langleywatchdog…. and more!

For elected members of Council this is where the rubber hits the road! This is where they will show you their worth as your elected representatives. The intriguing part of this story is their vote, rationale and sleight of hand decisions. I have followed the proceedings very closely on this issue. The community response was outstanding and should be applauded. My thoughts follow and these are based on many years of experience while observing as well as sitting around the table. In an elected capacity I went through the infamous Southlands / Spetifore hearings of 108 hours (Still a Canadian Record) and the Burns Bog Hearings of about 40 hours in length. Do not be fooled, read on….

This Municipal Council has themselves to blame for getting into the position they are in. For far too many years Councils in the Township of Langley have had a free reign to impose their wishes and will on an unsuspecting public. For far too many years our communities and their residents have been apathetic towards the actions of their Municipal Government. I sincerely hope that problem has turned the corner.

In the case of the Brookswood Fernridge Community Plan the Township of Langley continue to abuse the public trust through a widely flawed public process. When you continue to resist a good dose of public involvement, public dialogue and meaningful public input, the community backlash will be severe, or so it should!

As an example, in the case of the Coulter Berry Building in Fort Langley, you have a new interloper in the community that has personal resources and feels he can manipulate elected members of Council. The problem, he has been successful so far!! We shall see?

How is Brookswood Fernridge any different? Here you have a Community Plan funded by 10 landowner / developers (the Griffith Neighborhood Advisory Corporation GNA) to the tune of a $500,000 loan to be paid back once development is complete. They are participating as a Community Advisory Board? What? How can the Township of Langley be serious by allowing this kind of blatant conflict of interest or at the very least perceived conflict? If this Council had the public interest in mind they would never have allowed this to happen. Well there is obviously a good deal more to it, how else can you explain it?

To the residents of Brookswood Fernridge, congratulations! You shocked the hell out of Council. Your turnout was magnificent and exactly what was necessary to catch their attention. However for what it is worth I believe this council will follow a long tried and true political solution and they will punt the ball (refer it to staff for more public consultation), that is until after this year’s election. Warning, they have repeatedly proven that they cannot be trusted and this exercise would be no different.

By what I call punting the ball I mean they will refer the community plan back to the community for more input and dialogue, unfortunately it will be involving the same players and the same flawed process.

The only option worth discussing is that this community plan proposal be totally rejected. It is time for a truly integrated community planning process involving a community based Community Planning Committee (Community residents and local business owners as members) be developed through community consultation. It has to go back to square one, don’t be fooled.

What is Mayor Froese talking about with respect to Metro Vancouver’s RGS (Regional Growth Strategy)? Proof he doesn’t know what he is talking about!

It is interesting how Mayor Froese plays fast and loose with the inconvenient facts. When it comes to building 69 Townhomes in the middle of a large Agricultural area (ALR) for the Wall property owned by friends and insiders and the expanded Trinity University District he fights Metro through the courts. His rationale, Metro doesn’t have the right to tell the Township what to do. Now to Brookswood; he states that we are obligated to this kind of density due to Metro’s Regional Growth Strategy. Well let’s set the record straight, the density numbers in the RGS for the Brookswood Fernridge community is a projection / an estimate going forward. It is not a committed number; it couldn’t be because of so many unknowns. It is still clearly up to the Township of Langley to create Community Plans that speak to resident wishes.

Summary:

As I said earlier, the Brookswood Fernridge Community deserves a ton of credit for their attendance at the Open House and Public Hearing BUT you are not out of the woods! The fight is not over, don’t relax yet!

The proposed Community Plan that is coming up for 3^rd reading should never have been allowed to see the light of day, it is an embarrassment. The community and neighborhood planning process that has been a feature of Township of Langley Planning is an embarrassment and must come to an end. The Township of Langley Planning process coupled with it’s practice of introducing omnibus bylaws featuring OCP amendments and zoning changes in one process displays a complete lack of concern for community and continues to be a feature of this Municipal Government. It is long past time it all comes to an end!!!!

