Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

As residents of the Township of Langley, all of us have felt the pressure of growth – over the last decade we have seen an increase of close to 40,000 residents! Our current Municipal Council, the incumbents, running for re-election and those running on the Elevate Langley slate are only interested in maintaining the status-quo; that is continued favors to friends, insiders, developers while continuing inaction on the infrastructure crisis we are all facing.

I will go back to my BLOG Post of September 20th, 2022 – the choice is not independent vs slate. When you hear candidates sing the praises of being an independent, it is frankly something that has garnered a very misleading value in the public’s mind. If you believe that the Township of Langley has had a council made up of independents over the past two decades, and most residents as well as members of Council say they are independent; then weighing that claim of independence against your council accomplishing anything of value to residents, it proves to be a misnomer (a wrong or inaccurate name or designation). We are in a critical infrastructure crisis; how is it working for us so far; IT ISN’T! This Council has proven the fact as independents they have been incapable of accomplishing the job you hired them to do.

I know and appreciate the Township’s terrible history of slate politics, but that was two decades back. Since that time, the so-called independent voice on Council has achieved nothing.

“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results”

Our population two decades ago was about 105,000, today we have approximately 150,000 residents; growing exponentially faster than originally planned, with no meaningful infrastructure improvement investments being made in the last twenty years – Fire Halls / equipment, Fire Department staffing, Parks, Ice Sheets, All Weather Soccer Fields, Community Centers, Pools, Senior Centers, Roads, Sidewalks, green ways, bike paths and so much more.

Not ALL independents and/or slates are created equal: To accomplish the task of getting Council’s approval for the necessary infrastructure investment going forward you need 5 votes! I have experienced first-hand as Mayor the problems with being one of nine so-called independent voices on Council trying to obtain that support. For reasons that are nothing more than politically motivated, either internally within council or influenced by outside power brokers; getting the majority focused on what is in the best interest of the Township of Langley and you the voter was impossible. Petty council disagreements and attempted deal making as well as more serious partisan politics gets involved frequently which has an extremely negative affect on getting meaningful things done! It is wrong but that is the way it is, in reality.

The best way to explain what I am talking about is using a few examples on issues that I faced as your Mayor – Remember I was elected Mayor, a surprise in the eyes and minds of the incumbents that were reelected back in November of 2008. I have written extensively about the following issues, but for this purpose I will give you a short list with an abbreviated explanation, as follows:

Langley Events Center (LEC): When I was elected Mayor, the LEC was about 75% complete. In my first in-camera meeting, staff were asking for an additional $7.5 Million. Getting to that report, I requested a one-week deferral to better understand the issue as we had a new Mayor, a new councilor and one councilor was away. Barely getting that request out of my mouth Councillor Bateman called for the question on the motion to approve the report and request, it was approved with myself being the only dissenting vote. That irresponsible action by members of Council was consistent throughout my term, it was all political. My request was reasonable, responsible, not confrontational yet council were determined to send me a message – forget what was in the best interest of the Township and you the taxpayer. I have written extensively about this project. Due to the problems and issues, I uncovered, I brought in a legal firm from downtown Vancouver as well as BDO Dunwoody to review this project in detail. Both firms agreed with me, they asked how did you got yourselves into this predicament? I have said many times that this project was ripe for a Forensic Audit! Great project, irresponsibly created, developed, and managed. NO support from Independent Council members at great cost to you the taxpayer!

Mufford Crescent Diversion: The Mufford Crescent Diversion plan was initiated by the then B.C. Liberal Government under the guise of the Roberts Bank Rail Corridor project led by TransLink, an overpass over the rail line and Glover Rd. through the historical Hudsons Bay and Bella Vista Farms connecting with the 216th and the 64 Ave. intersection, making over 300 acres of prime agricultural land impossible to farm which would ultimately have lead it to being removed from the ALR. It was designed and approved without Public Consultation, supported by then B.C. Liberal MLA Rich Coleman. After the 2008 election Mayor Rick Green had the TOL hold two Open Houses and a Public Meeting that saw over 1,000 people attending. There was also a public meeting at the LEC and an agricultural community meeting at the casino, both hosted by the Agricultural Land Commission. Combined the proposed project had 97% community opposition. Mayor Green received abusive opposition by six so-called independent members of Council, despite such wide-spread community support. While taking two years, we were successful in having it rejected by the ALC and referred it back to the funding partners for a better option – thanks to Chair Richard Bullock, despite all of the threats. Richard Bullock was removed as Chair of the ALC shortly after by the then B.C. Liberal Government. NO support from Independent Council members who supported the original proposal despite such wide spread public opposition; we won despite the opposition on Council, again thanks to Richard Bullock and the ALC!

Community Amenity Contributions: In the 2008 election, two of many items I had on my campaign platform were 1) Creating a public information profile on all Township of Langley owned properties previously unavailable (which we accomplished) and 2) Establishing a Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) program. After winning the election in 2009 I brought in Mr. Bruce Maitland (Retired Director of Real Estate Services for the City of Vancouver) to brief our Council on the background, benefits, and potential implementation of a CAC program. Vancouver were the leaders in Metro Vancouver of this initiative. The decision of our so-called independents on Council – NO that is fine for Vancouver, but we do not do that in the Township of Langley. The TOL introduced a very watered-down version of CACs a couple of years ago, but they are only at 25% of what Surrey is charging? Why? Thanks to the vote of Independents, it has cost taxpayers multi 100s of millions of dollars since 2009! NO support from Independent Council members!

Athenry Development on 208th & 80th: The Athenry Development on 208th on the Willoughby Community Hall corner was brought forward to the new council. The previous council had given this project 1st and 2nd reading, held a public hearing and gave it 3rd reading. As it dealt with approvals given to it by a previous council, it is required that the new council be provided with all of the information and material to-date. I wanted to ensure we had all of the information, so I requested the layout of the proposal that was given 3rd reading. That reading was for a large mixed-use building in the center of the property while the NEW layout showed multiple buildings very-close to homes – about 15 feet from their back fences and 4 stories in height (over 40 feet) hovering over single family homes surrounding that property. This was an obvious breach of regulations surrounding what changes can be made at 4th reading. Those regulations state that the only changes that can be made at 4th reading are form, character, and design, NOT an increase in density! It was a highly contentious and controversial project which I strongly objected to, spoke, and voted against. However, despite the protestations of hundreds of local residents, the majority of so-called independents on Council approved the project. There were lawsuits and/or threatened lawsuits, however I know first-hand there were family break ups and serious loss of home values of up to $100,000. It was a travesty. Once again, the owner of that property had inside connections. It is Interesting, that this development property was-flipped since, and to-date only has one building built on the site. NO support from Independent Council members!

Landfill on Agricultural Land: A significant issue was an apparent breach of ALR regulations allowing a free reign for dumping fill on agricultural land. After a significant period of time fighting this issue, a diligent landowner brought to my attention that there was a memo sent to the ALC from our CAO advising that Council had agreed by resolution to send all applications through to the ALC for their consideration and/or approval. After doing my due diligence internally I discovered a copy of the memo and, that, no such resolution had been passed by Council. (A requirement under provincial legislation) In my view that is a deliberate act to mislead a provincial crown agency which is responsible to enforce provincial regulations. NO support from Independent Council members to deal with this issue appropriately.

Summary: I am sure everyone will agree, the examples that I outlined above were not controversial, and they were in the best interest of the public and the taxpayer. So why were they not supported? Internal politics and outside pressure from power brokers that did not want any change on Council, pure and simple.

While it might appear that I am fighting for a slate, that is not necessarily the case, however what I am doing is giving you examples of what happens when you do not have the votes (you need 5) in support of initiatives (infrastructure projects we need). So, let us put it another way, let us say you elect a mayor and eight councilors who each have their own priorities which is normally the case; why else would you run for Council if you didn’t have a platform of ideas you want to achieve on council? It then becomes an internal fight/discussion/debate on Council culminating in let us make a deal? What happens now? You have nine members of Council trying to negotiate with each other for votes of support. You end up with fractious relationships and factions on Council which cease to be constructive to a Council of the whole.

That unfortunately is just how it works out of sight of the public who elected them. Those that are incumbents or are running solely on the theme of being independent, will deny this reality; for those incumbents they are not telling you the truth, and for those having never served on Council don’t know what they are talking about. They mean well, but just don’t know the reality.

RG

More interesting 2022 Municipal Election News coming soon!

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.

Langley mayoral hopeful says…. Rich Coleman hiding assets from voters!

Township of Langley councillor Eric Woodward said Coleman, who leads the fledgling Elevate Langley party, is breaking the law

By Bob Mackin | September 20, 2022, 5:03pm

Coleman announced his bid to replace the retiring Mayor Jack Froese in late August, more than two months after the final report of the Cullen Commission on money laundering in B.C. did not find political corruption | Photo: Screenshot, Cullen Commission on money laundering in B.C.

A Township of Langley councillor hoping to become mayor in the Oct. 15 election says his star opponent is illegally hiding his assets from voters. 

Eric Woodward said Rich Coleman, the former BC Liberal leader and ex-deputy premier, is breaking the law by claiming on his statutory disclosure form that his investments are in a blind trust. 

Municipal politicians, Woodward said, have significant power to “create wealth with the stroke of a pen with rezoning decisions.”

“You cannot just say ‘blind trust,’ because you cannot sit at the council table and not have the public aware if you have a pecuniary interest in something at the table,” Woodward said in an interview.

Coleman, who leads the fledgling Elevate Langley party, has not responded for comment. 

Section 3(a) of the Financial Disclosure Act requires that a nominee or elected official must specify “the name of each corporation in which the person or a trustee for the person holds one or more shares.” Under section 5(1), a nominee must also disclose holding more than 30% of voting shares in a corporation, including shares that are held “by a trustee for him or her.”

“It’s completely outrageous that somebody would run for mayor of a municipality with the growth rates we’re seeing and not disclose if they have interests in land within that municipality,” said Woodward, who was elected to township council in 2018.

On his form, Coleman disclosed a residential address in Langley’s Routley neighbourhood and initially listed Aldergrove Credit Union as a creditor, but crossed that out. His sources of income are a B.C. Government pension and Canada Pension Plan. According to the Canadian Taxpayers’ Federation, Coleman’s 24 years representing Langley and Aldergrove in Victoria made him eligible for a $109,000-a-year pension. 

During his provincial career, Coleman fell under the Members’ Conflict of Interest Act, which requires annual filings and material change updates to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. Rather than publishing those forms, the commissioner releases a one or two-page summary about each MLA.

Coleman’s last summary, released in November 2020, said his spouse received salary from Mobil 1 Lube Express, they had residential property, bank and other deposits, and investments held inside a Sun Life Financial RRSP “money on deposit and/or term deposits certificates.” Under the heading of “financial interests (member and spouse),” the summary said: “Member has a blind trust.”

Not reflected in Coleman’s publicly available municipal or provincial disclosure documents is that his son Adam’s company, Coleman Oil and Lube Properties Ltd. operates the Mobil 1 Lube Express in Langley. The B.C. corporate registry shows that Adam Coleman’s company amalgamated in February 2018 with 976440 B.C. Ltd., a numbered company registered to Kuldip and Bahadur Cheema of Vancouver. 

Bahadur Cheema is better known as Bob Cheema, the supporter of Surrey Mayor Doug McCallum’s Safe Surrey Coalition who was behind the scuttled 2013 South Surrey casino proposal. Then-Mayor Dianne Watts cast the tiebreaking vote against the Gateway Casino/B.C. Lottery Corporation project.

Coleman announced his bid to replace the retiring Mayor Jack Froese in late August, more than two months after the final report of the Cullen Commission on money laundering in B.C. did not find political corruption. Commissioner Austin Cullen instead concluded that BC Liberal politicians did not fulfil their duty to protect casinos from dirty money. 

Councillors Michelle Sparrow and Blair Whitmarsh are the other candidates.

Woodward said Elections B.C. referred his complaint to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, which was indifferent and suggested he complain after Oct. 15 to Elections B.C.

