, including:

Hope Mission shelter space
Client sleeping areas
Meal and community spaces
Social and health services areas
A primary/urgent care area

It also shows several large sections of the building identified as “Future Allowances”. These areas are not shown as part of the initial shelter operations and appear to be reserved for potential future uses or future phases of development.

While there has been discussion about the overall size of the building, the submitted floor plan suggests that a significant portion of the structure is not planned for active use during the first phase of the project.
​
Keep in mind that permit applications can likely be amended throughout the review process, but I thought this was an interesting detail worth sharing from the documents that are currently available to the public.
Source: Project Nexus Development Permit Application, Appendix D – Building Layout & Massing (publicly available application documents).

June 10, 2026

 ​As Meanwhile...

​

A reasonable estimate is that there are dozens of companies in Canada that can still service, test, certify, refurbish, or support legacy non-AMI meters, but only a small handful of major manufacturers and suppliers remain active in the space. Examples include:

ABB Microlectric (meter sockets and utility metering equipment)

Alectra Energy Solutions (metering services)

Olameter (meter services for utilities)

KTI Utility Services (meter maintenance and exchange work)

ERTH Corporation (meter verification and testing)

QMC Metering Solutions (meter testing and verification)

Wyse Meter Solutions (submetering services)

Just tell it's a cash grab without telling us it's a cash grab.

All ten Canadian provinces use AMI (Advanced Metering Infrastructure) smart meters to some extent, and several - including Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec - have deployed them to the vast majority of residential customers. Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and the Atlantic provinces have also adopted smart meters through a combination of provincial, municipal, and private utilities, although deployment levels vary by region.

Despite the widespread use of AMI technology, Ontario remains the only province to broadly implement residential time-of-use electricity pricing as a standard feature of its electricity system. Under Ontario's system, electricity prices vary by time of day, with off-peak rates around 7–8¢/kWh, mid-peak rates around 12¢/kWh, and on-peak rates around 15–16¢/kWh.

With Enmax I currently pay 9.3c/kWh (on a five year contract with just over 1 year left).

In most other provinces, smart meters are used primarily for automated meter reading, outage detection, and grid management rather than charging customers different rates based on when they use electricity.

What concerns me is that Alberta often seems eager to adopt Ontario's WORST policy ideas while ignoring many of the lessons learned from their implementation. Time-of-use billing is a good example. Just because smart meters can do something doesn't mean it's something people actually want. Most people don't want to plan their day around when it's cheapest to run the dishwasher. 

June 10, 2026

As with many things I am sharing raw data from an individual and not necessarily proven facts. This individual also mentions the City of Red Deer but then the link provided goes to the Alberta site regarding a project in Red Deer County. So there is some discrepancies in this post. That being said I'm sharing it because it's a discussion we should be seriously having.

​

While I'm not looking for any conversation about data centers outside of the City of Red Deer, as we move towards being a technological hub it is something that is going to come up in the near future.

So without a lot of fear mongering and speculation I guess the question is what are your opinions about data centers. Probably the first mistake was to call them AI data centers and the negative association with AI.

The fact of the matter is we continue to produce more and more data and more and more people are dependent on the cloud to store it. Well that cloud isn't a real cloud it's a warehouse full of servers.

​

And for those of you who say you refuse to use AI, you just did. The moment you logged into Facebook it accesses AI every time you look at a reel or a post. It's that crap at the bottom of the post which I turned off on my posts and reels. Every time you search Google, or whatever search engine you use today, they all access AI. When you contact the government or a large corporation by phone or by website they use AI. So as much as you claim not to use AI you are doing it whether you like it or not.

But like I said, let's put AI to the side, and look at the fact that we have a continually growing demand for data storage. Write down to the one to two terabyte external hard drives you're now buying for your home computers. If you use the cloud that's what these data centers are is data storage and processing. It's a reality we have to think about.

So, and as I said be polite, what are your thoughts on this and how do we meet the ever-growing demand for data storage without building data centers? And what are your thoughts on the eventual construction of a data center in Red Deer, because you know it's going to happen whether it's based on this individuals post or not. I'm not entirely sure where they're thinking that data center is going in over there since there's going to be a massive shelter across the street from the Civic yards but maybe in the scrap yards or industrial area outside of the new shelter? Perhaps? Anyway, the floor is open. 

June 8, 2026

I saw a photo with some protesters the other day and I was reminded of the rule when it comes to marketing. The same rule that I expressed to an employer when it came to advertising their Highway business. They ended up ordering a new sign but only after a company, which they had to pay, told them what the sign should look like. Basically what I said which was minimal text and symbols. That's all a driver is going to see when they're going 100 km an hour down the highway.

The average driver has three seconds to read your sign. At most your sign should have 5 to 7 words on it, ideally 5 or less. At a distance of 30 m or more the letters on that sign have to be nearly 30 cm minimum in size in order to be seen. From about 75 m away the letters have to be nearly 60 cm in size in order to be seen. 

So when you scribble a bunch of nonsense on a sheet of poster board and you stand at the side of the road, even near an intersection, the driver you're trying to get the attention of could be 30 m away. This means most of the drivers are not going to be able to read your sign.

So remember, even when you have a legitimate message, all you're going to look like is some idiot standing at the side of the road waving a blurry sheet of poster board. 

June 8, 2026

Okay I've had enough of these stupid surveys to join a group. Half the time the questions are lame and do nothing to control who gets into the group. I'm going to start blocking any pages that ask me a bunch of questions in order to comment. Why not set it up just like mine and have the person follow your page for 24 hours before they can comment? I'm sick and tired of making a comment on something and then it flashes up with this ridiculous survey asking me stupid questions. Not anymore. 

June 8, 2026

I've read this comment online more times than I can count: if you don't agree with one of the government credits, like the GST credit, then you should just refuse to accept it.

