Archive for July, 2014

What is important now is the election that is coming up in less than 5 months! The following Directory of 62 BLOG Posts and links are dedicated to Township of Langley Issues and facts surrounding those issues. There are a few on regional issues that have links to the Township as well as a few on the Provincial scene.

This material is designed to inform the electorate on important issues of concern and for consideration when exercising your franchise right!! If anyone has a question, debate or thought of interest please contact me at any time. All of my contact information is available on my BLOG – For Private contact, my Phone and email are available on my BLOG and/or offer a public comment on my BLOG.

Here is a list of posts to better inform you in preparation for that important exercise in November!!!! Blog Post Directory

Date                                                Blog Post Content

Jan. 30th, 2013               Taxpayers – What are you willing to accept from the Township?

Feb. 4th, 2013                 When are politicians going to wake up to community consultation?

Feb. 7th, 2013                 Township Muzzles and banishes citizens in Council!

Feb. 11th, 2013               Wall Townhouse Dev. Vs Metro RGS – The truth behind the fight!

Feb. 16th, 2013               Translink – New Taxation? More waste…..

Feb. 18th, 2013               The Throne Speech by Christy Clark & Rich Coleman              !

Feb. 22nd, 2013              The Mufford Crescent Diversion – Your Council mislead you!

Feb. 26th, 2013               The sad reality of the upcoming Provincial Election –

March 3rd, 2013            Langley Events Center – The Inconvenient Facts! The uncomfortable truth!

March 11th, 2013          Development in the Township of Langley – The Inconvenient Facts!

March 14th, 2013          B.C. Rail – “Remember – An election is a referendum”

March 18th, 2013          Soil Deposit on Agricultural land – It is about Money!

March 23rd, 2013          Politics in the Township – Some factual insight!

March 30th, 2013          Exclusive Breaking News – What is Township up to now?            

April 5th, 2013                Soil Deposit on Agricultural land – It gets more interesting!

April 12th, 2013              The B.C. Liberal Government is a product of leader and cabinet!

April 21st, 2013              Township residents experiencing a deficit in Municipal Leadership!

April 24th, 2013              Wall Townhouse Development  Closing comments speaks volumes!

April 30th, 2013              Township residents denied just benefit in land sales!

May 9th, 2013                 Is Township of Langley Council “Morally Bankrupt”?

May 11th, 2013              Well it is time to vote, here is my view! Think about it!

May 15th, 2013              The fear of the devil we didn’t know vs the one we knew!

May 17th, 2013              Municipal Finances – The truth in Langley!

May 29th, 2013              Langley Speedway in Campbell Valley Park? Thinking?

June 5th, 2013                UPDATE – 4th Reading Trinity Wall application

June 13th, 2013              UPDATE – Thank you Metro RE Coal transferring facility

July 4th, 2013                  Interrupt Holiday – Councilor Fox; Council creating farmland?

July 10th, 2013               Metro Parks Committee – Say no to Campbell Valley Park Track.

July 11th, 2013               Thank you Metro Directors for rejecting track proposal!

August 19th, 2013         Coulter Berry – Complete show of contempt for residents!

August 28th, 2013         Coulter Berry – It could only happen in the Township

Sept. 23rd, 2013             Township sues citizen over FOI request! Concerned yet?

Sept. 26th, 2013             UPDATE – Township sues citizen over FOI request! Facts!

Oct. 26th, 2013               Breaking NEWS – Township acted improperly Coulter Berry

Nov. 5th, 2013                UPDATE: Coulter Berry – Froese says he is very concerned?

Nov. 5th, 2013                Township Property Deals: Stench is palpable and rising!

Nov. 12th, 2013              Township treatment of accidental Mercury Spill?

Nov. 22nd, 2013             Changes coming to ALR, be concerned!

Dec. 5th, 2013                 Township of Langley: Out of control taxation & spending!

Dec. 16th, 2013              Common Sense Coulter Berry decision. The Rest of the Story!

Dec. 20th, 2013              Recap of a successful first year for

Jan. 14th, 2014               Township pays Trinity 80% over assessed value!

Jan. 23rd, 2014               Trying to make sense out of Township Council & creative leg.