“I’ve been filing those disclosures every year, and I’m very familiar with the rules,” Woodward said. “I actually am personally offended that somebody would run for mayor and not.”

On his candidate disclosure, Woodward lists the Township of Langley as his only source of income and has liabilities with a branch of CIBC in downtown Vancouver. Attached to his disclosure are three additional pages with details of a mixed-use portfolio of 20 properties wholly owned by Fort Langley Properties Ltd. (FLPL), of which Woodward is a shareholder. He reported no holdings in his name, other than his personal residence in Langley’s Salmon River area. 

Woodward also shows that FLPL owes mortgage debt to Baywest Developments (2020) Ltd., First West Credit Union and Triple A Drywall Ltd., and operating debt to Statewood Properties Ltd. 

Woodward said that FLPL is a holding company that is bound to donate all ongoing rental and future development revenue from the Fort Langley Project to Greater Langley charities.

RG

More interesting 2022 Municipal Election News coming soon!

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.

Selling the voter / taxpayer on one or the other is selling a “Pig in a Poke”! (Something that is offered in such a way as to obscure its real nature or worth). Residents should be viewing their choice for Council (Councillors or Mayor) NOT based on independent vs slate; BUT – What is their platform? What do they stand for? What is their background? What is their experience? How are they going to get things done? – and How are they going to get 5 votes to support their platform?

A little history: I have spent at least four decades being involved in Municipal politics. I was elected Alderman as part of a slate in Delta (1987) and I was elected Mayor as an independent in the Township of Langley (2008). Township of Langley Councils had elected slates up to the infamous election of 1999 (When former Township staffer Kurt Alberts defeated John Scholtens and Heather McMullen) which ended in post-election lawsuits and the worst demonstration I have ever witnessed of election principles and ethics in politics. Since that time there has been a negative shadow cast on the idea of slates – unfortunately that negative shadow has been cast unfairly and at the expense of the Township taxpayer and voter. Did John Scholtens deserve to be defeated, absolutely – and a number of his slate were defeated in the 2002 election which they deserved in spades. The 2002 election brought on the election of a number of independents.

Not ALL Slates, ad-hoc independent slates or independents ARE CREATED EQUAL, just calling yourself and relying on the term independent is a sham and a cop out to the voter!

It is about what you want to do and HOW are you going to deliver on your promises to the voter? I want Honesty, I want you to Act on your Promise, I want you to Act with Integrity and I want you to be totally Transparent!  

The most recent reality – up to today: Since that time, a number of members of Council have been co-opted by power brokers who have lived vicariously through their designate(s) on Council that you the voter has not had any knowledge of – How do I know that? Through years of investigation as to votes on development, property development, property deals, and so much more leading up to my decision to run for Mayor in 2007 / 08 was a real education. You see, as much as I thought I knew what was going on within the Township, Staff and Council, nothing could have prepared me for the reality I faced. The blatant obstruction that I faced as Mayor did not just come from staff or members of the ad-hoc slate – a few independents were equally as offensive and ineffective in achieving anything positive for the taxpayer. The sad part is the taxpaying public bought into these individuals occasional public outbursts on Council but in reality they were nothing more than a publicity stunt. It continues to this day. Unfortunately, these stunts received unwarranted publicity in the local press.

This year’s Township of Langley election 2022: As I have stated from the beginning, I will be following all candidates for Mayor and Council and I will be objective through independent research of their backgrounds, their history, their life experience and more.

I will not be buying into what is starting to be seen as a smoke screen argument that someone calling themselves an independent, will provide better government.

I have seen up close and personal how independents and/or slate members can be equally bad for the Township. Take Jack Froese for example, it was Rich Coleman and his cohorts who talked him into running for Mayor, who with Coleman’s supported incumbents gave you a Council that talked independence but were a de-facto slate – Check out their voting records over their full terms since 2011. Now we hear Jack Froese who is not running, publicly supporting independents. I guess he is feeling guilty for his actions over the past 11 years – he should be, he was a big part of a serious problem!

Calling yourself an independent as a reason for someone to vote for you, to me is an insult to the intelligence of the voter, it should be a non-starter. That is becoming an all too convenient excuse to hide behind as a candidate.

You know, I am quite tired of listening to political bafflegab as I am sure the people of Walnut Grove, Willoughby, Brookswood and Aldergrove are, in particular. I am interested in those that want to speak with an educated and reasoned voice as to what they are going to do to fix all that has gone wrong, and how they are going to do it? There have been far too many poor decisions, and a serious lack of decision making from our past Councils. We are all paying a heavy price. There are so-called independents currently on council who are responsible or have a significant responsibility for nothing getting done. Calling yourself an independent on Council should buy you nothing in the eyes of the voter, you have a lot to answer for, and you know who you are!

So far, in following (and it is early), candidates are not talking about their platform, they are not talking about what they stand for, they are not talking about their goals or what they want to achieve while on Council. Where is your material? What are you selling, and do not say independence because that is simply unadulterated BS – OK I am being polite!

There are some residents of the Township who are spreading rumor, gossip, and innuendo about certain candidates. I have recently met or talked to a few of those using that attack, and I have told them I am not interested in any of those discussions. These-kind-of-attacks are the slimiest of dirty political tricks that I have seen in 40 years. They are not new but what you find is that there are some in political campaigns that cannot defeat their opponent on ideas or policy, they have to resort to slimy personal tactics. You know, don’t let the truth get in the way of a good story! As I have said many times, got something to say, go public – but be sure you are correct! So, on that point I will go to my conclusion and the facts surrounding this BLOG – 

This BLOG’s position to-date: The www.langleywatchdog BLOG was created and first published back in January of 2013. It was created to keep the Township of Langley honest (it did not work) but as important it was created to keep the general public informed. I have published about 160 BLOG Posts which have had about 150,000 views. I have broken (Breaking News) on quite a number of news stories with respect to the Township’s news and issues. Many that the local media never had the guts to publish so as not to upset the Township after all they were receiving about $225,000 annually, in your tax dollars. I have been asked many times about how I can publish what I do – the answer is very simple. Everything I publish are facts, in addition because of my position as Mayor I publish informed opinion based on my knowledge and connections – I was in that office.

As to the positions I have taken so far in this election. As you know, if you have read my last three to four posts, I have come out strongly against Rich Coleman in his run for the Mayor’s Chair. My position on his seeking this position is spelled out clearly and in detail over a previous two posts given all of the reasons I have clearly spelled out. I truly cannot imagine a more devastating result to the voter and taxpayer in the Township of Langley having Rich Coleman as our Mayor. In his words, Mark Bakken, the current Township CAO for the last 25 years, is a good friend of his – Really, I will say no more for now.

I have also come out against Blair Whitmarsh, and I have spelled out my reasons in detail. An on the record lack of honesty, a serious potential for a Conflict of Interest and detailed issues on his voting record. Those reasons speak volumes.

As to all other running, for Mayor and Council, I will be following everyone’s campaigns as best as possible, but I have also been up front regarding the whole issue of Slate vs Independent – as I stated clearly above – Not all slates nor all independents are created equal, keep an open mind on all accounts.

RG

More interesting 2022 Municipal Election News coming soon!

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.

We have a lot of questions for Rich Coleman given his unwillingness to tell you, the voter, what his assets are; all other candidates are living by the rules, what is he hiding? We say that for a number of reasons, but for a start is the well documented 2008 meeting I had with Rich Coleman in his office when he said to me “WE are OK with the job the Mayor is doing” and “you have been making noises about some land deals” (Dixon Pit to a local well-known family) …. “I want you to know WE are OK with them?” A question he has never answered is – who was he talking about when he said WE? In another thread of leaked emails initiated by Joel Schacter (which we outlined in detail in a previous post) there was talk about how to “Take Green Out”? (The 2011 election.) What were they and are they afraid of?

All of this plus the outrage by so many on-line and in Social-Media on the “Blind Trust” Issue caused me to investigate the legislation and rules surrounding a candidates Financial Disclosure. A Legal opinion was received – so on the heels of that we submitted the following letter to Elections BC, our local Election Officers, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Residents / Taxpayers / Voters of the Township of Langley should be absolutely outraged. Read On:

William Richard (Rick) Green

#407 – 8067 207th Street

Langley B.C. V2Y 0N9

778 705-9282 / Cell 604 866-5752 or email creeksidefarms@shaw.ca

September 12th, 2022

Ms. Darlene Foxgard  Chief Election Officer,            Elections B.C. Complaint for Investigation  

Mr. Bob Wilson, Asst. Election Officer,                    PO Box 9275 Stn Prov Govt,

c/o Township of Langley Municipal Hall,                 Victoria, B.C. V8W 9J6

20338 65th Ave., Langley B.C. V2Y 3J1                       via email – investigations@elections.bc.ca

Dear Ms. Foxgard, Mr. Wilson, and Elections B.C. Investigations:

URGENT Re: Filed Mayoral Nomination / Financial Disclosure for one Mr. Richard Coleman

This letter is being sent on behalf of a wide number of Township of Langley taxpayers and registered voters. We are writing to register a serious complaint with respect to Mr. Richard (Rich) Coleman’s filed Nomination Papers, specifically his Financial Disclosure section. It is clear in reading the rules / legislation governing Financial Disclosure filings that Mr. Richard Coleman has breached the rules governing this act. In his filing dated September 1st, 2022.

Mr. Coleman does not properly declare his assets as required – within Assets S.3(a) of the Statement of Disclosure. “List the name of each corporation in which you hold one or more shares, including shares held by a trustee on your behalfand within Real Property S.3 (f) “List the legal description and address of all land in which you, or a trustee acting on your behalf, own an interest or have an agreement which entitles you to obtain an interest.”  

As outlined in the Financial Disclosure Act, effective August 24th, 2022, in Section 4(a) all candidates for local elected office must comply with disclosing any and all items outlined in Section 3 as required within Section 4, all interests in business and land as applicable.

In the attached filed Statement of Disclosure in S.3(a) all that is listed is “Blind Trust.” Based on confirmed legal advice, this seems to clearly contravene the above noted sections requiring complete and transparent disclosure of personal, business and land interests, or arrangements to potentially acquire/hold any such interests in the future. We can find no qualification or exception for a “Blind Trust” or definition of such within the Financial Disclosure Act to avoid disclosure of these interests as they may or may not exist.

We, the taxpayers, and voters within the Township of Langley expect that all of their nominated candidates for the upcoming Oct. 15th, 2022 Municipal Election are held to the well described transparent legislative rules surrounding ALL nominated candidates. Taxpayers and voters must have the confidence that they know the holdings (not value) of any individual nominated to or elected to a Municipal Government office.

In our collective memory, after decades of municipal political activity we cannot remember any candidate using “Blind Trust” as a way to improperly hide their assets and/or holdings information from the voter.

We urge immediate action to force compliance of Financial Disclosure Rules or the withdrawal of his NominationGiven the timing of the nomination period just ending last Friday September 9th 2022 at 4:30 PM and the election timing of October 15th, 2022 we request immediate action by all authorities to enforce the rules, regulations, and legislative requirements as are clearly outlined. The rules do not exempt a private citizen as has been suggested; for if that were the case the rules would not pertain to anyone currently not in elected office. That would obviously be an irresponsible decision.

Elections B.C. is the agency mandated to enforce the legislation and rules, in no way should the taxpayer / voter have to go to court to enforce the legislation that is in place. Telling voters to go and pay for a court action is neither fair as to its personal taxpayer costs nor practical in terms of its timing.

If there are any questions and/or additional information required, please feel free to contact me at any time.

Sincerely,

W.R. (Rick) Green

Former Mayor Township of Langley (2008 – 2011)

Cc        Minister Nathan Cullen, Mini. of Municipal Affairs muni.minister@gov.bc.ca

                                                                                                nathan.cullen.mla@leg.bc.ca

            Megan Dykeman MLA                                               megan.dykeman.mla@leg.bc.ca

Consider the following: We have a candidate running for mayor, a former MLA and Provincial Cabinet Minister that stepped away from politics in the wake of the recent Money Laundering Scandal / Inquiry.