Why?

It's my money. The government isn't going to cut my taxes, so I'm going to take whatever money I can get back and spend it how I see fit. I can still oppose taxes and take my money when they give it to me. It's not being hypocritical, to me it's just a return on an investment. It's better than giving the money back to the government and having them give themselves a raise or throw it away on the Ukraine.

I've had this argument with a friend of mine years ago. They were criticizing people who receive these credits, and I said the same thing then that I'll say now: it's still my money. Even if you're low-income, it's still your money. And if you don't get the credit, consider yourself lucky you have a good paying job that you don't need the extra help. If you are low income then you are entitled to it because you've been paying into the system that created that credit, the same as everyone else.

What needs to stop is the constant belittling of people who receive it. I've seen comments saying, "Well, now you can buy beer and weed with it," as if that's what everyone does with the money.

You can make $55,000 a year and still qualify for the GST credit, or whatever new name the Liberals decide to give it. It's still the same thing.

I don't know about you, but I don't have extra money lying around for beer and weed. That money goes toward eating twice a day instead of once. It goes toward making sure my electricity doesn't get cut off this month. It goes toward paying one bill or another because all of those bills keep going up.

How about the government start looking at companies that keep raising their fees every month? Take electricity, for example. Alberta has some of the highest average electricity costs in Canada. I used about $10 worth of electricity, yet my bill this month was $80. And what are they using that money on, pretty new street lights across from my apartment and smart meters so they can charge us even more money.

How about addressing the mismanagement and extra costs being passed on by companies, which all of us pay for, instead of criticizing low-income people who are getting a little money back from the government just to make it through another week or another month?

Let's be realistic: $200 doesn't go very far anymore. In my case, $80 went straight to the electric bill. Another $100 is going toward medical expenses that aren't covered. That leaves $20. Oh wait, never mind- the phone bill just came in.

Instead of looking down on people who receive these credits, maybe recognize that a lot of people are simply just trying to get by. Not because they want to be in that position, but because it's the hand life dealt them.

My five cents worth.
​
-K

Image credit Government of Canada.

June 8, 2026

Well, because of everyone else is bringing it up of course I have to write my five cents worth on this topic.

= Why We Need to Stop Confining Men’s Mental Health to a Single Month. =

There is a lot of debate about when we should actually highlight men’s mental health. Some people point to June, likely linking it to Father's Day- even though manhood and fatherhood are not the same thing. Others look to November, where movements like Movember have built a strong platform specifically around male depression and suicide prevention.

If we are going to use designated months, the scheduling could certainly be improved. It might make more sense to consolidate all men's health initiatives into November. 

Alternatively, we could shift those topics to June and dedicate the entirety of November to honoring our veterans, given that Remembrance Day and Veterans Day already anchor that month.

But honestly? This constant shuffling highlights a much bigger issue: compressing these massive, life-or-death struggles into a 30-day calendar block is fundamentally flawed. Men don't experience depression, anxiety, or suicidal ideation exclusively in June or November. Men's mental health is a critical issue 365 days a year, and treating it like a temporary trend does a disservice to the very people we are trying to support. We need consistent, year-round awareness and resources, not just a monthly reminder to care.

And that's my five cents worth. 

May 29, 2026

In the age of social media, the line between personal opinion and professional representation has become increasingly blurred. Many people believe that what they post online is entirely separate from their workplace, especially when using a personal account. In reality, that separation often disappears the moment a connection to an employer is made visible.

If a person uses a business social media account to express personal political, social, or controversial opinions, the public will naturally associate those opinions with the business itself. It makes no difference whether the individual is a teacher, nurse, retail worker, police officer, journalist, or the mayor of a city. Once opinions are expressed through a professional platform, they stop being viewed as strictly personal.

The same principle can apply to personal social media accounts. If an account repeatedly references a workplace, includes the employer in the profile description, or features posts and videos filmed while on the job or in uniform, many viewers will draw a direct connection between the employee and the organization they work for. Even indirect associations can create the appearance that a workplace endorses or tolerates the views being expressed.

This does not mean people lose their right to personal opinions. Freedom of expression still exists, and individuals are entitled to their own beliefs and viewpoints. However, rights do not remove consequences. Employers, customers, coworkers, and the public may react negatively if they believe those opinions reflect poorly on the reputation or neutrality of a business or institution.

In many cases, the issue is not the opinion itself, but the association attached to it. Businesses and public institutions spend years building trust, credibility, and public image. When employees publicly tie controversial commentary to their workplace identity, organizations may respond to protect that reputation.

The reality is simple: once personal opinions become linked, directly or indirectly, to a workplace, professional repercussions become possible. In the digital world, separating personal identity from professional identity requires far more caution than many people realize.

It’s a fairly simple rule: if you want to keep your personal opinions separate from your job, avoid referencing your workplace on your personal social media accounts. The less connection there is between your employer and your online presence, the harder it becomes for others to associate your views with the organization you work for. Of course, if someone is posting truly extreme or offensive opinions, consequences may still follow regardless of where they work. 

April 14, 2026

 1. A one-year extension of the current shelter under Hope Mission is acceptable.
​
2. I do not support the shelter remaining at its current location beyond 2027.

3. Extending the shelter on Cannery Row past 2027 risks delaying proactive planning and development of a permanent facility in the industrial park (former Peavey Mart warehouse).

4. No further extensions should be granted; the community must move forward with a long-term solution.

5. While one shelter will not be sufficient, relying solely on additional shelters is not a complete solution and may divert resources from more sustainable, long-term approaches.
​
6. A clear plan is needed to transition individuals from shelters into permanent, affordable housing solutions.

7. Investment should prioritize long-term housing, mental health support, and addiction services alongside shelter development.