Feb. 4th, 2014                 Translink Referendum? An unmitigated joke!

Feb. 17th, 2014               Coulter Berry – It is about preserving Heritage and Community

Feb. 23rd, 2014              Coulter Berry – Stand up for what is right!

Feb. 28th, 2014               Urgent – Brookswood Plan a sadly failed effort by Council

March 3rd, 2014            Coulter Berry call to action – Poster Child for bad government!

March 18th, 2014          Coulter Berry Public Hearing a circus

March 24th, 2014          Brookswood Plan – Don’t accept referral!

March 28th, 2014          Brookswood Com. Plan – Inconvenient facts and truth!

March 31st, 2014           Monday night Council Meeting – Unprecedented opposition!

April 5th, 2014                And the decision is… No surprise to anyone!

April 22nd, 2014             Metro Vancouver Appeals Trinity Wall Judgment

May 13th, 2014              Township sues citizen / Township loses badly!

May 24th, 2014              Transportation needs South of Fraser / Council fails badly!

June 16th, 2014              Metro FOI – Breaking News – Coleman email!

June 22nd, 2014             Fort Langley BIA… The plot thickens!

July 1st, 2014                  TOL politics more interesting / Liberal Poll

July 8th, 2014                  Appeal Court decision – What does it mean?

July 21st, 2014                Move along nothing happening here? Right?

July 22nd, 2014               http://www.langleywatchdog Directory, election coming!




I am working on a few posts at present that I believe should be of significant concern and interest to residents of the Township of Langley.

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.

One of the oldest tricks in the book by municipalities that are ethically and morally challenged are to attempt, where possible, to conduct business on potentially controversial development projects during the dog days of summer! Or at the very least get done what you can get done! Well what else could we have expected? Check out the following, on the agenda for tomorrow night’s Council meeting!

The following residential development projects scheduled for tomorrow night’s Council meeting are an example of how the moral compass of a municipality can and has gone wrong. For those that don’t know, tomorrow night’s Council meeting, July 21st, is the last one before September 8th 2014, providing a six week break for members of your Township of Langley Municipal Council. It is no surprise to anyone that the summer period of Council activity is not high on anyone’s agenda. It frankly in many cases flies under the public radar. As mentioned above, it depends on the ethics and morality of your municipality? It is not about eliminating work during the summer, what we are talking about is residential development and density, something currently high on the radar screens of residents being rammed through in the dog days of summer. What should be of serious concern primarily is the list of developments that came to the Public Hearing of July 14th and are subsequently being considered for third reading (approval in principle) tomorrow July 21st, a short one week later! In addition there is an interesting item coming forward for a Development Permit as well as one for Final Reading. So here is some of what is being considered –

E.3        Development Permit Application 100620 – Focus Architecture Inc. / 19913 70th Ave.

Well it just gets more interesting. For many of you this item may sound familiar, it is the old Willoughby / Routley School / land swap issue which was very controversial and was dealt with at Public Hearing June 27th 2011 Bylaw 4853 chaired by yours truly. Looking at the records it didn’t come back for 4th Reading until June 11th, 2012 under a NEW Council. It was passed at 4th with Richter and Davis in opposition. The developer according to the report had requested that a Development Permit not be issued at the time due to some issues with lot lines? Possibly more? So here we have a very controversial development that goes to Public Hearing June 27th, 2011 and doesn’t request a Development Permit until July 21st, 2014 – More than three years later? What else is involved? You can still appear tomorrow to speak to the Development Permit although given its timing mid-summer, out of sight, out of mind!

Surprise! – Not a question or comment about the past controversy, not a question or comment about past OPPOSITION – Approved, Development Permit issued!

H.3        Third Reading – Rezoning Application Qualico / 20445 and 20477 – 86th Ave. Willoughby!

This development (Bylaw 5099) is applying to rezone a portion of a 1.87 ha (4.6 ac) site to Residential Compact Lot Zone R-CL (RH) to permit development of 24 rowhouse units.

The issue here in my mind is the lack of good planning, lack of Community Based Planning and the endless continuation of Spot Zoning of which this is a prime example. What is going to happen with the rest of the site? Are we going to see another application for spot zoning in this development? In this Neighborhood Plan?