Money Laundering Inquiry: Now Rich Coleman likes to suggest he was cleared of any wrongdoing, however reading the final report by Commissioner Cullen, he had some unpleasant commentary about Minister Rich Coleman’s lack of response to an obvious and immediate serious problem. NO Rich, in fact in reading his report you were seriously labelled with at best irresponsibility! That is quite damming for a cabinet minister!

Rich Coleman’s Background: What is Rich Coleman’s background? Well, he was a short-lived member of the RCMP before becoming a developer in the Township of Langley, before running for the B.C. Liberal Nomination, and becoming our MLA. He seems to have always had a serious interest in land development, noting his comment to me re the Dixon Pit property earlier in this post. But interestingly his ongoing interest in property in the Township of Langley followed him to Victoria. He was the Minister responsible for housing which followed him for a number of years regardless of the Primary Portfolio he held; that number of years was quite unusual. Just saying!

The following is taken directly from Wikipedia on September 12th, 2022 –  In January 2007, as BC Forests and Range Minister, at the request of Western Forest Products, Rich Coleman approved the removal of 28,283 hectares (approx. 70,000 acres) of private land from three coastal tree farm licenses along the south-west coast of Vancouver Island and transferred ownership of these lands in totality to Western Forest Products.[7] Minister Coleman announced this decision about eight months after his brother, Stan Coleman, joined Western Forest Products as their manager of strategic planning.[8]

In response to the many concerns and allegations of this land giveaway, the University of Victoria’s Environmental Law Centre requested an official investigation by the Auditor-General’s Office of British Columbia.[9] On July 1, 2008, BC Auditor-General John Doyle released his report, “Removing Private Land from Tree Farm Licenses 6, 19 & 25: Protecting the Public Interest?”[10] In his report he “condemned former forests minister Rich Coleman for allowing a forestry company to remove land from three tree farm licenses for residential development, citing the possibilities of conflicts of interest and insider trading by government staff.”[1

Holborn Properties / Little Mountain B.C. Liberal Government land development scandal. The B.C. Liberal government that was in power at the time of the 2008 deal gave Holborn $211 million in interest-free loans on an 18-year term, the agreement shows. Interest will not accrue on that loan until Dec. 31, 2026. The contract shows that the sale price was $334 million, but the province says only $35 million has been paid by Holborn. When an $88-million credit given for social housing and the initial down payment are subtracted, the developer still owes the province $211 million. Also in the deal was an additional $88 million in low-interest loans for non-market housing, repayable by 2050. The Little Mountain lands sit between Queen Elizabeth Park and Main Street, just south of Nat Bailey Stadium. The six-hectare site was home to 224 units of social housing that existed from the 1950s until the land was sold in 2008. Holborn initially pledged to build 1,400 market value homes and 234 units of social housing. But the site has remained untouched ever since the existing buildings were demolished in 2009. Coleman was responsible for this file!

Selling off 100 Crown owned properties with an estimated value of $800 million in order to balance the provincial 2013 budget. This by any standard is wrong, you do not sell off capital assets (actual value unknown until sold) to cover operating costs. It is the law of diminishing returns. So, what do we sell off next year? This is like selling the family silver to pay today’s food bill, what do we sell tomorrow? Coleman was responsible for this file!

Mufford Crescent Diversion plan was initiated by the then B.C. Liberal Government: TransLink was the lead agency for this project, an overpass over the rail line and Glover Rd. through the historical Hudsons Bay and Bella Vista Farms making over 300 acres of prime agricultural land impossible to farm which would have been removed from the ALR. It was designed and approved without Public Consultation, supported by B.C. Liberal MLA Rich Coleman.

The then B.C. Liberal Government were furious with me getting in their way of what can only be described as a serious land deal. The remainder of my term was very interesting because of it, I was a target of the B.C. Liberals from that point on.

After winning the 2008 election Mayor Rick Green, as promised in the campaign, advised the ALC that he was holding two Open Houses and a Public Meeting providing public engagement on a project the ALC had just privately approved. This process saw over 1,000 people participating with 97% in opposition. This was the measure of public interest and public opposition. Mayor Green received abusive opposition from his Council plus verbal (in-person) and written threats from then Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon; if we did not want the money, he would move it elsewhere! Mayor Green told falcon to go ahead. (Despite the threats he never did move the money, it was a bluff.) While it took two years, we were successful, the ALC, thanks to Chair Richard Bullock, denied the application, based on a proposal put forward by Mayor Green ion a private conversation. The proposal was returned to the funding partners for a better option. It is interesting that Chair Richard Bullock was removed from the ALC shortly after that event by the then B.C. Liberal Government. Coleman was primarily responsible for fighting against the wishes of Township residents supporting the original proposal.

In summary: As we stated in a previous BLOG post, Rich Coleman is running to prevent change from the current status-quo. He does not want any change from what has been happening over at least the past two and a half decades. This period of time has been very fruitful for friends and insiders in the development community.

So, to the question in front of all of us – Do you want to continue with status-quo with no attention paid to needed infrastructure, but all attention will be given to friends and insiders? I do not and we hope you will agree with us on October 15th, 2022.

After reading all of the above, do you really want Rich Coleman as your Mayor? For the sake of our kids, our families, and our grandkids, let us get this right!

RG

More interesting 2022 Municipal Election News coming soon!

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.

What are we talking about? Well first is the issue with the discussion and the debate on Council regarding a reactivated Interurban Hydrail Passenger Rail Service, second is the financial entanglement between the Township of Langley and Trinity University and then there is his eye-opening voting record – which leads us to the question….

“When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time!”

RE the reactivation of the Interurban Corridor with state-of-the-art Passenger Rail Service: There was a requested motion earlier this year by staff that was brought before the Township of Langley Council which identified the need to request the UBCM to urge the B.C. Government to provide an improved Transit Service South of the Fraser; the solution – Interregional Transit. An amendment was added (I am paraphrasing here) supported by the majority of Council to add “including a study of a reactivated Interurban Corridor”. During that debate Councillor Blair Whitmarsh stated he didn’t know anything about it? – There lies the issue of Blair Whitmarsh’s qualifications to sit on Council let alone in the position of Mayor! It was interesting to hear Councillor Davis’s comment to Councillor Whitmarsh at the time, that he would explain it to him!

Fact: Blair Whitmarsh attended a hour and a half public presentation followed up by a Question Period at a Brookswood Church regarding the reactivated Interurban Corridor with state-of-the-art Hydrail passenger rail between the Pattullo Bridge and Chilliwack. This occurred a number of months before Blair Whitmarsh claimed he didn’t know anything about it. There were about 50 residents in attendance including Councillors Kim Richter and Margaret Kuntz. So why the lapse of memory, it doesn’t speak well for someone who claims they want to help residents of the Township. He, along with all members of Council received the results of a Mario Canseco ResearchCo Poll showing 88% of residents between North Delta and Chilliwack support this initiative, and he had not heard of it?

RE the Financial entanglement between Trinity Western University (TWU) and the Township of Langley: For those that don’t know, Blair Whitmarsh is the Dean of the School of Human Kinetics and Athletics, a high-profile professional position with TWU. The Township of Langley has had a very close entangled financial relationship with TWU for many years. The general public are not aware of the current status of this financial relationship. It involves the financing of major utility infrastructure a number of years ago, their publicized partnership in the Langley Events Center (LEC), back in 2008 / 09, the status of their lease payments to-date as well as the current financial arrangement and status for the TWU use of the LEC, in addition to the TOL land purchase and assessment issue that follows..

A Province newspaper investigation by the late Kent Spencer exposed The Township of Langley paying Trinity Western University 80% ($1.2 million) OVER assessed value for previously donated land suspected of a method to pay off debt they owed TOL? Did that happen, the three independent appraisals TELL the rest of the story…….

NOTE: Full details can be found in langleywatchdog BLOG Post January 14th, 2014.

All of these issues have serious potential for a conflict of interest or at the very least a perceived conflict of interest by anyone closely connected to TWU sitting in an elected position with the TOL. The Township of Langley has operated for too many years in secrecy amidst untoward influence by friends and insiders (private and corporate). The details of these financial entanglements with Trinity Western University is but just one other hidden issue that must be exposed to the taxpaying public. This is NOT any kind of an attack on a private, universally applauded, post-secondary institution, but it must be dealt with in a transparent process, its is costing taxpayer dollars.

RE The Supreme Court Action brought by 10 citizens of the Township of Langley against a few members of Council including Blair Whitmarsh: In the www.langleywatchdog BLOG Posts of November and December of 2020 we laid out in complete detail the Supreme Court Action by 10 residents of the Township of Langley against Mayor Jack Froese, and Councillors Bob Long, Blair Whitmarsh and former Councillor Angie Quaale filing a complaint of a Conflict of Interest. (For the record Angie Quaale, Jack Froese and Bob Long are not running in the TOL this year.) The petitioners lost their action in a legal ruling BUT taxpayers must be concerned about the moral and ethical principles surrounding members of council’s actions. Specifically, the complaint was laid out in detail and proof was provided that these members of Council accepted donations from developers just BEFORE, DURING and JUST AFTER VOTES that were taken at the Council table surrounding specific development proposals. The petitioners charge of Conflict of Interest was in keeping with lawyer Don Lidstone’s opinion frequently referred to (all members of council received this opinion as requested in 2016), outlining how a direct or indirect pecuniary Conflict of Interest can exist. Shockingly the Respondents in their submission, came out of the gate making an accusation that the named members of Council are being accused of Bribery?

Conflict of Interest IS NOT BRIBERY, the respondents strategy was to simply change the narrative! Put another way it was just a misdirection play!

So, it is important that residents understand the detail of the facts on why petitioners brought this case forward. I must add, this came at a significant personal financial cost to the local residents / Petitioners with absolutely NO benefit to them other than, hopefully our municipality will be run in a very transparent way. Speaking personally from my experience as Mayor of the Township of Langley, that would be a refreshing change. It is interesting that Blair Whitmarsh is the only one of the four running this year?

RE The voting record of Blair Whitmarsh: Blair Whitmarsh suggests he is an independent, however based on his voting record, nothing could be further from the truth. He has voted in lock step with the pro-backroom developer Jack Froese independent (they claim) slate on Council who for the record were all supported by Rich Coleman. It is that de facto (independent?) slate I talked about in an earlier post. This de facto (independent?) slates record on getting things done is ZERO other than in favor of developers, they have accomplished absolutely nothing while residents of the Township have had to deal with an exploding population with no infrastructure improvements to keep pace with that population growth – we are falling way behind. A few specifics:

  • Blair Whitmarsh voted against a staff report to fix 208th Street after campaigning for it in 2018.
  • Blair Whitmarsh voted for the strip mall in Yorkson without any improvements that were presented to work with the developer to make it a multi-story mixed use development. An improvement to the old-outdated strip-mall concept.
  • Blair Whitmarsh Voted against the Rainbow Crosswalk in Fort Langley. The Rainbow Crosswalk was requested by the RCMP and SD35 for two years before Councillor Woodward got it onto the Council Agenda.
  • Blair Whitmarsh voted to remove the Fort Langley pool in a closed meeting and then voted to remove it and replace it with a splash park after public consultation determined it was the least popular option.
  • Blair Whitmarsh voted against a firehall feasibility study for Brookswood and is now promising to fully staff it.
  • Blair Whitmarsh voted against revisiting the Williams Neighbourhood Plan.
  • Blair Whitmarsh voted for the Aldergrove parking lot.
  • Blair Whitmarsh voted against a better deal for taxpayers on the Gloucester Industrial rezoning “Gloucester Giveaway”. Conversion of Farmland to Industrial with absolutely no value to the Township of Langley in return! An attempt was made by Councillor Woodward for 20% to a Climate Change Action Fund or a contribution to a fire hall in Gloucester – both voted down!
  • Blair Whitmarsh voted In favour of inside deals for developer friends, I.E. Fort Langley Waterfront!
  • Blair Whitmarsh voted against cannabis in Walnut Grove and then voted for it when the application came back from one of his supporters.