8. The community should not delay action or rely on the federal government to solve local homelessness challenges.

9. Community input and transparency should be central to all planning and decision-making processes.

10. Measurable outcomes should be defined to evaluate whether the chosen approach is effectively reducing homelessness over time.

11. There is a distinction between individuals staying in shelters and those temporarily staying on someone else’s couch, and this is reflected in Point-in-Time (PIT) counts. While both situations involve housing insecurity, shelters are intended for individuals with no other safe place to go, rather than serving as general housing for all people experiencing homelessness. Some advocacy and service approaches blur this distinction, but it is important to maintain clear definitions when planning resources and capacity. The priority should be reducing the number of people without stable housing by focusing on prevention, housing stability, and support services, rather than expanding shelter capacity alone.

As taxpayers this is the main number (see red arrow) that you should be concerned and responsible for. If social groups don't accommodate it then taxpayers will have to.

As residents we should be concerned about the direction our city is taking when it comes to a lack of "housing you can afford" in general, but this will take a reduction in the greed by banks, realtors, property managers and landlords - a problem that will not be solved overnight.

February 26, 2026

The issue of homelessness in Red Deer has been studied for years and the research is clear. Traditional approaches are not working. Project Nexus is the solution. It puts the people and the services together in one centralized location, creating a real path forward instead of spreading services across the city ineffectively. The current shelter already exists and the parks are already affected, so moving it from commercial and residential areas into industrial space does not make things worse. Most opposition is based on NIMBY concerns, worries about proximity to 3 Mile Bend, bikes, and dogs, yet the current shelter is just as close to Bower Ponds. The City can maintain both parks equally, provide needle drop points, and intervene where necessary. People experiencing homelessness already move across the city, so arguments about them hanging out in the Pines woods are baseless.
​
Access to downtown is straightforward. Buses already run and shuttles could connect key points if needed. Substance use occurs everywhere, but centralizing services allows better support and supervision for people who need it. Many public complaints could be addressed with lighting, sidewalks, security, outdoor seating, and services. Beyond that, most objections are pure NIMBY. Whether the shelter is wet, dry, in industrial space, or residential, people will use drugs regardless, so it is better in a controlled, supported environment than behind someone’s home.

There are opportunities to integrate community services creatively. If there is demand for a convenience store, it could be staffed by people experiencing homelessness with profits reinvested into the program. The groundwork is done and it is time to act.

Finally, Lynne spoke at the mic and laid everything out clearly. Black and white, no fluff. She said exactly what needed to be said. I clapped at home because her words made it obvious that the path forward is Project Nexus. She reminded everyone that years of opportunity to propose solutions have passed, and now it is time to lead and be the model for other communities. Darcy from the homelessness committee also spoke, stating the facts in black and white, emphasizing that this is not a last-minute decision and that Project Nexus is necessary because traditional methods have failed.

The only reason this decision is hard for some is that the current shelter has been temporary for years. Without it, people would complain there is no shelter, while the homeless occupy parks and backyards. Voices like Lynne’s and Darcy’s make it clear that finally there is a solid, actionable plan and Red Deer can move forward.

As for funding, Curtis, stop being vague. What funding were you even referring to, or did you even know what you were asking about? We were awarded the 3.4 million dollar CERP in early 2025, before the election campaign, and we are still waiting for it. It is intended for shelters, cleaning up encampments, housing, and similar initiatives. This funding has nothing to do with Project Nexus. It is designed to support homelessness broadly, whether through shelters or encampment cleanups. If Lynne had been paying attention during the campaign, she could have used this as an example of how provincial funding could be applied today.

January 14, 2026

Closing a service road to the public can provide several practical benefits, including reduced maintenance costs for taxpayers by eliminating ongoing upkeep, snow clearing, and future resurfacing, while also improving traffic safety and efficiency by reducing divergent movements and conflict points at intersections. Red Deer’s service roads made sense in the 1970s and 1980s, when traffic volumes were lower and the city was far less populated, but under today’s conditions they are increasingly impractical and inefficient. Repurposing these underused corridors—particularly by selling off the service roads along Gaetz Avenue North—would allow the land to be redeveloped into viable commercial sites on a primary corridor, strengthen the tax base, and in some cases enable better-designed parking and access solutions that align with current traffic realities and urban growth. 

November 26, 2025

Let's see what AI knows about Dynamic Staffing of our Red Deer Firefighters here in Red Deer, Alberta.

BEFORE YOU READ THIS AI GENERATED ARTICLE, READ THIS:

1. I support training crosstrained fire-medics positions rather than separating firefighter and paramedic roles.
2. I believe we should increase staffing by 25%, raising the number of fire-medics from 194 to 242 by 2026.
3. Every fire station should operate with a minimum of four fire-medics per truck.
4. Staffing levels must be based on personnel who are fully capable of performing fire-suppression duties.
5. The city should begin planning for a sixth fire station, with the goal* of breaking ground by 2035.
6. I publicly supported the firefighters’ protest against dynamic staffing and was the first municipal candidate to speak out in their favour.
7. I spoke of support for 'dynamic staffing' however it was expressly with 4 fire-medics per truck as the minimum -as a reduction from a normal staffing during peak periods of 5-6 fire-medics per truck.
8. I did not prepare this article, it is only what ChatGPT has provided as answers. "You said" are my questions that I asked.
9. The more questions I asked the more ChatGPT AI couldn't answer. Like most things involving Government transparency and conformity are lacking between municipalities and the public.
FYI: Calvin Goulet-Jones - Community Voice: Red Deer & Area
I suspect many of these points made are controversial and could be challenged, this is just an example of what ChatGPT AI provided at this moment. If I ask these same questions again it will probably change the answers.

----------------------------------------------------------------

You said: my fire department instituted dynamic staffing. as this is the first year for it in our Alberta city is there a trial period when it can be reverted back to the old system?

