langleywatchdog…. and more!

Why are our local media so willing to go along with the corporate line from the Township of Langley and its lawyers, especially when it appears to be so wrong or at the very least very questionable, without the slightest hint of any challenging questions?

Langley Township “respects” ruling of privacy commissioner… so says the Langley Times!

Now if that isn’t dancing on the head of a pin, I don’t know what is!

After reading this latest epistle in today’s Langley Times which in my view is a feeble attempt to set the record straight, I am not sure if I have a greater feeling of despair for the taxpayers of the Township of Langley or anger at our council, senior staff and their legal counsel? For three years I had first-hand experience at the agility of the Township senior staff and their legal counsel to rationalize and defend their actions and selling it to members of council. The most interesting observation of that experience is how willing members of council were to fall into line. Not one of them (Davis excluded) has a mind of their own.

I have a copy and have reviewed and read the petition submitted by the Petitioner – The Corporation of the Township by Bull Housser & Tupper LLP. Just for the hell of it, let’s review the three points below. I offer a reasoned argument against the statements (legal speak) made to or by the Langley Times.

Consider….

OH so many questions to the points that follow left unanswered by the Langley Times…. Here are just a few –

1. “…. the documents were provided to de Raadt to show “respect” for the commissioners decision while the legal action was launched because the Order could set a problem-creating precedent if it is allowed to stand”. WHAT!!!

Response – If you respected the commissioners decision there would be no Court Petition filed. What possible precedent could this set? They state “among other things”? That is a catch all phrase until they can think of something else to throw against the wall! They state “It would be difficult for the municipality to keep it’s position secret during bargaining with outside contractors”. Come on you guys, where did you dig that up from? What possible affect could the work done by a private contractor for a private development company have on the Township bargaining with outside contractors? Talk about trying to rationalize a position, what a stretch!

1. Goulden (Township’s lawyer) goes on to say “We’re not trying to keep them (the Athenry documents) a secret”. WHAT!!!

Response – If you are not trying to keep them secret why the denial of the FOI request in the first place? Obviously you are trying to keep them a secret because of your statement above re a precedent, which is nothing but a smokescreen.

1. Goulden says, the court action was not a lawsuit directed against either de Raadt or the commissioner, but a petition requesting the court rule on an “important” issue raised by the order. WHAT!!!

Response – Why is Jacob de Raadt named in this petition? He was nothing more than a citizen requesting information that was being denied. He followed his rights to appeal to the Information and Privacy Commissioner. For taking advantage of his rights he gets to be named a Respondent in a Petition filed by the Township. As this action states “Orders, including orders granting the relief claimed, may be made against you, without any further notice to you, if you fail to file the Response to Petition within the time for Response.”

Part 1 ORDERS SOUGHT (The following is abbreviated)

The Petitioner, the Corporation of the Township of Langley (the Township) seeks:

1. A declaration that the Township is entitled to withhold drafts of contracts…..
2. The Order to release the documents be quashed….
3. An order extending the automatic 120 day stay of the Order……
4. Costs; and
5. Such further relief and other relief as this Honourable Court deems just.

So in summary, I am not a lawyer nor do I pretend to be one BUT any Petition to the Courts that singles out an individual for exercising their democratic rights and incorporates the term “costs” and “relief” under Orders sought I have serious concern with, as should all taxpayers. By being named as a Respondent to this Petition is Mr. de Raadt required to attend the proceedings with a lawyer? (Cost to him) At the very least it would require him to seek legal advice to respond to this action. (Cost to him)

Does this whole thing not smack of intimidation gone wild? Add this to the new rules of the Council Chamber making your house a silent sterile environment, the banning of Jacob de Raadt from Council Chambers, the banning of residents surrounding Athenry from communicating to TOL staff and Council members. So what is next, a special pass to allow you to view Council proceedings? It is frankly obscene!

Important – Is this what you voted for? Where is our local press in being the conscience of the residents of the Township and City of Langley? Are editorial or journalistic decisions made with one eye on the significant weekly Township communications budget?