For the sake of all current Willoughby residents and those who are going to make a decision to invest in this community in the future, it is time long past time to bring sanity to our planning process.

Surprise! Third Reading passed, no questions about the planning process, no questions about Spot Zoning. Richter opposed with Ward clearly in favor of anything! What is it Ward continues to say, staff are the experts so how could Council go against their recommendations? Boy, that is comforting!

H.4        Third Reading – Official Community Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application 100109 and Development Permit Application 100738 / Portrait Homes Ltd. 20300 65th Ave.

This could happen to you and you probably would not have heard about it! This is another prime example of bad government. While many residents who live just on the bottom of the Willoughby slopes, just above the 20300 65th Ave., are busy with family and summer holidays; your Municipal Government is busy scheduling a development proposal Public Hearing that will have serious impact on your quality of life and household investment.

On July 14th your Municipal Council introduced for consideration an OCP Amendment and Rezoning Application, there we go again with our all in one Omnibus Bylaw changes, for a change from a “Business Office Park” to “Comprehensive Development” consisting of 91 Townhouse Units, and two mixed use buildings containing 120 apartment units plus retail and office space.

One thing that you can say for this Council is when they are elected they are oblivious to the wishes of those that voted them in. It is hard to fathom how drunk they can become with power. Despite a number in opposition just last week, they have scheduled 3rd reading for Monday night, tomorrow July 21st, 2014. What do you think their vote will be, three guesses and the first two don’t count!

Surprise! It was referred to staff to clean up a few issues but clearly in the words of most  of Council it is accepted as is. Not a word about density, not a word on changes of zoning, move along nothing happening here! In his own scare tactic way Fox suggests what would local residents prefer, what is being proposed or welding shops repair centers etc. Well Charlie, it was being rezoned from Business Office Park, doesn’t sound like welding shops to me! Council makes the final decision you are not obligated!

H.5        Third Reading – Official Community Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application 100114 and Development Permit Application 100751 / Kelson Investments Ltd. / 4877 and 4887 – 221st and 22070 – 49th Ave.

Once again this could happen to you and you probably would not have heard about it! This is another prime example of bad government. How many neighborhood residents are busy with family and summer holidays; while your Municipal Government is busy scheduling a development proposal Public Hearing that will or could have serious impact on your quality of life and household investment. I am not suggesting that it will but your Municipal Government should exercise every caution to ensure the neighborhood has a clear opportunity to respond to a development of this nature. That is the least they should be able to expect.

On July 14th your Municipal Council introduced for consideration an OCP Amendment and Rezoning Application, there we go again with our all in one Omnibus Bylaw changes, for a change from “Multi Family Three” to “Multi Family Four” to accommodate the development of 105 rental apartment units.

Surprise! Adopted unanimously! Not a word about density, not a word about our inadequate planning process and not a word about what is effectively spot zoning!

H.6        Third Reading Rezoning and Community Plan Amendment Application 100107 and Development Permit Application 100733 (East Gordon Developments Ltd. / 7021 to 7165 – 210th Street) Bylaws 5078 and 5079

A wildly comprehensive Omnibus Bylaw and OCP Amendment change, that was dealt with at the June 16th 2014 Public Hearing. This is the same ongoing planning disaster that is affecting Willoughby, an all in one Omnibus change of two changes in one.

Once again it featured significant community opposition to these proposed changes. A constant thread of that opposition dealt with the concern about the changes that have been made or proposed since the original plan was tabled and accepted by the community.

Once again this could happen to you and you probably would not have heard about it! This is another prime example of bad government. How many neighborhood residents are busy with family and summer holidays; while your Municipal Government is busy scheduling significant changes to bylaws that could have devastating impact on what you thought you had bought into. Your Municipal Government should exercise every caution to ensure the neighborhood has a clear opportunity to respond to changes they are proposing.

That is the least residents should be able to expect. You deserve better!

Surprise! Given Third Reading – Davis and Richter opposed! Not a word about the significant community opposition, not a word about the changes in development plans, not a word about poor planning, move along nothing happening here!