Community Rally PLEASE attend –     Leave Brookswood & Fernridge alone RALLY to Save Your Community – Sunday March 30^th, 12 NOON at Noel Booth Community Park (36^th & 202^nd at the Batting cage). From there we walk to Brookswood Park. Bring your signs! Arrive at Brookswood Park – 1 PM (200^th & 40^th)  

Council Meeting PLEASE attend –       Council Decision 7:00 PM Monday March 31^st. Venue change – Christian Life Assembly for the Council meeting and to observe Council’s decision.

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

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

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

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

What an unmitigated joke, if it wasn’t so serious it would be hilarious! The fix is in. Yours truly has had a number of www.langleywatchdog.com correspondents attend the three days of Coulter Berry Public Hearings, all submitting detailed reports. On what can only be described as an attempted orchestration for a predetermined result to approve. I have a caution to members of Council – You have just poked the bear and he isn’t happy!

With today’s world of Municipal Government, the people, the average taxpayer seemingly has or is perceived to have less and less influence over the actions of their political masters. The never ending moves and actions to orchestrate policy, control the message and/or look after the wishes of friends and insiders is being seen for what it is by many, pathetic and undemocratic. In the case of the Township of Langley it is just way over the top. I would suggest that the practice of true public consultation, communication and involvement in and by our communities doesn’t exist, nor some would say has it ever existed. We are still a throw-back to the Wild Wild West of land deals, speculators and special favors. A Message to members of Council and those who have been comfortable in their self-serving capacity, up to now, as a member of the Township Establishment – Those days of comfort are quickly coming to an end.

Every Municipality and/or City finally reaches its tipping or breaking point because of the actions of its elected representatives. What generally speaking is the pre-cursor to the dramatic change that follows? Greed and arrogance by those in power and we have that in spades!

So to the Public Hearing; managing one and it’s fair and democratic process takes great care and experience. It was interesting that Mayor Froese used the following well known phrase in opening the Public Hearing, “Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done.” Well Mayor Froese here is another phrase for you to consider, “Actions speak louder than words” and the actions of this council over 2 ½ years speak for themselves.

#1) Venue for a Public Hearing – First off, our Mayor and Council are responsible for the fair and equitable treatment of citizens from both sides of the debate on any given issue. The Coulter Berry proposal has been easily THE most controversial development seen in the Township of Langley for many years if ever! So if we buy into those two statements being true, which they are, then why would our Council schedule a Public Hearing in a venue that could not possibly hold the capacity needed? Just one week earlier this Council scheduled a Public Hearing for Brookswood Fernridge in their Council Chambers, received an overflow crowd and conveniently rescheduled for the next two nights down at the George Preston facility. That was the right decision, so why the residents of Fort Langley and the Township were seriously inconvenienced by continuing with having this Public Hearing at Municipal Hall and not rescheduled to a larger venue? No parking, No seats, residents packed into outside rooms and hallways. The Mayor stated prior to the start of the Coulter Berry Public Hearing that they could not change the venue as it had already been advertised. What BS! They changed the Brookswood Fernridge Public Hearing without that advertising. It is a disgrace!

Fact, the main Council Chamber Doors were opened about two hours earlier than any other Council meeting and/or Public Hearing ever held in that Council Chamber. Surprise, it was full of those speaking in favor of the project; it would be fair to say there was an aura of convenience for Mr. Woodward and his supporters. Remember when we said “Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done.”!!! It is not happening in the Township!

#2) Public Hearing Development Introduction Process – At the start of the Public Hearing traditionally the proponent is given the opportunity to present his/her case to Council and the public. They are also given the opportunity if they wish, to defer to the end and this is important, only to answer questions raised by the public during the Public Hearing. The Mayor did not offer that opportunity to the proponent to present his case before the Public Hearing nor did the Mayor offer the proponent an opportunity to defer to the end.

Now the Township of Langley Planning Department will normally introduce the bylaws that are up for discussion and an executive summary overview on what they are about. The Township should not take on the role and responsibility of the developer at the start of the Public Hearing laying out complete detail of the development.

#3) Public Hearing hours – It is imperative for Mayor and Council to run a Public Hearing giving maximum thought to the convenience of the taxpaying public. This Public Hearing in my opinion was mismanaged from the outset with respect to passing motions to extend hours. There is no question that if you get close to the end (as an example) it is 11:00 PM and you have one or two speakers left, an extension of 15 minutes would be in order, but extending the last day to 12:45 AM in the morning is outrageous, an affront to democracy and an insult to those still wanting to speak. I personally know of a number who wanted to speak but could not possibly stay up that long given work commitments.