CHATGPT: That’s a good question — I didn’t see anything in publicly available documents that shows a legally mandated “trial period” for Red Deer Emergency Services’s (RDES) new Dynamic Staffing Model, in the sense that the policy must automatically be reviewed or reverted after a certain timeframe. Here’s what I found — and where there appears to be flexibility.

What is known about the Dynamic Staffing Model

The city publicly describes “Dynamic Staffing” as a flexible staffing approach: it adjusts where and when personnel work “based on real-time needs,” rather than permanently reducing headcount.

According to the city, the policy does not eliminate firefighter/paramedic jobs — all 194 positions remain in place.

The city claims that under the policy, they are still able to meet required service levels and response-time targets.

Why there is room for the policy to be changed or reversed

The decision to implement the Dynamic Staffing Model was made by municipal council (for Red Deer).
Because this is a municipal policy — not mandated by the province — future councils or administrators can in principle choose to rescind or revise it. Indeed, some local advocacy (unions, citizens via petitions) is already calling for the city to reverse or adjust the policy.

An operational review of the emergency services was recently announced, which could lead to recommendations regarding staffing models.

Why you might not find a formal “trial period” written in legislation or contract

Minimum standards for municipal fire departments in Alberta (or broadly in Canada) — as described in government guidance documents — focus on establishing and operating a fire department, not on regulating internal staffing-management models such as “dynamic staffing.”

The publicly available information for the Dynamic Staffing Model does not mention a time-limited pilot or automatic reversion clause. The city frames it as a budget and scheduling tool, not as a trial.

Internal agreements/collective agreements you’d see for rank promotions or role changes sometimes include trial periods for individuals (e.g., promotions) — but that’s different from a trial period for a department-wide staffing policy.

What this means for your fire department: Reversion is possible — but not automatic

Because the policy was instituted locally (by council) rather than mandated externally, it can be reversed or revised — if a future council votes to do so, or if an operational review recommends change, or in response to public and union pressure. But there is no statutory trigger or predetermined “trial-period end” that forces automatic reversion.

In other words: this is a political/administrative decision, not a temporary legal experiment.

XXXX
You said:
what is the actual policy that was implemented?

CHATGPT: Here’s a detailed summary of what the Red Deer Emergency Services (RDES) “Dynamic Staffing” policy actually is — what it does, how it works, and what changed under it. I’m drawing on Red Deer’s publicly-available descriptions and data.

What is the Dynamic Staffing policy

The policy was approved by City Council of Red Deer as part of the 2025 operational budget, and formally implemented on January 6, 2025.

Under Dynamic Staffing, staffing and shift-assignments in Emergency Services (fire + EMS / paramedics) are managed “dynamically.” That means rather than guaranteeing full staffing levels on every shift regardless of absences or call volume, the department adjusts staffing in real time based on who shows up, who’s unavailable, how many calls are active, and other operational needs.

The aim: reduce heavy overtime burdens, avoid excessive or unsustainable overtime shifts, and thus manage costs while still maintaining “core emergency services.”

According to the city, this does not eliminate positions — the total number of firefighter/paramedic positions remains at 194.

The policy also introduced a new flexibility: the city — for the first time under this agreement — can hire up to 12 temporary EMS-only paramedics for up to 12-month terms, to help cover leaves without overloading overtime or permanent staff.

What changes under Dynamic Staffing — how operations differ

Crews responding to fire-related calls: The city states that when Dynamic Staffing is in place, “four or more firefighters are dispatched to all fire-related calls.” In some cases, that may mean more resources — but sometimes spread across two trucks instead of one.

On-shift staffing target: The target staffing level per shift was 31 employees.

Overtime reduction: Part of the rationale was skyrocketing overtime costs — in 2024, RDES paid over $3.2 million in overtime, reportedly the highest per capita in Alberta.

After Dynamic Staffing: the city reports a substantial decline in overtime shifts: from 1,920 overtime shifts in 2024 to just 160 overtime shifts in 2025 (to date), a roughly 90% drop (as per their public metrics).

What the City says Dynamic Staffing ensures
According to the city’s official materials:

Emergency response times remain within targets or standards. For example, between Jan 1–July 31, 2025, they report average response times of ~ 9min 50sec (excluding AHS ambulance calls), and ~ 6min 48sec for structure fires.

No permanent job losses: all 194 firefighter/paramedic positions remain intact.

They claim the policy balances operational needs, firefighter well-being (by reducing overtime/burnout risk), and budget responsibility — avoiding drastic tax increases that would come from unchecked overtime or hiring many more full-time staff.

(6.5%,10%,7.36%* not sure what a 'non-drastic' tax increase might look like tbh)
What critics / unions say has changed under Dynamic Staffing

It’s not all consensus — not everyone agrees that the policy’s results match the city’s claims. According to critics (including IAFF Local 1190, representing firefighters):

They argue the policy leads to undermanned crews, especially at certain stations (notably “Station 2”), increasing risks to both firefighters and the public — because there may not be enough personnel to safely and effectively fight fires or perform rescues.

There are claims that sometimes the fire truck (or ambulance) at Station 2 is shut down, or runs with fewer than the standard number of firefighters.

Critics refer to standards set by groups like National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) — e.g. NFPA 1710 — which many fire-safety experts regard as minimum safe staffing benchmarks for career fire departments; they argue Dynamic Staffing undermines those standards.

A petition has been launched calling on the city to reverse Dynamic Staffing, citing safety concerns, station closures, and insufficient staffing.

Legal / Administrative Status of the Policy

The policy is not a temporary “pilot” program — it was adopted as part of the 2025 operational budget, via a council resolution (March 2025) that explicitly declares support for the department leadership’s budget management and staffing approach (dynamic or otherwise).

