langleywatchdog…. and more!

Fort Langley has developed a unique and very worthy reputation both regionally and internationally thanks to a vast number of community heritage activists over many years. The Heritage Conservation Area is a deliberate protection put into Municipal Legislation years ago to do exactly that, PROTECT THE HERITAGE LOOK; it is not something that can be bargained away on a whim to someone with significant financial resources, regardless of how many properties they own. Our community is NOT FOR SALE!

So Eric Woodward, who now owns over half of Fort Langley’s Commercial Core, is hosting:

• Open House for ANYONE interested
• Thursday February 20^th
• Fort Langley Community Hall
• 7:00PM to discuss his Coulter Berry project.

This is a great idea because given his direct mail letter and reply card sent to all residents, a challenge to his version of the facts are in order. It’s content, in my opinion is somewhat less than truthful (I am being polite). I know Eric is really looking for a love-in but I would encourage as many as possible to attend and ask the tough questions.

So lets separate fact from fiction, it is important for our community to know the facts – The following are extracts from Eric Woodward’s community letter. (EW – Eric Woodward)

• EW – “….a lawsuit against the Township of Langley regarding a perceived approval process error….”
• FACT – It wasn’t perceived at all – the Heritage Alteration Permit (HAP) was set aside on the basis that the Township improperly varied density, contrary to the Local Government Act.

• EW – “I sincerely believe that Township staff chose the correct review and approval process for Coulter Berry, that Justice Groves made a mistake….”
• FACT – Regardless of an individual’s wealth, or the number of properties they might own, in this country we are governed by the rule of law, not what any individual might believe or think – thank goodness! The vast majority of the public and the legal community do not share your opinion. Please read the reports done of Justice Groves decision by two large legal firms – Young Anderson and Stuart McDannold Stuart. Both of these reports support Justice Groves findings. It recognizes the clarity this decision will bring to others when dealing with issues of density in developments.

• EW – “At a cost of $3 million, an underground parkade just isn’t economically viable in a two story building,…”
• FACT – There is no question a parkade would not be viable in a two story building, however who’s idea was it to have an underground parkade?  As far as parking is concerned, the Township have been absent for years in developing an up-to-date Community Plan which would cover the issue of much needed parking. That could come about through a progressive program of Community Amenity Contributions (CACs), which Mr. Woodward as a developer would be asked to contribute into – the same as Vancouver and a number of other Cities and Municipalities utilize for the benefit of their communities. But then again, the Township of Langley has never been known to be progressive in assisting taxpayers.

• EW – “Of course, in matters of development, not everyone agrees. I respect that.”
• FACT – Respect? The letters to the editor and Coulter Berry Facebook campaign launched through the Coulter Berry Facebook site as well as the open and sometimes subliminal bullying tactics by you and supporters of Coulter Berry? This is a funny way to show respect for an opposing view of fellow citizens. Respect, I don’t think you can spell the word!

• EW – “There are other three story buildings within the commercial area… The Fort Langley Official Community Plan … permits three story buildings…”
• FACT – There are two existing 3-storey buildings within the commercial core. I believe you will find that these buildings were approved prior to the guidelines enacted by Council in 1993 limiting the height of the buildings to 29.5 feet and two storys. The Coulter Berry building sits within The Heritage Conservation Area which I am sure you know is designed to preserve historic interest. It does NOT permit three story buildings. Another very interesting fact – In 2004, Council, including Mayor Kurt Alberts and Council members Howie Vickburg, Bob Long, Steve Ferguson, Kim Richter and Grant Ward unanimously approved a reinforcement bylaw. It limited height and scale of new buildings within the Heritage Conservation Area. This action was designed to clarify the height limitations within the Heritage Conservation Area. (NOTE – All of the above, those on Council and those who are not now on Council are NOW IN FAVOR OF WHAT THEY WERE THEN OPPOSED TO. WHY?)

• EW – “In my opinion, a lawsuit started 7 ½ months after Council approval, well after construction has started, has little to do with process concerns….”
• FACT – The Mayor and a number of Council members were at your ground breaking event on August 20^th, 2013. Photos show an undisturbed construction site. No Heritage Hole! A very important fact, the court petition against the Township was entered July 5^th, 2013, 6 weeks prior to your sod turning. It is public knowledge that you, Statewood Properties and the Township of Langley were sent a letter Jan. 31^st, 2013 serving notice of a possible legal challenge, as well as an April 4^th, 2013 meeting with Township senior staff and James Goulden, Township lawyer to discuss the legal opinion about density issue.

• EW – “It is not gambling to finalize the design and begin construction of an approved building that many residents support and want to see completed.”
• FACT – Wrong Eric, it is gambling to start construction BEFORE a building permit, thereby official approval, is issued and knowing a Court Petition had been launched weeks prior to your construction start. As it turns out you should have held back to get a firm decision because your building was illegally approved.

And finally this from Eric Woodward…. A suggestion that “we now face the possibility of the Coulter Berry site remaining as it is today for many years”…. “or delay a re-approval until next year, the Coulter Berry proposal will financially collapse.”

Eric’s message of holding the community of Fort Langley hostage with threats that this construction site (Heritage Hole) could be a lasting fixture on Fort Langley’s landscape, if approval is not given, is reason enough for a rejection of this proposal.

You see Eric, while it might be hard for you to understand (I don’t know why?) RESPECT cannot be demanded it can only be EARNED!!!

So far, in the Township of Langley, you are batting 1000 due to your actions!

I know it is not standard practice in The Township of Langley BUT wealth and/or the amount of property you own does not provide you with any special privileges where most residents and I come from. I would only suggest to those supporting this Coulter Berry proposal – if supporting non-compliance of the law is OK then who gets to decide what rules and/or bylaws can be ignored? Your Council? The Provincial Government? The Federal Government? I would suggest in a democracy like ours there is a process to change a bylaw. Unfortunately our Council chose a route of convenience (they thought) that has cost you and I, the taxpayer what must be over $100,000 in legal fees, but apparently that is not over. Is an appeal next?

Eric, as a local resident who claims to want to make Fort Langley a better place I would strongly suggest compliance and working with the wishes of the vast majority of residents. If the options available to build Coulter Berry in keeping within the present OCP, Guidelines and bylaws are not workable you should seriously consider selling the property to another developer.

Notice to all residents of the Township of Langley – It appears, as suggested earlier, that the Township will be appealing the B.C. Supreme Court Ruling despite numerous legal and professional opinions that the judge got it right. It also appears that despite the appeal by the Township of Langley, they will also be processing the new application from Eric Woodward. This application must include a zoning change which will require 1^st and 2^nd reading, a Public Hearing, 3^rd reading and 4^th reading. It is very important for residents of the Township to remain vigilant. This fight is far from over!!!

The kind of statements being thrown out by Eric Woodward are nothing more than threats and intimidation. As I said earlier, if Eric Woodward is not prepared to abide by the rules and bylaws of the Township of Langley, sell the property to someone who will. The day that the Township of Langley capitulates to threats by this developer or any other is the day our community has lost it’s self-respect and integrity. It would be the day everything is for sale in our community. Regardless of how this community has been managed in the past, it must come to an end for the good of all of it’s residents. I will not stand by and let this happen, I hope you are with me!

Are our taxpayers going to stand for this? Remember the old saying –

“If you don’t stand for something you will stand for anything”

More NEWS

Brookswood – Fernridge Community Plan – NEW Open House  – Please attend!!!!!

In typical fashion, the Township of Langley have structured a top down process in it’s attempt at developing a NEW Brookswood / Fernridge Community Plan. The concerns expressed by the majority of residents is well justified as it appears it is a plan with a forgone conclusion. Despite residents concerns of the eventual outcome I would encourage everyone attend and express your feelings, one way or the other. As Mayor Froese puts it “This is the final opportunity to learn about the Community Plan and have your say before it goes to Public Hearing.” Given the Mayor’s previous public and published comments that he doesn’t decide based on Public Hearing turnout or petitions, our collective confidence in his OR Council’s decisions are very suspect!

• Brookswood / Fernridge Community Plan Open House
• Brookswood Secondary School – 20902 37A Ave. Langley
• 4 – 8 PM
• Wednesday Feb. 19th, 2014

Please attend and make your voices heard!!!!!!!!! More on this in a later Post!

NEW – Additions to langleywatchdog.com BLOG Post

1)      Transportation is the single biggest issue we have South of the Fraser. You will now see a TAB at the top of our BLOG that is – S Fraser Community Rail – This tab features a professionally produced 25 minute video by Shaw Cable that tells the story of renewing passenger rights on the Interurban Rail Corridor between Scott Road Station and Chilliwack B.C.

2)      We have added a separate TAB for videos which will be used from time to time for videos dealing with Township of Langley issues of concern.

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

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

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

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

Translink in its early incarnation, pre Transportation Minister Falcon and pre senior government (Federal and Provincial) interference had in my opinion a good chance of being successful. Senior government politicians then got involved and screwed it up royally, and they continue doing it to this day! I will give the B.C. Liberal Government credit for something, they set up a layer of protective agencies that the province controls but where others get blamed aka Translink and B.C. Ferries.

“The Liberals have done their best to insulate themselves, don’t be fooled!”

It is interesting to read and hear columnists and editorial writers preach the virtues of a referendum within Metro Vancouver that is being touted as the way to keep Translink funding in-line and responsible. They have bought into this morally bankrupt provincial government’s initiative hook line and sinker. (This is coming from a staunch free enterpriser!) Now god forbid, let’s try to bring some common sense to this whole thing, IF that is possible!

I will preface my arguments and my position from a standpoint of someone who was there at the table during a very difficult time in its history. A Mayor and a member of this toothless and impotent Mayor’s Translink Council, which by the way is just the way this Provincial Government wants it! Having said that, I had three invaluable years of experience which I used to soak up a good deal of history from many around the table; at the same time I had the unique opportunity to draw my own conclusions about fellow Mayors and Councilors, not relying on past rumor, gossip and innuendo that was fostered by those in this Provincial Government.

To lay the groundwork for my position I want to draw a parallel (trust me it is not a conspiracy theory) on how this B.C. Government works in dealing with Municipalities / Metro and other Regional Governments and what is and has happened within the Langleys. As I have said many times, after being elected Mayor it was a real eye opener. To state the obvious, it is all about being self-serving!

To the City of Langley and its then Mayor Peter Fassbender. I knew Peter in another life; the company I worked for in the food industry was a client of Palmer Jarvis who Peter worked for at the time. Without reservation prior to getting elected I would have bet serious money on us getting along; how wrong I was. You see, what has been going on in the Langleys for years interestingly enough duplicates what has been rampant within this Provincial Government and that is – Bullying, Intimidation and Coercion!

What I was very surprised at while I was going through a number of issues that were linked to the Provincial Government was a critical void of objective and investigative journalism in major media, not just at the local level. There is so much more that needs to be challenged and reported on, not reworking Liberal Talking Points!

Some abbreviated history:

What became very obvious within the first two weeks of being sworn into office on December 1^st 2008 was, you either agreed with the establishment or you suffered the consequences. This establishment I talk about includes the likes of Peter Fassbender and Rich Coleman. It was unfortunate for me and the majority of residents in the Township of Langley, who didn’t, and many still aren’t aware, of what is going on behind the scenes, believed, foolishly, that you could respect opposing views. In other words you could agree to disagree. Definitely not in the Langleys nor would I strongly suggest with the Provincial Government and that is a sad commentary!

