langleywatchdog…. and more!

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.

The decision of Justice Groves was very clear… The process was improper, are you surprised? The sad reality is this was a manufactured process by the Township senior bureaucracy to appease your Council (minus David Davis) to satisfy Eric Woodward and key supporter Kurt Alberts plus the Langley Establishment. They, Senior Staff and Council, got caught out by the courts! All of this was not supported by planning staff.

Have you ever asked yourself, who is really running the Township of Langley?

It was all I could do to get through what is being passed off as news by the local media.

Langley Times – An often used picture of the sod turning for, as it turns out, a non-existent building.  Virtually no examination of what the verbal decision was or no attempt to examine what the complaint was all about from the Petitioners – all public information. You would think, given the decision, that there would be a balanced attempt to understand the complaint with an effort to explain it to the public. Rather the Times offered us a fluffy public apologetic piece from the developer / builder to his supporters. Not one attempt to clearly explain the point of law and/or process that this challenge was founded on.

Then we get the following from Mayor Froese – “Council made every effort to ensure all opinions were heard and that proper process was followed. Council’s decision was made in the best interest of the public at large, to benefit our entire community. A community open house and a two day public public-hearing was held, with a great deal of input received by council from members of the public, Township staff, and legal counsel prior to granting the permit”.

What? – Did I read that right?

Remember the following-  Is this the same Mayor Froese?

These are not the actions of a reasonably thinking Mayor and Municipal Council.

Remember Pete McMartin’s column in the Vancouver Sun on Mayor Jack Froese?

(Pete McMartin Vancouver Sun) Nov. 29/12 RE Coulter Berry Building in Fort Langley             

Mayor Froese was asked why he voted for it despite the evidence of so much local opposition states:

• “He does not govern by petition”.

Of the preponderance of speakers opposing the variance at the official hearings Mayor Froese states:

• “We really have to listen to the silence of the people who didn’t come out.”

Pete McMartin states “How Froese intuited that this absent cohorts silence was in favor of the Coulter Berry development and not against it, or split down the middle, is a mystery I will leave with him. Politicians have powers of the mind I cannot fathom.”

Despite the size of the opposition only one councilor voted against it, it sure says something about what is going on, doesn’t it!

Conclusion – The actions (votes, process and procedure) of this council speak volumes about what they are all about. This is more about serving special interests than it is about responsible government.

Mayor Froese, this is nothing but disingenuous self-serving BAFFLEGAB! You and your council have proven in spades you don’t have a clue what public consultation is all about. It is very clear that you and your council just don’t get it!

Langley Advance – It was stated by the Township CAO that the grounds in the verbal decision given by Justice Groves in the Supreme Court of B.C. in Chilliwack, were based on the permit varied density of the site? Well I was in the court room, I do not profess to be a lawyer, but I will be very interested in the Justice’s written decision. I believe this decision goes well beyond that issue.

I would like to say that the Mathew Claxton article in the Langley Advance offered a much more balanced approach to this significant news development.

Here is a unique concept! How about the Township of Langley go back to the drawing board, and come back to the community living up to the rules, by-laws, zoning and process that previously had been legitimized by the community and council of the day. Two stories with an appropriate site coverage, the community would love it!

A layman’s view of the Court proceeding: As I indicated in my last BLOG Post on BREAKING NEWS re Coulter Berry, there is a much more significant message outside of the decision itself. On what appeared to be every available occasion during the proceedings the TOL Counsel referred to the power of council and on a separate occasion stated if residents don’t like the decisions of their council they can vote them out. He referred the Judge to as he says “A more Generous Approach to Municipal Powers”. The Judge clearly had issues with the view of Township Counsel and challenged the TOL interpretation of Provincial Legislation and much more throughout the hearing.

Taking all of this dialogue into account in my experience I would suggest the Township of Langley has set themselves apart from the majority of Municipal Governments by doing what they want. An unhealthy culture has been fostered and sustained going back a number of years involving over time members of Council supported by key members of staff.