The resolution supports dynamic staffing as the “appropriate staffing model” under current fiscal constraints, meaning as long as budget pressures remain, this is the framework the department will follow.

The city continues updating staffing statistics, station-level staffing reports (e.g. for Station 2), and public transparency measures about when dynamic staffing adjustments occur.

XXXXX

You said: scan recent precedents in Alberta (past 10–20 years) and show whether any other municipalities have formally used a “trial-period then review” approach when adopting dynamic- or reduced-staffing policies in fire services?

CHATGPT: Calgary explicitly ran a pilot for a risk‑based / dynamic deployment model as part of a 2015 zero‑based review.

Edmonton completed a broad Fire Rescue Services review which recommended careful planning, active monitoring and evaluation of any staffing or deployment changes — treating them as items that should be piloted, monitored, and evaluated.

At the provincial or advisory level, Alberta documents have supported limited pilot projects for integrated fire/EMS paramedic roles — meaning pilot approaches to new staffing models have been used.
In your city (Red Deer), the new Dynamic Staffing policy is a council‑approved operational model adopted in 2025 and publicly described as the current staffing approach — not as a time‑limited pilot with an automatic reversion clause.

Unions and national firefighter organizations reference other municipalities’ pilot programs and reports when pressing for formal pilots with explicit safety metrics, arguing that major staffing changes should include defined review points rather than indefinite “monitoring.”

Detailed findings (by jurisdiction / source)

Calgary

The Calgary Fire Department’s zero‑based review in 2015 recommended conducting a pilot project to transition toward a dynamic/risk‑based deployment — a clear precedent of formally piloting such changes before full adoption.

Edmonton

Edmonton’s independent review of its fire/ rescue services emphasized that any staffing changes should be carefully planned, assessed for fire‑ground impacts, and actively monitored after implementation. The report sees staffing changes as requiring evaluation and phased rollouts, with attention to collective bargaining and operational constraints.

Provincial / advisory pilots for integrated fire/EMS roles

Alberta-level advisory documents for EMS have explicitly allowed pilot projects for integrated primary care paramedic roles and other experiments in service delivery — indicating the province is comfortable with pilot testing novel staffing/deployment models under controlled settings with evaluation frameworks.

Red Deer (what was actually implemented)

The new Dynamic Staffing policy was adopted via municipal council, and public documentation presents it as a long-term staffing model with ongoing reporting — not a pilot or trial with a sunset clause. That means, unless future council action is taken, this model becomes the baseline.

Union / critic usage of precedent

Firefighter unions and related organizations point to other municipalities’ pilot/review practices when advocating that significant staffing or deployment changes should be implemented as formal pilots with explicit safety benchmarks and review timelines — not open-ended changes subject only to “monitoring.”

Practical takeaway — what this means for Red Deer

There are real precedents in Alberta where large municipalities and provincial authorities have used pilot or trial approaches before adopting new staffing or deployment models. This gives you a credible basis to request that your city adopt a similar formal structure: a time‑limited pilot or staged implementation with:
Defined performance metrics (response times, crew sizes at arrival, safety incidents, overtime levels),

Fixed review dates (e.g. 6 or 12 months after implementation), and
A clear "sunset" or reversion clause if agreed benchmarks are not met.

Because your city adopted Dynamic Staffing already — without calling it a pilot — the most realistic way to hold the policy to similar standards is to push for a retrospective evaluation that binds future council decisions, citing the practices and precedents from other municipalities.

XXXXX

You said: Based on your analysis, is Dynamic Staffing a good policy for Red Deer?

CHATGPT: Here’s a straight, balanced assessment — no sugar-coating either way.

XXXXX

You said: Is Dynamic Staffing a good policy for Red Deer?

CHATGPT: It solves a real financial and overtime problem, but it comes with operational risks — especially for fire-ground safety — and its success depends entirely on how aggressively it’s used. It is not universally “good” or “bad”; it’s a trade-off that benefits the city budget but can introduce real-world safety vulnerabilities.

Below is a clearer breakdown.

The strongest arguments for Dynamic Staffing

1. Red Deer’s overtime problem was extreme
RDES had one of the highest overtime costs in Alberta. Millions in annual overtime isn’t sustainable in a property-tax-limited city.

Dynamic staffing dramatically reduced overtime, which is what council wanted.

2. It gives the city operational flexibility

Instead of scrambling for overtime to fill every vacancy, the department can redistribute crews, move trucks, or adjust deployment.

3. It protects the city from sudden tax spikes

Without some form of staffing control, council would have needed significant tax increases or more full-time hires. Politically, that wasn’t happening.

The strongest arguments against Dynamic Staffing

1. Fire service is not the same as paramedic service

Ambulances can scale and shuffle more easily, but fire suppression requires minimum staffing, especially on the first-arriving engine.

When staffing dips, you risk:

-slower interior attack
-delayed rescues
-more dangerous fire-ground conditions
This is why IAFF and NFPA fight so hard for minimums.

2. “Dynamic flexibility” can quietly become “chronic understaffing”

On paper, the city says:

“Four or more firefighters are always dispatched.”

But that can mean two trucks each with two firefighters — not the same as a fully staffed engine arriving first.

If used too heavily, dynamic staffing becomes a budget workaround rather than an operational strategy.
3. Station 2 shutdowns / reduced crews are not nothing

Even brief closures or reduced staffing at a station affect response times in its service area. Fire response is hyper-local — seconds matter.

4. Alberta has no legislated minimums

With no provincial standard, the city can legally run things leaner than what fire-service best practices recommend.

That puts all the pressure on council oversight and political will.

So is it “good policy”?

If the priority is fiscal sustainability → Yes, it works.

It reins in runaway overtime. It avoids tax increases. It gives management flexibility.
If the priority is fire-ground safety and meeting NFPA 1710 → It’s risky.
Dynamic staffing can undermine minimum operational crew sizes depending on how often it’s activated.
The city can say “4 firefighters,” but the distribution and arrival sequence matter just as much.
If the priority is overall public safety → It depends on how strictly it’s controlled.