From the start Peter and I faced off on the issue of Amalgamation of the Langleys, I in favor and Peter against. We then went onto the infamous Mufford Crescent Diversion, Peter in favor of the first proposal and I, after over 1,000 people voiced their concerns, against. We won on Mufford despite nasty open letters by Peter Fassbender and Kevin Falcon, the then Minister of Transportation against any other option. Translink was and is a funding- partner of the NEW Mufford Crescent diversion. Despite the bullying and threats to get into line or lose the funding we fought, won and retained the funding.

Then it was onto the Translink Mayors Council. Immediately after the Municipal Election Diane Watts was elected Chair and Peter Fassbender was elected Vice-Chair of the Mayors Translink Council. It was shortly after the election we were confronted by Kevin Falcon (who in the previous term fired all of the Mayors from Translink and appointed a Private Board of Directors), to approve an estimated $400 million in funding for the Evergreen Line by Translink on the backs of Lower Mainland residential property owners via property taxes. It was after our first year that Dianne Watts stepped down and Peter was elected Chair. We were able to draw a line in the sand for two and a half years and refuse to provide any additional funds from property taxes despite Peter Fassbender’s efforts to get us to capitulate. After the second year Peter was defeated in favor of Richard Walton, Mayor of North Vancouver District. Throughout this period Peter Fassbender was the lone hold-out. It was the opinion of many of us that Peter was an obvious SHILL for the Provincial Government. I believe history since that point in time has proven our point in spades!

The Memorandum Of Understanding – It was Peter Fassbender who talked the Province and the majority of Mayors (and I was one who got sucked in) into signing the infamous Memorandum of Understanding which took place, with then Premier Gordon Campbell, in a Private Board Room at the Vancouver Golf Club on the same day and place, interestingly enough, to coincide with a public announcement at the Monthly Coquitlam Chamber of Commerce Luncheon. It was all intended for eye candy, because as it turned out it was all about perception, there was absolutely no reality. The Province has reneged on virtually all points in that Memorandum of Understanding.

The Role of the Mayor’s Translink Council – The Governance Model of Translink – The Liberals have made it an Art Form and not for the good of the province, of putting in place an agency that shields itself from direct criticism! One of the best examples of this is the Private Board of Directors who are really in charge of everything Translink, contrary to public opinion, with the Provincial Government hiding in the shadows giving direction. The Mayor’s Translink Council has very limited to no authority and responsibility. I recently heard a radio interview with Gregor Robertson suggesting the Mayors were more of an advisory body! What? With the greatest of respect, in three years of endless meetings and discussions there was nothing advisory about it! The government and the Private Board treated the Mayor’s Translink Council with complete contempt.

The Translink Mayor’s Council is responsible for approving funding, sound good so far? BUT (and it is a big but) the required funding packages are set by the senior executive of Translink through their Private Board. In other words the senior executive of Translink determine what funding they require to look after their specific needs/service improvements as THEY SEE IT, and then take it to the Private Board for adoption. They will then come to the Mayors Translink Council for approval with, as an example, three packages i.e. A) for $300 million, B) $200 million or C) for $100 million. Each one of these packages contains a different menu of transit improvements. Now of particular interest; the Mayors are NEVER asked for input or priority with respect to the content of those packages or lower mainland needs and service improvements and they cannot add or subtract items from each package. So in other words it is Translink’s way or the highway. Provincial Translink legislation permits the Mayor’s Council to raise additional funds in three ways 1) taxing authority for an additional Property Tax supplement (beyond the automatic maximum 3% annual Translink property tax increase without the Mayors Translink Council Authority) 2) Gas Tax or 3) User Fees (Fares). Now, under Provincial Legislation the Mayor’s Council could implement a 4^th option – a vehicle levy, however they have no way at the present time to collect that fee under existing legislation to involve ICBC as an example. The Province won’t touch that option as it is a political land mine and they know it, but it is in the legislation.

Beyond this very fuzzy and questionable funding responsibility the Mayors get to approve appointees to the Private Board of Directors search committee. The process? The search committee advertises, receives applications and vets all the resumes and applications received. In the last year of my term I believe we received five recommendations for three available positions from the search committee to choose from. When I asked how many applications they received, the answer was about 220. That is it; we got to select three from this five? It was and is all about manipulation and control by the province!

I served on the Mayors Translink Council from Dec. 1^st 2008 through to the end of November 2011. I saw first-hand and heard directly about the history from long standing experienced members (Mayors) about provincial intrusion and interference in Board deliberations. The dysfunction goes back to on or about 2004 – 05 when the Mayor’s Translink Council was dealing with the infamous Evergreen Line and the Canada Line, the wishes of the communities and committees from the Tri City area and the interference from the Provincial and the Federal Government. As funding is and has been very scarce ALL of those municipalities, cities and committees from the Tri Cities area and the Translink Board of Directors of the day (Mayors) requested at grade Light Rail which is used successfully all over the world and at a fraction of the cost of Skytrain (approximate saving $400 million). They were told by the Province and the Feds that they would implement the transit system but it had to be Skytrain! Due to conflict with the Province over the Canada Line and the Evergreen Line the Mayors were fired by the then Minister of Transportation Kevin Falcon and the new governance model (Private Board) was implemented. No input from Mayors and no input from the public.

Revolving Door of Ministers of Transportation – At the time I was elected in 2008 Kevin Falcon was the Minister responsible and it wasn’t that long after that Shirley Bond became Minister. I have to say that over my 35 years in politics and knowing many Ministers and Premiers personally the arrogance of these two towards the Mayors of the Lower mainland was over the top and something I have never seen the likes of.

After Premier Campbell’s resignation and Christy Clarks win, Blair Lekstrom was made Minister. We must have had about six meetings with him. I felt, despite Blair coming from the North, that here was a guy who, judging by his previous actions within caucus, would take a stand on principle. I believe most Mayors felt the same, he certainly had a more conciliatory tone that others. Well it didn’t take long before Minister Lekstrom’s efforts fell on deaf ears, as we made absolutely zero headway in resolving the two outstanding issues; 1) additional approved funding sources and 2) change in governance model. These two issues were addressed and promised in the memorandum of Understanding that, as it turns out, was a colossal failure. We then developed an agreement in principle with the Minister, but Christy Clark threw Minister Lekstrom under the BUS in the media on two occasions within two days. In a subsequent meeting I told Minister Lekstrom my feelings directly about how the Premier treated him. After Blair Lekstrom announced he would not run in the next election, Mary Polak became Minister.

Now what is happening? Unbelievable! You couldn’t make this stuff up! –

B.C General Election, May 2013 – For those that probably don’t recall, Peter Fassbender was the first that offered in a public statement, pre General Election Campaign, about the need for a Referendum on Transit in the Lower Mainland. It was some time after that Christy Clark came out strong and publicly during the writ period for the need of a Referendum. While I wish I could say I was surprised, nothing Fassbender does surprises me anymore.

So, as a gift by Premier Clark we get the NEW, young, fresh out of the box, inexperienced Minister of Transportation Todd Stone from Kamloops. He arrived on the scene preaching the virtues of a Referendum backed up by all of the Liberal Talking Points. (Christy’s talking points)

Next we get Premier Clark reinforcing the need for a Referendum and that it WILL be held on the same date as the Municipal Election in November of 2014. I mean why try to work with the Mayors and Councilors in the lower mainland when you can just issue a decree. Don’t build a bridge just blow it up!

Next we get the NEW inexperienced Transportation Minister Todd Stone (from Kamloops), in answer to questions from the Mayors Council and the media, that they are working on the referendum question. They will make it public soon. This question and response was repeated a few times over the last number of months.

Next we get the NEW inexperienced Minister Todd Stone’s insistence that holding a referendum is firm and will be held on election-day in November.

Next we get Premier Clark Waffling on whether they can delay the vote into next year which now may be an option? Or maybe NOT!

Next, as unbelievable as this is, we have the NEW, inexperienced Minister Todd Stone coming out publicly saying it is now up to the Mayors to come up with the question for the referendum. Long past the time needed to do so, the Mayors now had to come up with an agreement on a vision and a set of priorities to pose in the Referendum. All of this, after months of sending a completely different message which was in keeping with Provincial legislation?

“WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE TELL THE MINISTER AND THE MAJOR MEDIA THAT THE PROVINCE TOOK THIS RESPONSIBILITY AWAY FROM THE MAYORS OVER 6 YEARS AGO AND IT IS AGAINST EXISTING PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION”

And finally we have this NEW, inexperienced Minister Todd Stone saying he will now announce, within the next two weeks, a change in the Translink Governance model. Just think of the challenge, all of this, less than 8 months before election-day?

Will someone tell me who is running this Province!

Why not a referendum? It is easily the single dumbest political move of all time. Now before some of you start throwing things at your computer, seriously consider the following –

• Let’s be clear, I do not support Translink in its current form. It requires a full remake and governance change. Nothing good will happen without that change. It will be interesting in what the Province comes up with.
• In any referendum Translink would be a lightning rod for all Translink haters and the NO voters (All of that is deserved and there are many but you don’t want Translink, because of past practice to be the issue).
• Despite what question is asked, what if the answer is NO? I can tell you that it will put our transportation network and service into reverse and back about 10 years! Then what? Do you think any level of government, despite the need, will ignore a NO vote and increase taxes despite the vote? Not likely!
• What options for additional funding will be suggested or offered in any referendum? Will anything address the Township of Langley’s complete transportation deficiency? The taxpayers of the Township are now spending approximately $15 + million per year in Translink Property and Gas Tax. They receive no value for their tax dollars. Would Langley Taxpayers support additional Property Tax – NOT!
• Will the idea of a $1.00 per crossing (or less) toll on ALL bridges and crossings be an option? Do the numbers, it is a fair and equitable option!
• If you are going to do a referendum for General Transportation improvement why not add the Massey Bridge crossing? Would Delta be in favor of that item being a referendum item? Not likely!

The solution?

• A NEW Governance Model of Translink that includes membership by i.e. 4 – 5 Mayors on a new formulated Board of Directors including Metro Vancouver (elected) and Planning (advisory only) who has authority over priorities and technology to be used.
• A complete remake of funding for Translink cutting the existing gas tax level and adding an equitable funding plus tolling policy on all crossings plus Sea to Sky of say $1.00 each way.
• One Transportation provider in the lower mainland from Lions Bay to Hope. Let’s bring ourselves into the 21^st century. We can no longer do justice through two transportation agencies.   

The long and the short of it is this. It is long past time that Municipal Politicians start treating taxpayer’s money like their own, but they need to have authority to do so. The dictatorial approach by the Provincial Government has got to stop. As you see by the above, the similarities between the long standing-way of the Province doing business with the Township is eerily similar to how the Province sees itself with our Metro Government.

Where is the Township of Langley Mayor and Council on the issue of a Referendum? Where is the Township of Langley Mayor and Council on Transportation improvements for the Township of Langley? The silence is deafening!!!!!

PS – And then there is Councilor Ferguson who stated in open Council a few weeks ago when discussing the parking problem in Willoughby “Township citizens need to give up their love of ownership of a vehicle” –Anyone living in the Township for 5 minutes knows that you cannot survive without a car as there is absolutely NO transportation option. I rest my case – Once again you can’t make this stuff up!!!!