In short, we need real change for a multitude of reasons. We have to break loose from the chains of local power brokers that have controlled our Council for too many years, let’s get it right!

RG

More interesting 2022 Municipal Election News coming soon!

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.

There is an old (adage) saying: “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.”

This is a tried but true expression which I have learned through my life experiences to live and learn by. In my opinion and experience, Rich Coleman is the epitome (a perfect example) of that saying!

So why do I say that? You just have to read my previous BLOG Post regarding the dialogue I had with Rich Coleman when I innocently requested a meeting after announcing I was running for Mayor of the Township of Langley back in 2008. (A verbatim transcript of that meeting was laid out in my previous BLOG Post to this one.) At that time, after about 36 years in politics, my experience with bullies and those that practiced intimidation, mirrored my experience with Rich Coleman in that meeting. Throughout my life I had never capitulated to bullies or intimidation and I was not going to start with Coleman. He did not get his way as he thought he would.

Getting back into politics after many years was not my plan when we bought our farm, our horses and moved here from North Delta in 1996. We lived there for close to 30 years. Why did I get back into politics? As a taxpayer and citizen of the Township of Langley I followed what was happening through friends, neighbors, and the local media. To say I was shocked on a wide variety of issues including property deals for friends and insiders would be an understatement. All of that coupled with a year and a half campaign connecting with residents in all parts of the Township, very quietly I might add, made up my mind to go for it. An uphill battle yes, for me a relatively unknown at the time, but I had years of experience running major campaigns as well as being previously elected municipally and a candidate provincially.

So fast forward – You work hard, meet lots of great people, and we are focused on winning, Election-day comes around and you win! A shock and surprise to many – As the old saying goes “Be careful what you ask for,” I could, and I should write a book! The following is just a short snapshot of my experiences, leading up to, during, and after winning the 2008 election. As I see it now, nothing has changed; the chains and controls of insiders are still in place, and it will not change until you, the voter, decide you are not going to take it any longer!

The Athenry Development on 208th: The Athenry Development on 208th on the Willoughby Community Hall corner was brought forward to the new council. The previous council had given this project 1st and 2nd reading, public hearing and 3rd reading. As it dealt with approvals given to it by a previous council it is required that the new council be provided with all of the information and material to-date. I wanted to ensure we had all of the information, so I requested the layout of the proposal that was given 3rd reading. That reading was for a large mixed-use building in the center of the property while the NEW layout showed multiple buildings very-close to homes – about 15 feet from their back fences and 4 stories in height (over 40 feet) hovering over single family homes surrounding that property. This was an obvious breach of regulations surrounding what changes can be made at 4th reading. Those regulations state that the only changes that can be made at 4th reading are form, character, and design, NOT an increase in density! It was a highly contentious and controversial project which I strongly objected to, spoke, and voted against. However, despite the protestations of hundreds of local residents, the majority of Council approved the project. There were lawsuits and/or threatened lawsuits, however I know first-hand there were family break ups and loss of home values of up to $100,000. It was a travesty. Once again, the owner of that property had inside connections. It is Interesting, that this development property was-flipped since, and to-date only has one building built on the site. Favors for friends and insiders – Density was added!

The Dixon Pit property sale: Prior to the 2008 election the Township sold the Dixon Pit property – 40 acres of bog plus 40 acres of non-ALR developable property in North Langley. Advertised in the Aldergrove Star (not in a paper distributed around the property in question per legal requirements) with legal address only and sold to a prominent Township of Langley family for pennies on the dollar, compared to the market value. The purchaser donated the 40 acres of bog property to Metro Vancouver and received a tax benefit. This is the sale that Rich Coleman was OK with! Favors for Friends and Insiders, Rich Coleman said WE are OK with this? Who is WE Rich – Developers? Power Brokers? Establishment? Who, is WE?

The Parklane Fort Langley Condo Wall: Fort Langley’s Park Lane Condo Wall project on the waterfront. In the 2008 election year, mid-year, the Township Council when giving 4th reading to the by-law for a 3 story Condominium Development, approved a 4-story development. At 4th reading you are only permitted to make changes in form, character, and design – NOT density which they ignored. Are we trying to suggest a 4th story would not add density? NOT! Favors for developers who benefit!

Landfill on Agricultural Land: A significant issue was an apparent breach of ALR regulations allowing a free reign for dumping fill on agricultural land. After a significant period of time fighting this issue, a diligent land-owner brought to my attention that there was a memo sent to the ALC from our CAO that Council had agreed by resolution to send all applications through to the ALC for their consideration and/or approval. After doing my due diligence internally I discovered a copy of the memo and, that, no such resolution had been passed by Council. In my view that is a deliberate act to mislead a provincial crown agency which is responsible to enforce provincial regulations. Was this a favor for developers? Less costly to dump fill from developments in local area?

The Langley Events Center development: I said then and since, that there should be a Forensic Audit on the Langley Events Center. There was NO Business Plan, NO Taxpayer Referendum, NO Public Consultation and NO P3 agreement that was promised by all parties!

This is not an issue of it being a good or bad project, but it is a serious issue once again pertaining to improper process in favour of friends and insiders. I have written extensively on this subject as it was the first issue I faced after the election.

When I was elected the LEC was about 75% complete and I wanted to be brought up to speed as to cost, process and what issues were at hand. In my first in-camera meeting agenda there was about a 15-page staff report requesting something like an additional $7.5 Million with 10 significant recommendations that required further thought and more information. Getting to that report on the agenda, a motion was put forward to approve the request at which time I requested a one-week deferral as there was a new Mayor, a new councillor and one councillor was away. Barely getting that request out of my mouth Councillor Bateman called for the question on the motion and it was approved with myself being the only dissenting vote. That kind of irresponsible action by members of Council was consistent through my term.

An important point to remember, the $15 Million Provincial Grant was secured based on B.C. Wood being a vital part of construction and that it was a P3 agreement! This fact was heavily promoted and marketed by both the Provincial Government (your MLA Rich Coleman) and the Municipal Government per Press Release of December 18th 2006, January 8th 2007, and November 19th 2007 – There was NO P3 Agreement! The taxpayer was on the hook going forward.

In short you have Mark Bakken’s (Township CAO and friend of Rich Coleman) sons playing hockey on the Langley Chiefs playing out of the George Preston Arena, the team that just happened to be owned by Maury Keith who just happens to be close friends with Rich Coleman who appointed him to numerous terms on the B.C. Lottery Corp Board, who with Rich Coleman and his $15 million B.C. Government Grant supported by Mark Bakken CAO of the TOL gets approval from Council to build the LEC at a cost of $45 Million, who solicit RFQs and RFPs and bingo – we award the contract to Maury Keith and his partner Jim Bond in the Langley Development Group (LDG created for this project) – OH and the contract is awarded to Vantana Construction owned by Jim Bond. You cannot write this stuff! On completion the Maury Keith owned Langley Chiefs are moved to the LEC.

The total cost of the project was $66.2 Million plus an estimated $10 Million in land acquisition / development costs.

Coleman claims an independent assessed value of $100 Million. Speaking to experts in the field this is totally incorrect on buildings of this nature.

Does a needless not contractually required settlement / payment of $8.83 Million to friends and insiders to sever our relationship with LDG not say it all? Where did that money go, just asking?  

NOTE: I have written in detail and extensively about this issue. You can check those posts out – 1) March 3rd, 2013 and 2) September 24th, 2014 BLOG Posts.

Mufford Crescent Diversion: The Mufford Crescent Diversion plan was initiated by the then B.C. Liberal Government under the guise of the Roberts Bank Rail Corridor project led by TransLink, an overpass over the rail line and Glover Rd. through the historical Hudsons Bay and Bella Vista Farms making over 300 acres of prime agricultural land impossible to farm which ultimately would have been removed from the ALR. It was designed and approved without Public Consultation, supported by B.C. Liberal MLA Rich Coleman. After the 2008 election Mayor Rick Green held two Open Houses and a Public Meeting that saw over 1,000 people involved with 97% in opposition. This was the measure of public interest and public opposition. Mayor Green received abusive opposition from his Council plus verbal (in-person) and written threats from then Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon if we didn’t want the money, he would move it elsewhere and Falcon was told to go ahead. While taking two years, we were successful and the ALC, thanks to Chair Richard Bullock, denied the application and returned the proposal to the funding partners, despite the threats, for a better option. Richard Bullock was removed as Chair of the ALC shortly after by the then B.C. Liberal Government. Coleman primarily responsible for fighting against the wishes of Township residents!  You can read about the detail here –

NOTE: Full details can be found in langleywatchdog BLOG Post February 22nd 2013

Trinity University Financial entanglement with the Township of Langley: The Township of Langley has had a close financial relationship with TWU for many years. To the best of my knowledge the current status of this financial relationship has not been made public. It involves the financing of major utility infrastructure years ago, plus their publicized partnership in the Langley Events Center (LEC), back in 2008 / 09, the status of their lease payments to-date for use of the LEC and The Province newspaper (by the late Kent Spencer) expose of the The Township of Langley pays Trinity Western University 80% ($1.2 million) OVER assessed value! The three independent appraisals TELL the rest of the story…….

NOTE: Full details can be found in langleywatchdog BLOG Post January 14th, 2014.

As to Rich Coleman’s habit of trying to bully or intimidate Municipal Councils, we have the Surrey Casino issue: The South Surrey Prospective Casino supported by Rich Coleman and the B.C. Liberal Government – Rich Coleman tries to intervene and coerce a Council decision: Days before Surrey Council’s vote on this controversial project, the minister responsible for gambling. Rich Coleman, called some city councillors with a warning, if they voted no to this proposal, they could forget about any new casino anywhere in Surrey. More attempted bullying and intimidation by Rich Coleman. Councillor Bruce Hayne, who voted against the proposed $100-million casino resort in South Surrey, said Minister Rich Coleman’s call was unusual but clear: “He let me know in no uncertain terms that if we turned down the proposal, the province and (the B.C. Lottery Corp.) would not be looking at another site in Surrey.”

Money Laundering Final Report from Commission of Inquiry into Money Laundering: Rich Coleman likes to suggest he was cleared? Really? When discussing Coleman specifically, Cullen wrote in his report that at one point, the former minister “should have recognized that there was a need to take aggressive action to bring an immediate end to the suspicious activity, that was clearly spiraling out of control.” Coleman was largely responsible for the Money Maundering scandal by disbanding IGET in the face of hundreds of millions of dollars flooding B.C. casinos.! The report also took aim at a radio interview in which Coleman downplayed comments by an RCMP officer who raised concerns about dirty money in casinos. It found Coleman’s comments “posed a real risk of misleading the public into believing there was no basis for concern about suspicious transactions in the provinces casinos at a time when Mr. Coleman had good reason to believe that there was cause to be worried.”

This kind of back-room politics speaks to what Rich Coleman is all about: The following is an excerpt of a thread of emails that were extensively distributed to hundreds of Real Estate professionals and many others in the Township of Langley. It was started by Joel Schacter, a well-known Real Estate Agent friend of Rich Coleman and Mark Bakken with respect to the 2011 Township of Langley Municipal Election Campaign. It was distributed widely during the week prior to election-day. It speaks for itself. A key excerpt from this thread states the following:

I do have a concern if we split the vote between Jack Froese and Mel as this could easily put Rick Green back in the mayor’s seat. Jack is a good man, but I was hoping he would have run for a council seat before jumping right for the chair of the mayor. Unfortunately, it appears a vote for Jack looks like it will end up being a vote for Green in the long run. I have had discussions with some of the senior management at the hall as well as our MLA Rich Coleman and 2 former mayors…. they are all suggesting Mel has the best chance of taking Green out. Rich will be making an unprecedented press release endorsing Mel as well as several current members of council and 2 new prospective members in the next 24 – 48 hours. He believes strongly in getting the right people locally who can work with them provincially.”

NOTE: The full thread of these emails can be found in the langleywatchdog BLOG Post of March 23rd, 2013,

All of this is the tip of the iceberg – I established this langleywatchdog BLOG back in January of 2013 primarily to make residents aware of key issues that they should know about within the Township of Langley. We have published approximately 150 Posts having over 150,000 readers since its inception.

