langleywatchdog…. and more!

How is it possible that Council passed the Statewood application for the Coulter Berry building which did not comply with the OCP or the Heritage Conservation area, was turned down by TOL staff in Heritage and Planning, and had a 950 name petition against it (only 2,500 in Fort Langley) and 2 to 1 Public Hearing speakers against… It was passed 7-1 WHAT?

OH I forgot, Mayor Froese doesn’t make decisions based on Public Hearing results or petitions, in his own words, he has to consider all of those who don’t attend? What? They are all in favor of the project? Mayor Froese and all of his councilors (except David Davis who doesn’t fit in with this group) should be called to account! So we continue with these phony, contemptible public hearings that are being offered as an excuse for public consultation? Members of our Municipal Council don’t know the meaning of the word “consultation”, nothing has changed. I said during the election campaign that Jack Froese as Mayor would be Kurt Alberts LIGHT, which is exactly what he has been. What is that saying Jack and Kurt, “Just go with the process”. Isn’t another way of putting that; make it appear like we care? It is interesting having the benefit and convenience of text messaging during meetings, isn’t it?

• Before we get into the facts of this issue, you have to understand the lay of the land ie Whos who? The kicker! “Connect the Dots” – Eric Woodward is the owner of the Coulter Berry building and owner of a substantial property portfolio in Fort Langley, a Township of Langley appointee to the Heritage Advisory Committee, a Township of Langley appointee (Co-Chair) of the Community Participation, Infrastructure and Environment Advisory Committee, President of the Fort Langley BIA, fellow resident with Jack Froese in Bedford Landing, and a donor of $2,000 to Jack Froese in the last election! OH I forgot, Eric Woodward’s consultant for this project is Kurt Alberts, a former Mayor and supporter of Mayor Jack Froese in the last election. Very strong supporters of Eric Woodward’s efforts, aside from the majority of the current and past council supporters are former councilors Howie Vickburg and Jordan Bateman (all strongly connected to and sat under Kurt Alberts as Mayor). Isn’t it interesting how that works?  

It is important to note that three other builders adapted their new buildings in Fort Langley to the OCP. Why Special Treatment? Only in the Township of Langley you say! Are you surprised?

(I came back from holidays early to report further on the facts!)

A good deal of investigation was needed to present some interesting facts that the average taxpayer should know with respect to this issue – It is interesting reading and should be worthy of considerable concern to taxpayers. Please Read On….

On June 7, 2004 a report was presented to council, file # 04-150 prepared by Paul Crawford who is STILL the Long Range Planner for the Township of Langley.

It is a report that recommends an amendment to BY-Law 2500 – Section 104.5 covering height of buildings in Fort Langley’s Heritage Conservation Area. The amendment was to strengthen the wording to offer stronger protection against developments that would try to circumvent the bylaw and build above 29.5 feet or two stories.

On August 23^rd of 2004 at a regular evening meeting of council, bylaw 4292 (report 04-150) was brought forward for final adoption.  Councilor Howie Vickberg moved it and councilor Kim Richter seconded the motion. It was carried unanimously by the mayor and ALL council members. The mayor at the time was Kurt Alberts, and in addition to Kim Richter who seconded the motion, present councilors, Bob Long, Grant Ward and Steve Ferguson all voted in favor of this bylaw amendment to strengthen the height restrictions in Fort Langley

Fast forward to today. Kurt Alberts is now a spokesperson for the 43.5 foot Coulter Berry development, gushing over its virtues. Ex councilor Howie Vickberg is a regular commentator on the “We support Coulter Berry Face Book site”, he has taken it upon himself to applaud the Coulter Berry Development, while slamming the people trying to defend the very bylaw he brought forward on August 23, 2004. Unusual, yes, anywhere but in the Township – Does it appear that all that matters in the Township is, who is the proponent and what is their connection? You can’t make this stuff up.

You have to wonder, why only 9 years later, six of the people that brought in this added protection are now in favor of allowing a building that is 43.5 feet high and will tower over every existing building in the same area?

By-Law 2500, section 100, administration height of buildings and structures, 104.5. (2 stories / 29.5 feet). Noted beside 104.5 are By-Laws #3205 and #4292, both amendments passed to strengthen the wording. This IS NOT a guideline, IT IS a bylaw that was put in place specifically to preserve the heritage character of Fort Langley. It is important to note that Township planning staff still very much support this bylaw, as witnessed by the report to council by senior planner Chris Laing in his report to council on the Coulter Berry development. Township staff was not in favor of the Coulter Berry project proceeding as presented. The report stated this clearly several times.

Other interesting facts? The Face Book support site for the development headlines a quote from Robert Inwood extolling the heritage virtues of the development. The site further states that Mr. Inwood is the “author” of the Fort Langley heritage guidelines. Now let us get the facts straight, to say the least they are playing fast and loose with the truth. The authorship of the guidelines was a collaboration of Mr. Inwood and many others, including Donald Luxton, Fred Pepin, Tom Annandale, Grace Muller, Bays and Bob Blackhall, Alice Johnson, Gloria Doubleday, Elaine Horricks and so many other dedicated heritage people. I am sure Mr. Inwood would be embarrassed to hear that he is given such lofty credit for the guidelines that were put together combining several studies, beginning in the mid-eighties with input from so many dedicated people.

The Kicker – The important part and what is not stated is that Mr. Inwood was hired by the developer sometime after the council meeting of November 19^th, 2012. Is there anything wrong with that, no, but in light of the fact they are using his name in promotion, it is a fact they should not be silent on. Extolling the virtues of his development is an opinion, his opinion, nothing more. It isn’t an independent opinion. So the fact that Mr. Inwood might be pleased with his own work should not be a surprise. However, it is also important to point out that none of Mr. Inwood’s work changed the height, form, rhythm, scale or sheer mass of the building.

Not being a planner or engineer, it has been difficult for me to understand how the sheer size, form and overall mass of the Coulter Berry building has not increased the density of use of this lot, as is claimed, so consider the following:

• The land in question is 24,156 square feet.
• With the existing zoning in place, lot coverage (with underground parking) allows a maximum 60% of lot coverage.
• Given By-law 2500, height section 104.5 that limits any building to two stories, the math allows a TOTAL building size of 28,987 square feet.
• Lot coverage of this proposal covers 67%
• The Coulter Berry Development is over 44,000 square feet
• Plus 22,163 square feet of underground parking /amenity area.
• Allowable density is a mathematical calculation of space for the building density allowable.
• It is quite clear that if the above mathematical calculation holds true, the Coulter Berry building is much larger than the existing bylaws and zoning would allow.
• Coulter Berry received a setback relaxation to allow it to encroach on the neighboring property (Beatniks Restaurant) to within nine INCHES of their building.

With the mixed use proposed for this development and by looking at plans on the developer’s website, the following info clearly shows not only a density increase, but a significant density increase.