Dynamic staffing can be safe if:

- it’s used sparingly
- certain stations (like Station 2) are protected from closure or under-manning
- fire-ground minimums are non-negotiable
- real call-volume analysis is used, not just budget spreadsheets
But if it becomes a permanent crutch to run too lean? Then no, it’s not a good policy.

My bottom-line assessment

Dynamic Staffing is financially smart but operationally fragile.
It can work, but only with tight limits, transparent reporting, and a willingness to reverse or modify it if safety slips.

If Red Deer treats it as a cost-saving tool rather than a new normal, it has value.
If it becomes permanent austerity disguised as flexibility, it will create long-term safety problems.

--------------------------------

Alberta Municipalities / Fire Services with Possible or Known Dynamic / Flexible Staffing
Red Deer Emergency Services (RDES)

Status / Confidence: Confirmed

Key Issues / Notes:
RDES uses a formal policy called “Dynamic Staffing,” adopted January 6, 2025.
Staffing and shift assignments are adjusted in real time based on call volume and personnel availability.
Public documentation shows overtime reduction and transparency measures, including reporting on how often staffing is reduced per shift.

This is one of the few Alberta municipalities with a publicly documented, formal dynamic staffing policy.

Calgary Fire Department (CFD)
Status / Confidence: Possible / Historic

Key Issues / Notes:
Historically, CFD has referred to a “Dynamic Deployment Model” or “Risk-Based Deployment” in internal reports and reviews.
Public documentation is mostly historic; it is unclear whether current practices qualify as formal dynamic staffing similar to Red Deer’s model (i.e., staffing reductions, shift-by-shift flexibility, station closures or partial closures).
The reference comes from a 2010s “zero-based review.”

Edmonton Fire Rescue Services (EFRS)
Status / Confidence: Possible / Unconfirmed

Key Issues / Notes:
EFRS is a large department that has had reviews concerning staffing and resource deployment.
Some reporting suggests flexible or demand-based allocation of ambulances and personnel, particularly in response to EMS/medical call pressures.
No recent public statement explicitly confirms a formal “dynamic staffing” policy.
Internal flexibility may reflect operational pressures rather than a deliberate policy.

Other integrated EMS/Fire municipalities (various small-to mid-sized Alberta towns)
Status / Confidence: Unclear / No public data

Key Issues / Notes:

Many of these municipalities use integrated fire-medics or dual-role staff instead of separate firefighter and paramedic positions.

Being “integrated” does not necessarily mean a formal dynamic staffing policy is in place.
Public documentation confirming formal dynamic staffing policies is generally not available.

Absence of public documentation does not prove the policy is absent; smaller municipalities may use flexible staffing internally without labeling it as “dynamic staffing.”
---------------------------------
Chat GPT asked: If you want, I can next expand this list to all Alberta municipalities under ~100,000 population, keeping the full notes and “status / key issues” structure. That way you’d have a full provincial snapshot of where dynamic/flexible staffing is possible, confirmed, or unknown.

YES

Good question — I tried, but I could not reliably expand the list to include “all Alberta municipalities under ~100,000 population” with a credible classification of whether they use dynamic / flexible / modified staffing. Here’s why — and what I did find instead.

What I found — and where the data is too limited

There is a province‑wide guidance initiative via the Alberta Fire Chiefs Association (AFCA) that surveys fire departments in municipalities under 20,000 people to assess their service levels, training, staffing, and challenges.

Alberta Fire Chiefs Association

This survey/assessment work shows there is significant variation across small municipalities in how fire services are organized (full-time, volunteer, part-time, hybrid, on-call, etc.).

Alberta Fire Chiefs Association

Some rural/regional services (for example, in counties or municipalities with large rural area) operate with paid‑on‑call (volunteer or on-call) models rather than full-time career staffing.

EMRB

Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo

In at least one case — a regional fire service in a rural area — there is an explicit “modified service” recommendation rather than full staffing at every station: under a “strategic response” framework, some stations provide “full service,” others provide “modified” or adjusted service depending on capacity and resources.

Sedgewick

Why I cannot confidently classify “dynamic / flexible staffing” status for small municipalities

The statewide AFCA survey and reports do not use a standardized label like “dynamic staffing” or “risk‑based deployment.” Instead they discuss “level of service,” “paid-on-call,” “volunteer vs. full-time,” “strategic/modified service,” “automatic aid,” and “regional/area coverage.” Those terms are too broad and inconsistent to map to a precise definition of “dynamic staffing” (i.e., real-time adjustment of shift staffing, trucks, minimum crews per shift).

For many small towns, staffing models are under‑documented online. Their fire departments may rely heavily on volunteers, part‑time or on‑call staff — but there is no public record indicating whether they vary staffing dynamically based on call volume, or simply lack capacity for full staffing.

“Modified service” or “strategic response” frameworks (for rural/regional departments) usually refer to coverage level variation across different stations or times — which is not the same as a city-wide “dynamic staffing policy” as implemented in a fully staffed urban fire/EMS department.

There is no public registry or database — provincial or national — that tracks which municipalities use dynamic staffing vs traditional staffing vs volunteer/hybrid models in a standardized way.

What this means in practice

It is not feasible (with publicly available information) to provide a full, up-to-date list of all small Alberta municipalities and whether they use dynamic staffing — the data just isn’t there.

What is clear: there is wide variation among small/rural municipalities in Alberta in how fire services are organized; many rely on volunteer, part-time, or hybrid staffing, and some operate under “modified service” or “strategic response” models rather than fixed full-time staffing.

