A significant provincial plan to redevelop three mountain resorts into year-round destinations at a cost of $4 billion is drawing sharp criticism from a Calgary resident, who argues it highlights misguided spending priorities while education remains underfunded.
Tourism Investment vs. Core Services
The reader, Philis Heffner of Calgary, recently learned of the ambitious proposal to transform Fortress, Nakiska, and Castle into all-season resorts. While acknowledging the importance of boosting tourism, Heffner poses a critical question: at what cost to other essential services? The concern centers on the apparent contradiction of committing billions to recreation while the province claims a lack of resources for education.
This tension was exemplified in the recent handling of teacher contract negotiations. Teachers were legislated back to work under a contract they had rejected. The provincial government declined to enter binding arbitration with the Alberta Teachers' Association (ATA), citing no additional money for education. Heffner found it deeply troubling that the ATA was barred from pursuing binding arbitration, a standard dispute resolution process.
The Long-Term Cost of Underfunding Education
Heffner's letter argues that pursuing tourism growth should not come at the expense of meeting the fundamental needs of Albertans. "Our children are our future," she writes, emphasizing that a quality education is the foundation for securing good jobs later in life. She characterizes the underfunding of education as a "very short-sighted" approach with long-term consequences.
The letter concludes with a pointed economic query: "Who will have the disposable income to take advantage of these resorts if our youth don’t have good jobs?" This rhetorical question underscores the argument that a prosperous future for Alberta—and a customer base for its luxury resorts—depends on a well-educated workforce today.
Broader Perspectives: Justice and Advocacy
The same letters section featured other citizen commentaries on provincial and national issues. Bryan Mahoney, also of Calgary, challenged calls for mandatory minimum sentences for crimes against youth. He argued that such rigid penalties do not protect children and often delay justice, as offenders facing long mandatory terms have no incentive to plead guilty, prolonging cases and the trauma for victims. Mahoney advocated for clear sentencing guidelines that allow judicial discretion instead.
Another letter voiced strong support for country musician and activist Paul Brandt, praising his advocacy for victims of sexual abuse and his work to combat human trafficking in Canada. The writer endorsed Brandt's view that stiffer penalties for underage perpetrators could help steer them toward rehabilitation, and urged the public to educate themselves on recognizing signs of exploitation.
Together, these letters paint a picture of an engaged citizenry scrutinizing government decisions on spending, justice, and social policy, with a clear demand for long-term vision over short-term gains.