I would suggest that they rationalize their actions (we have the power to do so) and by extension saying or suggesting (subliminally at least) anyone who doesn’t like it can sue the Township. We are very fortunate that someone came out and put their money where their mouth is, which obviously most cannot afford. Remember the Township is operating with deep pockets, our tax dollars. I would refer you to cases like the Woods Property on which a stream was diverted on the Willoughby slopes, the Athenry Development up on 208^th which I have written extensively about (a travesty of justice in my view) and the Sue Leyland Land Fill issue just to name a few a very few.

In summary – There will be much more published on the Coulter Berry issue in the near future. We will publish the written decision as soon as it is available to do so. Stay tuned, stay vigilant!!!

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 said you can’t fight City Hall, just maybe this decision will instill courage into the many residents who may have thought all was lost. This decision only happened thanks to the incredible hard work, commitment and financial resources by members of the Society of Fort Langley Residents for Sustainable Development.

So, to all of those out there that tried to dismiss this challenge by throwing out threats, accusations and bullying tactics against those that have worked so hard to protect due process, be warned that the light at the end of the tunnel is not daylight, it is a train headed your way. What has and is going on in the Township of Langley is wrong and MUST be stopped. Here is a great first step!

I have just returned from spending 1 ½ of the 2 day B.C. Supreme Court Petition hearing for Judicial Review held in Chilliwack B.C. with Justice Groves presiding. The end result (verbal decision) was quite unexpected by all concerned as I think it would be fair to suggest a Reserved Decision was expected. The only conundrum in the case for all concerned, including the Judge, was what happens to the development while a decision is being considered. Therefore in retrospect a decision certainly was preferred which is what Justice Groves mentioned in his pre decision comments and explanation.

Decision – The Township of Langley acted improperly and Township of Langley Heritage Alteration Permit No. 100685 is set aside. Justice Groves also awarded costs!

Sitting in that B.C. Supreme Court court room was quite an experience.  It could not help but open one’s eyes to what due process is all about and what we have been missing in the Township of Langley.

The first half day heard legal counsel for the Petitioner, Roy J. Stewart Q.C., deal with a number of questions from the Judge as well as laying out their case, the last half of the first day was his (the Petitioner’s) summary of their case. Today was the response from the Respondent’s legal counsel Daniel R. Bennett (Bull Houser & Tupper LLP) followed up by a response from Roy J. Stewart QC and finally the decision of Justice Groves.

The presentation of the Petitioner’s case was bang on and let light shine in on how illegitimate this process was. The sad reality is, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Now as I recall, this illegitimate process of approval was prompted by members of Council against the wishes of a Planning Department staff report.

So who is responsible – Here is a start:

• On Council – Mayor Froese, Kim Richter, Grant Ward, Charlie Fox, Bev Dornan, Bob Long, Steve Ferguson and Michelle Sparrow
• On Staff – CAO Mark Bakken and Manager Engineering and Community Development Ramin Seifi
• Eric Woodward with Kurt Alberts as a key supporter!

OH By the way – Congratulations to David Davis for being the only responsible member of our Township Council, well done!!

I can tell you, sitting in the gallery and listening to the arguments from the Township of Langley legal counsel, I was having a flash back to discussions I was privy to internally during my three years as Mayor. I was opposed then and I am now to the Township of Langley Council and bureaucracy’s arrogance about what they think they have the right to do. The court was having it explained to it by Township legal counsel that today’s Judicial Approach equated to a more “Generous Approach to Municipal Powers”. I am not convinced, given the decision, that the Justice was impressed with that argument.

Just an FYI – Be prepared for the counter response by all parties mentioned above. Nothing would surprise me relative to actions to proceed in one way or another. Stay tuned!

RG

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Consider….

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part 1 ORDERS SOUGHT (The following is abbreviated)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In my opinion it all but makes Council decisions suspect!