RG

—————————————————————————————

More interesting BLOG Postings coming later this week!

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 problem is Council are either buying in hook, line and sinker or are in on the creation at the expense of the taxpayer! It makes for bad and very questionable government!

NEWS FLASH – Your Municipal Council’s actions and decisions have the greatest impact on our quality of life which includes affordability (taxes and fees for services), livability (compatible zoning, by-laws, regulations and land use) and services (arenas, parks, trails and other community amenities). It is very unfortunate and I would add disgraceful that only 19 – 21 % of residents take the time to vote. I am pounding the drum to wake up our community to the issues and will continue to do so! We need everyone’s help to spread the word because the election is only 8 months away!

In viewing the meeting of our Municipal Council prior to the Christmas break, it caused me some uncomfortable flashbacks but also drew me into the issues being dealt with and the impact their decisions were going to have on our community. Here is a snapshot of the issues that caught my attention and the questions I have about their debate and decisions –

Serious resident Parking issues in Willoughby – There were four residents (delegations) who each passionately spoke for their allotted five minutes on behalf of the residents of each of their residential communities or complexes relating to what can only be described as their impossible parking situation. It was well presented by the residents through a Power Point presentation. What has made their situation particularly intolerable is the introduction (with no notice or consultation) of NO PARKING by the Township of Langley on main corridor or collector streets.

What is at the heart of this problem and getting massively worse are the Township of Langley’s development guidelines, bylaw requirements and secondary suite requirements for resident and Visitors Parking. By today’s standard, they are completely sub-standard from what is necessary.

The result of their effort was a temporary relaxation of parking regulations over the Christmas holidays, was this the best they could do? What is a viable solution?

The best way to describe the problem was presented by one of the residents. The 42 unit development his family lived in, when approved by the TOL and Council provided 10 visitor spots. As was pointed out, this number would probably allow for 2 residents to do any kind entertaining with friends at any one time. Any visitors beyond the 10 would have to park about a half kilometer away, or receive a parking ticket. Welcome to the Township of Langley.

I have been out of office for two years and haven’t spent too much time observing the level of development up in the Willoughby slopes. To that end I went for a two hour tour the other day and quite frankly it was mind boggling. In my opinion the development going on in Willoughby is rampant and unabated. It is far too dense and without due care and attention to required community amenities to service the existing and planned development. An example of what I am talking about is another 617 unit development given 1^st and 2^nd reading just recently. A drive through of Willoughby will readily give you insight into the number of development signs and/or property sold signs on display.

Where have they gone wrong? Where do I start? Some would say it is too late, I don’t believe that it is but it is getting close!

This out of control Willoughby Development / Parking issue was one of many that caused me to come out of political retirement in 2008 to run for Mayor. Foolishly on my part I thought any reasonable thinking elected Council or Council member would welcome new ideas and insight into policy and plans that would provide significant improvement going forward. A key initiative I brought forward and had presented to Council was introducing Community Amenity Contributions (CACs) which up to that time had been successfully launched, welcomed and court tested in the City of Vancouver. The individual (now retired) who I had make this presentation to our Council had been instrumental in the CAC program in the City of Vancouver. As I said, foolishly, I thought we would or could welcome NEW IDEAS! As an example of the mentality of this Council; Councilor Ferguson’s comment was this may work in the City of Vancouver but this is the Township of Langley! Yes, and your point is Councilor Ferguson – I rest my case! How this man continues to get elected to Council is beyond me!

If they don’t assist current residents with permanent solutions to their parking and density problems and get control of the situation of out-of-control development now, Willoughby will be unlivable in the not too distant future! It is not about No development but IT IS ABOUT GOOD DEVELOPMENT!

Speaking of Out-of-Control Development – First and Second Reading was given to Official Community Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application Bylaws No. 5026 and 5027:

I have said from day one that in my opinion the Township of Langley process is flawed as it relies on what I consider to be a fashion of spot zoning and not good planning. I don’t believe good planning is accomplished through what I call Omnibus bylaws. In other words two processes in one. This development is a perfect case in point 1) They are Amending the Official Community Plan and 2) They are Rezoning the property to fit this particular development, ALL in one process, one public hearing. This process along-side the large number of “Neighborhood Plans” as opposed to a well thought out comprehensive Development Plan for the entire Willoughby Community is what is at fault for what we are seeing. It is a process that is very easily developer and staff manipulated through one process as opposed to two, which should be the case. The taxpayer is the one that pays the price through lack of public process and lack of Developer supported community needs. Here is the density at stake for the above development coming your way by Public Hearing –

7642 – 206^th Street / 7725 – 208^th Street / 7751 – 208^th Street – Approximately (interesting choice of words) 617 units (29 single family lots, a 46 unit strata site), (16 detached units, 14 duplexes and 16 row-houses), (239 townhouses and 303 apartments). We (you the taxpayer) are being taken to the cleaners with respect to what (or what isn’t) being demanded from the developer. This IS NOT about being anti-development, IT IS about GOOD and SUSTAINABLE DEVLOPMENT.

Here is an interesting decision? – Third Reading of bylaw No. 5031 denied on a tie vote, (Councilor Dornan was absent) not because of the density or the plan but because of a split opinion on the wishes by the Mormon Temple to flip the most dense part of the development away from the Temple as opposed to being right next door. Their concern was over the potential for parking in their lot by neighboring residents. It was Councilor Fox who in his typical sarcastic and condescending fashion said the church can lock their gates. It was suggested by the Mayor that it may be brought back for reconsideration with a full council at the next meeting. That will be an interesting vote!

True to his word, Mayor Froese brought it back to last Monday’s Council meeting for reconsideration. Well, surprise surprise, Councilor Dornan voted in favor and Councilor Ward changed his vote and now supports it. Believe me, all it took was a week of convincing these two to get on-side with the rat pack!

This development is located between 82^nd and 84^th at about 204^th. Density with virtually no asks by the Township, here is another 244 units (117 single family lots, a 90 unit strata site), 36 detached units and 54 townhouses), (29 row-houses and 8 duplexes); ALL OF THIS UNDER THE INADEQUATE PARKING REGULATIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT IN THE TOWNSHIP OF LANGLEY.    

Third Reading for Bylaw 5037 – Medical Marihuana Zoning bylaw amendment – Interesting debate 

Federal Medicinal Marihuana laws are being changed effective this coming April providing Municipal input and control over location and safety issues. This action is long past due and goes back to our united FCM position and lobbying efforts and local meetings with the Federal Ministries during 2010/11.

All municipalities are having to position themselves as to approved location of licensed premises, Agricultural or Industrial. The Agricultural Land Commission has stated that Marihuana Grow Ops are an approved agricultural function within the ALR.

The Township, in keeping with past practice, made an arbitrary decision without going to their Advisory Agricultural Committee to push ALL licensed Medicinal Grow-Ops to industrial property and off of Agricultural land. After all of that they go through 1^st and 2^nd reading, public hearing and then in this last meeting debate third reading. With a looming April deadline facing them and the need for a bylaw to be sent to Victoria for approval they start to debate about sending the proposed bylaw to their Agricultural Committee for input. Now for those that don’t know, which obviously includes Councilor Richter (after only 15 years on Council it takes some a little longer to know the rules) a Council member cannot accept new information or input after the Public Hearing! To my amazement she had a debate with the Administrator questioning why they could not get more input without coming back to Public Hearing! Not legal Councilor Richter, where have you been for 15 years? It boggles the mind!!

Latest Update – News on Coulter Berry –

At the January 13^th, 2014 afternoon Council Meeting Councilor Fox moved a motion to receive the previously publicly named Win-Win proposal that was received from The Society of Fort Langley Residents for Sustainable Development. In short it basically dealt with a short term Permissive Tax Exemption. Like everything else this Council does they dismissed it and rejected it without so much as a benefit cost analysis. Then we have Councilor Richter lighting her hair on fire preaching the protection of public funds? What? This after no financial analysis has been done? This after her and her fellow councilors are responsible for wasting millions and millions of tax payer dollars on everything from overpaying on Trinity lands, the outrageous financial debacles in the Langley Events Center, McLeod Park over budget by three times and more! Talk about a gang that can’t shoot straight!!!

Now, interestingly, after making noises about appealing the decision, Eric Woodward just announced the reapplication of a newly designed Coulter Berry being submitted this week. Now it has to be said, this design was not created within this past week. This is all part of a larger Master Plan. To the community – Stay tuned for what lies ahead!!!

More interesting Township Features 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.

The blind, irresponsible self-serving spending actions of this Council and staff continue unabated! Your elected Municipal Council has a fiduciary responsibility to protect tax payer dollars; if they don’t and you don’t hold them to account, it is your fault!

Thanks to Kent Spencer of the Vancouver Province (below) and his Front Page breaking news story of October 15^th 2013, our eyes were opened to another very questionable land deal by the Township of Langley. The defense offered by Mayor Jack Froese, the Township of Langley and Trinity Western University was that this value, the purchase price, was supported by three independent appraisals. Well, this was not supported by the B.C. Assessment Authority. (Kent Spencer/The Province/Wednesday Oct. 23^rd, 2013/2/3^rd Page – A6) The question, WHY?

A Freedom of Information request (FOI) for those three independent appraisals

TELLS THE REST OF THE STORY……     Some would suggest it tells the REAL STORY!

First the issue (in headline form) –

The Province / Tuesday October 15^th 2013 – FRONT PAGE and Full Page 3

“Giving Money Away”

Township spent $2.7 million buying land that Trinity Western University had received for free. (Kent Spencer – The Province)

The Province / Friday October 18^th, 2013 – 1/3^rd page Page A6

Council not told land value: Richter (Kent Spencer – The Province)

The Province / Wednesday October 23rd, 2013 – 2/3^rd page – Page A6

B.C. Assessment won’t use sale price (Kent Spencer – The Province)

Story Recap on langleywatchdog.com BLOG Post Posted November 5^th, 2013

Township of Langley Property Deals and land use applications… Are you following the news? The STENCH from these issues is palpable and rising…. Then there is Richter’s response…. And we shouldn’t worry about our Council? What can I say?

So what do these appraisals tell us?

Important Pre-amble –

As you will see in the following, I am being very careful in my wording that follows in this BLOG Post. These Appraisal Reports offer warnings against any reproduction which I am sure has more to do with proprietary information (background and other) that they provide. Nevertheless there is a right for the public to have an answer(s) to questions as follows.  

The APPRAISALS –

As the previous Newspaper reports have indicated, the purchase price of this property has to be considered very questionable at best. All of this left the public with only one question to ask? WHY did the taxpayer pay $1.2 million (80%) over the B.C. Assessment price? The approximate equivalent to a 1 ½% Property Tax Increase.

To try to answer that question a Freedom of Information (FOI) request was filed requesting copies of the three independent appraisals on which this purchase price was based. They have been received and thoroughly reviewed. On their point that the appraisals supported the price paid by the parties, they are correct as far as that goes.

I must add at this time that I will not identify the appraisal companies, nor do I criticize them for the job that they performed in any way. All three are solid reputable firms who provided substantive reports that provided the professional service they were contracted to provide. However there lies the question and in my view the problem, the service they were contracted to provide was based on what instructions and/or Terms of Reference they were given?