I am working on a few posts at present that I believe are of significant concern to Township of Langley Residents, come back often for news of interest to Township residents.

Protect your Democratic Rights – Protect your NEIGHBORS Democratic Rights – stay informed, stay involved and VOTE!!!

 

Share this BLOG; forward it to your friends, neighbors and relatives!

 

To comment on this post – Click on this Post, top left hand corner under recent posts.

The lack of quality reporting continues to be a major problem in the Township of Langley and you have to ask the question why? Regarding the Athenry Development / Jacob de Raadt issue – Who did this reporter talk to or more important, who fed this misinformation to the local press? This kind of garbage put into the public domain as fact is frankly disgusting.

I have written about this travesty three times on this BLOG, on February 4^th, March 11^th and April 24^th 2013. In my opinion the Athenry Development will go down as the biggest injustice done to neighbors of any development that I have had any familiarity with over my many years in local politics. It was and is just wrong. Here is a recap –

First a little history on the Athenry Gate Development – During the week of Nov. 22^nd, 2010, I became aware of an agenda item (for Athenry Developments) scheduled for a “Development Permit” Public Hearing on Monday November 29^th, 2010. This had received 1^st and 2^nd reading, public hearing and 3^rd reading (conditional approval) in June of 2008 prior to my election as Mayor. In doing my due diligence in preparation for the upcoming Public Hearing, I researched this project and its history, through a variety of Staff Reports. I was frankly shocked in finding the project that was proposed and given the appropriate readings, including Public Hearing bore no resemblance, in my opinion, to what was before us at Development Permit Stage and 4^th and final reading.

Changes can only be made after 3^rd reading in Form, Character and Design.

These changes in my opinion did not meet that standard and I stated that in a meeting I had with the CAO prior to the Council Meeting. Staff claimed the changes were covered under form, character and design, which I did and still do totally disagree with.

The original June 2008 approved project was for one building located roughly in the center of the property while the 2010 version was for three, four story apartment buildings plus a two story office building and a Cultural Center.

This change impacted all surrounding private homes severely with a dramatically reduced set back, increased height of buildings and close imposition immediately next to surrounding homes. How high and how close? On the plans there was a large condominium building estimated to be about 50 – 60 feet high, less than twenty feet from their back fence. With these dramatic changes to the project there were a number of serious concerns not the least of which was the issue of drainage given the potential for flooding of surrounding homes.

How would you like to be made aware of this after you moved in? Prior to buying and moving in to your dream home an entirely different development had been explained to you by the planning department at the hall. NEW home owners deserve to be given the facts about surrounding zoning and development and planned changes BEFORE proceeding with a home purchase.

In my opinion and experience this was and is a travesty that happened to local hard working taxpayers. (NOTE – The affected residents had launched legal action but withdrew without giving up their right for taking action in the future.) Due to their position they have been denied access to speak directly to councilors (They must go through Township lawyers) about ongoing problems with the development that has so dramatically affected their quality of life and home values!

For any residents reading this and wondering what their reaction might be IF they were in the same position? I know of one resident who has sold their dream home that backed onto Athenry; it has cost them about $100,000. This has been verified by local real estate representatives.

So if anyone reading this BLOG Post figures on this being an exaggeration of the impact of this development or the facts of the case, do yourself a favor and drive by the just moved Willoughby Hall and check out the NEW 5 story (4 on top of a ground level parking garage) Condominium building that is just being finished which abuts these homes. Now you tell me that there is nothing wrong with that? Just put yourself in their shoes?

So back to the Langley Times – Where do they get their information? Here are the facts!

Yes, interestingly enough this is the same Jacob de Raadt who was subject to a number of complaints by this council and banishment from Township Council Chambers!

Jacob de Raadt filed a Freedom of Information Request (FOI) with the Township of Langley to obtain copies of all versions of the storm water management plan for the Athenry Development. He was denied that information through FOI, that part is true.