• This same parcel of land housed the old Fort Hardware store and the old IGA building before it burned down.
• It would be fair to assume that the Hardware building would have had a total of 4 toilets. The IGA would likely also have had a total of 4 toilets for a total of 8 on this property.
• Based on the drawings on the developer’s website, the Coulter Berry building has a total of 41 toilets and 2 urinals. Somehow this alone would equate to a density of use increase to anyone with an ounce of common sense.

The most controversial and often “misinformed” part of this development is the parking concerns. Without debating the history as to why developments in Fort Langley are only required to provide half of the commercial parking than in other areas of Langley, only the actual facts relating to this development will be discussed.

From the TOL report and the developer’s website, the following can be confirmed.

• The development if built anywhere else in a C-2 zone in Langley would require 144 parking spots.
• Due to the aforementioned peculiarity of Fort Langley, the requirements are cut down to a total of 67 parking spots. The developer is providing 67 spots.
• However and BUT– it is important to note that of the 67 spots, 30 of them are for the specific use of the tenants of the building. They are behind gates and fencing, not for public use.
• Of the remaining 37 spots, 3 are designated as “carpool” only.
• That leaves a net of 34 spots total, 25 underground and 9 surface spots for ALL of the customers of a large 5,000 plus sq.ft.  2 level restaurant plus a mezzanine, 9 retail shops and 10 plus offices.

With only a net 34 real public parking spots added (not 67 as they like to promote), the already parking shortfall in Fort Langley will be worse, not better. This building, if it manages to find tenants due to lack of parking, will compound the problem. The developer also states that each of the commercial retail units (CRU) on the first floor have “stubbed water and drainage so that any CRU can accommodate a kitchen”. Imagine the increased “density of use” if even half of these CRU’s become coffee shops, juice bars, bakery’s, or sandwich shops. The number of employees and visitors would exponentially increase the density of use.

As I said at the start, this development was not supported by Township of Langley planning staff. It was not supported by the Township of Langley Heritage Advisory Committee. It was not supported by the Langley Heritage Society, a non- governmental society whose only purpose is to protect the community’s heritage interests. Furthermore a petition was signed by over 950 people opposing the development. Important to note that over 600 of them had/have Fort Langley address’s.

With all this in mind, it is hard to understand why the mayor and council would not listen to the many voices that asked for a compromise on the development for it to adhere to the existing bylaws, heritage guidelines and the community’s wishes, like everyone else.

It is time for the community to stand up for Langley and let the mayor and council know that they are our representatives, and should be acting responsibly on our behalf. If the mayor is listening to his version of the “silent majority”, maybe it is time he hears the very real actual VOCAL MAJORITY that is not happy with so many poorly made council decisions being made since they took office.

Well, this proposal was approved, but the fight is not over. – While I am dead against this Mayor and Council who have made an art form out of ignoring the public (you know, those of us that vote and pay property taxes) it is important to know the facts before you draw a conclusion. That is why I have presented the facts that came from my investigation.

In my opinion we are very fortunate because we have some residents within us that have shown the will to say NO WAY, certainly not without a fight against wrong doing! The fight is on!

The “Society of Fort Langley Residents for Sustainable Development” has launched a petition in the Supreme Court of British Columbia under the “Judicial Review Procedure Act” requesting Supreme Court approval for an injunction and court proceeding to hear arguments and render a decision, hopefully favorable to the opinion of the majority in the Township of Langley. This Supreme Court Judicial Review application is scheduled to be heard in the Chilliwack Supreme Court, 46085 Yale Rd. Chilliwack B.C. at 10:00 AM Sept. 9^th.

This group has put their money where their mouth is despite and in the face of abuse, bullying, name calling and much much more. This abuse is not surprising to me. I experienced three years of bullying, intimidation and character assassination tactics for which I was not going to capitulate. In this case it is coming from the obvious corner of special interest, by a few individuals who are showing themselves as the classless individuals they are in the face of this community opposition. It is unfortunate that there are some in our society that still don’t understand that you can agree to disagree.

It must be made very clear and it was in a recent definitive Langley Times article, these people have stressed they ARE NOT against development! They are asking for municipal by-laws, processes procedures and decisions to be recognized and adhered to, not attacked and changed through feeble and unwarranted variances whenever it suites the wishes of a chosen few!

Isn’t all of this wonderful in a democratic society? Here we go again; the so-called establishment of special interests in the Township expects everyone to fall into line.

Well, finally we have those within us that are saying no way, not without a hell of a fight!

Unknown to most, this type of back room activity is not unusual in the Township. It is and has been the norm for many years. I would ask anyone reading this to investigate the facts for yourself, ask those directly involved, get active in your community to stop this insult to taxpayers. It has to stop!

As this very true saying goes:

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

We have stood for anything for far too long in our community!!!!

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.

TO All Members of the Metro Vancouver Parks Committee:

On behalf of all users of Campbell Valley Park I want to sincerely thank all members who voted against the proposal to reactivate the Langley Speedway. I am confident that IF Metro wishes help or input from the grassroots to flesh out ideas for generating revenue there are many resources available to assist.

Thank you again

Rick Green

Township of Langley

To ALL Metro Vancouver Parks Committee Members: I hope all of my former colleagues are doing well!

I am following up my earlier email and langleywatchdog.com BLOG Post on the proposal to reopen the Langley Speedway in Campbell Valley Park offering my initial thoughts on the proposal and presentation by Murray Jones of the Historical Speedway Society. There is a very real lesson here in the move by Metro to agree to the designation of “Historical” under the guise of them agreeing NOT TO reactivate the track back in 2006. Gosh (could use much stronger words) it has only taken them 7 years and here they are cap in hand asking for it to be reactivated. What is that saying, give them an inch and they will take a mile! I sincerely hope many have learned from this experience, I just hope that mistake hasn’t severely cost us by destroying this GEM of a park for years to come.

I have to admit that I am shocked that this proposal from the Speedway Society is or has gained the notoriety and/or consideration that it has, given the historical detail that has been provided by staff based on past actions from the Parks Committee and Metro Board. This proposal is so fundamentally wrong in so many ways it is hard to know where to begin. But here is just a start –

• The Historical Speedway Society is exactly that, historical with a very clear understanding that it would not be reopened.

• I would suggest that the investment that Metro Vancouver has made thanks in part  to proceeds by the Pacific Parkland Foundation was made with a clear understanding of the mandate given each park.

• The safety issue will, without a doubt, end up causing serious equine accidents in the park which will end up being litigated against Metro and member municipalities for years. This isn’t a threat it is a fact – Horses and Cars do not mix!!

• The cost of a comprehensive study will be significant as described by staff. Metro cannot accept that funding from the proponent, as much as we would all like that, to pay for this study due to the obvious – Perception of a conflict of interest which would put in question any final result.

• The proponents rambling about commitments and donations is exactly that, rambling. Until the commitment is in writing it means absolutely nothing.