The resulting answer of any commissioned appraisal or appraisals will be based on the terms of reference, instructions and directions provided by the principle(s), in this case the Township of Langley and Trinity Western University. Did they want a Market Value appraisal ie based on the current municipal zoning and approved Municipal and Regional land use OR an appraisal based some speculative and/or some anticipated, presumptive increase (improvement) to that zoning and/or land use? That was the case in these appraisals – they were to be based on purely speculative conditions that did not exist at time of sale, and there lies the problem! Frankly it should leave all of us residents, who have to pay the price of these decisions with ONE question – what is going on at City Hall?

IMPORTANT – It is very important to note that a given Council cannot bind a future Council to any decision they might make. Ie A future Council can always change bylaws or future policy.

The Questions I have below are for taxpayers and the Township of Langley, they are not of concern to the companies providing the appraisals, they did their job?

• The Three Appraisals used are dated August 2011? Why mid-2011 when the sales were concluded mid-2012? Why weren’t they updated?
• The properties included in the sale to the Township are part of the proposed University District proposal which has been declined by Metro Vancouver and is now before the courts? Why and who approved it prior to this legal issue being settled? This court decision will be instrumental on this property’s value, yet they concluded the agreement, prior to any decision rendered by the judiciary? This sale was NOT a conditional sale, it was firm.
• The properties included in the sale to the Township of Langley (above) is based on a dramatic change in it’s permitted land use? How and why? This has not been legally approved.
• The retained property by the private property owner considers the potential for a substantive change in the OCP and zoning. Again this was not a conditional sale. Why and under what and who’s authority, given any changes would have to go through a significant public process by this or a future government, did the Township conclude this agreement?
• How does and why would the Township of Langley participate in a process that would inflate the value of property it wanted to purchase?
• Is it not a conflict of interest for both the buyer (Township) and the seller (Trinity) to share the cost of the appraisals?
• Then there is the Councilor Kim Richter public offering to The Province article by Kent Spencer –

It was very clear that the Township of Langley and Trinity University used the three independent appraisals as their defense for concluding this property agreement.

In response to the first news story about this land (above), Councilor Kim Richter, an experienced (close to 15 year, 5 term Councilor) is quoted extensively in this feature with the following:

Councilor Kim Richter doesn’t believe council was told it was buying land for 80% over it’s assessed value in 2012.

• What an amazing statement – A Councilor with her experience and years of service coming up with this. Ask the question Ms. Richter ask the question!!!! It is your fiduciary responsibility as an elected representative of the taxpayer to ensure we get value for money. Just maybe residents will stop being fooled by your fluffy meaningless questions followed up with no follow through and no answers in open council. They are and have been nothing but a smokescreen for years! It is amazing what you can find out when you challenge staff reports; WHEN are you going to start, and mean it? How much damage has to be done to this community before members of council wake up and start doing the job they were elected to do?

“From my perspective it seems like quite a gap” said Richter.

• Do you think Ms. Richter? 80% (or $1.2 million higher) equates to about a 1.5% tax increase. $1.2 million (based on speculative assumptions) that is gone for good thanks to the incompetence of this council. Was Council told about the conditions laid out in these appraisals? A million here, a million there, pretty soon you are talking real money! Unconscionable!

Richter “wasn’t aware that the costs of the Appraisal were shared with Trinity?” Was Council? It then becomes a serious issue of conflict of interest or perceived conflict of interest.

• Obviously further proof of the incompetence of this council. Appraisals and the details behind them are not questioned. Were they explained? How convenient!

Richter says she will ask to see the full Appraisal documents?

• The silence has been deafening Ms. Richter, have you seen them?
• Ms. Richter, we got tired of waiting for you to get to the bottom of this or to release them so we proceeded with an FOI request. Another case of wasted newspaper ink explaining your stated concerns.

“If this deal had not (already) been implemented, I definitely would have been asking for more information. Can we undo it? NO – Can we learn from it? YES – Would we do it again? Absolutely NOT” stated Richter.

• The old 20 / 20 hindsight routine? Ms. Richter, are you now speaking for other members of council when you say it won’t happen again? That would be an interesting meeting to sit in on!!! We could sell tickets to that event.

The more interesting question is, has it happened before???

Some of us know the answer to that question don’t we!

Given what happened in this case there should be a Forensic Audit of all Real Estate transactions over the past 10 plus years. But who on Council will have the guts to raise that prospect!

 The Province / Wednesday October 23rd, 2013 – 2/3^rd page – Page A6

B.C. Assessment won’t use sale price (Kent Spencer – The Province)

In a follow up news item dealing with the questionable Appraisal stated the following:

The valuation of the property lies at the heart of the controversy and on Tuesday, Trevor Brown, senior appraiser at B.C. Assessment expanded broadly on his reasons for believing the land was only worth $1.5 million.

He said the Township paid so much over the assessed value that the amount will not be used to determine future assessed values.

“We could not use that purchase price as market evidence for setting assessments” said Brown.

Through the course of the article he explains why this property is assessed the way it is through outlining a description of the property and by comparing six large agricultural parcels sold in Langley in 2012. When you have such professional opinion go public it definitely puts into question the management of our assets as well as the decisions that are being made in the taxpayer’s best interest.

Conclusion:  What we have seen over the first two years of this Council’s mandate is one of deals for friends and insiders, an increasing number of land deals / issues and constant conflict with Metro Vancouver.

It is long past due that we get off this train wreck to nowhere and fight for changes to our Municipal Governance before it is too late.

More interesting Township Features 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.

The first year of langleywatchdog.com has brought with it a greater level of success than we could have possibly hoped for. To-date our viewers over an active 8 month period number over 25,000! Not bad for a community specific, community political BLOG. It is our hope that we have been able to provide some behind the scene FACTS on important issues, previously unavailable to residents and taxpayers of the Langleys! Thank you to all of our readers!

There is a time to hold those in public office, their feet to the fire (when deserved), and there is time to back off, albeit temporarily. This is definitely the time of year to sit back, enjoy family and friends and celebrate the season.

On behalf of all of our family and those of us with langleywatchdog.com we would like to extend our very best wishes to you and your family for a very Merry Christmas and a Healthy, Happy and Prosperous NEW YEAR!

We will be working over the holidays on some very enlightening and eye opening BLOG Posts containing information that should be of serious concern to each and every resident of the Township of Langley. We will be back right after the NEW YEAR!

HAVE A GREAT HOLIDAY!!!!

Rick Green

The agents of misinformation on Coulter Berry in the Township of Langley are still at it – Not letting the inconvenient facts get in the way of a good story! The smoke and mirrors support being put forward and offered up by the friends of the Township of Langley Establishment, Eric Woodward and Coulter Berry in Fort Langley has a familiar ring to them. Connecting many of those dots is an interesting exercise, once again in searching for answers behind how this was possible smacks of what is in it for me? The self-serving continues……

Well one thing we have to admit, it is consistent with the politics in the Township of Langley!

You know it never ceases to amaze me how some individuals (so many of them identified supporters of the TOL Establishment and this Mayor and his majority slate on Council) can rationalize the irresponsible, and in the case of Coulter Berry, illegal actions of this Council. Is it blind loyalty or? Don’t you have to ask WHY? Who’s interest are they looking after?

A saying I have used many times to get a point across –

“I believe in a dictatorship as long as I am the dictator”!

My point is that in elected office or in an official staff position you do not have the right or authority to manufacture an illegal process for the benefit of anyone regardless of circumstances. You are not a dictator! You have a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers of your community to be fiscally prudent and abide by the rule of law. So let’s look at the illogical conclusion of the kind of thinking that caused this problem; if what has gone on with the Coulter Berry building is OK with you then one would have to believe you believe that legislation, laws and by-laws are OK as long as you agree with them otherwise to hell with them and any need for you to be compliant! In my experience this kind of thinking is and has been deep seeded and pervasive in the Township of Langley for far too long. There has been and continues to be a deliberate effort to be creative in the interpretation of bylaws and provincial legislation. Once again the local media is an abject failure in its investigation and non-reporting of same!

So before we look at many of the irrational comments made by a few supporters, lets look at the key points outlined in the long awaited written legal decision by The Honourable Mr. Justice Groves. Here are the pertinent parts of the decision: (I am only providing points that are particularly key to the decision. I have also underlined key points. (The full written decision is available on-line at www.courts.gov.bc.ca.)

(Page 2)

(10) The Local Government Act (LGA) in part 27, Division 5, deals with Heritage Alteration Permits. Section 972 of the LGA is germane to my analysis in these Reasons. It reads as follows:

Division 5 – Heritage Alteration Permits

Heritage Alteration Permits (HAP)

972        (2) The heritage alteration permit may, in relation to heritage property or property within a heritage conservation area, vary or supplement provisions of one or more of the following. (It goes on and lists 4 items a thru d.)

972        (4) The following restrictions apply to subsection (2):

                             (a) the use of density of use may not be varied

(14) It is not disputed by Langley, generally speaking, that in order for this proposed development to proceed, the zoning provisions in effect in this Heritage Conservation area would have to be amended, specify the Zoning bylaw in the heritage designated area of Fort Langley requires building to be no more than two stories high. The height restrictions are found in section 602.6 of the Community Commercial Zone (C-2) bylaw.

(18) The petitioners argued first that Langley at the meeting in which they considered the HAP did not specifically amend the zoning bylaws. I find that they purported to do so at the meeting. I would not accede to the petitioner’s grounds for setting aside the HAP on that basis.

(19) However the petitioner further argued, and I agreed, that Langley, when they approved this HAP breached s. 972 (4)(a) of the LGA.

(20) The LGA allows under s. 972(2)(b), through the HAP process, amendments to zoning bylaws. However, s. 972(4)(a) places a restriction on what a council can do under a HAP. This section prohibits council from varying the use or density of use of the lands subject to the HAP.

(21) The LGA does not define the term density of use.

(22) I find that Langley actions, in allowing a building to have, for lack of a better term, a footprint in excess of 60% maximum noted in the zoning bylaw and allowing a building to be in excess of the two stories allowed in the Zoning bylaw, in this case, a three-storey building, had the effect of changing the density of use of the subject lands.

(23) The concise Oxford Dictionary has an applicable definition of density as follows: “the quantity of people or things in a given space”.

(24) The use of the term density of use in the LGA, must be considered in the context of what this HAP purported to do in regards to the lands in question.

(25) Under the applicable zoning, the footprint on the properties in question must at maximum be 60% of the area of the land. Additionally, the building must not be more than two stories high. So the question in it’s simplest terms is therefore, has Langley changed the density of use of this parcel of land by allowing a footprint in excess of 67% of the area of the land and by allowing a building to three stories high rather than two. Common sense, and any reasonable interpretation of density of use suggest that they have. They are allowing a building that is approximately 50% higher than the current zoning allowed and they are allowing an increase, although a modest increase, in the footprint of the building on the lands in question.

(26) Council’s actions, I find as fact, have increased the density of use of the lands in question, an action which is expressly prohibited, or beyond their power under s. 972 of the LGA. As such, the HAP must be set aside.   

RE Coulter Berry – Comments made in letters to the editor –

Langley Advance Tuesday Dec. 3^rd 2013 –

• “The unfortunate result of the heritage hole in the ground was achieved by six people with private interests fortunate to get a judge who found a process technicality”.  “There was no public hearing about whether to launch a court challenge. There was no public hearing in the court proceedings”.