I wish the average hard-working resident of the Township of Langley could have experienced what I did over three years in office, it was an eye opener and in my case those experiences have stayed with me.

In my experience, those that get involved in politics do so because they care about their community and want to contribute to make their community better. Unfortunately, some individuals; very few, get involved in politics by working their way up within community non-profits and service clubs, gaining community profile in their quest to achieve political power.

At no time in elected political office in Delta or here in Langley have I ever viewed my position as that of a position of power. I honestly ran and fought to make a difference in both of these communities, and I look back objectively and believe I have.

In my past 45 years of political activity, I have made many friends, many in the municipal field in the lower mainland. I have known first-hand (up-close and personal) another provincial politician that attempted to use their bully pulpit in their local community, but he never got his way and rightfully so. All of that was true, until we moved out to the Township of Langley. This, as it turned out was an entirely different world relating to power and influence by senior government representatives, their developer friends and insiders on their municipal councils. It is long past time that we stand up and say NO MORE! We can do it!

So Last BUT NOT LEAST we just see Rich Coleman’s Financial Disclosure which says his holdings are in a BLIND TRUST! Really, you have to be kidding – the arrogance of the man knows NO bounds! – You can’t write this stuff!

RG

More interesting 2022 Municipal Election News coming soon!

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.

Let’s elect a build infrastructure, do-something Council!

The majority on our Township of Langley Municipal Council has been populated (elected) with individuals that are a de-facto slate for the last four decades at least – of course they deny it, but their voting records and interesting community connections prove otherwise. The backroom unelected powerbrokers control of this and past council’s majority make it impossible for a reasoned single voice on Council to get anything of substance done for Township of Langley residents. They then use the argument in an election campaign that “This person cannot work with anyone”, which is nothing but their predetermined outcome. This has been a key part of their master plan for decades, lets change that, once and for all! 

Unfortunately, it takes new residents a number of years to learn about the reality of Township of Langley politics – if they have the time within their busy lives to read up on the issue? So, we go back to our title of this Blog Post – “The Best Predictor of FUTURE Performance is PAST Performance”

Remember, you are electing a mayor and eight Councilors for 4 years, and in today’s world that is an eternity. Let us get it right this time, otherwise we will all pay a very heavy price. For the sake of our families, neighbors, and relatives, we need a Council that will do something for our communities in our collective infrastructure needs, and NOT development favors for friends and insiders!

For the record, I am a life-long free-enterprise activist and supporter, but this is not a left or right issue, this is about electing a solid municipal government. It is interesting that the current and past majorities of our Township of Langley municipal councils, seem to be in lock step with the disastrous 16-year record of our previous B.C. Liberal Provincial Government, favoring friends and insiders in land deals, development proposals, contracts and more. So, in BREAKING NEWS, this has all now been confirmed; former MLA Rich Coleman has just come out of hiding and registered a slate confirming what most of us have known for decades, his close ties (admitted below) and influence of your Municipal Government and senior staff. Is he running or not? If Rich Coleman does run for Mayor, I have no trouble stating that “the man’s arrogance knows no bounds”. I guess the bad publicity he received during the money laundering public hearings and his B.C. Liberal Government’s disastrous 16-year run was not enough for him. Who is on his slate? In a very questionable mistake – NOT! (Dirty politics, great start Rich?), he used NDP MLA Megan Dykeman’s office phone number in his interestingly resurrected smokescreen Langley Voter’s Association registration for a slate with Elections B.C.

Rich, you say you have had a lot of people asking you to run for Mayor, I am sure you have as all of those developer friends must be getting nervous about the likely changes coming to the Township of Langley Municipal Council this year! The following is an excerpt from our first BLOG Post of January 2013, it says a lot:

At this point I will relate an interesting conversation I had in my meeting with Rich Coleman. (For the record I would swear an affidavit to the validity of the following, a lie detector test if required) It was in February of 2008 and in response to my message and request for a meeting, I received a call from Rich Coleman’s office to set up a meeting in his then Aldergrove office.

On my arrival (interesting, then Councilor Jordan Bateman was hanging out in Coleman’s office when I got there) we went into his boardroom with just the two of us in the meeting. We got into it right off the top:

Rich Coleman: So what is this meeting about?

Rick Green: I just wanted to drop by and introduce someone who is running for Mayor.

Rich Coleman: Well, WE are OK with the job the Mayor is doing.

Rick Green: Well, we are not.

Rich Coleman: I want you to know two things; the CAO (Mark Bakken – Chief Administrative Officer) is a good friend of mine.

Rick Green: That’s interesting

Rich Coleman: And you have been making noises about some land deals, and I want you to know WE are OK with them. (note: the specifics are a topic for another day – but it dealt with the sale of the Township owned Dixon Pit property at an unbelievable low price with questionable required advertising and more to a prominent Langley family.)

Rick Green: Well we are not, it is bull shit and it is going to stop.

After that frosty exchange, I was surprised that the meeting lasted a while longer. Believe me, there was no doubt that I was not his choice for Mayor, (Somehow I don’t think I fit his mold of a “do as I say” Mayor) but then again, I could have cared less. He was the last person in the world I was trying to impress. The haunting question from that meeting that still remains unanswered is, WHO was Rich Coleman referring to with respect to “WE” being OK with the mysterious land deals, and “WE” being OK with the then Mayor Kurt Alberts. Who is “WE”?  Just asking the question? The Establishment? WHO? Very interesting comment which probably tells a lot!

We cannot allow this cabal (def. a secret political clique or faction) to continue their undue influence and take over of our community, not IF we care about the Township of Langley and want a truly representative municipal government, unlike those of the past. All of this sounds like panic is setting in within the development community! Up to now developers have had a free reign!  

Proof of the above? Just look at our current Council’s consistent voting record over the last four decades on issues such as “selling off of Township owned property to friends and insiders”, “disastrous development approvals,” votes against reasonable “Community Amenity Contributions” (CACs) forcing developers to pay for necessary infrastructure, voting for ad-hoc changes to “community and neighborhood plans,” voting for ad-hoc “zoning changes” within community and neighborhood plans, voting against key “Community Infrastructure Investments and needs” with a complete lack of transparency. Remember it was Mayor Froese, and Councillors Whitmarsh, Long and former Councillor Quaale who accepted donations just before, during and immediately after development proposals were voted on at the Council table. Illegal no, unethical and immoral, in my opinion yes.  All of that coupled with decisions being made behind closed doors during in-camera council meetings, ALL hidden from the public which is the way they want it. That must be stopped.

Remember the publicly stated opinion by Mayor Jack Froese on Public Hearings – he does not pay much attention to them as he has to consider the number of people that did not come out to express their opinion. All of this is a slap in the face to community members attending and voicing their opinion which follows due process in municipal governance mandated by legislation?

But this is the mantra of their silent de facto slate meeting the needs of the development community and those unelected in our community (Some call them the Langley Mafia) pulling strings to do their bidding on Council. If you are going to run a slate at least have the guts to make that public, so the voter can decide based on knowing the facts of who is involved. That may just be about ready to happen.

All of these issues, especially with an exploding population (the second largest increase in Metro Vancouver over the past three years and not slowing down) can have, and frankly ARE having, a devastating effect in all six of our communities throughout the Township of Langley.

In a recent interview with outgoing Mayor Jack Froese he was asked what he felt was a key issue in the Township of Langley going forward – his response “to keep the Township with a small-town feel”? Really? But their de-facto slate obviously agrees, SO:

Let me see if I understand this – you approve massive new housing developments, but vote against the necessary infrastructure needed to support those developments? Like roads, sidewalks, recreation facilities (Community Centers and pools), passive parks, active parks, fire halls with the necessary fire infrastructure, school properties supporting NEW development and we wonder why all of us are faced with a community in crisis every day? Road congestion, poor sidewalk connectivity, a disturbing deficiency in the area of parks and recreation facilities, schools, no seniors centers and more? A small town feel? That horse is out of the barn, and we are all feeling the negative effects of it.

This LANGLEYWATCHDOG BLOG, will, as it has done for the last 9 years, keep you abreast of the candidates, the issues, and what the candidates stand for. It will culminate in my endorsements in an issue prior to the October 15th election and with the clear reasons why. There are many interesting rumors going around with respect to potential candidates, so we will leave all of that for now, but we encourage you to follow this BLOG for the latest in election news.

It is very unfortunate that our local papers, ALL owned by Black Press, pander to our sitting municipal government (The Township of Langley, your tax dollars and hard-earned money, spends over $225,000 per year on local media) the local media do not want to upset their golden goose revenue source. Our local media’s largest advertisers are the Township of Langley and the development community – period, a fact based on years of inside knowledge up-close and personal. You cannot rely on them to do anything other than printing soft–ball and orchestrated political Q and A candidate campaign reports; that is just what they do and how they survive.

Through our network of objective contributors within all six communities, we will provide the feedback most taxpayers are looking for. We will explain the issues in an understandable and reliable fashion, how they affect you and in many ways what the majority of the current council do not want you to know.

As a former Mayor of the Township of Langley and Delta Alderman with over 45 years of political experience, elected and appointed on numerous Municipal Commissions, Delta Police Board Member, Metro Vancouver Director, member of six Metro Vancouver Committees, including vice-chair of the Metro Vancouver Agriculture Committee, TransLink Mayors Council member and Alternate Municipal Finance Authority Director, we will not hold back on the facts that you should know about before you vote!

Let us finally break from the past and make changes to our council that are meaningful and not connected to the unelected insiders control of Council and staff. The status quo has not worked for us in the past and will not work for us in the future – we need meaningful change.

Four years is an eternity, the new Council’s decisions will make or break the direction the Township of Langley is going in – Let us get it right this time around, our families pride in their community and its livability depend on it!

RG

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.

We will keep you up to-date with the news that is important to you and your Family!

Elections have Consequences, we want you to be informed!

The Township of Langley has a long and sordid political history going back over at least four decades. It has a reputation of special property and development deals for special friends and insiders. Many refer to the Township of Langley as the Wild, Wild West of property development and incestuous (adj. excessively close and resistant to outside influence) political activity! This BLOG has published over 160 BLOG Posts since its inception in January of 2013, documenting a vast number of serious issues that have been uncovered in the Township of Langley by community activists and myself as Mayor 2008 – 2011. Unfortunately, this community has ceded political control over the last four decades to those acting in personal interest and not in the best interest of Township residents – this MUST change! This year is our real opportunity to transform our Council into a Council that will work and do the right thing for ALL taxpayers.

Along with the serious issues documented within this BLOG over many years we continue to see an unbelievable reluctance and outright intransigence on the part of our current Municipal Council to change in the best interest of our exploding population. Keeping pace with our booming population and communities needs by providing much needed critical infrastructure is essential, and it is not happening. The Township of Langley’s population leads the pack in Metro Vancouver at + 31.88% growth between 2011 and 2021. (That is only 10 years!) It is long past time that we have a Municipal Council that recognizes our citizen’s needs in looking after this exploding growth. We need to move into the present and meet the needs of today and tomorrow, the status quo is long past being acceptable, there has to be some serious change in the make-up of our elected Council!

What are we talking about? – Roads, sidewalks, parks (passive and active), recreation facilities, property for schools, water, Community and Neighborhood Plans that represent community values (not repeated approvals to change those plans and the approved zoning for and by developers), fire halls (to keep pace with Insurance Company demands) and so much more!

The election is for FOUR years, we have to get it right on October 15th, 2022!

Special Deals with friends and developers: As I am sure it has been noted that my last two posts have dealt with what I still consider a serious issue pertaining to the campaign fundraising activity of a few members of the Township of Langley Council by way of a Supreme Court of British Columbia application; a group of ten Township of Langley residents (who deserve a lot of credit) petitioned the Supreme Court of British Columbia regarding the process and method of receiving campaign donations by Mayor Jack Froese, Councillors Blair Whitmarsh and Bob Long as well as former Councillor Angie Quaale at various times, before, during and after developments were voted on and approved by Council.