• Imposing this track on the community with it’s traffic congestion and required road upgrades to mitigate these problems would be a serious financial burden. There is no clear financial return for Metro, which is supposed to be why this is even being considered, let alone funding to cover the significant costs to undertake this project. It is suggested that the required study could cost $500,000 of taxpayers money? Taxpayers have had enough, that should be clear to all concerned by now. This will be a NET COST!

I urge all of you to very seriously consider ALL of the presentations that have been made to you requesting that this proposal cease to be considered. The negative impact on the environment, noise pollution, effect on wildlife, naturalists, equine community, Pacific Riding for Developing Abilities and much more would destroy the decades of hard work to build what we have today. Why? It just doesn’t make any sense.

There are an ample number of other option (locations) in the lower mainland that all of those who say they are willing to come up with all this money can go and develop a facility that would meet their needs and standards. I am not against car racing, I am just in favor of common sense. Claiming to do it to make money for Metro Vancouver Parks is an absolute smokescreen, it is a ruse and has always been intended to be a ruse. It is what it is – an attempt to circumvent the previously agreed to policy, design and use agreement for Campbell Valley Park.

Please, just say NO!!!

Rick Green

As I have said in a previous post, Charlie Fox is THE most condescending individual I have ever met. His letter to the editor response / rebuttal to a previously written Langley Times Editorial (Tuesday June 25^th, 2013) that criticized the Township of Langley and Council for their ALR exclusion applications is beyond the pale.

NOTE: While often critical even I have praised this Frank Bucholtz editorial.

I was going to take the summer off, unless the Township or Council did something ridiculous, which seems to be a weekly occurrence. Well, as outrageous as the Aldergrove ALR exclusion proposal was, I am going to write on it in September, Fox’s groveling and feeble letter to the editor was just too much!

Well, let’s dissect his response – Fox states “What you have published today is false, misleading and biased” – “Your readers deserve the facts” – Great idea Charlie, when are you going to start using facts?

Charlie you are correct on one thing, The Tuscan Farm property was zoned one-acre lots prior to the advent of the Agricultural Land Reserve. But let’s tell the whole story – The Tuscan Farm Property along with the majority of land in the Salmon River Uplands was and still is zoned one acre lots pre ALR. So what?

As a side note – It is interesting that the previous owners of this property tried unsuccessfully to have it excluded from the ALR on a number of occasions. After reaching their limit of frustration, it was sold and low and behold the new owners were able to find quick access to ALR approval. Now who was on the ALR South Coast Panel that gave that approval? Not suggesting anything, just asking the question? How was this possible?

If we take Councilor Fox’s argument to it’s illogical conclusion we would take all of the Salmon River Uplands and approve it for housing! Previous and/or the existing zoning of land in the ALR has absolutely nothing to do with exempting that land out of the ALR. As far as Councilor Fox’s argument, that this is allowing the owner to bring the balance of his land back into production? What? So I guess Charlie we should develop every piece of ALR land for housing where a small part is located in a gully or a ravine or what, maybe something that is just a little inconvenient, under the premise that we will save adjoining agricultural land. What complete nonsense! Anyone that has an ounce of understanding of farming will know, if the land is not being farmed today or in the recent past, it is because the owners don’t want to farm it and more often than not they have an ulterior motive. OH and by the way Charlie, to actively farm you need the freedom to use legitimate farm practices along with access and egress WITHOUT being restricted by or bothered by an Urban environment. Ask the people of South Delta / Tsawwassen about the difficulty and impossible task they have in farming the Southlands, which is surrounded by housing! Is that what we are trying to do here?

As to the money and/or community benefits you say we will receive? Is that all it takes to get exclusion approval is to cut a cheque? Why is Council unwilling to manage their property assets properly and implement CACs within Urban Development Applications? This Council has repeatedly dismissed any idea of implementing these ideas. Unbelievable, but they are willing to use this as incentive to drag land out of the ALR?

The Wall Application! This application is absolutely off the charts. First it was conditionally approved in 2007 by the South Coast Panel of the ALR. This application was rejected a few times previously until their 2007 conditional approval. Who were the Commissioners on the South Coast Panel at the time of this approval? Just asking! This latest attempt to buttress it and combine the Wall application with the University District application is an attempt to get a private land deal approved thanks to the needs of Trinity University. It is an absolute affront to Trinity University, using their Application to serve the needs of some friends and insiders.

To the suggestion that we will now have a net increase of farmable lands? What an unmitigated joke. No Charlie, that farmland can be farmed as is. It doesn’t need traffic congestion surrounding it to be farmed. This doesn’t make farming easier, it makes it impossible!

Well, what can we say about the Aldergrove proposal – Given the actions of this council it is the tip of the iceberg. If Council really wants to help Aldergrove out and see that it is built out to it’s potential, try working on the greater Community Plan, try working with the business community on their Core Plan, start talking density (you have those options in the NEW Core Plan) unfortunately the majority of council are using the age old excuse of the need for development. Yes they need growth BUT you have all of the tools and developable land necessary, just get on with it and stop talking down to and insulting residents. I would suggest most residents, in my opinion, have forgotten more than you know!

In summary, I sincerely hope that the Metro Vancouver Board will hold this council’s feet to the fire and stop the insanity of their self-serving development within our community. (Serving who is the question?)

Back to my Summer Holidays – We are working on a number of intriguing posts, back the first of September!

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

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

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

We will be back in fighting spirit the first of September with a number of very interesting Posts which will give you plenty to pause and think about. From a behind the scenes look at the real politics in the Township of Langley, to what is fundamentally wrong with Translink (Transportation on the lower mainland) vs what is possible IF they had any kind of vision, to the financial dysfunction of the Township and much much more….. Stay tuned!!!

IF there are any significant developments with Council and/or their decisions between now and the end of July (their summer break), we will be back immediately!!

All the best

Rick Green

UPDATE – While it has been in the news a good deal in the last 24 hours we are thrilled to announce that Metro Vancouver stood firm in support of all residents of our region. This was not a left / right issue this is all about being a right / wrong issue. I am and always have been a staunch free enterpriser, but I don’t have blinders on and will not be like some of those in business that will always side with business despite any reasoned common sense.

Unfortunately out here in the Township of Langley our elected leaders are doing nothing but serving friends and insiders. While we are thrilled with the vote of the majority of Metro Vancouver Directors we are NOT thrilled but also NOT SURPRISED  by Councillor Bob Long’s vote (1 of 4) who supported this proposal. So out here in the Township of Langley, faced with an increase, from about 15 to 38 unit (12,000 foot) trains a day, we can now see that we have those in power Municipally who will have no problem sitting back and doing nothing but watching the destruction of our Municipality as we know it! I am still living in hope that one day there will be a recognition by the electorate of what is REALLY happening out here and will be willing to do something about it.