#4) Handling of statements by concerned residents – I am privy to a number of comments made by the public that were well within their right to make but denied by the Mayor. I am not talking about brash name calling or anything of that sort because that would not nor should it ever be allowed. If a project comes forward to a Public Hearing for spot zoning which is being marketed and sold to the community based on a variety of benefits as the developer sees them, all of that is fair game for comment. You are not running a sterile environment within a Public Hearing in which the public fear to tread. The Council Chambers and the office you and this Council hold are at the behest of the voting public, nothing more.

#5) Actions of Mayor Froese and Council members – The You Tube Video (link below) says it all. While some of the Woodward supporters are ripping into Councilor Long they are absolutely offside and quite frankly insulting to their cause. Councilor Long and I have had our differences in the past; he has challenged me as well. Never-the-less his challenge of the Mayor in this case allowing Eric Woodward far too much flexibility and time given that he was spending most of it being openly critical of those opposing his development was absolutely correct. This time is allotted to the Developer to answer questions about his project, not to espouse his views of all that oppose it or him. The Mayor was completely wrong in his handling of this Public Hearing.

Councilor Fox’s actions were completely offside and an embarrassment, he should apologize to the public immediately. This was a public Council meeting that clearly outlines what a member of Council can and cannot do and by any measure Councilor Fox’s actions should be publicly censored by Council.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpvkaD6bF1E

#6) The responsibility and ability of this Mayor and Council to fairly decide on these bylaws is seriously in question? –  Mayor and Council are in a quasi-judicial state while going through the Public Hearing leading up to 3^rd reading. They have a fiduciary (legal) responsibility to fairly hear all sides of the question, listen to ALL residents and take into account all petitions.

So consider, this Council (not David Davis) has previously approved this development which was proven to be illegal and the majority of Council members – Mayor Jack Froese, Councillors Kim Richter, Grant Ward, Charlie Fox, Bev Dornan and Michelle Sparrow participated in a well-publicised sod turning of this illegal development prior to a building permit ever being issued. Now we are to believe that this Council will fairly consider ALL input? Remember Mayor Froese “Justice must not only be done it must be seen to be done”. “Actions speak louder than words!”

In summary –

All members of your Municipal Council have a responsibility to all of us as taxpayers and that is to be responsible to all laws and legislation that they are responsible for governing the Local Government Act and the Community Charter. They are not a law unto themselves. It is unfortunate in my mind that the Community Charter as enacted by the Gordon Campbell Government in and around 2003 neutered the old Municipal Act with respect to Municipal oversight. For all intents and purpose it doesn’t exist anymore. The decisions by this Council on March 31^st, 2014 will send a telling message for Election Day later this year. I said decisions because the Brookswood Fernridge Community Plan vote will be held the same day. A post on this proposal later this week. I would encourage all residents in the Township of Langley to attend Christian Life Assembly at 7:00 PM Monday March 31^st for personal observation whether your Council listens or not. So here is a little reminder on how we got to where we are at:

Coulter Berry – A little FACTUAL history!