Summary – This post features a cross section of examples of what is wrong in planning within the Township of Langley. This IS NOT anti-development but it is about good development and a good return for the Township of Langley taxpayer. It IS about the need to bring COMMUNITY back into Community Planning.

Lets be clear, I do not fault the developer, I lay the blame at the feet of senior staff and Council, who for whatever reason are willing promote and accept bad planning. Good developers want to be a part of well thought out and planned development and community.

Let’s stop accepting mediocrity! Let’s stop accepting a continuing barrage of Spot Zoning!

I would encourage residents to watch Council proceedings on the Live Stream provided. It gives anyone who is willing to go through that pain (also great cure for those with insomnia) to see what passes for a Council who is charged with the serious responsibility of looking after the taxpayers best interest!

I rest my case! And after doing that damage they are now off for a 6 week holiday!  




I am working on a few posts at present that I believe should be of significant concern and interest to residents of the Township of Langley.

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.

Can Council and the Municipality just do what they want, when and for WHO?

Last Thursday’s unanimous decision, after sitting through the hearing on the morning of June 24th wasn’t entirely a surprise. It was an eye opener for sure, but the argument and decision was very instructive on a number of counts. This post is not about crying over the decision, as much as I don’t agree with it – “it is what it is” as they say! More importantly it is time to give an analysis of the decision and to look at what very real message this sends to all taxpayers? It appears that Government can almost do what it wants with impunity, if it uses creative license with it’s arguments and content surrounding resolutions, policy, bylaws and guidelines.

After reviewing the reality of the issues going on within this Municipality and listening to the Township’s legal arguments in a court setting you can only come to one conclusion – the Township of Langley while winning legally has become morally and ethically challenged or put another way to be blunt, morally and ethically bankrupt!

Changing our Municipal Council this November has clearly become THE ONLY choice!

Well, what is THE argument pro and con:

Density – The Local Government Act (LGA) clearly states, and it is not ambiguous, 972 (4) The following restrictions apply to subsection (2) 972 (4)(a) “the use or density of use may not be varied”, that was used in the common sense decision by Justice Groves of the B.C. Supreme Court.

The Appeal Court noted that the TOL had provision for a residential density limit for this C-2 commercial zoned property, but did not have a density limit for commercial uses. Therefore technically the TOL had not altered density in their opinion because TOL had not stated density limits for commercial use. It is important to note that Judge Groves had offered comment on this particular issue in the first case. He suggested that if the LGA felt density was such an important issue, it seemed odd a municipality could get around this by simply not declaring a limit on density. (common sense?)

So one of the key arguments by the society that issued the challenge was that this was an increase in density, after all it was 3 stories not 2, it was 67% site coverage not 60% and it incorporated something like 9 suites for accommodation on the third floor. And it had an 8 inch rear yard setback to the adjoining property.

The Township lawyer argued this is not a change in density, using, in an around about way, this commercial vs residential argument. Just because it is an additional story it could have higher ceilings and on and on and on!  The bottom line is that if the height limit, not coverage and setbacks had been calculated into a standard floor area ratio like other municipalities use for mixed use commercial density limits, this development would have clearly been shown to increase density contrary to the LGA section 972.

Interesting and for the record – At the original Public Input Opportunity on November 20th, 2012, Eric Woodward is recorded saying no less than THREE TIMES that there was a DENSITY INCREASE with the addition of the third floor.

Mayor Froese also notes his approval of DENSIFYING the Coulter Berry Development, supposedly in some way to protect encroachment on ALR lands?

All of this on record and then we have the Township lawyer in court denying an increase in density.

By the way Jack, is this why you have voted to approve 69 Townhouses in the middle of some of the finest ALR land in the valley for the Wall family – What is that you say? You are approving this in a bid to “Protect encroachment on ALR lands”?

(And yes if anyone would like to challenge me on this I have the audio!)

You can’t make this stuff up! 

So Mayor Froese states “If the decision was allowed to stand it would have set a precedent that would have limited the ability of all Municipalities to manage development”. This will go down as one of the most outrageous statements Mayor Froese has come out with and believe me he has a lot of competition from his own statements for that title!