RG

__________________________________________________________________________________   

It is hard to imagine a more inappropriate use for this port facility in the virtual center of Metro Vancouver. Fraser Surrey Docks say there business is down by 75% due to it being a shallow draft port. With the greatest of respect, rescuing Fraser Surrey Docks at the serious health and quality of life expense of residents of the lower mainland is not a trade-off we want. Let us learn from experience! 

Let us start off with a little bit of history that I would bet nobody currently sitting on the Metro Board of Directors is aware of, (That includes Langley City and Township Directors) a bill of goods sold to the innocent people of the Township of Langley 45 years ago.

On September 24^th, 1968, Hunter Vogel MLA, emissary for the late Premier WAC Bennett, William Mearns President of B.C. Hydro and Mr. King and Mr. Martin of B.C. Hydro came to as Special Meeting of the Township of Langley Council with a very serious request. They explained the proposal to run a fly over rail line from Fort Langley up over Rawlison Crescent, onto the joint section (part of the Interurban Corridor) and continuing onto the new Roberts Bank Rail Corridor at Cloverdale through to the NEW Roberts Bank seaport. The Township Council was reassured by this delegation, in writing, that there would be one coal train a day each way. Quote “Mr. Martin stated that the trains will be one mile in length and there will be one train per day each way at a maximum speed of 35 miles per hour. It would take approximately two minutes for a train to cross any road.” That was it, guaranteed! (We have a copy of the meeting minutes)

For the record, WAC’s vision for Roberts Bank as a seaport was definitely a forward thinking and visionary move, unfortunately they missed the boat back in the day for a far more appropriate location for a rail line. This decision for a rail line was in direct contravention to the recommendations of the Lower Mainland Planning Board, which was fired by WAC Bennett for making their recommendation.

Well the Township and City of Langley now see 14 – 18 trains a day, (Coal and Container) up to 12,000 feet in length. Those trains take about 15 minutes to pass a given spot. Despite the 9 overpasses that are being built between Delta and the Township of Langley, there are NO overpasses at 200^th and the By-Pass and the By-Pass and Glover Road, the two heaviest congestion points. That is where it is today – with the expansion of Roberts Bank we will see 35 – 38 trains a day a few years from now. I have said many times before, in the future you will have two Langleys – one North of the Tracks and one South of the Tracks. It is all because nobody had a vision for the future and what the future was going to look like.

OH, and by the way, despite CN and CPs commitment to spray each train twice, once loading as well as once in Kamloops, I would suggest you ask anyone living in the Township and/or City within 100 yards of either side of the tracks and ask if they have a problem with coal dust? The Township of Langley has a Municipal Committee, the CP Community Advisory Committee that meets about four times a year. The issue of Coal Dust is brought up frequently due to resident complaints; the answer more often than not was there was an equipment break down in Kamloops, so they just let the trains pass. Residents of Chilliwack are severely aggravated by the dust from Coal Trains going through their community EVERY day! Coal dust is a serious issue and problem.

Talking to a prominent resident of the Township who just drove back from Calgary last week, he commented on seeing coal trains with this absolute cloud of coal dust that was visible above and on each side of the coal trains on their way to the coast.

So back to the proposal being considered by all of you this coming Friday, my point is very clear, you are not making a short term decision but one that will grow and expand exponentially. They openly admit to wanting to ship 4 million tonnes per year with room to grow to 8 million tonnes. Exponential growth beyond these numbers is a fact of life and history tells us that in spades – lets learn from it.

What is even more distressing is we are going through this process for U.S. Coal because it has already been rejected by a few locations across the border. Why would we do this to the City of White Rock (a Metro member), it’s citizens and summer tourism population, right on the waterfront? Why would we do this to the City of New Westminster situated so close to this activity? According to news reports the U.S. will be building two ports for this use, but they will not be open for about 8 – 10 years. Why are we going through this for a stop gap U.S. solution? What happens next? The number of jobs to be created are a drop in the bucket compared to other solutions for their economic problem.

I have heard a number of comments in the media from elected municipal/city representatives that it is not our decision (Municipal/City) but a Provincial and/or Federal decision? I absolutely beg to disagree; the Directors of Metro Vancouver have a fiduciary responsibility for air quality in the Lower Mainland. Everyone was up in arms over SE2 and the incinerator up the valley. So why are we even considering this proposal?

Despite and beyond the serious health / air quality issue how about trying something unique, SAY NO on the part of Metro Vancouver and send our senior levels of government and their agency a message. They can override your decision and approve it if they wish, but they do so at their peril. Let them the public know you are fighting for their best interests. They can take the heat if they overrode your decision. They would deserve it!

In the Township and City of Langley, thanks to the Social Credit Government who in 1988 sold the B.C. Hydro rolling stock and rails of the Interurban Corridor BUT had the foresight to protect passenger rights at no cost to the taxpayer. Thanks to this action we have a light at the end of the tunnel that would allow for a passenger service from Chilliwack through to Scott Road Station. This is due to an agreement that we forced renewal of (another 21 years) during my term as Mayor, 4 months before it would have been lost forever. CP and the Liberal Government were not at all happy with me, another anchor I am proud to carry! It is now up to a future Provincial Government to permit that passenger service which CP and CN would be contractually obligated to provide room for on that line. This would have the cause and effect of reducing heavy rail traffic on this corridor and provide for very low cost light rail passenger service, again from Scott Road Station through to Chilliwack.

It is long past time that our municipalities and cities have the courage to stand up to our senior levels of government and their agencies in cases that are demanded by our taxpayers. As I said earlier, IF a senior level of government wants to trample on decisions of local government, they do so at their peril. You don’t have to be complicit in their bad decisions.

On behalf of the residents of the lower mainland we urge you to vote against this proposal.

Good Luck in your deliberations

Rick Green

___________________________________________________________________

I am working on a few posts that have been asked for by readers – Interesting content to come, stay tuned.

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.

It is very disturbing when a Municipal Council thumbs their noses at a Regional Government (Metro) land use plan that they previously and unanimously agreed to. By Council proceeding with this proposal, despite significant local and regional opposition, that has everything to do with helping friends and insiders, our regions policy of building a sustainable and liveable environment is being put at risk. I am not overstating the seriousness of the Township of Langleys move, it is now up to the ALC and Metro Vancouver’s Board of Directors to STOP this insanity! 

It is up to all of you to stand firmly against the revised application which conveniently embraces quality farmland as housing to support the University District application. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was never part of the University District Application. If you give into this application it will be open season on the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) and it will end up being a useless document. It is interesting that RGS is an initiative that the Township Council supported unanimously. I was very pleased as Mayor to play a part!!!

Township of Langley University District – Wall Town House Development on Farm Land

vs Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy – The Facts!

Rich Coleman, Mayor Froese and members of Council are

“Not letting the facts get in the way of a good story”!

It is another land deal, all symptomatic of what is wrong in the Township of Langley!