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

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

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

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

In my previous post, I outlined the individuals involved, their connections and the facts surrounding the whole issue of Fort Langley Heritage By-Laws; how and why they were strengthened and by who in 2004. Amazingly, the who of the past, are all of those involved in creating this EDIFICE to a guy named Eric Woodward who apparently believes that the rules apply to everyone BUT him. The problem with all that is that the majority of council seem to be eating his dirt (see sod turning) or drinking the same bathwater, whichever metaphor you wish to choose!

Well, all of that aside, the fight continues with Eric Woodward and Kurt Alberts dragging all of those within earshot out for a photo-op and sod turning. Now they claim to have an excavation permit but DO NOT have a building permit; only in the Township does the Council majority come out en masse for a photo-op on a project that doesn’t have a building permit!

So despite this fact of life (on any other development a building permit would be considered important) Mayor Jack Froese and Councilors Kim Richter, Grant Ward, Charlie Fox, Bev Dornan and Michelle Sparrow attended the sod turning. One has to wonder where the other two members of council were who have supported this outrage, namely Bob Long and Steve Ferguson – is it possible they got lost on the way to the celebration or non-event?

So let’s take a step back and ask ourselves why has this become such a major HOT BUTTON and divisive issue? Whether or not you support this project, I cannot urge you strongly enough to consider the following. Regardless of personalities and personal likes and/or dislikes of individuals involved consider whether you believe municipal development rules should apply differently depending on your wealth, connections and/or property holdings? Consider the following –

• Treating everyone equally? – When you moved to Fort Langley or anywhere in the Township for that matter, did you not expect your elected Mayor and Municipal Council to follow and enforce the Official Community Plan (OCP), Neighborhood Plans and Zoning By-Laws that are in place? If there was to be a change did you not expect they would follow due process in making any changes i.e. New By-Laws (four readings) which would include a Public Hearing to inform the taxpayer and allow a legal opportunity for input?

It has become painfully obvious that there has been a questionable change of rules through a Heritage Alteration Permit. Is that legitimate? I have contacted many in the planning field and without exception they state this must have to go through a public rezoning process. Let’s not forget Jack Froese’s public comment on the result and outcome of Public Hearings. (Pete McMartin Column / Van. Sun)

• Density Increase? – It is interesting when you look at the Township response to the court petition specifically to the question of density increase. The Township adamantly insists it is not an increase in density.

Not an increase? Let’s put it into simple common sense language and compare apples with apples – (A lot of numbers but think about it?)

• Old IGA plus Old Hardware building – 13,977 sq. ft. (approx.)
• NEW Coulter Berry Building (no underground) – 43,755 sq. ft.
• Increase in square feet and percentage increase – +29,778 sq. ft. 213%

• Permissible square footage (current zoning/no undergrnd) – 19,324 sq. ft.
• NEW Coulter Berry Building (no underground) – 43,755 sq. ft.
• Increase in square feet and percentage increase – +24,431 sq. ft. 126%

Put it another way, the application for the NEW Coulter Berry Building including underground parking is 65,918 sq. ft. vs. the old allowable square footage (current zoning) of 19,324 sq. ft. an increase of +46,594 sq. ft. 241%.

Despite the obvious common sense facts (above) that show much more than a substantial density increase; the owner in conversation with some, has admitted to an increase in density as well as the fact he promotes the need for density increase on his Facebook page by posting Vancouver newspaper clippings.

After all of this the Township continues to say it isn’t a density increase?

If you read the above numbers carefully it makes the case against this development in spades, however numbers can be glossed over. I would encourage all those who are interested to go down to Fort Langley and talk to the “Hands on Heritage Group” for a vivid picture on what we are talking about. It is an eye opener.

So what are we to conclude? Council thinks the residents are too stupid to understand?