• Fort Langley British Columbia is a small town full of history which is known widely as the Birth Place of B.C.
• Langley Heritage Society is established in 1979. Hundreds and hundreds of residents over the last 4 decades have worked tirelessly to put in place policy, guidelines and bylaws to protect Fort Langley’s future for future generations.
• Past Municipal Councils have taken affirmative action and put in place Heritage policy and bylaw protection specifically against the kind of Coulter Berry development being proposed.
• Fort Langley Building Facade Guidelines are put in place.
• Heritage Conservation Area established.
• Reinforcing bylaws to protect the height limit (2 storys) in 2004/05. (NOTE – All members of that Council, current and past, are now trying to change what they had put in place. All except David Davis.)
• Eric Woodward arrives on the scene about five years ago and starts to buy up a number of properties (Now owns about 50% of the Commercial area of Fort Langley).
• Eric Woodward all of a sudden becomes the poster boy for what someone wants someone gets? Consider how popular he has become: President of the Fort Langley BIA, Director of the Greater Langley Chamber of Commerce, Township Community Participation Infrastructure & Environment Committee, Township Economic Development Advisory Committee and the Township Heritage Advisory Committee (Last year)
• Eric Woodward buys up the front IGA lot plus the Hardware lot and starts to prepare his plan for a three story building led by none other than his consultant Kurt Alberts, a former Mayor that was instrumental in putting in place the bylaw protection they are now trying to overturn.
• Eric Woodward, with plans under his arm shows up in the Township of Langley Planning department and was rejected twice by staff.
• Then it is off to the Mayor’s office for help, no doubt with consultant Kurt Alberts in tow. You know the same Mayor that has strong connections to the majority of this Council.
• A staff report comes to Council that rejects the proposal. After debate, Councilor Fox moves a motion, seconded by Michelle Sparrow to request a report from Council that would outline a way they could approve this proposal. Passed.
• A staff report comes back to Council with no recommendation by staff but nevertheless it was approved by Council.
• On approval of this report to Council the developer initiates sod turning and excavation of site, despite no building permit and full knowledge of the upcoming Judicial Review application.
• An official application is filed for a Judicial Review of the process used by the Township.
• Judicial Review is successful in B.C. Supreme Court; the Heritage Alteration Permit is set aside. Construction stops.
• Township files an appeal application.
• Eric Woodward files a new application and rezoning request for Coulter Berry 2.0
• Public Hearing Monday March 10^th, 2014
• Council Decision 7:00 PM Monday March 31^st. Hope you can attend Christian Life Assembly for the Council meeting and to observe the decision.

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

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

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

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

The Coulter Berry Building fiasco is a very serious issue within what is broadly considered to be the jewel in the Township of Langley Crown – Fort Langley! Fort Langley’s history and development has been protected for decades by hundreds of hard working, community minded and dedicated individuals, many of them pioneers, who have fought hard for its protection. Coulter Berry is also symptomatic of how business has and is being done in the Township of Langley for many years. Favor to a few friends at the expense of the majority!!!! Well, here is where we are at…..

The Next Chapter in the Coulter Berry Saga

On Monday February 24, our Township Council passed first and second reading for the proposed Coulter Berry 2.0 building. More than 150 people, with the majority opposed to the building and bylaw changes, turned out to hear how this council would vote. The crowd was not surprised by Council’s decision.

The 7 to 2 vote, with Councilors David Davis and Bob Long opposed, pushes the proposed project and re-zoning to a public hearing to be held on March 10 at 7:00 pm at the Township of Langley Council Meeting.

Councilor Bob Long proposed a referral motion that the project should be sent back to staff to work with the developer to trim its height at the corner of Mavis and Glover, where the building is highest. Adding “It’s too big, too tall, and it’s too bulky,” This referral motion was also defeated 7 to 2. For the record the proposed Coulter Berry 2.0 would be higher than the Park Lane Condo Wall in Bedford Landing.

David Davis said he liked the building design, but NOT in Fort Langley and he doesn’t like “tailor-making” the three proposed bylaws. That would enable the site to be re-zoned to allow a three-story 46’10” high building as well as change the Fort Langley Building Façade Design Guidelines to say they are there to “assist but not bind” council. This would be a very dangerous move.

Davis also asked, “Why are we changing three bylaws to suit this one development and ONE developer?”

This is a very good question and one that has finally been asked by a Councilor. We have heard on many past occasions from various Councilors that they do not agree with spot zoning, yet this is exactly what is being presented in a public hearing for consideration by the public and for approval by Council.

I would add, the comment made by Councilor Davis drew spontaneous applause from the gallery. This applause by residents in the audience drew a VERY ANGRY RESPONSE by Mayor Froese saying, “This is a debate among Council, not entertainment for you”. Trust me you can’t make this stuff up!! Mayor Froese, what an absolute disgrace and embarrassment.

The next step in this process is the Public Hearing which will be held in the Township of Langley Municipal Council Chambers on Monday March 10^th, 2014.

Call to Action – There are a few things we are asking of from residents in the Township of Langley and they are important IF you want to stop this type of behavior and development by your council –

1. Sign the Petition against Coulter Berry (Coming by separate email) and submit your names as outlined or drop it by in person. The petition is also available at www.handsonheritage.ca
2. Attend the March 10^th, 2014 Public Hearing (Details below)
3. Sign up to speak at the Public Hearing IF you feel comfortable and/or leave a written submission during the Public Hearing.