Ask WHY? WHO REALLY BENEFITS?

The latest NEWS? – May 27^th 2013 Council meeting!

Langley Township council voted through its revised community plan and zoning to create a University district around Trinity University which incorporates a controversial housing development on Prime Agricultural Land just to the South of Trinity. While it is not affiliated in any way with Trinity it’s builders have promoted it as housing for TWU Staff. This move to incorporate the two must be seen as a blatant attack and affront to the Regional Growth Strategy.

How or why is this happening? Check out some comments from a few Council members (Langley Advance P12 / Mathew Claxton Tuesday June 4^th, 2013) –

Grant Ward – “This is not spot zoning, it will be housing for staff and students”. How absolutely embarrassing and insulting Ward is to the residents of the Township of Langley, nothing has changed! We are talking 69 Townhouses which will be market housing. This is exactly what it is – Spot Zoning!

Bob Long – “The removal of the portion of the Wall lands to be developed will keep the rest of the property productive farmland in the Agricultural Land Reserve”. Councilor Long, don’t look now BUT without this development the entire property stays in the ALR where it belongs and can be productive IF the owners had the slightest interest, which they obviously don’t. That is their choice! You as an elected representative for the taxpayers of the Township of Langley are not obligated in any way to support their plan. I would suggest you have an obligation to deny this proposal.

The University District idea within the Township of Langley (TOL) is not new; it has been around for years. Unfortunately, like so many issues within our community, it is sadly lacking in any kind of democratic public process thanks to the control of a few!! This is the same municipal government plus or minus a few changes that seem to get elected time after time after time after time – WHY?

A little history – During my term as Mayor (2008 – 2011) I had regular meetings with Jonathan Raymond President of Trinity University (a very important and valuable corporate citizen to the Township of Langley) and follow up meetings with TOL senior staff on the subject of Trinity issues which included the University District concept. There were a number of conceptual plans for the University District idea that had been somewhat in limbo due to the ALR approval process. Through my initiative, in an effort to find some direction and approval we arranged for members of the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) South Coast Panel of the day (Commissioners Bose, Tomlinson, Pranger and Chair Bullock); to meet and have lunch with Senior Staff of the TOL and Trinity University as well as myself at the university. Through those efforts and subsequent application, it was approved. BUT make no mistake about it, this approval / support was for a very confined and limited area that supports a very valuable educational institution that has been a part of the Township of Langley for decades.

Now the intriguing pieces of this puzzle – How did this confrontation with Metro come about?

Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) – Metro Vancouver, as required by Provincial Legislation, has had a Regional Growth Strategy in place since the late 80s. This was put in place to control growth by drawing Urban Boundaries within each member Municipality to stop urban sprawl as well as protecting Green Zones and the ALR. As required by that legislation is the need to review and update that RGS every so many years. The RGS must be unanimously adopted by all members of Metro or it goes to arbitration involving the Provincial Minister. Immediately following the 2008 election Metro Vancouver initiated the renewal and review of the RGS. As the Township of Langley Metro Director involved directly in discussions involving that RGS renewal process I served notice to Metro initially that we would probably be their first arbitration case. I, members of Council and staff were very concerned about the process and their ultimate intent. After two and a half years of discussion, negotiation, numerous public and private meetings with Senior Metro Staff, members of our Council and our Senior Staff and much more, recognizing the principle of the RGS and its governing Provincial Legislation, the NEW RGS was adopted unanimously by all members of the Township of Langley Council, all member Municipalities and their Councils as well as the Metro Vancouver Board of Directors.

So to Rich Coleman and his comments (May22/12 Langley Times) “Metro Vancouver Regional District has gone too far by meddling in Township business needs to be reined in”! It is obvious and not surprising that he doesn’t know what he is talking about. Look at YOUR government Rich! The Langley Times Editorial “Local land use decisions should not be in the hands of Metro Vancouver’s Board period”! This editorial reflects the Times (local media) complete lack of due diligence and knowledge about what they are writing about. They (Langley Times) should be embarrassed and are doing a disservice to TOL residents. Maybe the Langley Times should have gone after Coleman and Polak for their governments’ perceived interference directing Metro per THEIR legislation!  – But then again that would be too uncomfortable as it would compromise their pandering to government MLAs!

The Wall Development proposal and its apparent conditional approval by the ALC in 2007 did not come to my attention until the final year of my term. When I first heard of this I frankly couldn’t believe it, even in the Wild Wild West of property deals known as the Township of Langley. I have seen this decision which I might add came about prior to the appointment of the current ALC Chairman Richard Bullock, a man I have great respect for. There are many questions about that decision of 2007! Now let’s be very clear, the Wall proposal, while receiving conditional ALC approval in 2007, (It was rejected on a couple of occasions in the early 2000s by a different ALC panel) was NEVER tied to or discussed with the University District plan in any way shape or form, I was involved in those discussions! Now interestingly enough, the NEW Mayor and his Council are lighting their hair on fire over Metro Vancouver squashing their by-law, in short because they do not fit the terms of the RGS.

HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE? The Township of Langley Council has involved lawyers (Don Lidstone, an interesting choice) vs Metro Vancouver and are talking litigation at our expense all over the RGS that members of Township of Langley Council and Staff supported unanimously, a provincial legal requirement. What – Another land deal?

Further, in an effort to try to get around Metro’s legal argument they filed an application with the ALC to increase the original size of the University District to somewhere around four times its original size enjoining the Wall Proposal and much more within its boundaries. It is very interesting that this move embraced the private property of a very well-known Township of Langley family and Liberal Party supporter. I guess we are just to believe that this was an accident? The ALC has since rejected that proposal but the Township has brought back the original boundaries adding on the Wall Townhouse Development as an attachment to the original University District. This was NEVER the case!

This is an outrageous attempt at a private property deal on farmland, but it is in keeping with the Township of Langley’s methods and ways of doing business. Now who is this going to benefit?

Important side-note for the record – the Wall family and/or their owned companies were significant contributors to the Provincial Liberal Party, the leadership campaign of Premier Christy Clark as well as donating to a number of Township of Langley Councilors. Not accusing, just saying!

Going back to the introduction of the FIRST by-laws for the original University District and the Wall Development? By-Laws for 1^st and 2^nd reading were introduced for each project separately at the last Council Meeting before the last election (Last council) – In my opinion it was totally out of line for staff to introduce these by-laws in the last meeting of the old council, prior to the election. Having said that, I voted for both as under a principle I believe strongly in and my voting record supports this, the proponent (owner) has the right to be heard and be considered as does the public have the right to respond. Again remember, for the record, these two proposals came forward as two distinctly different items (by-laws) for consideration. They weren’t attached in any way. Now under the newly elected council, many of the same old faces, after a lengthy Public Hearing (large opposition) 3^rd reading was given on the original University District by-law. The Wall proposal did not come forward for a reading at that time.