RESPONSE –

The accusation of private interest – no doubt you mean fear of competition? Do yourself a favor and don’t insult your own intelligence. A two story building will provide plenty of room for legitimate competition so that is a specious and irresponsible argument.

• “Found a Process Technicality” –

RESPONSE – A process technicality is NOT TRUE, it is illegal! Please review the written decision.

• “No Public Hearings to decide Court Challenge?”

RESPONSE –

You have to be kidding, right? – As a citizen you/we have the right to due process and to challenge undue or improper process by government in the courts. Governments are not exempt from court action. I can only wish and hope there were more people willing to fight for the rights of the general population against many of the actions of this municipal council.

• “No Public Hearings in Court Session?”

RESPONSE –

Unfortunately that is not part of our judicial process. The Township of Langley, thanks to all of its residents paid a handsome fee for its legal representation against this challenge whether we agree with the challenge or not. You should have attended the two day Court session; you would have a better appreciation of the Township of Langley’s inadequate defense (my opinion) of their irresponsible actions.

Langley Advance Tuesday Dec. 3^rd, 2013 –

• “Get on with the Project” –

RESPONSE – An illegal act? Please review the written decision.

Other complaints – The hyperbole continues with the orchestrated letter writing and attack campaign by the friends of Eric Woodward moving into high gear unabated. They include statements like – “Self-appointed bullies”, “This group pretending to speak for the entire community…”, “I didn’t vote for them…”, “The Supreme Court Judge from Prince George…”, sympathy for the developer and what he has been through and more and more and more!

And the best of all (although it was hard to choose) “Coulter Berry was approved by an elected Council”! This may come as a shock to those in favor of this building however a Council majority does not have the power to approve a project at will. They MUST adhere to all pertaining Provincial Legislation, the Community Charter, and the Local Government Act as well as their own by-laws and procedures which they can change BUT only according to due process. I will say that sitting in that court room listening to the argument put forward by the Township Legal Counsel the argument that they can almost do as they please sounds eerily familiar. The judge obviously didn’t agree.

Let’s be clear, the argument against this building from the outset is that the Township of Langley erred in the legal processing of this development. This Mayor, Council and staff had every opportunity over a considerable period of time to correct the process however they repeatedly ignored the representations made to them.

In a letter to the editor (Langley Advance Nov. 20^th, 2013) “Holistic Coulter Berry investor crushed in Fort Langley” from Mr. John Allan states the petition was a “misuse of the legal system”. Well there are a few points Mr. Allan should be aware of before he makes such a statement. A review of the petitioner’s affidavit #2 shows that Roy Stewart QC advised the TOL and the developer in January of 2013 that a challenge was inevitable. Again in May 2013 both were advised again and it wasn’t until July 5^th 2013 the petition was entered. All three of these written legal warnings were issued long before the developer dug the infamous Heritage Hole as it has become known. Mayor, Council and Eric Woodward gambled and lost, it is as simple as that. Sympathy in this case for the developer is not warranted!

The professionals in the planning department rejected the plan, The Langley Heritage Commission and the Heritage Advisory Board rejected the plan, The Langley Heritage Society and B.C. Heritage opposed the plan and a petition of 940 names and the vast majority of speakers were also opposed to the plan. So here we sit with a plan that was foisted on residents of the Township of Langley by members of Council who ignored professional advice, community advice and taxpayer input in favor of an individual who has requested or has been provided with special favors. WHY?

In a well written letter to the editor (Langley Times Tuesday Dec. 10^th, 2013) it states – “Mayor Froese said he doesn’t remember any controversy or protest”? WHAT?

NEWS FLASH TO MAYOR FROESE – Please keep up, read this BLOG and OH by the way, read your correspondence and meeting minutes pertaining to this issue going back about 2 years! Remember Pete McMartin’s column (Vancouver Sun) quoting Mayor Froese as not making decisions based on petitions and public hearing presentations related to this project?

Have you ever asked yourself why Mayor Jack Froese, Council members – Charlie Fox, Michelle Sparrow, Kim Richter, Grant Ward, Bev Dornan, Bob Long, Steve Ferguson, ALL except David Davis were tripping over themselves to manufacture and implement what has proven to be an illegal process? Is it just coincidence that former Mayor Kurt Alberts (consultant to Coulter Berry), former Councilors Jordan Bateman, Howie Vickberg and MLA Rich Coleman are on record as supporting this building? An illegal process?

Have you ever asked yourself why staff was against this plan for Coulter Berry from the outset? Could it be that they deemed it an illegal process? Just asking!

Response to the BC Supreme Court decision:

The response to this written court decision by Eric Woodward, the proponent of this development as outlined in his message on the “We support Coulter Berry” Facebook site leaves one in shock. I sat through 1 ½ of the 2 day hearing and I have to tell you we must have attended two different hearings. His is but a narrow self-interest and wishful thinking interpretation of the facts. They were wrong and they know they were wrong! They got caught.

Misty van Popta on the same “We Support Coulter Berry” Facebook site stated “So essentially there is nothing wrong with Coulter berry. Nothing illegal, nothing sinister done by Council in approving it. Its just a matter of incorrect paperwork. OH my goodness.” If this wasn’t so outrageous it would be laughable. All of this comes from an individual who was backed by Joel Schacter and Coleman (per Schacter’s email) for Council in the last election? Obviously she is not letting the inconvenient facts get in the way of a good story. Van Popta for Council, with this kind of thinking, how devastating would that be?

A Common Sense solution –

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to suggest that this Mayor and Council need to go back to the drawing board and come back with a plan that meets the by-laws that are and have been successfully in place for years.

OR

They come back with the appropriate by-laws that would rescind all Heritage guidelines and stand by the project that has just been rejected by the courts for reasons of wrong process. I would strongly suggest any move in that direction will cause an uproar in this community from one end to the other that will make anything to-date look like a church picnic!

A Message to Council and Staff – Any attempt to Spot Zone would be met with vehement opposition. Any zoning amendments considered would need to be consistent with the Langley OCP, Fort Langley OCP and the Fort Langley Building and Façade Guidelines. This is confirmed under Part 26, section 884 (2)(b) of the local government act.

Over to you Good Luck. It is a very costly hole you dug for yourselves and more importantly us taxpayers! Thanks a bunch!!!!

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.

I have been searching for the best descriptive I could use to describe the dilemma of taxpayers in the Township of Langley, well here it is; – Rafe Mair’s Axiom – “You make a very serious mistake believing that people in charge know what the hell they are doing”. This BLOG Report on the FACTS on Spending and Taxation should give us all a lot to be concerned about!

On the Spending Side:

NEWS FLASH! – The NEW extensive Canadian Federation of Independent Business Report Municipal Spending Watch (Nov. 2013) shows –

The Township of Langley ranked the 3^rd WORST in OPERATING spending out of 27 Municipalities and Cities from Lions Bay through to Hope in 2011 and 2010! This is not a one of, it is part of a long term inbred culture that I was unsuccessful in fighting against in my three years in the Mayor’s office. A forensic audit on Capital Spending would be even more enlightening. (A few examples of that are listed below)

The only Cities and Municipalities that were worse were the Villages of Lions Bay and Harrison Hot Springs, both with populations of approx. 1,500 each.

So how do we feel so far about the job this Municipal Council is doing?      

It is long past due that Township of Langley taxpayers should be awakened to what is being done to them every year and the accumulative effect of out of control spending and taxation. A few facts that should be clear when talking about spending –

• An $800,000 expenditure in the Township of Langley equates to an approx. 1% tax increase.
• A line that is often used by Municipalities is “they have to balance their budgets” per Provincial legislation – True except simple Math 101 will tell you that a) tax increases or b) increasing debt will solve that problem for municipal politicians and the bureaucracy in a heartbeat and they have learned that art form well. It does nothing to stop their thirst for your tax dollars.
• Capital Spending – The outrageous and very questionable payment of an $8.6 million dollar Langley Event Center (LEC) settlement to the Langley Development Group  (Morey Keith was the principle in the Langley Development Group who was appointed and reappointed to the B.C. Lottery Board by Rich Coleman.)
• Capital Spending – A $7.5 million expansion to the LEC which received no public input, scrutiny or announcement prior to construction start.
• Staff statements that these Capital expenditures do not affect taxation rates nor are they part of any tax payer supported debt is an insult to the intelligence of all of us. Regardless of how you cut it, funds for these expenditures came out of reserves, which were funded by taxation and will have to be replenished through taxation. There is only one taxpayer, YOU, this council just doesn’t get it.  

NOTE – This list could be very extensive, but you get the point.

On the Taxation Side – Some History:

The reasons for my criticism are real not imagined!

Tax Increases –

• 2002 to 2008   + 26%                 6 years
• 2002 to 2011   + 40.49%           9 years
• 2002 to 2013   + 46.29%           11 years

A compound tax increase of over 46% in 11 years!

• How many residents had a 46% increase in pay over this period of time?
• B.C.’s Cost of Living since 2002 was only       +17.9%              (Stats Canada / B.C.)
• Taxation Increases – Over 3 times the cost of living!

What is it you often hear at tax time? – On average a general property tax increase is only 2.95%? Isn’t that interesting, my personal Property Taxes for a 5 acre property in North / East Langley (Senior and not farm taxes) in the ALR show the following:

• 2011 – $2,711.08
• 2012 – $2,810.07          + 3.6%
• 2013 – $2,995.94         + 6.6%

On a side note, I can remember after one of my failed attempts to stop the unnecessary tax increase, I suggested to Council we have staff bring back to us the effect of the decided tax increase (using the average as calculated by staff) on each one of our (Council members) homes. This is something we did in Delta and helped to give Council, in some cases, a reality check as all of us on Council resided on different properties in different locations throughout the Township. I can remember the comment from Kim Richter that it was confidential and she wouldn’t provide it. How absurd, I rest my case!

Creative Property Tax Statements –

I don’t know how many of you will remember, it wasn’t that far back, that our Property Tax Bill used to contain one if not a couple of classifications. In other words you received a tax increase of say 4% which included all services under the General – Municipal heading. Well in the spirit of creativity we are now being provided numbers for a variety of categories of services.

In reality it is nothing more than an attempt to justify their tax increase by breaking it out by category. We are now provided with –

• General – Municipal
• General – Protective Services
• Fraser Valley Regional Library
• Parks
• Storm Water
• Transportation – Roads

Maybe we should ask for “General – Administration” and “General – Legal” which seems to be a popular expense with today’s Council.

I am not sure how or why I should feel more comfortable, especially knowing how inadequate our budget process and oversight is.

As I stated above, the unbelievable but true fact remains it is staff under the direction of outside forces who are the ones steering and commanding the ship. Council members over the past 12 – 15 years have been nothing more than passengers on that ship taking their marching orders from those unelected. OH don’t get me wrong, Council members get their opportunity to make themselves feel good in front of the public in public debate, Q & A during Public Hearings (we know how that listening goes don’t we) and Notices of Motion (although I see Councilor Long wants to find a way to circumvent that opportunity, why am I not surprised). The fact is the MEAT of the management of our Municipality is left to others, those unelected! It is being allowed to happen by your Mayor and Council.