At that point, once everyone has had a chance to speak and/or submit petitions and submissions, Council will deliberate for presumably a week and vote at the next Monday night Council Meeting. This vote will presumably and hopefully follow extensive discussion and debate on many of the issues presented by you at Public Hearing. Remember, Council cannot legally receive any further information in relation to these bylaws after the Public Hearing and before their vote at 3^rd reading. This IS your only chance to stop the irresponsible actions shown to date. It is all of our collective and sincere hope that Council will listen.

As mentioned above, Councilors will vote and decide if the bylaws will be changed and if the Coulter Berry 2.0 building will proceed as presented at the next Monday Evening Council meeting. If this project is defeated, our Heritage Conservation Area will stay intact and the developer will have to adhere to the current height and scale requirements. Our goal is to ensure that the many decades of protective Municipal and Provincial Heritage Legislation IS NOT COMPROMISED for and by anybody!

Your participation in speaking, signing the petition and submitting a written opposition is important to send our Councilors the message that we do not agree with spot zoning to suit one developer. By changing the by-laws we will no longer have opportunity to challenge other developments that are this large in our village as the bylaws will allow buildings that are the same height (46’ 10” high). This opens the doors to the rest of Fort Langley being easily developed in the same scale and thereby the corruption of many decades of Heritage Protection.

Everyone is tired of the Coulter Berry Saga!

Let us all please stop wasting tax payer’s money and time. This building should have never been allowed to go through with an application a second time while being so close in design to the original proposal. Please speak out and tell our Councilors once and for all that we do not agree with the fast tracking and spot zoning to suit one developer and we want to preserve the character and Heritage of Fort Langley. This is not just Township heritage it is Provincial Heritage. Fort Langley is widely considered to be the Birthplace of British Columbia!

FAX OR EMAILS PETITIONS TO:

fortlangleyrsd@gmail.com  Fax to 1.866.830.4120

www.handsonheritage.ca       For a copy of the petition!

www.lovefortlangley.com

Please know you can effectively change what is going on, but you have to become active!

This Municipal Council has an abhorrent record of not listening to the public. Nothing will change until all of us make the change for them!!!

A Call to action – Attend this Public Hearing and be heard! Details

• Coulter Berry 2.0 Public Hearing
• Township of Langley Municipal Hall – 20338 65^th Ave.
• Fraser River Presentation Theatre – Council Chambers 4^th Floor
• Monday March 10th 2014 – 7:00 PM

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.

What is happening with respect to the Brookswood/Fernridge Community Plan is a disgrace to the community. Despite my direction for change during my term, for the successful Aldergrove Core Community Plan, Township Council and staff could not wait to get back to their old process of manipulation and control. Top-Down Planning! Don’t believe me, take one look at Willoughby and their use and proliferation of “Neighborhood Plans”. In my view this process leaves open a more broader and disgusting use of Spot Zoning!

This process of Community Planning is like nothing I have seen throughout the lower mainland. The key problem issues are 1) Overall Planning Process (proliferation of Neighborhood Plans) 2) OCP and Zoning changes (omnibus process) all in one process and 3) Process of Community input and dialogue. Why is it that way? Very simple, it is much more easily manipulated and controlled by staff and special interests. Just ask yourself who is going to make the money?

An example of what happened close to home – “Aldergrove Core Community Plan”

Leading up to the 2008 election campaign I went after then Mayor Kurt Alberts for his complete lack of willingness to address the lack of an updated Aldergrove Core Community Plan. This was something that was on Aldergrove’s wish list for years. I promised in that campaign that I would advance that as a priority which we did but it wasn’t going to be the same old process!

Early on in my first term, staff, knowing that the Aldergrove Community Plan was a priority in my election platform prepared and brought forward a report to Council outlining their process for developing an Aldergrove Community Plan. I intercepted that report when I was reviewing our Draft Council Agenda on the Wednesday prior to our Council Meeting. I called an immediate meeting with our CAO and Director of Planning to outline my wishes for a new process and I had this item removed immediately from the Agenda and requested a NEW report outlining a NEW process which appeared in a later Council Agenda. (more on that later) Interesting, the new process was adopted by Council, but I am willing to bet they didn’t know what inspired this new process, until now! They didn’t even ask!