The Petitioners didn’t really “lose”. The Justice said the obvious connection between them did not prove a conflict of interest in terms of a “quid pro quo”. That is actually not the legal standard though, instead being that a reasonable person could conclude it *may* affect their votes. In our opinion of course it does. The Justice just wasn’t going to do it.

The complete detail pertaining to the application and the decision are laid out in my BLOG posts dated November 26th and December 4th 2020. I have deliberately left these two BLOG Posts up as my latest posts so my daily viewers, of which there are many, will have the opportunity to be reminded about what is and has been going on in our municipality who still claim they did nothing wrong. Really?

Technically the petitioners lost their case in the Supreme Court, but it is clear however that at a minimum there is a moral and ethical argument about the fundraising activities that occurred by these members of Council. As an individual who has been involved in politics for the best part of 45 years, has managed many campaigns Provincially and Municipally, been elected Alderman in Delta, and Mayor in the Township of Langley, I have NEVER accepted donations directly nor did my Fundraising Chairman fundraise prior to 45 days before the election day.

Under NO circumstances would we receive (accept) donations during the elected term which presented any appearance of influence should any development applications be on the table. I voted considering input from staff, residents input by mail and public hearing outcomes and my personal consideration.

It must be about ethics and moral governance for those elected without any appearance of undue influence. I have talked to many Municipal politicians, former colleagues in the lower mainland, and without exception they were surprised at what has been going on politically in the Township of Langley. It appears that a change in Campaign Finance Laws has not had the desired effect on our local politics.

Politics is not a Spectator Sport – It is a Participation Sport! – This obviously doesn’t mean you have to run for Council or for that matter donate or work for a candidate, however it does mean that as taxpayers we have the responsibility to follow who is running, what they stand for, what life experiences, they have and specifically what their voting track record is if they are currently on Council? Your Municipal Council has more direct influence and effect on our daily lives than do the two senior levels of government.

Our existing Council? To keep Council members accountable they must be held accountable at election time; it is our only chance as taxpayers to hold them to account. An election is a referendum on the real performance on current council members, not their grandstanding performance, which becomes obvious at every Council meeting. Through this BLOG we will provide relevant information as to the performance of current Council members. Don’t pay attention to the political platitudes you will hear from many candidates during the election campaign in their written editorials, campaign literature, Council meeting theatrics and political profiles – they mean absolutely nothing. Real performance on Council means everything. My municipal political experience has given me an up-close-and-personal observation on the actions of many sitting at our Council table, it is not pretty.     

NEW Candidates – Who else is running for Council, what is their background, what are their life experiences, what do they stand for, what is their platform? There have been a few that have come forward publicly to announce they are running for Mayor and Councillor but it is far too early to draw any conclusions. There challenge is to have the intestinal fortitude to lay out their platform in real terms and not with fuzzy language backed up with some proof of credibility.  

This BLOG, www.langleywatchdog.com will keep you up to-date through POSTS during August, weekly after that up to October 1st and then bi-weekly up to election-day October 15th, 2022.

As I stated earlier we have a serious critical infrastructure deficit. We are no longer that sleepy hollow that some would like to go back to, those days are gone, fortunately or unfortunately depending on your point of view. The issue, we have to manage it and protect our communities with good planning. We are the fastest growing Municipality in Metro Vancouver and we are in a crisis due to the inaction of many on the current Council. We are in gridlock with respect to parks, schools, roads, fire halls and so much more. Let’s work to have the largest turnout in Township of Langley municipal election history – It is the only way we can correct so many years of inadequate Council attention.

RG

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 case as presented in court along with my editorial comments are being left in place so readers can judge for themselves their views on the actions of 3 current members of Council and 1 that was defeated. What happens from here will be up to the opinion of residents leading up to the next election? Are you supportive of Council members making these decisions or not? Over to you……

No. S1914167 Vancouver Registry

BETWEEN

JOHN ALLAN, PENNY LYNNE ALLAN, JANICE LORRAINE BRADDELL,

JOHN FULLERTON, JULIE FULLERTON, GRIT HIGH, ALEXANDER

GRANT SCHIERMAN, NORA ELIZABETH SCHIERMAN, GARY DAVID SAWATSKY and LINDA ELIZABETH TEMPLE

PETITIONERS

AND:

STANLEY JACK FROESE, BLAIR GARNET WHITMARSH, ROBERT LONG and ANGELA DAWN QUAALE

RESPONDENTS

Report on Supreme Court Petition Hearing; You won’t get this in the Langley Advance Times!

langleywatchdog.com (lwd.com) Preamble: As a follow up to our Breaking News feature in our previous BLOG Post, we offer the following commentary which further refers to the Petitioners submissions. I will not refer in any way to the Court proceedings as there is a prohibition to any recordings of them. More importantly I want to lay out the substance of the Petitioners argument which deals with the timing, the amounts and the proposals that were voted on by members of Council. As the Petitioners outlined their case in detail, the Respondents response leaves one like me, a former politician and veteran of numerous election campaigns as a candidate and manager, gasping for air. Really?

One thing I learned very early on in politics through those with significant experience and through the distribution of information and instructions from Elections BC and/or the City of Delta and the Township of Langley – the Candidate appoints a Financial Agent, yourself or someone else, BUT YOU (the candidate) are responsible for knowing all aspects of your campaign! You (the candidate) are responsible for any and all debt and therefore for any and all fundraising, the amounts, from whom and when. Frankly, this is so obvious it is hard to believe anyone elected is pleading otherwise. To reinforce that point, every election I have been in, worked to a budget and a plan i.e. brochures, newspaper ads, signs etc.! Not knowing exactly where you were at, was just a non-starter. So a message to our Council who are respondents and subject to this current petition, as an old saying goes “you have either been lying to us or you are too stupid to be running this Municipality.”

What was this Supreme Court Hearing all about? In a clearly spelled out submission the Petitioners state that this is clearly a case of “Conflict of Interest” which is in keeping with the Don Lidstone opinion frequently referred to (all members of Council received this opinion as requested in 2016), outlining how a direct or indirect pecuniary Conflict of Interest can exist. Shockingly the Respondents, in their submission, came out of the gate making an accusation that the named members of Council are being accused of Bribery?

Conflict of Interest IS NOT Bribery, the Respondents strategy is to simply change the narrative!

Put another way it is and was nothing more than a misdirection play!

So, it is important that residents understand the detail of the facts on why the Petitioners brought this case forward. I must add, this must come at a significant personal financial cost to the local residents / Petitioners with absolutely NO benefit to them other than, hopefully, our municipality will be run in a very transparent way. Speaking personally from my experience as Mayor of the Township of Langley, that would be a refreshing change. I will use excerpts from the Petitioners submission interspersed with my commentary to provide, hopefully, an easily understood explanation.

IMPORTANT – When reviewing dates, remember, the Municipal Election in 2018 was on Oct. 20th!

RE Williams Neighborhood Plan / The Mitchell Group

April 9, 2018, the bylaw amendments that were required to implement the Williams Neighbourhood Plan were put before Council and passed first and second reading. Mayor Froese, Councillor Whitmarsh, and Former Councillor Quaale (the respondents who would end up receiving contributions from the Mitchell Group) were present and voted in favour of the Plan and opposed the referral of the Plan so that Council could receive additional presentations.38

April 23, 2018, the Plan went through public hearing before Council. Ken Mitchell was the first speaker. The minutes note the following:

K. Mitchell, Mitchell Group, Developer of the Williams Business Park and Retail Complex, was in attendance and stated that they want Williams to be a self-contained, walkable community with a neighbourhood retail centre to meet community needs. The Coriolis Consulting Corp. report confirms that four square feet of grocery and 20 square feet of commercial per person are industry standard metrics. The proposed Commercial Project will have a neighbourhood retail complex up to 150,000 square feet with a grocery store of 40,000 feet.39

May 7, 2018, the Plan was put before Council for third reading. At third reading, Councillor Whitmarsh moved to make an amendment to increase the total area for grocery use to 40,000 square feet. The amendment was seconded by Former Councillor Quaale. Mayor Froese also voted in favour, and 40,000 square feet was ultimately approved.40

May 16, 2018, Less than 10 days later Councillor Whitmarsh received $1,200 from Ken Mitchell, $1,200 from Diane Mitchell, and $600 from Ryan O’Shea.41

May 27 2018, Mayor Froese received $1,200 from Ken Mitchell and $1,200 from Diane Mitchell.42

June 18 2018, Former Councillor Quaale received $1,200 from Ken Mitchell, $1,200 from Diane Mitchell, and $600 from Ryan O’Shea.43

June 22 2018, Mayor Froese received an additional $600 from Jacilyn O’Shea and $600 from Ryan O’Shea.44

October 1, 2018, the Plan was before Council for final adoption. At that meeting, Mayor Froese, Councillor Whitmarsh and Former Councillor Quaale voted against an amendment to incorporate more park space. That amendment was defeated 5-4.45

In summary, Mayor Froese received $3,600, and Councillor Whitmarsh and Former Councillor Quaale each received $3,000 from persons connected to the Mitchell Group, when the Williams Neighbourhood Plan was between third reading and adoption. In Councillor Whitmarsh’s case, he received his contributions just 9 days after having moved to amend the Plan to increase the area for grocery use to 40,000 square feet, which matched exactly the proposal that Mr. Mitchell advocated for at the public hearing in April. The minutes from the October1, 2018 meeting showed that none of these respondents disclosed a conflict of interest or removed themselves from the meetings.46

RE The Beedie Group

June 30, 2018, Mayor Froese received $1,200 from Robert Fiorvento, the Beedie Group’s Managing Partner. This was only nine days before a development permit application for a 306.5 m2commercial building would be before Council. 47

July 4, 2018, Mayor Froese received another $1,200 from Jason Tonin, the Beedie Group’s Vice President of Land Development.48

July 9, 2018, Mayor Froese voted in favour of the development permit application for the 306.5m2commercial building for two restaurants (“Beedie Group’s Restaurant Application”).49

July 10, 2018, one day later Mayor Froese received $1,200 from Ryan Beedie, the Beedie Group’s president.50

July 15, 2018, Councillor Whitmarsh received $2,400 from persons connected to the Beedie Group.51This was just six days after he voted in favour of the Beedie Group’s Restaurant Application, and just eight days before he voted in favour of a development permit application for an 8,451 m2 industrial building in the Gloucester Industrial Park (“Beedie Group’s Gloucester Application”) on July 23, 2018.53 He also voted in favour of other Beedie Group applications on September 17, 2018 and October 1, 2018.

NOTE – By the time the Beedie Group’s Gloucester Application was before Council, Mayor Froese had already received $3,600 in the last several weeks from persons connected to the Beedie Group.

July 25, 2018, Councillor Long received $2,400 from persons connected to the Beedie Group.56 This was just two days after the Beedie Group’s Gloucester Application was approved,57 16 days after the development permit for the Beedie Group’s Restaurant Application was approved,58 and about two months before Councillor Long voted in favour of another two of the Beedie Group’s developments on September 17, 2018 and October 1, 2018.

September 17, 2018, Council considered another Beedie Group development permit application for a 4,531 m2 industrial building, that was to be operated by Inno Bakery, also in the Gloucester Industrial Park (“Beedie Group’s First Bakery Application”).60 Mayor Froese, Councillor Whitmarsh and Councillor Long voted in favour, and did not disclose the fact that they had received substantial campaign contributions from persons connected to the Beedie Group.61

September 25, 2018, Former Councillor Quaale received $1,200 from Todd Yuen of the Beedie Group.62 This was only five days before Council would consider a development permit application for a 4,651 m2 industrial building adjacent to the property subject to the Beedie Group’s Bakery Application, which was also to be operated by Inno Bakery (“Beedie Group’s Second Bakery Application”),63 and only eight days after the Beedie Group’s First Bakery Application had passed.64

October 9th, 2018, eight days after Mayor Froese voted in favour of the Beedie Group’s Second Bakery Application, he received $1,200 from Todd Yuen, the Beedie Group’s President, Industrial.