As mentioned above, the Township by-law was sent to Metro for approval as required under Provincial Legislation (Rich Coleman please note) and was denied, the by-law was quashed. So where did it go from there? The Township of Langley has since rescinded the original by-laws and has adopted a new singular by-law which covers the original University District plus the Wall Townhouse Development located smack in the middle of one of the finest farm properties in the valley. This proposal has faced considerable opposition (not that that matters with this council).

So once again the Township of Langley, spurred on by its resident Bully MLA Rich Coleman (see Rich Coleman comment) is trying to circumvent a provincially legislated requirement in the RGS, something that every municipality and/or City in Metro Vancouver is required to follow. Whether you or I like the idea of Metro Vancouver dictating that we follow the legislated requirement is immaterial, it is that way due to a provincially legislated mandate. I can tell you from first-hand knowledge, every member of Metro Vancouver has the same or similar problems, if the Township is permitted in this case, every member will be following suit! This attempt is particularly galling given the attempt to meld a legitimate concept (original plan for the University District) in with a well- connected private property deal.

It is yet another example of an outrageous attempt to manipulate or ignore the rules for the sole benefit of a few. IF you are OK or don’t see a problem with this happening I would suggest you would be OK providing special treatment to a very few at taxpayer’s expense. For those that suggest that this is an anti-university position, you are completely wrong, it is about treating everyone with fairness, morally and legally.

I would encourage, based on my years of inside experience in the Township of Langley, for taxpayers when considering issues such as I am presenting, to carry with them a good dose of skepticism. It is human nature not to do so I understand that but whenever you challenge issues such as this there is an old saying; “Connect the dots, follow the money!”

NOTE: There have been some interesting property sales, purchases and swap activity surrounding the proposed University District. This will have to be a topic for another day.

So as it is life in the Township of Langley! Enjoy what is happening so far? Change is NOT impossible!!!

RG

—————————————————————————————

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

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

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

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

Now let me see if I understand this, Metro Vancouver asked for proposals that would generate some revenue, and they come up with this??? The Township of Langley by virtue of our make-up of small hobby / horse farm properties has over the years become “The Horse Capital of B.C.” With well over 6,000 horses within our borders attracted through the years by attractions such as Campbell Valley Park and much more. It appears there are some elected officials willing to sell the horse community out! The very substantial horse industry tax base deserves far more respect from their elected members of Council!

To be honest with you, when I first heard about this suggestion I dismissed it out of hand believing it was a pie in the sky idea from the likes of Murray Jones of the Langley Speedway Historical Society. Murray Jones ran for Council and after my election in 2008 campaigned the idea of reopening the track. Well it appears to me and it was surprising, that Councilor Gayle Martin of Langley City, current Vice Chair and past Chair of the Metro Parks Committee seems to think it wasn’t a bad idea? This was counter to staff’s recommendations. Gayle, what are you drinking?

In reading some media writing on the subject and looking at quotes from elected members of the committee, it is absolutely dumbfounding what and how they think. Although after my three years in the Mayor’s Office nothing should surprise me.

So in reading these comments, Councilor Bob Long, yes that same Township of Langley Councilor that has built a reputation for himself for not seeking out anything that required too much work states “I think it is a philosophical Question”? What? Am I hearing that right? OH sure there is a philosophical bent to the argument, but that park use decision was made many years ago. NO Councilor Long, the primary argument against this idea is SAFETY.

Anyone who has been around horses for five minutes will understand, see and know that Auto Racing and Horses are as compatible as oil and water!! They just do not mix! This applies to the high volume of Equestrian park users who come from every corner of the lower mainland and beyond who would run in conflict with this proposed use. An estimated 100,000 equestrian users per year!

There will be THE inevitable number of equestrian accidents. Who pays? Who wants to take that responsibility? I would love to hear the legal defense argument as a result of the inevitable law suit(s) against Metro Vancouver and it’s member municipalities for approving this non-compatible use as a result of a serious equine accident. That isn’t just a possibility it is absolutely inevitable.

You know politics requires a lot of common sense, unfortunately we have and have had a serious common sense deficit on our Council for years and thanks to what you have to offer, that deficit has been extended to your regional responsibilities. Having been elected for the number of years that you have, claiming all of the knowledge you claim to have about the Township of Langley, it boggles the mind this idea would be remotely considered. Philosophical, not a chance! But then again I rest my case!

What also should be obvious, but doesn’t seem to be, is the negative affect Auto Racing would have on surrounding horse properties, not the least of which is the Pacific Riding for Developing Abilities situated right at the entrance to that portion of the park being suggested. This would force them to cease operating, at the very least, for the time period the track was being used, of course any member of Township Council who did their homework would know this and the good this society does for the entire lower mainland.

Beyond all of this, there would be an extensive amount of work needed on roads leading to this facility, 208th. Who pays? There would be an extensive amount of work needed on-site. Who pays?

While those of us, residents of the Township of Langley, know by their actions that consideration of public input through public meetings and/or public hearings is a foreign idea or concept to our Township of Langley Council; I have every confidence that Metro Directors, should it go this far and I hope it doesn’t, would introduce and welcome a public process!

Members of the Metro Vancouver Board and Parks Committee, I urge you, on behalf of the horse community throughout the lower mainland, please stop this insanity now and say no!

If there is a bent on finding a home for Auto Racing, please find a location that makes some “Common Sense”!

Rick Green

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Note: Sorry for the delay between posts but I was undertaking another computer upgrade!

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

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

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

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

If you ran your personal life or business this way you would be bankrupt in a heart-beat! One of the major surprises I was confronted with was the Township budgeting process and practice. It was obviously a product of years of senior staff control, leading Council around by the nose. On being elected I introduced a NEW “Mayor’s Standing Committee of Finance”, permitted under the Community Charter. From the outset Council was opposed. Here is the complete story about what really happens with your tax dollars and Council’s complete lack of due diligence in getting value for money!

In keeping with the objective of this BLOG, I am dealing with the finance issue, not to rehash the past or re-fight the last election but to use the past and my personal experience in the Mayor’s office to inform and educate the electorate about the facts. Hopefully this information will be helpful when looking at candidates in the 2014 Municipal Election.

Am I qualified to criticize or offer advice for change? I have had considerable business experience, both in the corporate world and in owning my own large lower mainland supermarket doing in the neighborhood of $7 million per year. With close to a million dollar payroll, certification with three unions, 38 employees operating on (at the time) a 1.75% net bottom line, I know what it takes to be fiscally responsible. It is that or you see your life savings flushed down the toilet! I have also had the privilege of serving on Delta Council concentrating heavily on financial issues, Metro Vancouver Finance Committee, Metro Vancouver Director and an Alternate Director of the Municipal Finance Authority. So, in short I had the experience to take it on but nobody could have prepared me for what I was about to find out in the Township of Langley.