So what is wrong with the process they (staff) are obviously so enamored with?

In short their plan is very arbitrary at the outset. They (staff) arbitrarily decide what area will be covered for either a Neighborhood or Community Plan. There is no public debate on that issue just “it is what it is!” After developing some material to support their cause they call a One Day Community Planning Charet. They invite members of the community to attend, they set up teams at tables around the room, they provide maps, throw out discussion points and provide some food and beverage; and at the end of the day they wrap up all the maps with drawings and suggestions from those that attended and thank everyone for attending with a message, we will get back to you in six, eight to twelve months. In due course you see a plan that is put together with no further oversight or public input. This process only leads to poor planning, no REAL community input and a product our communities cannot be happy with. Don’t believe me, look to Willoughby! It is still not too late to correct Willoughby’s problems by the way BUT IT IS getting late in the mission.

In short – A Planning Process that involves the community is the way to go!

In Aldergrove we set up a Community Planning Committee with I believe eleven members consisting of residents, active business owners, an absentee property owner, local community association representative plus two non-voting positions, one from Council and one School Trustee. This group was provided professional planning assistance to work with by the Township of Langley, They were charged with the responsibility, with help from a facilitator, to elect a Chair and run a series of community meetings designed to reach a conclusion of their desires for their community. The long and the short of that process is, we established a Core Community Plan, established bylaws, provided readings, held a Public Hearing and approved the NEW plan, all with virtually NO opposition.

Back to Brookswood/Fernridge –

During the 2008 election campaign and before then Mayor Kurt Alberts had publicly decreed a number of times in the media that he wouldn’t address an update to the Brookswood / Fernridge Community Plan until Willoughby was built out. This was a position I was firmly opposed to. In my monthly drop-in Mayor’s Forums I was inundated with residents wondering about what is going to happen with Brookswood/Fernridge. They were challenged by land speculators, empty houses turning into drug dens and much much more. As many said, it was similar to what was happening up in Willoughby.

It was and is my position that residents in our various communities deserve to have input into their community plans. I don’t mean lip service as before but real active and meaningful input. They deserve to know what to expect in the near to mid-term in their communities.

It is imperative to fight the existing process with all of the energy you can muster. I implore everyone to not be lulled into a sense of complacency. That position would work for this Council because they are happy with apathy.

Please know you can effectively change what is going on, but you have to become active.

1. Sign the petition!
2. Attend the Public Hearing!
3. Speak at the Public Hearing if at all possible! (Not everyone is comfortable with Public Speaking but if you can brave it out, please do)

This Municipal Council has an abhorrent record of listening to the public. Nothing will change until all of us make the change for them!!!

For more info  http://leavebrookswoodalone.blogspot.ca/

A Call to action – Attend this Public Hearing and be heard! Details

• Brookswood / Fernridge Public Hearing
• Township of Langley Municipal Hall – 20338 65^th Ave.
• Fraser River Presentation Theatre – Council Chambers 4^th Floor
• Monday March 3^rd 2014 – 7:00 PM

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.

If not, you will get the government you deserve!!!! What is happening now in Fort Langley is an injustice to all Township of Langley residents. This Council is perpetrating a breach of a trust given to it by residents who voted for them in the last election to protect their community. Do you remember the promises made by all of your members of Council during the last election? What do you think of them now?

Fort Langley is the birthplace of British Columbia. Council is directly threatening the Fort Langley Official Community Plan, our Heritage and the long protected Heritage Conservation Area in Fort Langley. This by all appearances is just the start of more to come. It is the tip of the iceberg and is about more than one building. Don’t let them take this action without a hell of a fight, don’t let them change your community forever!!!!!

This BLOG, www.langleywatchdog.com was created after one year of experience with this Council and it’s actions. Now happily in retirement I can assure you I have more than enough to occupy my time than spend many hours of every day writing Posts for this BLOG. Unfortunately the actions of this Council challenged me directly to speak up and do my part to tell the real story, thereby the launch of langleywatchdog.com. I can’t sit back and watch this happen!