As is his right and that of any other citizen of the Province of British Columbia, he, acting on behalf of his clients filed an appeal request of the FOI denial through to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia as he objected to being denied what he thought were documents he had the right to view. His appeal through the Privacy Commissioner was detailed, thorough and complete. The B.C. Privacy Commissioner took the complaint and passed it on to their adjudicator Elizabeth Barker who took some considerable time to view and consider all of the information provided by both sides and she released her decision dated July 24^th 2013.

The lengthy and detailed decision and the reasons for it are available on the “Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner” web-site her conclusion is –

“For the reasons stated above, and pursuant to s. 58 of FIPPA, I make the following orders:

1. Langley is not authorized by s. 12(3)(a) of FIPPA to refuse to disclose the original and the four subsequent revisions of the storm water management plan.
2. Langley must give the applicant a copy of original and revisions 1, 2, 3, and 5 of the storm water management plan, on or before September 6^th, 2013. I also require Langley to copy me on its cover letter to the applicant, together with a copy of the records.”

So the decision and all of this seems relatively straight forward, correct? NOT in the Township of Langley! The Township of Langley in a letter to Mr. Jacob de Raadt dated August 20^th, 2013 from Township’s Bull Housser lawyer Mr. James Goulden advised, “on behalf of the Township seeking a judicial review of the Order in the near future. In those proceedings, the Township will be asking the court to overturn the Order.”

So the Township being the Township, why stop there (with the Order) let’s spend more money on lawyers which in my view is bad enough. NOW the kicker, where the Langley Times misinformed the public and a couple of intriguing questions to ask yourself:

1. The Township of Langley is seeking to have the order to release the documents overturned? Excuse me! THEY RELEASED THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS AS ORDERED TO ONE JACOB de RAADT. So, NO Langley Times, they have released the documents as ordered but at the same time are appealing their release through the courts. What you say? Only in the Township of Langley. Why spend a few dollars on legal bills when you have an open ended budget using tax payer dollars!
2. Why was Jacob de Raadt named in this Judicial Review? Yes he sought clarification which surely is anyone’s right in our democracy, BUT it was the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner that investigated, conducted the review and issued the decision and Order. The Township’s argument, IF they have one, is with the others named on the Petition namely The Information and Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia and the Attorney General of British Columbia NOT Jacob de Raadt. This couldn’t have anything to do with their fight with Mr. de Raadt could it? Just asking the question?
3. A fair question would now be, is this the Township’s new strategy? That is to force anyone who applies for information through an FOI request, is denied and appeals successfully to the Information and Privacy Commissioner to challenge that decision through a Judicial Review? Forcing tax payers into court to defend themselves against what has to be considered their basic democratic rights? Is this another way of saying, or a shot across the bow to anyone who is attempting to get the truth? What is happening in the Township? Is this what you want out of your local government?
4. The Langley Times states the Township of Langley is suing over the FOI request. NO, Langley Times, the Township of Langley is petitioning the Court requesting a Judicial review of the decision and the Order of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. So, Jacob de Raadt is named in the Petition for a Judicial Review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner decision, not his FOI request. All of this because a taxpayer exercised their democratic rights? Shame!

In summary, I am not sure who is running this municipality but IT IS NOT Mayor and Council. However, Mayor and Council are complicit in everything that is going on in the Township of Langley by their actions or more important their inactions! So where are we at as a community? Does something have to happen to you personally before you will be responsive and fight back? This Mayor and Council are worse than the Council of Kurt Alberts, IF that is possible.

I know it is nice to see members of Council get along with very little show of disunity and I know it is hard to understand that just because a Council is united in the majority of their decisions (minus a dissenting voice in the back ground ie David Davis) –

“IT DOES NOT MAKE THE MAJORITY DECISION CORRECT !!!”

In my opinion it all but makes Council decisions suspect!

I am working on a few posts at present that I believe are of significant concern to Township of Langley Residents, come back often for news of interest to Township residents.

Protect your Democratic Rights – Protect your NEIGHBORS Democratic Rights – stay informed, stay involved and VOTE!!!

 

Share this BLOG; forward it to your friends, neighbors and relatives!

 

To comment on this post – Click on this Post, top left hand corner under recent posts.