Why the need for change, a look back is in order. It is important to put everything into perspective, given my criticism of the budgeting process as well as tax and spending increases in the Township of Langley. A big part of my platform that I ran on was a commitment for a 0% tax increase for three years, coupled with the establishment of a “Property Endowment Trust and Trust Fund”. (I covered this in my previous BLOG Post so will skip the detail here) I made it very clear that one could not happen without the other. Obviously, with that promise made (and I did not make that promise lightly) we had to bring change to the culture within the Township of Langley Municipal Hall and I was well aware that would not be easy.

Tax and Spending 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.)
• Spending Increases – Over 3 times the cost of living!

So why would I so strongly criticize our Council of the day and introduce a 0% Tax Increase over three years coupled the Property Endowment Trust and Trust Fund, both in the 2008 election that we won and the 2011 election that we lost? Was it based on a sound principle and plan or a pie in the sky political promise?

Contrary to what members of Council might suggest it was based on a sound foundation of proven experience endorsed by a professional at the Center of Vancouver’s very successful and very active program of today and over the past 25 + years. Despite the success in a number of other municipalities and cities, a response from Councilor Ferguson says it all – in a work shop session in response to a detailed presentation stated “This is Langley it won’t work out here – we are different!” That says it all, unfortunately it speaks to the culture, complete lack of work ethic and ignorance is bliss attitude that exists in our municipality from our elected leaders.

Despite the opposition, I set up the Mayor’s Standing Committee of Finance. The Committee consisted of three members of Council – Mayor Green, Councilors Ferguson and Richter plus three members of our community – a Federal Govt. Auditor (retired), a lawyer and the Senior Managing Partner (CA) of a National Accounting Firm (just retired). It was my intent to have this committee meet and work with Council while they were going through the budget process, all in an effort to assist within the established Council Priorities Committee. They would only be an advisory service to Council, that was the plan. All decisions obviously are and would always be in the hands of the elected Council.

For whatever their reason and I can only imagine why, Council decided they would leave the budgeting process to the Standing Committee who would report back to Council with their recommendations in a timely manner. Well it went down-hill from there, thanks to the immature actions and display by Councilors Ward and Ferguson who at one point crashed a working Committee of Finance Meeting with firefighters and the Langley Advance in tow. Another set up, you bet it was! I was accused of everything from deciding budget changes in private and Council being cut out of the process. Nothing could have been further from the truth and they knew it, but the local press, by virtue of their reporting of the incident, bought into it hook, line and sinker. But Council members got the splash in the local press that they were looking for and typical of the local press they presented a one sided view with no attempt at being objective! What an absolute embarrassment to have three private citizens going through that public debacle!

Now, for clarification, there are many municipalities that utilize Standing Committees for this purpose and it is very clear that this is a Mayor’s prerogative. In all of my years in public office I have never seen such an embarrassing display by elected members of Council against an initiative by the Mayor. To achieve anything we had to break away from the entrenched process that was in place. Unfortunately they (Council members) would fight every initiative that I suggested, regardless of the support from the electorate in the 2008 election.

Despite the difficulties the Mayor’s Standing Committee of Finance faced going through this process and to their credit, members of the Standing Committee persevered and were committed to doing the job they signed on for at NO COST to the Municipal Taxpayer.

Our committee put in dozens and dozens of hours, both in committee and at home. We met with every department going line by line from the outset; something that staff was not used of doing. Scrutiny can be a tough thing! Something that staff had obviously never experienced before!

As an example, at the start of our committee process and in discussions with the CAO, our committee member who is a retired CA 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. That comment just reflects senior staff’s unwillingness for change. Most professionals in the business will tell you, there is no such thing – It is either O based or it is not!

So in conclusion what was the result?

Our Mayor’s Standing Committee of Finance presented a well thought out and prepared brief to Council with a number of recommendations. They were not of the slash and burn variety regardless of the comments by some members of Council at the time, quite the contrary. After a presentation of about a half hour to forty minutes in length there was not one question asked of the committee by any member of Council.

An Interesting side-NOTE: It is interesting to note that the local press, Langley Times and the Advance, despite the work done by private citizens, ignored the recommendations and work put forward by them. I wonder why? Unfortunately this inaction is in keeping with their growing reputation of non-objective reporting the local press has within the Langleys! Again WHY, one has to be concerned and wonder why? Could it be concern for the $250,000 in advertising spending done yearly by the TOL split between the two of them? Just asking?

Mayor’s Standing Committee of Finance Report to Council – Content – Sowing the reasons and need for prudence the Committee provided detail on all of the following.

• Economic Information and Statistics – A selection of concerning economic news both current and near to medium future.
• A list of 13 Cities/Municipalities showing their tax increase histories.
• A Summary of actual Spending and Budget comparisons of 10 Cities/Municipalities.
• Six key Budget Recommendations to Township of Langley Council, including detailed numbers verified by staff as a result of the recommendations. All Sources / All Revenue / All Expenses)
• Eight General Budget Recommendations to Township of Langley Council on the following categories:
  • Revenue
  • Budgetary Process
  • Salaries / Wages / Benefits
  • Fleet Management
  • Information Technology
  • Fire Fighting

and

• Seven individual comments and recommendations from the committee.
• Staff Positions / RE Staff New requests for the period 2009 – 2012.

NOTE: – Each category above obviously contained a number of recommendations, thoughts and items for consideration by Council. (There was no consideration given)

Revenue Recommendation: One recommendation we put forward was implementing a “Cost of Growth Study” with a view, if substantiated by the study, to subsequently implement a “Community Amenity Contribution” program. This process has been implemented in numerous progressive Cities and Municipalities throughout the province designed to extract voluntary contributions from the development community based on their proposal and costs coming out of the “Cost of Growth Study”. This is not an anti-development stand but is a tool that has been court tested and delivers significant benefits back to the community that otherwise would not be achieved. For the record, UDI (Urban Development Institute) consisting of the development community is opposed to such a plan. Having said that, IF the Cost of Growth Study justified such a program it would have to be substantially less costly than Vancouver, in other words a made in Township plan designed around our needs and costs. It wasn’t about implementing it without study, but is about exploring new opportunities. It seems in the Wild Wild West of Land Deals and Development in the Township of Langley, those gaining significantly are being protected by Council and Staff. WHY? The mismanagement that is going on in the Township is costing taxpayers directly a significant price! I have many concerns about what is really going on in the NEW Carvolth Community Plan. Up to 18 stories – what is being given back to the community in exchange for that license to print money? Who is benefitting? I see Kurt Alberts is representing one of the developers and is supportive. Surprise!

At the conclusion of the presentation of the report to Council they (Council) ignored the Standing Committee’s report recommendations entirely (including a .95% tax increase) and adopted a 5% tax increase within five minutes of receiving the committees report.