Now, I have heard it said before, “this happens in ALL cities and Municipalities”. Well, I can say emphatically in 35 years of personal political experience, I have never witnessed the degree of political incompetence and willful disregard for the public as is the case in the Township of Langley. The creative wherewithal that senior staff can garner to suit their purpose is beyond the pale. Even IF the saying (above) was true, which it isn’t, are you prepared to sit back and be walked all over by your government? What if it directly affected you? (and it could at any time) As I said earlier – you will get the government you deserve!!! Now is the time to react, here is why!

The Township of Langley Council has wasted NO TIME in looking after their friend and insider Mr. Eric Woodward at your expense. Immediately following Mr. Woodward’s love in / Open House on Thursday night in Fort Langley MC’d by none other than Eric’s consultant, former Mayor Kurt Alberts (good friend of the Jack Froese slate on Council), Friday morning’s posting of next Monday’s Council Agenda is further proof that they can’t ram this through fast enough! This is the worst case of spot zoning imaginable!

Surprise, surprise, Monday night’s Council Meeting will feature First and Second Reading of Bylaws:

No. 5063           Bylaw No. 5063 amends the Fort Langley Community Plan by clarifying the informative purpose of the Fort Langley Building Façade Design Guidelines, namely to assist but not bind Council in implementing the Fort Langley Community Plan.

No. 5064           Bylaw 2014 No. 5064 rezones property located at 9220 Glover Road from Community Commercial Zone C-2 to Comprehensive Development Zone CD-100 to permit development of a three storey, mixed use development.

No. 5068           Bylaw 2014 No. 5068 amends the Township of Langley Sign Bylaw to ensure consistency with the informative intent of the Fort Langley Community Plan and specifically the building design guidelines.

I will say the Township of Langley is consistent. By introducing a convoluted set of three bylaws at one time, (an omnibus Bylaw process) they limit public consultation and input. Please note the wording in Bylaw No. 5063 – “namely to assist but not bind Council in implementing the Fort Langley Community Plan”. Not firm, just if THEY (Council) wish to enforce, you know if you are a friend or part your hair the right way! What an absolute insult to our community and it’s planning. This is a whole you could drive a truck through.

The Size of Coulter Berry 2.0 is completely and totally out of character with the long standing heritage policies, heritage Guidelines and Heritage Conservation Area. Now, take into account Mr. Woodward now owns over 50% of the Commercial Area of Fort Langley. Question – How long do you think it will be for Mr. Woodward, an obvious close friend of members of Council, (why else would they be going through this) will it take to redevelop a number of other properties whereby he will be seeking similar spot zoning approvals ? WE will have lost the character of Fort Langley forever. Please take a stand against this kind of out of control Municipal Government.

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

and we have stood for anything far too long !!!!!

Call to Action – WE NEED YOUR HELP – Please attend:

Hello All,

It appears the Township of Langley is planning a fast track ramming through of the spot zoning to accommodate the Coulter Berry Development. They also intend to implement OCP amendments which will likely open the door to many more Coulter Berry type developments being proposed and approved in the Fort .The only chance we will have short of another long and expensive court battle is for them to see that there is huge public opposition to their attempts.

This February 24^th at 7 pm at the Township of Langley council meeting we need to get as many like-minded individuals to come out and wear their Yellow hand, Heritage Button etc. and sit respectfully and quietly and have our presence show the mayor and council we will not be allowing them a free pass on this. They are considering the first and second reading of the spot zoning and OCP amendments.

We will have people at the entrance to the 4^th floor council meeting room ready with yellow hands to hand out. I hope as many of you as possible will take the time to show up. We will also need even more to show up for the future public hearing that will be held before the Township’s final decision. This will likely be March 10^th by all indication, we will keep you posted!

Please share this notice with everyone you know who you believe cares about Fort Langley as we do. We need to get the word out and garner support as quickly as possible. I look forward to a sea of yellow hands on Monday and even more at the public hearing.

Thanks Harold

Council Meeting will be held at:

Township of Langley Municipal Hall

20338-65^th Avenue

Langley B.C.

7:00 PM Monday February 24^th, 2014

4^th Floor – Fraser River Presentation Theatre

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.

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