  • For starters Mayor Froese, how about the strengthened bylaw adopted unanimously in 2005 by a number of your Councilors that was to ensure the commercial core would be limited to 2 stories? To the residents of the Township, how much protection do you place in the Township’s security of your assets through its’ current resolutions, policies, bylaws and regulations? It obviously depends on who applies for special favors. It will be the luck of the draw if you happen to border on one of their friends properties who has requested special consideration!
  • “To manage development” in the eyes of this Mayor and Council means they can alter, change or do as they please regardless of past promises, resolutions, policies, bylaws or guidelines! You can only judge your politicians by their actions and this Council has proven in spades that past, resolutions, policies, bylaws and guidelines are not worth the paper they are written on!
  • While the Society won the first legal decision in the B.C, Supreme Court which has now been overturned on Appeal, it does not change the facts. Those facts surround the story of how this Council with the support of senior staff permitted the breaching of long standing resolutions, policies and Heritage Guidelines. All of these resolutions, policies and Heritage Guidelines were in place thanks to literally decades and thousands of hours of volunteer work provided by citizens that were only deserving of respect. What do they get in the end for their community work and commitment from this Council? Complete and an embarrassing disrespect!
  • An apology from this corner? No I am afraid not! Council and staff is definitely not deserving of one! Past statements hold true as the facts were at the time the statement was made. I have clearly provided the decision of the Appeal Court. Now I am sure Council members will be drinking their own bathwater with this decision, but what I said earlier is the issue ahead for all residents – the Township of Langley while winning the legal challenge they have become morally and ethically challenged or put another way they are morally and ethically bankrupt!  

So in a nutshell, regardless of what our Municipal Government initiates in terms of resolution, policy, bylaws or guidelines, if the Government you have in power is absent of any morality and ethics, they can and will do whatever they like. Here is proof of what can happen when you have elected members who are not prepared to stand up for their citizens.

Given this result and the actions of this Council, can any resident reasonably sit back and feel comfortable that their elected members of Council will protect their interests? Will they stand up for them in the protection of their community? The answer is an obvious NO!!!

The way I see it Township of Langley residents have four choices against the actions of your Municipal Government 1) launch a lawsuit and take your chance against the deep pockets of the collective taxpayer 2) say to hell with it and not fight something that is obviously wrong and somehow stomach it, 3) Move to a community in which their elected members respect their citizens or 4) VOTE IN A NEW COUNCIL!

They have made that choice for us! I don’t know about you but I would rather stay to fight and change our Municipal Government. My family and I enjoy this community too much to abandon it! Please become active, participate in the process and Elect a NEW Council this November!


I am working on a few posts at present that I believe should be of significant concern and interest to residents of the Township of Langley.

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.

Did you get your phone call? From the calls I have been receiving many did and many have questions as to who is behind this and who is really running our municipality. As I have repeatedly said on this BLOG, all you have to do is connect the dots, it really is that easy. If you will recall in the past I have often posed the question of the utilization of Provincial Resources to try to effect our (your) local election outcomes (to-date they have been successful by the way), are you happy so far? Are we going to put up with continued attempts by some unknown to attempt to manipulate and control your franchise right? Are the Provincial Government through their MLAs involved in the politics of local government? If so it shows a complete lack of respect to you the taxpayer.

For the record: The “Community Survey” of the Township of Langley is being conducted by (as stated above) the Innovative Research Group which is owned by one Greg Lyle. It is well known that Greg Lyle is a political operative, he ran the 1996 Gordon Campbell Election Campaign, conducted a poll for Christy Clark’s failed Point Grey by-election attempt and conducted extensive political polling and survey work for the B.C. Liberal Party. The connection is close, consider Mike McDonald was hired by the Premier as Chief of Staff, after her leadership win, who worked for Innovative Research Group. He has since left the Premiers office to go back to the private sector. I knew Greg Lyle back in the Socred days during the late 80s. You can’t make this stuff up!