It is interesting to note that after going through this extensive process in my first year, recognizing that by their actions Council was not the slightest bit interested in doing the work necessary in the budgeting process, we folded the committee. This was done after a conversation with members of the committee about whether they wanted to continue, and they agreed it would be a waste of time given the complete lack of respect Council had for their work. It is beyond unfortunate!

I was asked by a few members of Council why I didn’t continue with the Mayor’s Standing Committee of Finance? – What can I say “They just don’t get it!” On the other hand I believe they do get it and it is further proof they were only interested in being as obstructionist as possible at the expense of the Taxpayer.

So why should you be concerned about your municipally elected leaders handling your tax dollars!            

A short and quick review of the history of tax increases, spending increases, staff increases and the budget process will only lead you in one direction and to one conclusion – Township of Langley Municipal Hall is out of control, staff are in charge! The Fox is definitely running the Hen House!

In Closing I will repeat my last public comments made while Mayor prior to the final budget vote in 2011. It should be noted and obvious by this time that my comments were not published in any fashion by the local press, but by this time I wasn’t surprised! –

My closing budget comments before the 2011 budget was adopted by Council –

“In response to a number of comments made by Council members in the press with respect to my involvement in the Budget Process – I am not going to get into a war of words with members of Council over the budgeting, spending and taxation process. My position is and has been clear leading up to the last election and through three budget cycles. Nothing that I have seen and heard since has changed my mind of what is possible and what is wrong.”

“Comments made about me publicly by members of Council – I have been a passenger through this process. I can’t budget without a committee or suggesting I am blaming staff. (All of this is patent nonsense and ignores the history of the last 2 ½ years.)”

“Year 1, against the wishes of Council I established a Standing Committee of Finance which included three very qualified Township residents and three members of Council. Council chose to sit that process out.”

“After 5 months of work a comprehensive report was submitted with detailed recommendations attached. Not one question was asked and Council immediately approved a 5% tax increase. Now lets be clear that it is their right, however it also sent a very strong message to myself and taxpayers that it would be business as usual. There were a number of unfortunate incidents through the process.”

“Now lets deal with the issue of somehow – reduced taxation equates to reduced services -. I know it is hard for some at this table to understand, but nothing could be further from the truth. You see, I am not afraid to listen to new ideas, I believe the taxpayer rightfully expects that. We should look at –

• Service reviews
• Service Audits
• Creative service delivery
• Value for money

I have never suggested or accepted a reduction in protective services.

My comment that it was a staff budget (2011 budget)! This is a fact and is not a criticism of staff, they did their job. They provided Council with a provisional budget on the first of December 2010 for the 2011 year. That budget should have gone through a serious vetting by members of Council through a workshop format in a number of workshops and then with a Council stamp on the budget, go to a public Open House. What is before us today and Council is now prepared to adopt, is a virtual carbon copy of Staff’s Provisional Budget. I rejected it in December and reject it today.”

I have skipped some of my closing comments in the above in closing debate on the 2011 budget, but the above gives you an idea, in my view about where we are going wrong. As I have repeated before –

The Definition of Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again….

 expecting a different result!

Budgets will grow, taxes and spending will increase with a continuing lack of oversight.

The only time things will change is when you elect a NEW Council!

Rick Green

__________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

Shocked is an understatement, how was this result possible? No different than anyone else I along with most of the province, including most Liberals if they were honest, never saw this coming. Unfortunately my fear is that the Liberals will misread the true meaning behind this win and they will become even more arrogant than before, if that is possible. As I have said before, as an ardent Free Enterpriser I could never vote NDP and with the record of the Liberals I could not vote for them; I was looking for another option!

I woke up this morning asking myself what just happened. Was I dreaming or was last night real?

OH well, I may as well join the masses and offer my post mortem analysis of last night’s election results. It is interesting to listen and watch all the media interviews of insiders and outsiders as to their views of what went right or wrong. Obviously the insiders, those most closely associated with the guts of the chosen campaign strategy are taking all the credit in the world, but it is interesting they choose to look at what went right as opposed to what their opponents did wrong! This was Adrian Dix’s election to lose and that he did it in spades!

The NDP – Politics, regardless of the popular mythology is a Blood Sport and is not for the faint of heart. It does not nor should it be personal, but it should clearly define the differences between you and the other guy. What defines the difference? The NDP campaign from the outset was positioned to take the high road and be nice with no attacks. Sorry but by mid campaign it was a bland and milk toast message. There was no definition of the ballot box question. At the same time Dix, later in the campaign does a serious flip flop on the Kinder Morgan issue which I believe was a serious error on his part. At the same time, you might recall, Dix told everyone who would listen at the start of the campaign, in response to questions from the media, that everyone would know by voting day what he stood for and what would happen under his leadership. What did we hear; he will conduct a review after the election on virtually every issue. Sorry that didn’t cut it for those that were looking for another viable option. So in my view the NDP lost this one!

The Liberals – From the outset the Liberals ran a negative campaign designed to attack Dix personally (for the forged memo scandal) and concentrate on history. (the NDP 90s) It is interesting that the B.C. Liberals carried enough baggage to satisfy numerous campaign needs but none of it was used by the NDP against them. The Liberals concentrated and hammered home a continual litany of lies referring to their record on debt and deficit and who would best manage provincial affairs. They concentrated on selling the public on paying off our deficit on an iffy LNG program 15 – 20 years out, regardless of the facts of this industry in the world economy. In other words they didn’t let the facts get in the way of a good story.

To the Liberal’s credit they brought on a number of high profile new candidates that to my surprise and I believe many others, got elected. But the question has to be asked could the B.C. Liberals have won without the abject failure of the NDP strategy? An interesting question?

The B.C. Conservative Party – In my view this is the single largest failure IF there was to be a change of government. The litany of events within the B.C. Conservative Party over the past two years destroyed any chance of gaining respectability. This responsibility lies firmly at the feet of John Cummins going back to the day he took over leadership of the party. It was THE chance to build a centrist free enterprise option. To do this there had to be a will for inclusion which clearly didn’t happen. It is unfortunate because there were a number of very good candidates that frankly, given the recent history, could not get any respect or traction. That is not a reflection on them; it is a reflection on the B.C. Conservative Party and its leadership. (or lack of). Do they have an opportunity to rebound for the next election, that will be entirely up to the B.C. Liberal Party and Government? There was an opportunity (ie B.C. Liberals 1991 vintage) but they blew that opportunity.

Summation – So can this win be attributed to the genius of the Liberal Campaign Team or to an NDP screw up? There is probably enough in this equation for both. At the end of the day, and who among us would dispute that they have heard from friends relatives and neighbors that they were going to hold their nose and vote Liberal. That in my opinion was a result of the fear driven by the actions and statements of Dix as well as the barrage of messages from the Liberals. Unfortunately issues such as the file on B.C. Rail and Basi / Virk are closed; I am sure much to the delight of Christy Clark and Rich Coleman.  That, in my opinion is the sad post note to this election.

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

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

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

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