However — none of those small/rural models resemble a well‑documented urban “dynamic staffing policy” (shift-by-shift, demand‑based deployment with full-time fire‑medics) like the one adopted recently in your city.

XXXXX

You said: What was the fire departments and paramedics overtime for each of these cities in 2024?:

ChatGPT: What we do know (some Alberta cities, 2024)

Red Deer Emergency Services (Red Deer): Overtime in 2024 was $3.2 million — described as “the highest per capita in Alberta.”

Edmonton EMS (serving part of the population of Edmonton, Alberta): In 2024, EMS staff worked 134,573 overtime hours, with overtime costs near $10 million.

Calgary Fire Department (serving Calgary, Alberta): Their 2024 annual report shows an unfavourable variance in their “Fire and Emergency Response” operating budget — attributed in part to overtime, frontline operations, and response to large‑scale events (like a major water‑main break in June 2024).
​
However: the 2024 annual report (publicly viewed) does not provide a clear public figure for “total overtime paid” or “overtime hours” for 2024.

November 19, 2025:

​I wonder if we finally paid off the $6.5 Million+ raise the RCMP gave themselves without asking us.
$19.2 Million accounting error?! Sounds like some people need to get fired.

So is that $19.2 Million in our favour or further against us? 'Oh, we screwed up so we have to raise your taxes another 10% next year to fix it.'

----

November 25, 2025. I was being sarcastic when I made that comment, but leave it up to Red Deer's new City Council to deliver. The proposed tax increase is 7.36% next year.

Background information provided by the City of Red Deer:

Quick Facts:

Property Tax Increase: A proposed 7.36% increase, equating to approximately $54.21 annually per $100,000 of residential assessed value.

Capital Investment Focus: Prioritization of asset preservation and lifecycle management to maintain reliability and mitigate risk. Strategic use of debt remains within legislative and Council limits.
Debt position: Projected at $349.9M by year-end 2025, well within both City and MGA thresholds. The MGA limits the amount of debt municipalities can take on to 1.5 times their revenue; our current debt is 51% of that amount. Council further restricts debt to 75% of the MGA limit; The City is current at 68%.

Reserve health: Operating reserves will continue to be replenished with further planned contribution of approximately $10M toward the target minimum threshold of $25M.

November 25, 2025

On last Saturday afternoon I watched as 2 Red Deer trucks stopped on the street nearby my building. 5 workers got out of the trucks (1+ remained in them), and together 3-4 of these workers hot patched a single pothole on the street. Now, great they did it, but Saturday afternoon? 6 workers just to patch potholes? (that's assuming they did more than 1). We all know the old joke about this, 5 workers on a site and only 1 does the actual physical labour, but... It's not just about the upper tiers (Council, Admin) working more efficiently to keep costs down and best use the resources available to priorities at the time.

November 25, 2025

I know the The City of Red Deer would censor my reply, so I'll post it here where they can't.

-----

You should just save time and include this right-to-censor policy in every original post since you are forced to add it after your residents start to give you honest responses to the carefully worded posts you make?

You know you can change the Settings in your Page/Group to filter out bad words, right? They'd get censored by FB and know why because it's written in your Page/Group policies. You can even teach it new words that FB might not censor yet, you know, like, 'democracy', 'freedom' and 'pro-life' (not sure on that last one though since it's hyphenated).

Maybe if the City took more time to listen and communicate with residents (like all of the new candidates who got elected said they would), instead of just pushing propaganda messages, then people might be less peeved off by things. Just a thought (that you'll probably delete now that I think about it, so I'll post it on my own timeline instead- where you could report and have it deleted as well I guess... okay, website it is!).

We often see the most negative response when the City tries to tell us that everything is fine and everyone is happy when it's clear people are not.
​
People aren't angry at the person posting these messages by the way (those staffers shouldn't take it personally), they are just told to do the job they are paid for. They are peeved at the entire system which continues to fail them year after year. Tyrel McDonald is just one example of thousands.

November 25, 2025

It’s no surprise that council meetings still begin with an hour behind closed doors—and unfortunately, that’s become a common practice. Even with a new council, nothing has changed. While these sessions are sometimes necessary, the ongoing mistrust in our City and Administration makes them stand out. Because they keep happening month after month, they continue to be talked about and don’t help build public confidence. I’ve heard from other municipal councillors that closed sessions can help ensure everyone is on the same page before sitting in front of the public. Whether that’s still the case today, we don’t know—but it adds another layer to public skepticism.
​
The “Downtown boundaries” have been a problem for years—visitors often don’t know where downtown even is. I remember talking to a taxi driver who had recently moved here from Toronto. She said she wouldn’t take her family downtown because there’s nothing there; instead, they would go to Edmonton or Calgary. Driving down Gaetz Avenue, visitors are greeted by two large empty lots—the first impression of our downtown. Shops below and apartments above are a practical design, so why haven’t we encouraged development in these lots already?

Capstone and Downtown aren’t just different areas on a map—they function differently, attract different crowds, and have completely different needs. Treating them as one under a single, centralized structure doesn’t work. Two dedicated committees, each focused on their own district and communicating simply with each other, would allow each area to plan events, support local businesses, and coordinate schedules. Instead, the City funnels everything through one process, which slows things down and dilutes efforts.

I attended one of the final Capstone events this year, and it highlighted the problem. They had a stage and music, but nobody seemed to know who was performing or when. There wasn’t a posted schedule, and even vendors had no information. Simple communication and planning could have fixed this, yet it was left disorganized.

As I said during the campaign and in the RCMP survey, downtown needs two essential things—especially during summer. First, a visible on-street police presence, even if just peace officers walking around keeping things calm. Second, volunteer ambassadors, often high school or college students, who can greet visitors, connect with business owners, and create a sense of community—something with a friendly, mall-like feel, wherever our “downtown” actually is.