As to Budgeting:

As anyone in business knows, respect for a thorough budgeting process is essential to accomplishing the desired result of fiscal accountability on behalf of taxpayers in this case or shareholders in private business. In the case of Municipal Government that process requires the thorough vetting of all departments provisional budget requests. Every single department if left to their own will and resources has an extensive WANT list. The challenge is paring that down to an affordable NEEDS list. Now there is no question that budgeting is a very difficult process, it requires the elected (Council members) to be challenging of the unelected (Staff) line by line as to their and Council priorities measured against Municipal needs and measured against value for money.

It requires the elected to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure taxpayers are getting value for money, both in operating and capital expenditures.

I will give you one small example – There was one discovery that my Standing Committee of Finance uncovered (among many) while going through the budgeting process. When Committee members questioned a few items of significance we discovered that staff had created “Capital Projects Funded – NOT STARTED” which went beyond the most recent year we were dealing with. While investigating a number of these items we found that they were nothing more than a method to create slush funds of convenience for staff. A fundamental principle should be a review of every Capital Project approved by council that wasn’t started in that given year. Is it still needed? Why wasn’t it started? What was the business plan for it?

Another small example – At the start of our Mayor’s Standing Committee of Finance process and in discussions with the CAO, one of our committee members who was a retired CA and Senior Managing Partner from a prominent accounting firm stated he would like to see us adopt a 0 based budgeting format, to which our CAO replied, we do, it is modified 0 based budgeting. Most professionals in the business will tell you, there is no such thing – It is either O based or it is not! That was just the start of a no cooperation attitude.

In my opinion, going through the “well entrenched Township of Langley staff budgeting process of convenience” and my attempts to correct that process, it was clear that nothing was going to change. Councilors Bateman, Fox, Ward, Ferguson, Dornan, Kositsky and Long were determined that would be the case. It was very clear to me that not one of the above ever met a tax or spending increase they didn’t like. Just look up their records, it is a fact!

I would also suggest Councilor Richter’s actions through this period were less than helpful. While she likes to come across as the taxpayer’s conscience, in my opinion, nothing could be further from the truth. I measure people by their actions not words! So all of us are left with the status quo!!

NOTE: For a detailed description of the facts surrounding my attempt to bring fiscal accountability to the Township of Langley see langleywatchdog.com posting May 17^th, 2013.

In Summary:

So the question – Why is Council such a failure in being responsible with your tax dollars? While I could provide a more graphic description of what is going on I will refer back to Rafe Mair’s Axiom for a more polite way of saying it:

“You make a very serious mistake believing that people in charge know what the hell they are doing”

Well folks, it is time for change, are we going to get on with it?

The Township of Langley has without exception one of the worst spending and taxation records within the Lower Mainland from Squamish to Hope for years! I have said it many times before, these Council members make a habit of adopting a staff budget, not a Council budget. If you don’t believe me go and compare a Provisional Budget presented by staff and compare it to the adopted budget by Council.

This long standing process of budgeting with tax increases and spending increases that are three times the cost of living and more are just not sustainable. What is more worrisome is there is no move a-foot to change these habits. The only thing that will change what is happening is a NEW Council, are you up for it? Just one year away!

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.

Pat Pimm, the Minister of Agriculture for our B.C. Government should resign for his attempted influence (about 5 times before and after being appointed Agriculture Minister) of a Quasi-Judicial Commission that was and is in place to prevent political influence over the Agricultural Land Commission and to maintain its independence. Premier Clark’s explanation and support of her Minister today (Tuesday Nov. 12^th/13) was pathetic, however it does show the Premier for what she is really all about. It displays her support of and for a commitment to a common theme of her government, a clear lack of respect for and arrogance towards the taxpayers, they were elected to serve. It is all about looking after friends and insiders and it runs very deep within this B.C. Liberal Caucus, it should not be surprising to any of us in the Township of Langley! You know Rich Coleman’s support for the Wall (significant contributor to the Liberal Government and some members of Council) proposal (69 Townhouses in the middle of the ALR) among others.

First, I want to start off this post by singing the praises of the Chair of the B.C. Agricultural Land Commission (ALC), Richard Bullock. I had the privilege of meeting Richard in my capacity as Mayor of the Township of Langley and Vice Chair of the Metro Vancouver Agricultural Committee. It was during Metro’s invited presentation to the ALC when the ALC was conducting a series of ALC Review Meetings throughout the Province that I had the opportunity to get to know a man that I gained huge admiration for. The issue we were dealing with was the now infamous Mufford Crescent Diversion Overpass, probably the most contentious Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) issue of at least the last decade within the Township of Langley. But first a little history!

The start – The Mufford Crescent Diversion was and is a product of the 2007 multi-stakeholder (Federal, Provincial and Municipal Governments / Private Industry) Roberts Bank Rail Corridor agreement featuring nine projects (overpasses) in the lower mainland of British Columbia. This agreement was signed in secret in the Township of Langley Council Chambers. The issue, not questioning the need but questioning the lack of process i.e. location and secret decision that was foisted upon the unsuspecting residents of the Township of Langley. The secrecy of this project was sheer stupidity on the part of the traffic transportation engineers and designers complicit with a high level attempt at removing a significant amount of Agricultural Land out of the ALR. The result of this plan, an unnecessary highway separating a large amount of prime agricultural land away from the real life farming viability for agriculture on this property. The ultimate result of this action would have been an application to remove this land from the ALR, as it would ultimately prove to be non-viable for agriculture.

What was being planned that you were never told about? (Not a surprise in the Township of Langley)

Leading up to the 2008 election we discovered information on this project. It took three visits to the Township Engineering Department by three different citizens to have someone admit, confidentially, to the facts complete with leaking a map of the project. The secret plan for the Mufford Crescent Diversion (Overpass and highway) was a design that split the historical Hudson Bay Farm and Bella Vista Farm properties in half, funneling 500 cars an hour onto 64^th at 216^th, onto farm roads incapable of handling this traffic.

For the record, the then Mayor Kurt Alberts, in answer to questions from a resident in mid-October 2008 said NO application had been made to the Agricultural Land Commission. THE TRUTH? Contrary to what the Mayor said (surprise) an application had been made in September of 2008. (Should there not be a law against a member of Council misrepresenting the facts to the public?) The decision to give conditional approval of this ill planned highway by the ALC was given the week after the election in 2008, a week and a half before the swearing in of the new Council. No public consultation, no notification, no advice, just the same members of Council once again misrepresenting the facts!

Important, for the record! – As the Mayor Elect I contacted the Agricultural Land Commission the Wednesday following my election and served notice that despite what they may do in their deliberations I would follow through with my promises made during the election campaign and bring this project back to a public consultation process. The ALC went ahead with conditional approval that week in spite of my call and I initiated a public consultation process.

Public Consultation as promised and the RESULT! – Two Open Houses and a Public Meeting later that saw over 1,000 people involved with 97% in opposition. This was the measure of public interest and public opposition. This level of public response was and is unheard of.

Throughout this consultation process we tried, unsuccessfully, to have Translink, the lead agency initially, move the dollars for this project to another Langley location. The Roberts Bank Rail Corridor Agreement states “In the vicinity of 64^th and Glover Rd.” The response from the nine funding partners to our request was NO. The then Minister of Transportation Kevin Falcon wrote me an open public letter stating this plan was the only option.  Langley City Mayor Peter Fassbender wrote an open letter saying the City of Langley had no interest in another plan. What a great start post-election. An interesting neighbor showing no courtesy of a phone call, no class and believe me nothing changed throughout my three year term.

The Vote – At the conclusion of the public process the Council of the day at a 4:00 PM afternoon Council meeting (nobody in the audience) indicated they wanted to have a vote on the Mufford Crescent project as presented. I advised members of Council that if their wish was to vote and it was in favor I would use my Mayor’s authority to bring the vote back for another vote in two weeks at a public televised evening meeting. Council still chose an immediate vote which we held; the result 6 – 3 in favor of the project. I served notice as promised that I would bring it forward for another vote as promised. My point was that on such a contentious issue you cannot hide behind an afternoon meeting with nobody in the audience. Well, not that it was a surprise, but two weeks later with over 300 overflow in the Council Chamber audience and on TV the second vote was held, the result a 6 – 3 in favor. Mayor Green, Councilors Richter and Kositsky opposed, Councilors Ward, Ferguson, Fox, Dornan, Long and Bateman in favor. These six dismissed the results of the public consultation process and the wishes of the electorate.

So that was that, or so I thought. You see the approval given by the ALC back in November of 2008 was conditional on nine very specific conditions that had to be met. In June of that year, upon hearing that the funding partners had submitted their report through their consultant, the Pacific Land Group, I asked for a copy of the report. After reading their submission it was very obvious to me that I had to make my own submission, along with three community members, to correct the facts as presented. The inaccuracies in this report were outrageous. As my introductory letter said in our submission to the ALC staff, I was NOT fighting the vote of council and I was not there in any way representing council. I wanted to be assured that the ALC Commissioners, when making their final decision, would do so based on the facts.

Unfortunately, Councilors Jordan Bateman, Charlie Fox and Grant Ward were outraged (not letting the truth get in the way of a good story) they met with ALC Staff to counter our presentation. I am not sure to this day on what basis – but all of this was a major controversy as these Councilors, who were tied at the hip to Kurt Alberts and his actions, objected strongly to our presentation to ALC staff. Another case of “Inconvenient Facts”.

So back to the occasion of meeting Richard Bullock, Chair of the ALC – It just so happened that our meeting with the ALC and Metro occurred late in the week before Richard was hosting a Mufford Crescent Diversion / Overpass ALC Public Hearing at the Langley Events Center, the Monday evening following. On wrapping up our ALC/Metro Committee meeting Richard came up to me, gave me his business card and asked me to contact him at home over the weekend, which I obviously did. He made it clear that he had talked to other principles on the issue. That included Mayor Fassbender of Langley City, a Public Meeting with the Agricultural Community held at the Coast Hotel and a Private meeting with those members of the Agricultural Community directly affected. This meeting was held at the Milner Church Hall.

To the telephone conversation I had with Richard Bullock, Chair of the ALC – He wanted to know (obviously) my position on the issue. Paraphrasing our conversation:

Mayor Green – Forgive me for being blunt but I don’t see that you have a choice.

ALC Chair Richard Bullock – He asked what did I mean?

Mayor Green – I said it was quite simple, if your responsibility as Chair of the ALR is to protect Agriculture land, which it is, you have no choice. It is not your mandate to help with the design of a highway and/or overpass, it is to protect agriculture. If the Provincial Government wants to override your decision by Order in Council (which threat was mentioned by a couple of Commissioners in the meetings they held), so-be-it, you will have lived up to your commitment and your responsibility.

ALC Chair Richard Bullock – What would you do if you were in our position?

Mayor Rick Green – I said that is easy, reject this proposal (he mentioned our brief which he had seen). Send it back to the funding partners for a new design. I stated I would move heaven and earth to come up with a far more acceptable proposal to the community.

The Result – That is exactly what was accomplished. I am not pleased with the option the Provincial Government selected, unfortunately the Provincial Government was and is consistent in breaking their promises to work with communities. We were promised input which was never allowed.

It is interesting to me that the original proposal for Mufford Crescent was finally defeated based on our two main objections to the submission made by the funding partners. It was returned to the funding partners for a new proposal.