RE Vesta

May 16, 2018, Councillor Whitmarsh received $1,800 from persons connected to Vesta.66 This was only nine days after Vesta’s development of 73 single family lots, 39 rowhouse lots, 18 semi detached lots, and 122 townhouse units (“Vesta’s First Latimer Development Application”), was approved.67 This was also only approximately a month before two significant Vesta projects would be before Council for first reading (June 25, 2018).68

June 18, 2018, Former Councillor Quaale received $600 from Marlene Best, Vesta’s then Senior Development Manager.69 This was only seven days before two significant Vesta projects would be before Council for first reading (June 25, 2018), one for 56 townhomes and 186 apartments (“Vesta’s Second Latimer Development Application”),70 and the other for 449 apartments, 3,398 m2 of commercial space and 10,033 m2 of office space (“Vesta’s Carvolth Development Application”).71 It was also less than a month from when the two Vesta contracts would be considered by Council on July 9, 2018.72 The contribution was made just over a month subsequent to when the bylaw amendments for Vesta’s First Latimer Development Application were adopted (May 7, 2018).73

June 26, 2018, Mayor Froese received $1,000 from Kent Sillars of Vesta. This was only one day after Vesta’s Second Latimer Development Application and Vesta’s Carvolth Development Application passed first and second reading, and less than a month before both applications passed third reading.74

NOTE – This contribution from Mr. Sillars to Mayor Froese was also two weeks before Council considered and approved a Development Cost Charges Front-ending Agreement between the Township and Vesta. At that same meeting on July 9, 2018, Council also passed an amendment to another by-law to allow for the execution of a Development Works Agreement between the Township and Vesta.75Further, this contribution was also received less than a month before a 792 multi-family unit and hotel development of Vesta’s was considered before Council on July 23, 2018 (“Vesta’s Carvolth High-Rise Development Application”).76The contribution came less than two months after Vesta’s First Latimer Development Application was adopted,77and approximately two and half months after a rezoning application for 153 Vesta townhomes passed third reading on April 9, 2018.78

September 11, 2018, Councillor Long received $3,200 from persons connected to Vesta.79This was only 20 days before third reading of Vesta’s Carvolth High-Rise Development Application.80This was also less than two months after Vesta’s Second Latimer Development Application and Vesta’s Carvolth Development Application had passed third reading but were still pending final adoption.81

September 18, 2018, Councillor Whitmarsh also received another $500 from Braedon Sillars, Vesta’s Development Coordinator.82This was less than two weeks before Vesta’s Carvolth High-Rise Development Application was brought before Council for third reading.83

September 26, 2018, Former Councillor Quaale also received an additional $1,700 from persons connected to Vesta.84 This was just five days before Vesta’s Carvolth High-Rise Development Application was before Council for third reading.85

RE Lanstone

May 16th 2018, Councillor Whitmarsh received $1,000 from Lanson Foster of Landstone. This was less than a month before Lanstone would have a 54-unit residential development (“Landstone’s Application”) before Council for first reading on June 11th, 2018.

June 18, 2018, Former Councillor Quaale received $1,000 from Lanson Foster of Lanstone. This was just seven days after Lanstone’s Application passed first and second reading and less than a month before it would pass third reading on July 9, 2018.87

September 12, 2018, Mayor Froese received $1,200 from John Tilstra of Lanstone. This was approximately two months after Lanstone’s Application passed third reading.88

RE Infinity

May 16, 2018, Councillor Whitmarsh received $500 from Timothy Bontkes of Infinity. This was approximately two months after Infinity’s 51 townhouse development (“Infinity’s Application”) passed third reading on March 5, 2018, and two months before it would be adopted on July 23, 2018.89

June 18, 2018, Former Councillor Quaale received $500 from Timothy Bontkes. This contribution was made approximately one month before Infinity’s Application was adopted on July 23, 2018.90

June 27, 2018, Mayor Froese received $1,200 from Timothy Bontkes. This was approximately three and a half months after Infinity’s Application passed third reading on March 5, 2018, and less thana month before it was adopted on July 23, 2018.91

RE Polygon

June19, 2018, Mayor Froese received $1,200 from Scott Baldwin of Polygon. This was just six days before Polygon’s 589 unit apartment building application came before Council for first reading on June25, 2018.92

RE Essence

October 9, 2018, Councillor Long received $2,400 from persons connected to Essence. This was approximately two and a half months after Essence’s application for a 102 townhouse unit and 75 apartment unit development application passed third reading on July23, 2018, and two months before it would be adopted on December10, 2018.

D. The legal opinion

62. Importantly, the respondents engaged in this voting behaviour despite having received a legal opinion that doing so could constitute a conflict of interest.

63. In June 2016, the Township sought a legal opinion from Lidstone & Company as to whether campaign contributions from a developer would disqualify a council member from voting on that developer’s rezoning application. The opinion was received by Council on June 13, 2016.94All the respondents were on Council at the time.

64. In the opinion, Don Lidstone, Q.C. advised that campaign contributions without more did not constitute a conflict of interest. In the opinion’s summary, he stated the following:

…the campaign contribution by itself does not create a conflict of interest, even if that developer later applies for a rezoning. An exception would be if a developer gives a Council member a donation when the rezoning application comes before Council.95

65. Mr. Lidstone also concluded his opinion by stating:

There could be a conflict if the Council member was personally or privately connected to the developer, if development was in-stream at the time of the election, or if the developer made a donation after the rezoning application was made. However, we understand that none of these apply in relation to the Brookswood rezoning applications.96

The respondents’ evidence

66. For their part, the respondents do not deny that they received any of the contributions at issue in this proceeding, nor do they deny that they participated in, and voted on the various applications without making any declarations of conflict of interest. Rather, they universally say that: (a) there was never any indication from the contributors that the contributions were made with any intention or expectation of an agreement to vote a particular way; (b) none of their votes were influenced by campaign contributions; and (c) they were always motivated to vote in the best interest of the Township.97

67. Much of the respondents’ evidence is focused on their recollection or knowledge of who made the impugned contributions, as well as their recollection of the development applications in question. As set out below, the petitioners say that, on the application of the proper legal test, the respondents’ subjective recollections or motivations as to how they voted on any particular project are irrelevant.

The interpretation of the conflict of interest provisions and the applicable legal test

72. The B.C. Court of Appeal’s decision in Schlenker is the most recent and leading authority on the interpretation of the Community Charter conflict of interest provisions.98 In that case, the Court of Appeal overturned the chambers judge’s decision that the elected officials were not in a direct or indirect pecuniary conflict of interest when they voted to award service contracts to societies of which they were directors. The Court held that the chamber judge’s reasoning that the elected officials were not themselves enriched, and therefore there was no pecuniary conflict, applied too narrow an interpretation to the phrase “direct or indirect pecuniary interest”. Such a narrow interpretation was said to undermine the purpose of the conflict of interest provisions.99

73. After noting the “modern approach” to statutory interpretation, Mr. Justice Donald, speaking for a unanimous Court, held that the conflict of interest provisions in the Community Charter must be given a broad and liberal interpretation consistent with its purpose,100 which is to prevent elected officials from having divided loyalties. The Court quoted with approval from the following passage in Re Moll and Fisher:

This enactment, like all conflict-of-interest rules, is based on the moral principle, long embodied in our jurisprudence, that no man can serve two masters. It recognizes the fact that the judgment of even the most well-meaning men and women may be impaired when their personal financial interests are affected. Public office is a trust conferred by public authority for public purpose. And the Act, by its broad proscription, enjoins holders of public offices within its ambit from any participation in matters in which their economic self-interest may be in conflict with their public duty. The public’s confidence in its elected representatives demands no less. Legislation of this nature must, it is clear, be construed broadly and in a manner consistent with its purpose.101

74. In an earlier decision, the Court of Appeal held that these provisions are “intended to enhance and protect the integrity of local government.”102 This is consistent the reasoning of other appellate courts with respect to the objective of similar conflict of interest provisions. For example, the Alberta Court of Appeal has stated that such a provision “sustains the right of an elector to the even-handed, independent consideration of his elected representatives on questions before Council, unaffected by any influence that could potentially flow from a direct or indirect pecuniary interest”.103

Summary:

This hearing wrapped up Friday December 5th, 2020. Justice Walker stated he expected to release a decision early in 2021. He went on to state that it is a very interesting case with interesting issues. Further he stated he is generally very quick at getting judgements out, but this one may take a while.

Obviously what I have published in this BLOG Post deals mainly with the guts of the Petitioners argument based on the “close temporal proximity between the contributions and votes on applications” as the Petitioners lawyer Mark Underhill has stated in his admissions. All of this in the face of asking for and receiving a legal opinion from a recognized municipal legal expert, Don Lidstone Q.C. a short two years before.

We won’t get into any discussion or debate on any potential Respondent culpability or finding by the courts however an objective assessment of “whether a reasonably well-informed observer would conclude that the campaign contribution might influence the duty of the elected official”, is the crux of the argument.In this case, there exists a unique constellation of facts, including:

1) the sheer number of contributions from multiple developers;

2) the timing of contributions while those developers had matters before counsel, sometimes within days of a vote on that matter;

3) the fact that there were several individuals making contributions from the same developer, effectively circumventing the restrictions on campaign contributions;

4) the proposing and passing of amendments to coincide with the proposal of a developer (in the case of the Williams Neighbourhood Plan); and

5) the. repeated pattern of conduct despite legal advice to the contrary

111. A reasonably well-informed person would conclude that, given these extraordinary facts, the respondents might have been influenced by these contributions to vote in the best interests of the developers or their own political careers rather than in the best interests of their constituents. Public confidence in the integrity and transparency of municipal governance cannot be maintained if these circumstances are deemed acceptable.

IMPORTANT – Message to Township of Langley Taxpayers and VOTERS!

Win, lose or draw, are you comfortable with your municipal politicians accepting donations in this fashion without at least disclosing receipt of contributions received while proposed development applications are “in stream” at the time of their vote? I am not!

RG

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!

BETWEEN

JOHN ALLAN, PENNY LYNNE ALLAN, JANICE LORRAINE BRADDELL,

JOHN FULLERTON, JULIE FULLERTON, GRIT HIGH, ALEXANDER

GRANT SCHIERMAN, NORA ELIZABETH SCHIERMAN, GARY DAVID

SAWATSKY and LINDA ELIZABETH TEMPLE

PETITIONERS

AND:

STANLEY JACK FROESE, BLAIR GARNET WHITMARSH, ROBERT LONG and ANGELA DAWN QUAALE

RESPONDENTS

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONERS

langleywatchdog.com (lwd.com) Preamble:

I was contacted by CTV News in late October of 2019 regarding a CTV Investigative Research item into potential serious and illegal campaign donations received by three members of the existing Township of Langley Council plus one member that was not elected in the 2018 Municipal election. I went on air that day, as requested by CTV from a remote location for broadcast that evening. That afternoon I received a package of information that was the source of information for CTV, which I reviewed very thoroughly, found it very newsworthy and published it in this BLOG – The Link to that post follows:

https://langleywatchdog.com/breaking-news-ctv-investigative-report-on-the-actions-of-three-current-members-and-one-former-member-of-the-township-of-langley-council-this-is-outragious/

I must add that in typical Langley Advance Times / Mathew Claxton fashion, their report of this serious issue is lame, pathetic but if nothing else consistent. It does not mention the fact that it was CTV’s investigative work and broadcast of the anonymous material THEY received that was the source of their investigation. I received the same package of information later that day which I made public. Mathew phoned me and asked for my source, which I denied. For the record, ALL the information I receive on any topic is guaranteed to be kept in confidence.

For your information the Langley Advance Times are paid a sum in excess of $150,000 per year by the Township of Langley for their advertising requirements, in typical fashion they are very careful as to what they provide in print; don’t upset the client! (Their two news stories are dated December 17th, 2019 & November 20th, 2020)

The result of all of this published information was an Application to the Supreme Court of British Columbia (as indicated above) by TEN (10) resident petitioners, and voters of the Township of Langley. It has been a while, mainly due to Covid-19 shutdowns, however this application will be heard by the Supreme Court of British Columbia Monday November 30th, 2020 thru to December 3rd, 2020.