Beyond Downtown and Capstone, Gasoline Alley and Timberlands are two more potential anchor activity areas outside Westerner Park, Bower Ponds, and Heritage Ranch. Each area has its own character and audience and deserves tailored planning rather than being managed under a single city-wide approach.
While I support downtown in principle, I don’t think this is the right time to take $450,000 from taxpayers to do so. The priority should be addressing more pressing issues first—reducing crime, tackling drug activity, and supporting the lack of businesses downtown. Perhaps that’s exactly what this money is intended for, but there’s no clear explanation provided to the public beforehand. This feels like yet another request coming forward without transparency or context.

The 2025 Adopted Capital Cash Flow motion is essentially housekeeping—routine financial management to close out the year. It doesn’t solve the bigger issues, but it shows some motions are procedural rather than strategic.

As for the council meeting packet, I’d much rather listen to someone highlight the key points than dig through dense documents myself. Many feel the same. Having someone explain the important issues in plain language is invaluable. If any council member truly intended to communicate clearly with the public, they’d already be doing it. For now, these summaries are filling a gap that leadership hasn’t addressed.
All of this reinforces why I believe tourism and event management should be handled by a third party. The City should focus on core services while letting the right people handle these areas—ensuring each zone thrives and is self-sufficient, not dependent on taxpayer money.

Finally, thank you, Calvin Goulet-Jones - Community Voice: Red Deer & Area, for these updates and for keeping your campaign promise to prioritize communication. I hope more of our new councillors follow your example.

November 25, 2025

My campaign promise was a 5.0% cap on tax increases, didn't the financial report suggest a 6.5% increase every year? So the City is already pushing that recommendation.

https://www.reddeer.ca/.../draft-2026-budget-released...

"With that, the draft budget includes a proposed property tax increase of 7.36 per cent. This is also largely driven by contractual obligations such as the RCMP policing contract, and the personnel provision, which covers wage and benefit adjustments required to retain and support City staff. For every $100,000 of assessed residential value, the proposed increase represents approximately $54.21 per year. "
Would that "personnel provision" be the $6.5M raise they gave themselves that we haven't paid off yet?
"wage and benefit adjustments required to retain and support City staff"
there's always unemployment folks.

November 25, 2025

So we’re pouring more money into the RCMP—who were barely seen around the city in 2025—than into Red Deer Firefighters and paramedics, even after their budget was slashed by $600,000 and their hours were cut so much that Station 2 was routinely shut down at night.

Then there’s another 8% for municipal police—probably peace officers and bylaw enforcement. Maybe it’s time we invested more in them and less in the RCMP? Something I already proposed for downtown during the summer. More visible law enforcement and city ambassadors to reduce crime (passive deterrence by presence) and encourage tourism. I guess the good thing about spending over $39 Million on the RCMP each year means that we should, in theory, have $39 Million to spend on our own police force when the RCMP leaves.

We’re spending 8% on City Administration—the same as on City Transit, which saw routes cut in 2020 and never brought back. This is another reason I proposed outsourcing things like: Economic Development and Tourism to independent NGOs.

City Planning and Growth gets 7%? Really? So what exactly is that—quiet perks for developers? If that funding actually went toward surveying, servicing, and preparing lots so they’re truly development-ready, I’d have no issue with it… but something tells me that’s not what’s happening. We know it's not the City Development Plan, that's over 13 years old now.

Recreation and Community 11% - so let's see, we have Heritage Ranch where they canceled the contract under a cloud of controversy (or do they consider that Parks, not going to bother looking it up since this is all 2025 anyway). There's the Collicutt Center which is constantly experiencing maintenance issues.
Parks takes 9% (which saw cutbacks to services this summer), and Roads and Maintenance another 9%. But hold on—didn’t a councillor claim during the forums that 21% goes to emergency services? Turns out he was talking about the RCMP portion by itself. Overall, we’re at 45% for emergency services, and honestly, aside from maybe the RCMP’s share, that still feels fairly reasonable. In the end, what price do you put on someone’s life?

I hope we see the survey again this month that we did earlier asking Red Deerians where they want their tax dollars to go. I think you might see some surprising changes over last year.

November 25, 2025

Variations of these memes keep getting dumber every time I see them. One of the worst is, ‘I paid off my mortgage, so I shouldn’t have to pay property taxes!’ as if the mortgage and the taxes were ever connected in the first place. Paying off a loan to the bank has nothing to do with funding the infrastructure, services, and protections that keep a community running. Yet somehow these takes keep circling back, each one a little more misguided than the last.

My reply is always similar to this:

"Perfect. And just so you know, access to city streets and sidewalks runs $3,962.43 a year. If you ever need firefighters or paramedics, they’ll require $1,800 cash up front before doing anything life-saving. And your grandkids will need to bring $10 a day to cover their schooling. We take cash or credit."
The issue isn’t the existence of residential property taxes; it’s how those taxes are managed by whichever Council or government happens to be in charge. The real frustration comes when those funds are handled carelessly or diverted into projects that don’t benefit the community.

Whether you own your home or rent it, your residential taxes contribute to the services and infrastructure you rely on every day—things like roads, emergency services, public schools, parks, waste collection, libraries, and countless other amenities that keep a community functioning. The problem isn’t the idea of paying for these essentials; it’s when the people entrusted with that money fail to use it responsibly.
​
Quit going along with the crowd and take the time to understand where your tax dollars actually go. Once you do, it becomes pretty obvious that a pay-per-use system would be a disaster. The real issue isn’t whether your city spends your money—it’s making sure they spend it responsibly. Otherwise, you’re left with the absurd alternatives: either pay for every little thing or magically print money. Problem solved!
And stop claiming that people who don’t own a home don’t pay property taxes. Renters pay them too—through our rent. Or did you really think the landlord just absorbs the bill and doesn’t pass the cost on to tenants?