• Missing documents? – When reviewing the Petition Application, the responses and subsequent Affidavits regarding the Development Application Form there were a few items missing which MUST be included. The Development Application Form carries with it a page entitled “Development Application Requirements”. For Commercial, Industrial, Institutional, Multi-Family Residential and Comprehensive Development they provide a list of about 10 items that are required.

On the Development Application Form under Application Submission Requirements it states “Items listed are required at time of application submission. If any of the required documents listed below are not included, the application will not be accepted.” I guess it failed to say except Eric Woodward?

Aside from a couple of missing items the key missing document is –

Item K “Letter of Intent – Detailing the proposal including name/type of business and number of employees.”

It was missing. Now how do you spell density increase? Pretty convenient item to miss despite the fact the TOL says it must be submitted but it wasn’t which by TOL rules it WILL NOT be accepted!

• Incorrect information? – The community brought to the attention of the Township that the developer had supplied incorrect information regarding the existing hardware building. This incorrect information was very important in that including the square footage of the two unlawful buildings it had impact on the calculations for space in the new building.

To be clear quoting from a James Goulden (BHT Lawyer) email to a Mr. Harold Whittell states “We acknowledge that the developers initial floor area calculations for the Frontier Hardware building wrongly included the two unlawful storage structures which had already been removed from the Development lands. However, the Developer’s latest floor area calculations now exclude those two unlawful storage structures, and the Township has proceeded on the basis of the corrected figures.”

The Township subsequently verified that the allegations were correct. The correct process should have been to have the developer “amend” the plans and then have them brought before the same “process” as the original application. The review by council or public process was not done.

• The developer caught out – The developer was still trying to claim the gross floor area of the two unlawful storage buildings AFTER he was caught out.

The admission (above) was only after the community had to go about proving that they were actually GONE and what they looked like before demolition. Who was responsible for submitting the original plans which included the square footage of the two unlawful buildings?

So where does it go from here? The next stop is the B.C. Supreme Court Application for a Judicial Review filed by the “Society of Fort Langley Residents for Sustainable Development” on September 9^th in Chilliwack.

In my view this issue is symptomatic of a much bigger issue in the Township of Langley. It speaks to the very reasons I ran for Mayor and the very reason I will continue to shine a light on the goings-on in development and property deals throughout our community.

I can tell you despite what you may have been told about me, (there was a good deal of character assassination) I lived up to what I said I would do in office and we accomplished a lot. Most important, I do not apologize. Anybody with any reasoned amount of life experience could not serve three years in the Mayor’s office and not connect the many dots. It was a steep learning curve about what really goes on, that is what drives me to expose the wrong doing in our community.

So I was ecstatic when this citizen group stepped forward and put their money where their mouth is. There is nothing for them to gain personally other than standing up for the community in which they live. The name calling, intimidation, bullying and more aimed at those in support of this legal action is beyond the pale, Stop and ask yourself THE very key simple question from both sides of the issue – who is gaining anything personally from this action? It certainly is not the members of this society – now Eric Woodward, Kurt Alberts and the other hangers on, that is for you to decide. We owe these citizens a big thank you; remember this initiative has come at a significant financial cost to all of them, no benefit other than protecting their community!

A Special message to Council members – While there is no secret about our past relationship I want to urge each and every one of you to dig down and have the courage to come forward asking for a sober second thought. Surely, you can’t believe that this is a positive addition to Fort Langley. The mass of this building is completely inappropriate within Fort Langley in the context of the OCP and surrounding properties.

There is NO second chance, once a building permit is issued you will have changed the character, the look, the density and the heritage of Fort Langley FOREVER! This is not overstating the issue. Remember it is the Birthplace of B.C. and we all have a moral responsibility to protect the values that so many residents have put into this community. Do you want this outrage to form a part of your elected record and what you will be remembered for?

All of us taxpayers and residents of the Township of Langley, not just Fort Langley, can only hope each one of you will search your conscience and do the right thing. As I said earlier, a sober second thought would be a great place to start!!! Do it now, before it is too late!

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.