Why a Survey? Who Commissioned it? So, what brings the Innovative Research Group to the Township of Langley, you ask? In virtually an identical tone to surveys and research commissioned by someone (?) in the fall of 2010 and a couple of times during the election year of 2011, this survey featured a lengthy dose of questions pertaining to the then upcoming Municipal Election. It contained just a smattering of questions that could only be of interest to the governing B.C. Liberal Party?  Would these of been posed just to make it worthwhile for them to pay the bill? Who else would want the answers or would benefit from the answers to these questions, doesn’t it just make sense? Connect the dots? Just asking, wasn’t Rich Coleman, our MLA, Co-Chair of last year’s Provincial Re-election Campaign for the B.C. Liberal Party?

Back to the survey: After being asked about what were the most important issues in our community out of a list of 20 or so they go on to ask – Have you heard of these people? (Favorable or not favorable)

  • Michelle Sparrow
  • Angie Quaale
  • Bev Dornen
  • Eric Woodward
  • Blair Whitmarsh
  • Charlie Fox
  • Kim Richter
  • Rick Green
  • Jordan Bateman
  • Jack Froese

So many questions and no answers? Well I certainly have some questions and some thoughts!

  • Should Steve Ferguson, Bob Long or Grant Ward who all missed on getting onto this preferred (by some) list, be happy or sad? David Davis who is left off the list, should be ecstatic!
  • How was my name selected to be on this list, I am retired and I would add, I am happy in retirement!
  • Eric Woodward, the land baron of Fort Langley running for Council? OH that will be interesting! I can see the public uproar and total community revolt within 6 months if he runs and is successful!
  • Blair Whitmarsh, a very fine individual working in a senior management capacity with Trinity University. Unfortunately with its association with the Township on issues with Metro, University District, land and the Langley Event Center relationship, it causes me to pose a serious potential of a conflict or perceived conflict of Interest on so many fronts. Can he excuse himself from the table, sure, but there are just far too many issues of a potential or perceived conflict. It certainly could be a potentially serious issue going forward.
  • Jordan Bateman, he of his new found hypocritical protecting the taxpayer fame? Jordan’s voting record clearly shows that he never met a tax increase or spending increase he didn’t like. This is the same Jordan Bateman that publicly stated that he didn’t know why the Mayor made public that there was no P3 agreement in place for the Langley Events Center as was told to the public by staff and Council. This is the same Jordan Bateman who was deeply involved in the Langley Events Center FINANCIAL fiasco that caused us taxpayers to pay out an $8.6 million settlement that was completely unnecessary. This is the same Jordan Bateman that didn’t hear the overwhelming public opposition to an additional 4th story at 4th reading (legality in question?) at Bedford Landing, the Mufford Crescent Diversion, Athenry Development and more and more and more….. (sound familiar, just like the current council? Nothing has changed!)

Next Question:

If there was a Township Election tomorrow would you vote for Jack Froese? Yes or No

Next Question:

If there were these three people running for Mayor, who would you vote for?

  • Jack Froese
  • Jordan Bateman
  • Rick Green

My thoughts?

  • Is this Jordan’s announcement? It could be a very interesting fall! (my thoughts above) You might ask yourself which Jordan Bateman are you going to elect, the one embracing Taxation and Spending or his new found belief that some would suggest is one of convenience? Given his record, how could anyone trust any of his pronouncements?
  • There they go again, while I am honored to be considered, I am retired, and once again, I am very happy!

The survey then goes on to ask about the degree of support or non-support on issues such as  Coulter Berry in Fort Langley, a tree cutting bylaw in the Township and what I will call a disingenuous diversion list of quasi provincial interest.

Conclusion –

What is so sad in our community are the provincial fingerprints all over due process. I have provided what I believe to be significant proof whether it was the messages I received at my meeting with Rich Coleman 10 months before election-day of 2008 (my election as Mayor), the lack of a P3 as promised on the Langley Events Center, the Trinity / Wall interference whether on the public comments about Metro or his email to Chair Greg Moore requesting NO appeal on the B.C. Supreme Court decision and his admitted phone conversations with Surrey Councilors prior to their vote on the major South Surrey Casino. It goes on and on and on. When are taxpayers / residents going to stand up and revolt against these actions and say no more! Just ask yourself, and use common sense, who else has the access to resources that could influence a campaign? Fight now or you will be very sorry later! I rest my case!!



I am working on a few posts at present that I believe are of significant concern to Township of Langley Residents. Check in daily!

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.