Provincial Government undue ALC Influence –  What has been made public is only the tip of the ice-berg and consistent with the behind the scenes objective of this Provincial Government. The backlash, which has just started has them scrambling to protect their backside. The Core Review by Bill Bennett and it’s real objectives?  Given the actions and words of Agriculture Minister Pat Pimm, the actions of his constituent, who has ignored the ALC decision and initiated construction on the site, as well as the leaked internal documents, the public is once again being treated like idiots. I can tell you first hand, this Provincial Government and their friends on this and our former Township of Langley Council – Ferguson, Fox, Bateman, Long, Ward and Dornan were furious at the decision of the ALC. Don’t think that the ALC did not receive significant pressure from a number of sources. We owe a lot to Richard Bullock for having the guts of his conviction to protect Agricultural land despite insurmountable odds!

Summary – The whole issue of protecting the ALC is personally a very interesting development in my growth as a person. During my term as Mayor I was invited to speak at a salute to Harold Steeves who is considered to be the father of the ALC. As a surprise to all in attendance I started my salute to Harold by being very honest – “In 1975, my wife, I and our two kids at the time delivered pamphlets up and down the slopes of North Delta on behalf of the Social Credit Party to defeat the NDP, as did many thousands of others:

Why – Because of their imposition of the Agricultural Land Reserve.

I was wrong! That is the issue that got me into politics, something I never thought was possible. For 39 years since that election I am still fighting, now to protect the Agricultural Land Reserve. I have no problem admitting today that I was wrong in my original position relating to the ALR. I have a strong record while on Council in Delta and as Mayor for the Township of Langley for fighting to protect Agricultural Land. I am still a staunch Free Enterprise supporter but that doesn’t mean I follow nor agree with this so called Free Enterprise Government, I don’t! It’s blatant record of corruption starting with B.C. Rail (the list is just too long to get into here) is non-supportable by any clear thinking taxpayer of this province. The NDP lost the last election, the Liberals did not win it – Unfortunately, you are now seeing what we are having to deal with within this pompous arrogant government, Premier and many of it’s MLAs / Cabinet Ministers.

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.

Who is running this municipality? Staff or Council? Who is making policy for this municipality? Staff, or Council? What does General – Protective Services on our property tax bill cover? 

For the record and for those that haven’t seen The Province front page story published Friday Nov. 1^st written by Kent Spencer, this is a REAL LIFE story of a taxpayer in our Municipality. Her name is Mrs. Oksana Fedjko who is an immigrant to Canada from the Ukraine who made the Township of Langley home about four years ago.

What wasn’t mentioned in the article is that Mrs. Fedjko called the office of Mayor Jack Froese requesting a meeting to discuss the problem she had, but was told that would not be possible. She phoned Mayor Froese’s office on two occasions with the same request for a meeting and was denied both times.

Democracy in the Township of Langley? An opportunity to talk to the Mayor?

What a foreign concept!!!

I will provide the following brief event time line clarifying the facts as it appears some have been blurred by the Township of Langley. Just in case some have not heard of this incident –

• On or about April 4^th, 2012 Mrs. Fedjko, at home, was feeling ill. She proceeded to take her temperature, unfortunately while shaking the thermometer it hit the side of the table and broke, leaving the mercury content of the thermometer on the floor.

• Now, remember she is new to Canada (trying to develop her English skills) but she remembered an incident she observed in her home country so she called 911 who then patched the call through to the Fire Department. She explained the problem to the operator; the Fire Department arrived shortly thereafter.

• The Fire Department arrived on or about 5:00 PM on April 4^th, 2012 in full gear presumably ready to deal with this spill (mercury content of the thermometer). Mrs. Fedjko was told at that time her whole family would have to leave the house immediately. Everyone complied except Mrs. Fedjko’s mother who was upstairs and refused to leave; the Fire Department continued to demand that her elderly mother go outside and she had to submit to their demands.

• The entire family, including Mrs. Fedjko’s young children, ages 20 months and 12 years, were barred by the Fire Department to re-enter the premises and were left outside that chilly night in early April. The Fire Department would not allow Mrs. Fedjko’s crying baby to touch her mom at all, wouldn’t allow Mrs. Fedjko to hold her baby – even though Mrs. Fedjko had not once touched the mercury (mercury content of the thermometer). The three firemen who arrived stayed on-site (outside or in their truck) from 5:00PM through to approx. 10:00 PM until Tervita arrived. Tervita is a private company contracted to the Township of Langley to mitigate and clean up hazardous spills. The firefighters were intent on preventing members of the family, including a 20 month old baby in diapers, both kids cold and uncomfortable plus an elderly mother in chilly temperatures, from re-entering their home. No effort was made to find the family a comfortable environment to stay in during this episode which I understand is standard practice in most municipalities.  Mrs.Fedjko was able to borrow a cellphone and find a place to take her family for part of the evening.

• The Ambulance was called and upon arriving wiped Mrs. Fedjko’s hands and then left (even though she had not touched any mercury). She had not called them.

• The Fire Department personnel on the scene were having difficulty in deciding how to deal with this spill (mercury content of the thermometer) issue and waited for the Deputy Chief to attend. On his arrival he advised Mrs. Fedjko that he had called Tervita in to clean up the spill (mercury content of the thermometer). Now remember how minor the Ministry of Environment stated this issue should be.

• The Deputy Chief informed Mrs.Fedjko it would cost her $6,000 for Tervita to deal with the problem (mercury content of the thermometer). She absolutely refused, so he handed the phone to her and told her to speak to Tervita who then brought the price down to $2,000. Mrs.Fedjko’s asked the Deputy Chief to phone her husband – who also refused to pay and said he would clean it up himself as they could not afford to pay. The Fedjkos were of the understanding that such services were part of the responsibility of the Fire Department.

• Once they realized that the Fedjko family was not willing to pay any money, the Deputy Chief told Tervita that they, the Fire Department, would cover the cost to get the job done (mercury content of the thermometer). The Deputy Chief told Mrs. Fedjko that they would have one month to pay the Fire Department back. As the Fedjkos didn’t have the money to do so, Mrs. Fedjko asked the Deputy Chief where she could go to challenge this? He said, “It’s their right to challenge this.” Now remember how minor the Ministry of Environment stated this issue should be.

• Mrs. Fedjko asked the Deputy Chief what happens if we don’t have Tervita clean-up the spill? (mercury content of the thermometer) . His response was that they will have to stay outside and would not be allowed back inside. Now remember how minor the Ministry of Environment stated this issue should be.

• Tervita attended at approximately 10:00 PM, dealt with the spill (mercury content of the thermometer) and the Fedjko family (kids and all) were not back in their home until about midnight. Tervita actually contacted the Fedjkos and told them they could come home, but when the Fedjkos arrived Tervita made them stay outside for a while longer; especially unpleasant for the little children and grandmother.  Now remember how minor the Ministry of Environment stated this issue should be.

Interesting notes re: Tervita bill (Your tax dollars at work) – The bill from Tervita states it was for the “cleanup of CORROSIVE materials” for a date in September 2012 (NOT April 2012).  Tervita invoices from the time it receives the phone call, in this case they billed for 6 hours (7:00PM to 1:00AM). They arrived at approx. 10:00PM to clean up a couple of drops of mercury. They charged for 4 KG of towels, when challenged they reduced it to 3 KG. According to Mrs.Fedjko they used no more than 200 Grams of towels. Now remember how minor the Ministry of Environment stated this issue should be.

• 30 days later Mrs. Fedjko received a bill from the Township of Langley for $1,945.00. (mercury content of the thermometer). She was frustrated and confused so she phoned the Mayor of the Township of Langley and was told he was unavailable. She tried to make an appointment to try to see him but was refused; basically being told that the Mayor does not make appointments with private citizens.

• Not satisfied she again contacted the office of Jack Froese, Mayor of the Township of Langley requesting a meeting to discuss her problem. She was flatly told that would not be possible.

• A short time later she was contacted by the Municipality to see if she wanted to talk to the fire department which she readily accepted. She asked what would happen if she didn’t pay the bill and was told that the Township would force her to by sending a Collection Agency. In that meeting with Deputy Chief Bruce Ferguson and Bill Storey it was suggested that she could pay $50.00 a month on this bill (now $1,700.00) to which she refused. After long negotiation, she and her husband were then asked if they would accept the bill being cut in half to $850.00 ($847.56 incl. tax to be exact).  Mr. and Mrs. Fedjko were not happy but accepted it and started paying $50.00 a month from July 24^th, 2012 through to April 24^th, 2013 for a total of $500. There is a total of $347.56 still outstanding. She has stopped paying! All of this for a spill of mercury content of the thermometer.

So let’s see if I have this right? A resident of the Township of Langley has an accident at home with what is considered hazardous material. The resident follows protocol and calls 911 to look after the problem, you know, the General – Protective Services (First Responder) each of us pay a considerable sum of tax money for every year? You know, the services we are constantly informed about that are there to look after us? The last time I looked it didn’t provide a menu of services that are covered – It is for General – Protective Services!

So In Summary, what has happened since this story broke –

• In a compassionate move Mr. Paul Zalesky, CEO of AllWest Insurance donated $1,000 and his employees donated a $500. Safeway Gift Certificate recognizing and knowing what it is like to be in a tight spot.
• Prior to this incident going public, this policy of the Township of Langley (It must be a policy given the comments from Chief Gamble that his staff acted appropriately.) there was to be no bending of the rules. Remember Mrs. Fedjko was told that the Mayor’s office that they would send it out for collection and then the Chief said the balance would be tacked onto their Property Tax Bill? Which is it?
• After the initial story broke and a follow up story re: the kind donation by a reader (and interesting comments from the Fire Chief) Mrs. Fedjko received a voice mail from Chief Gamble that she will not have to pay the outstanding balance. Great news (interesting what happens when you go public with an injustice) but this leaves many more questions for the Mayor and members of Council to answer to.

What still needs to happen –

• Can the Fire Chief cancel a fee just like that? If so, under what circumstances can it be cancelled?
• The policy of the Township of Langley (What is it?) now must be made public! If not residents, given this publicity, will obviously be reluctant (in the case of a dangerous goods spill) to call on our first responders which will or could pose a danger to all.
• Mrs. Fedjko absolutely deserves an apology from our Municipal Council because of the actions of The Township of Langley.
• Mrs. Fedjko absolutely deserves an apology from Mayor Froese for refusing to meet with her. (Two requests.)
• Mrs. Fedjko absolutely deserves a refund of the $500. her family has paid to the Township of Langley on this erroneous bill for a service that should be covered as a taxpayer of the Township of Langley. I am told it is covered in all other municipalities.
• Frank Bucholtz, Editor of the Langley Times wrote an editorial on their web-site on this issue Nov.7/13, an editorial I have to congratulate Frank on. (Although I must say it mysteriously disappeared by the next day on their web-site and we haven’t seen it in print, that is surprising isn’t it?) In response to that editorial he received a couple of email responses from two members of Council that require a response. They are –

Councilor Richter –“What happened here is just simply wrong – from start to finish how very sad the majority of Council did not agree with me”. Councilor Richter it will require more than your normal lip service to correct this wrong. For once in your Municipal career stand up and be counted, stop this verbal diarrhea.

Councilor Long –“The Township won’t be going after the poor family for the balance of the clean-up costs”. Councilor Long, that is really big of you. I find it interesting that you continue to try to find favor with the public despite wrong-headed decisions. Why don’t you have the guts to stand up for this family; do what is right and credit the Fedjko’s the $500.00 they should never have had to pay in the first place. Shame on all of you!      