I am in receipt of a copy of the “Respondents” court submission in support of their court petition to be heard on the dates above.

Excerpt from Petitioners Submissions:

PART V. ORDERS SOUGHT (Page 36)

113.The petitioners seek the following orders

1) A declaration that the respondents failed to disclose a direct or indirect pecuniary conflict of interest contrary to section 100 of the Community Charter.

2) A declaration that the respondents attended meetings, participated in discussions, attempted to influence voting, and/or voted in a manner contrary to s. 101(2) of the Community Charter.

3) An order pursuant to s. 111 of the Community Charter that the respondents, other than Former Councillor Quaale, are disqualified from holding office until the next general local election.

4) Costs, including special costs.

(lwd.com) Commentary on Petitioners Submission:

The submission by the Petitioners is detailed, very complete and in my view very compelling! This is obviously being dealt with in a court of law so the outcome cannot be judged at this point. Having said that, the Petitioners submission is some 36 pages in length which cannot be fully copied into this Blog, however we will offer some excerpts that we find are of particular interest to residents of the Township regardless of the outcome.

Excerpt from Petitioners Submissions cont’d:

PART I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW (Page 1&2)

  1. The petitioners seek declarations that the respondents, three sitting members of the Council of the Township of Langley (the “Township”) – including the mayor – and a former city councillor, failed to disclose pecuniary conflicts of interest contrary to the Community Charter, S.B.C., 2003, c. 26 (“Community Charter”). As a result of that failure, the petitioners say that those respondents who are currently sitting members of Council must be disqualified from their positions in office.
  2. This case is based on unprecedented (and largely undisputed) facts. In the lead-up to the 2018 municipal election, the respondents received numerous campaign contributions from multiple property developers while those same developers had applications before Council. In some cases, these contributions were received within days of the application coming before Council. Despite having received a legal opinion from the Township’s solicitor that a conflict of interest could exist if contributions were accepted while developments were “in-stream”, or if the contributions were made shortly after a development application was made, none of the respondents disclosed the contributions and sought legal advice, let alone made a declaration that they were in a conflict of interest. The respondents went on to vote in favour of each of the development applications.
  3. To the petitioners’ knowledge, this pattern of campaign contributions, with such a close temporal proximity between the contributions and votes on applications, has never come before the courts. It in turn raises an important legal issue with widespread implications for the integrity of, and public confidence in, municipal governance in this province. To date, the jurisprudence on conflicts of interest arising out of campaign contributions has held that a contribution, and a later vote in favour of an application, does not constitute a conflict of interest without “something more”. The petitioners say that, in this case, the “something more” is the pattern and temporal proximity of the contributions and voting behaviour, which would lead a reasonably informed person to conclude that the contributions might have influenced the exercise of the respondents’ duty as Council members.
  4. For their part, the respondents say that there is a much higher legal threshold, and that there must be explicit evidence that the respondents agreed to “deliver a vote” or a quid pro quo before a conflict of interest can be made out. The petitioners say that such a high threshold would be virtually impossible to meet from an evidentiary perspective and is in any event entirely inconsistent with the broad and liberal interpretation to be applied to the conflict of interest provisions in the Community Charter. The purpose of the provisions – to maintain public confidence that elected officials do not have divided loyalties – must inform the legal threshold that is to be applied by this Court. Public confidence can be undermined in circumstances short of an explicit “agreement to vote” or quid pro quo. It is also not restored by virtue of the fact that disclosure of the contributions is later required under the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act, S.B.C. 2014, c. 18. It is the lack of disclosure, and the failure to seek legal advice, at the time of the votes that undermines public confidence.
  5. In this case, the circumstances – the timing of the contributions relative to votes, the sheer number of contributions, the repeated pattern of behaviour, the ignoring of legal advice, and the perceived circumvention of legislative restrictions on campaign contributions – are sufficient to give rise to a conflict of interest. If the respondents are correct, and there is no conflict of interest in this case, the democratic principle of transparency will be substantially undermined given that the voting public would have no opportunity to even know about the contributions, and the possibility of divided loyalties, at the time of the votes.

PART II. FACTS (Page 2&3)

  1. The Parties
  • The Township is not a named respondent in this Petition but was served pursuant to s. 111(5)(b) of the Community Charter. It has filed a Response to Petition and affidavit material in support of the respondents.

(lwd.com) Commentary on Petitioners Submission:

IMPORTANT – NOTE: The Township of Langley has filed a Response to the Petition and filed an affidavit in support of the Respondents apparently suggesting Council members only followed staff’s recommendations on the respective proposal in front of them. That in my view and experience as a former Alderman and a Mayor is an insanity defense! Staff / the Township have no way of knowing what donations have been made to elected members of Council. This does not absolve members of Council from not removing themselves from the decision or at the very least announcing a potential conflict due to the donations received. Council members are not obligated to support staff recommendations, they knew better!

The question must be asked, WHY is the Township of Langley interfering in a legal question that only affects the politically elected? They have no business in getting involved, it could reflect a bias on their part for some unknown reason, what could that be? It should be explored further, it doesn’t make any common sense.

Excerpt from Petitioners Submissions cont’d:

B The Campaign Contributions (Page 3,4,5, &6)

12. As noted at the outset, this case does not involve a single contribution from one developer and a subsequent development application by that developer. Rather, it involves numerous contributions by persons connected to a number of developers made while their development applications were before Council in the lead-up to the municipal election held on October 20, 2018.

13. In short, Mayor Froese received at least $12,600,6 Councillor Whitmarsh received at least $8,900,7 Councillor Long received at least $8,000,8 and Former Councillor Quaale received at least $7,700,9 from persons who were owners, directors, officers, executives and/or employees of the various property development companies.

14. These are significant amounts, particularly in light of the recent amendments to the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act that had come into effect.10 Those amendments capped the maximum amount an individual could contribute to a campaign to $1,200.11Further, corporations were prohibited from making campaign contributions.12

i) The developers

15. In total, at least 19 persons connected with seven property development companies made campaign contributions to the respondents. The following is a summary of the individual contributors and the development companies they are associated with:

1) “The Mitchell Group” (Mitchell Group Investments Inc.)

• Ken Mitchell (Director and Officer)

• Diane Mitchell (Director and Officer)

• Jacilyn O’Shea (Director of Development)

• Ryan O’Shea (Director of Residential development)13

2) “The Beedie Group” (The Beedie Group Developments Ltd., BDC (Langley Property) Ltd., 161884 Canada Inc.)

• Ryan Beedie (President, sole Director and Officer)

• Rob Fiorvento (Managing Partner)

• Todd Yuen (President, Industrial)

• Jason Tonin (Vice President, Land Development)14

3) “Vesta” (Vesta Properties Ltd.)

• Kent Sillars (sole Director and Officer)

• Dennis Wiemken (Senior Vice President)

• Braedon Sillars (Development Coordinator)

• Julie Sillars (owner)

  • Marlene Best (Senior Development Manager)15

4) “Lanstone” (Lanstone Homes (Murrayville) Ltd.)

• Lanson Foster (Director and sole Officer)

• John Tilstra (Director)16

5) “Infinity” (Infinity Properties Ltd.)

 • Timothy Bontkes (sole Director and Officer)17

6) “Polygon” (Polygon Homes Ltd., Polygon Union Park Homes Ltd.)

 • Scott Baldwin (Officer, Senior Vice President, Development)18

7) “Essence” (Essence Properties Inc.)

 • Kevin Dhaliwal (Director)

• Seeta Dhaliwal (Director)19

16. Persons connected to The Mitchell Group contributed a total of $10,200 to Mayor Froese, Councillor Whitmarsh, and Former Councillor Quaale.20

17. Persons connected to The Beedie Group contributed a total of $10,800 to all four respondents.21

18. Persons connected to Vesta contributed a total of $8,800 to all four respondents.22

19. Persons connected to Lanstone contributed a total of $3,200 to Mayor Froese, Councillor Whitmarsh, and Former Councillor Quaale.23

20. Persons connected to Infinity contributed a total of $2,200 to Mayor Froese, Councillor Whitmarsh, and Former Councillor Quaale.24

21. Persons connected to Polygon contributed a total of $1,200 to Mayor Froese.25

22. Persons connected to Essence contributed a total of $2,400 to Councillor Long.26

C. The timing of the contributions relative to the development applications before Council (Page 6)

23. At the same time that these campaign contributions were made, all of the developers listed above had matters before Council in which they were interested parties. Most of these matters were rezoning applications or development permit applications. The following is a list of the matters before Council at the material time:

1) The Mitchell Group: The Williams Neighbourhood Plan.27

2) The Beedie Group: Four development permit applications.28

3) Vesta: Five rezoning applications, and two different contracts with the Township.29

4) Lanstone: One rezoning/heritage alteration permit application.30

5) Infinity: One rezoning/development permit application.31

6) Polygon: One rezoning/development permit application.32

7) Essence: One rezoning/development permit application.33  

(lwd.com) Commentary on Petitioners Submission:

The Petitioners submissions go onto explain in detail the timing of each case before Council, the actions of each member of Council towards the respective application(s), the dates, timing and amount of donations received all supported in detail by the minutes of the Council meeting involved.

Excerpt from Petitioners Submissions cont’d:

D. The legal opinion

62. Importantly, the respondents engaged in this voting behaviour despite having received a legal opinion that doing so could constitute a conflict of interest.

63. In June 2016, the Township sought a legal opinion from Lidstone & Company as to whether campaign contributions from a developer would disqualify a council member from voting on that developer’s rezoning application. The opinion was received by Council on June 13, 2016.94 All the respondents were on Council at the time.

64. In the opinion, Don Lidstone, Q.C. advised that campaign contributions without more did not constitute a conflict of interest. In the opinion’s summary, he stated the following:

…the campaign contribution by itself does not create a conflict of interest, even if that developer later applies for a rezoning. An exception would be if a developer gives a Council member a donation when the rezoning application comes before Council.95

65. Mr.Lidstone also concluded his opinion by stating:

There could be a conflict if the Council member was personally or privately connected to the developer, if development was in-stream at the time of the election, or if the developer made a donation after the rezoning application was made. However, we understand that none of these apply in relation to the Brookswood rezoning applications.96

E. The respondents’ evidence

66. For their part, the respondents do not deny that they received any of the contributions at issue in this proceeding, nor do they deny that they participated in, and voted on the various applications without making any declarations of conflict of interest. Rather, they universally say that: (a) there was never any indication from the contributors that the contributions were made with any intention or expectation of an agreement to vote a particular way; (b) none of their votes were influenced by campaign contributions; and (c) they were always motivated to vote in the best interest of the Township.

(lwd.com) Summary:

The Respondents evidence above in (a) (b) and (c) is out of step when measured against numerous items of case law extensively outlined in the Petitioners Submissions. In summarizing numerous articles on case law including the Appeals Court the Petitioners state the following:

Excerpt from Petitioners Submissions cont’d:

78. Thus, three key points emerge:

1) The conflict of interest provisions are to be interpreted broadly and liberally.

2) The purpose of the provisions is to ensure that the public has confidence that their elected officials do not have divided loyalties, and therefore it does not matter whether there is any personal gain or not.

3) The test is an objective one – whether a reasonably well-informed person would conclude that the interest might influence the exercise of the public official’s duty.

(lwd.com) Summary Cont’d:

If you weigh the language contained in the Community Charter, if you weigh the decisions coming out of various case law examples as outlined in the Petitioners submissions, it only makes sense that these Council members plea rings hollow. That they act responsibly and honorably must be displayed by their actions (a declaration of a conflict or potential conflict of interest), not in words after the fact. Put another way – Talk is Cheap! If all one had to do was to tell a judge, just believe me, our society would be in far more trouble than is the case today.

If you wish to receive a PDF of the Petitioners submissions, reply to this email and I will send you a copy.

RG

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.