In summary, this case, spilled mercury content of the thermometer quite frankly displays how out of control our bureaucracy is- led by this inaccessible Mayor.  A Mayor who has more time for his business buddies than for the private citizens he was sworn to serve. If Mr. and Mrs. Fedjko’s is “just another” nuisance complaint from a taxpayer, our community will be the poorer for it. This could happen to any of us!!!!

PS – I don’t put this on the back of our Firefighters; it is clearly on the backs of the senior bureaucracy as well as the current Mayor and Council!

Remember the line from Ralph Klein, then Premier of Alberta when questioned about the costs his Province endured when there was a BSE outbreak represented by one single older dairy cow which never got into the food chain –

 His answer was – “Shoot, Shovel and Shut Up”!

Is this the attitude our local government wants all of us to take????

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.

Writing a community BLOG on the Township of Langley is a challenge, there are more serious issues than there is time to prepare and write. Where is our local media? After reading a recent Frank Bucholtz editorial it is apparent that they (he) just don’t get it and are drinking the Township of Langley (establishment) bathwater, a real disservice to all of us! Thankfully we have The Province (Kent Spencer) and The Sun (Kelly Sinoski). The following is a recap of some major stories and issues affecting you the taxpayer in the Township of Langley.

Read on:

The Province / Tuesday October 15^th 2013 – FRONT PAGE and Full Page 3

“Giving Money Away”

Township spent $2.7 million buying land that Trinity Western University had received for free. (Kent Spencer – The Province)

Thanks to Township of Langley resident and taxpayer Dennis Townsend, he has been steadfastly digging into the very questionable property transactions that surround Trinity Western University. He has been willing to stand up and be counted, using his own resources to uncover what can only be described as a travesty to Township of Langley Taxpayers – so much so that The Province reporter Kent Spencer ran with this story on their front page.

What is the issue? $2.7 million paid for a 20.5 hectare property with an assessed value of $1.5 million, 80% over it’s assessed value! So beyond this outrageous purchase by the Township of Langley, The Province lays out the following interesting and questionable elements of the story-

• “May 14^th, 2012, the 23 hectare property on Glover Rd. was owned by Hugh and Sharon Little. Hugh Little is a North Vancouver businessman who has served on Trinity’s board of governors and with Trinity’s charitable foundation.”
• “The very next day, the land was subdivided into two sections. The larger 20.5 hectare parkland-zoned section was transferred by the Littles to Trinity Western University for just $1. and other good and valuable considerations.” What other good and valuable considerations? How would CRA (Canadian Revenue Agency) view this transaction – a dramatic increase in value that IS NOT backed up by B.C. Assessment? Just asking?
• The 2.5 hectare property, zoned-student-dormitory conveniently by the Township is retained by the Littles.
• “Trinity then flipped the 20.5 hectare property to the Township for $2.7 million later the same day.” Assessed value $1.5 million.

So why a $2.7 million purchase price on land valued at $1.5 million? Why am I not surprised; there were three independent Appraisals. While Township Property Manager Scott Thompson and Bob Kuhn, Trinity President defend the sale and purchase price being based on an average of three appraisals, Trevor Brown of B.C. Assessment knew about this high valuation and insists he stands by their assessment as being accurate at $1.5 million. Where is the full copy of these Appraisals – they would make for interesting reading!

The Province / Friday October 18^th, 2013 – 1/3^rd page Page A6

Council not told land value: Richter (Kent Spencer – The Province)

In response to the first news story about this land (above), Councilor Kim Richter, an experienced (close to 15 year, 5 term Councilor) is quoted extensively in this feature with the following:

Councilor Kim Richter doesn’t believe council was told it was buying land for 80% over it’s assessed value in 2012.

• What an amazing statement – A Councilor with her experience and years of service coming up with this. Ask the question Ms. Richter ask the question!!!! It is your fiduciary responsibility as an elected representative of the taxpayer to ensure we get value for money. Just maybe residents will stop being fooled by your fluffy meaningless questions followed up with no follow through and no answers in open council. They are and have been nothing but a smokescreen for years! It is amazing what you can find out when you challenge staff reports; when are you going to start, and mean it? How much damage has to be done to this community before members of council wake up and start doing the job they were elected to do?

“From my perspective it seems like quite a gap” said Richter.

• Do you think Ms. Richter? 80% (or $1.2 million higher) equates to about a 1.5% tax increase. $1.2 million that is gone for good thanks to the incompetence of this council. A million here, a million there, pretty soon you are talking real money! Unconscionable!

Richter wasn’t aware that the costs of the Appraisal were shared with Trinity? It then becomes a serious issue of objectivity or perceived objectivity.

• Obviously further proof of the incompetence of this council. Appraisals and the details behind them are not questioned. How convenient!

Richter says she will ask to see the full Appraisal documents?

• Ms. Richter, will you release them to the public? Otherwise, given council’s actions to-date this action is absolutely meaningless!

“If this deal had not (already) been implemented, I definitely would have been asking for more information. Can we undo it? NO – Can we learn from it? YES – Would we do it again? Absolutely NOT.”

• The old 20 / 20 hindsight routine? Ms. Richter, are you now speaking for other members of council when you say it won’t happen again? That would be an interesting meeting to sit in on!!! We could sell tickets to that meeting.

More interesting, has it happened before???

Some of us know the answer to that question don’t we!

Given what happened in this case there should be a Forensic Audit of all Real Estate transactions over the past 10 plus years. But who on Council will have the guts to raise that prospect!

 The Province / Wednesday October 23rd, 2013 – 2/3^rd page – Page A6

B.C. Assessment won’t use sale price (Kent Spencer – The Province)

In a follow up news item dealing with the questionable Appraisal stated the following:

The valuation of the property lies at the heart of the controversy and on Tuesday, Trevor Brown, senior appraiser at B.C. Assessment expanded broadly on his reasons for believing the land was only worth $1.5 million.

He said the Township paid so much over the assessed value that the amount will not be used to determine future assessed values.

“We could not use that purchase price as market evidence for setting assessments” said Brown.

Through the course of the article he explains why this property is assessed the way it is through outlining a description of the property and by comparing six large agricultural parcels sold in Langley in 2012. When you have such professional opinion go public it definitely puts into question the management of our assets as well as the decisions that are being made in the taxpayer’s best interest.

Vancouver Sun – Metro Board rejects move to develop agricultural land

(Kelly Sinoski)

Then we move on to a series of three property applications to the Metro Vancouver Board.

ALR / Urban Edge Planning: Two of these applications dealt with edge planning between ALR land and Urban. The issue is, as I say, edge planning between Urban and ALR lands. This encroachment has become a frequent request of the Township of Langley by land owners who own these edge properties. If you follow this idea to it’s illogical conclusion there is no end to how far you go in edge planning and removing land out of the ALR. It breaches the RGS which the Township unanimously approved a short two years ago. Just recently there have been noises out of Victoria that the B.C. Liberal Government have included the ALR in their Core Review currently being carried out by Minister Bill Bennett. There is currently considerable angst that the ALR is in jeopardy!

NEW Revisited OCP – The next application was dealing with a change in the Township OCP dealing with changing the designation of an area next to Port Kells from mixed employment to general urban which was contrary to the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy. Now let’s be clear, the Regional Growth Strategy is a product of Provincial Legislation going back to the 80s, it isn’t something a few Mayors dreamt up over a beer one night. The RGS was reviewed extensively for two and a half years (2009, 10 and11) by ALL member municipalities and ALL members of ALL Municipal and City Councils. It was adopted unanimously in later 2011. Seeing I was leading the Township approval process when I was the Mayor I can tell you for a fact, we held an extensive number of private and open meetings with Metro, including a public hearing, and we had a considerable number of objections which we went about resolving. In the closing days of that process I had asked Mark Bakken and Ramin Seifi directly in front of Council in an in-camera meeting if there were issues of concern and both said there were. Given that, we went back to Metro and resolved those issues in question. Given all of this we brought it to an open Council Meeting and unanimously supported the RGS.

NOTE: We established a number of special Study Areas for future discussion which would require a simple majority vote of the Metro Board for approval of any change. It was and is clear any other changes through the Regional Context Statement would require a 60% weighted vote to change.

IMPORTANT re NEW OCP – I find it very intriguing that in a municipality that takes up to two years to create a new neighborhood plan, this Council and staff revisited the TOL Official Community Plan (OCP) and adopted it in not much more than a five month process with by-law readings and public hearing held in the summer. I have a copy of the NEW OCP and the c ommuni9ty should be alarmed at the changes.

Conclusion? After all of this, within a short time, less than two years, in the middle of a Court Action between the Township of Langley and Metro Vancouver over the RGS this Council goes cap in hand asking for changes to something that was just extensively agree upon. In my view it has become a very unhealthy poisoned relationship with our Municipal Partners within the region, all to be laid at the feet of Mayor Jack Froese and this Council.

And Now we get an Editorial from Frank Bucholtz Editor of the Langley Times

“Township and Metro in midst of land use confrontation”!

Unfortunately BUT in typical Mr. Bucholtz fashion he is defending the Township at all costs. He goes on by blaming the disputes on being nothing but political, dragging out a bunch of irrelevant issues, gossip and innuendo (where have I heard this stuff before) about Derek Corrigan and Burnaby Politics, then about Harold Steves being the godfather of the Agricultural Land Reserve and both of them being NDP members. So what, lets deal with the uncomfortable facts Frank!

Now it won’t take any of you 5 seconds to discover my politics are staunchly right wing and Free Enterprise. My argument against Bucholtz and the local Langley Press is not left vs right it is about how one sided their stories are and how unchallenging they are to sitting local politicians, Municipal, Provincial and Federal. So if Frank Bucholtz wants to complain about Metro argue THE FACTS, don’t offer a bunch of hyperbole. If you are complaining about Metro’s RGS have a little courage and go up against your Provincial friends Frank, or is that just a little too uncomfortable?

There are more than enough facts to argue how and why the Township is at fault on a wide variety of property deals, where is that in print? Where are the uncomfortable facts in print?

Now, we have just witnessed a very interesting B.C. Supreme Court decision on the Coulter Berry building in Fort Langley – are you going to come out and blast Council for the process they created that has been found to be improper and thrown out? Why don’t you ask the Township for their legal costs associated with defending themselves against this community based action? Now, what will add insult to injury to the citizens of the Township is if this Council Appeals the decision?

Something to really think about – Next time you receive the local paper in your mail box, (Times / Advance and Star) tally up the advertising pages from the Township of Langley, City of Langley, Developers who are marketing developments in both the City and Township as well as their inserts and flyers – This is known as the lucrative economics of the local newspaper business. There is nothing wrong with this as long as the news is objective, independent and tells the full story (both sides)!

Conclusion:  What we have seen over the first two years of this Council’s mandate is one of deals for friends and insiders, an increasing number of land deals / issues, constant conflict with Metro Vancouver and not one positive achievement.

I won’t count the just announced Glen Valley Park, the credit for that clearly goes to those dedicated residents of the Township of Langley. Don’t forget, if it was up to this Council you would have seen ALL of that land sold off, there was no other option.

It is long past due that we get off this train wreck to nowhere and fight for changes to our Municipal Governance before it is too late.

More interesting Township Features 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.