langleywatchdog…. and more!

What is happening to the community of Aldergrove and Aldergrove residents is a travesty of justice in the cruelest of terms! It is exactly why our voter turnout during elections are down; tell me what I want to hear during an election campaign and do the opposite AFTER the election! Now, Councilor Fox in an email to me and at last night’s Council meeting states he never promised an Indoor Pool? A few other members of Council suggested the same thing. Isn’t that interesting 1) Aldergrove Pool Committee works for years in a very public campaign for an Indoor Pool 2) Numerous meetings with staff, council and the pool committee discussing different formats for an Indoor Pool, length being the only question. 3) Council launches a public campaign to sell off municipal lands to fund the project, an Indoor Pool. 4) Due to public pressure Council withdraws that campaign to sell lands to fund the project, an Indoor Pool 5) An Indoor Pool was the only thing discussed over the past three elections 6) and NOW Charlie Fox and a few others state they never promised an INDOOR Pool? Are they remotely serious? I don’t recall Charlie or any others being honest with the public stating they support an outdoor pool, do you?

Viewing Mayor Froese’s very public campaign VIDEO during the last election stating emphatically his vision for Aldergrove was an Indoor Pool, there is only one word for it. a LIE to the public. Strong language, YOU BET, BUT it is what it is! At last night’s Council meeting the Mayor stated he is comfortable with his decision – So YES he is comfortable with telling a LIE to the voting public! At last night’s Council meeting Mayor Froese stressed that the Township could not afford an Indoor facility? So, there can only be one conclusion, as Mayor for the three years prior to his promise of an Indoor Pool he did not understand the finances of the Township? There is an old saying in politics, you have either been lieing to us or you are too stupid to be running this municipality!

This kind of stuff has got to stop. A quick view of what is currently happening in politics looks like change is coming unless politicians change. Voters are fed up!!!!

How do we get politicians to change? Stand up against the bullying and subliminal intimidation, become active in the fight and say NO MORE! This campaign against an outdoor pool is YOUR chance to become active, IT IS THE BUSINESS COMMUNITIES chance to prove their REAL value to Aldergrove and it is THE CHANCE for members of your council to prove their worth to the residents of our community by reconsidering their decision. Contrary to comments by Jack Froese (who owns a business in the Aldergrove area) and Bob Long (yes that Bob Long who lives in and owns and operates a restaurant in Aldergrove) IT IS NOT TOO LATE!

To Members of the Aldergrove Business Association (ABA) – I am hearing rumors that some members of the ABA are not onside or are NOT motivated to publicly participate in and support the campaign for an Aldergrove INDOOR Pool that was just launched this weekend by residents, YOUR customers!

First a little history – I have owned a large business years ago in Tsawwassen and was a member of the then TBA. One of their principle mandates as a business association was to fight for community prominent initiatives like they did with the Winskill (INDOOR) Pool. Years later as a resident of Langley and Mayor I was approached by the local owner of the McDonalds franchise in Walnut Grove with some serious crime concerns in and around Walnut Grove. There was no business association at the time. With my experience both in business and as Mayor of the Township I knew it would be invaluable for Council to have a strong business association to work and connect with on a variety of issues beneficial to their community. I provided the Municipal leadership and considerable resources necessary and the rest is history, a very successful business association in Walnut Grove was formed and exists very successfully today.

Following that success we accomplished the same thing in Aldergrove thanks to a few key business leaders in our community. What must be made VERY clear, the sole reason that we assisted in that support at the time is that they, community businesses, would play an advocacy role in support of Aldergrove Businesses, their community and resident / customers. The ABA (business association) role IS NOT to be playing a support role or in any quasi connection to the municipal government, IT WAS AND IS to play a support role for the community. Remember, the residents of Aldergrove play a significant role in the success or failure of your business. Do you want to be known throughout Aldergrove as a business that did not support such a key initiative? Using pure common sense, and being a former business owner, I cannot imagine any business owner with an ounce of common sense not to be supporting this campaign in spades.

To Members of Township of Langley Council – Your decision to back track on your campaign promise (I don’t know what else you can call it Mayor Froese) made during the last election is beyond contemptable.  The thinking that could have gone into a plan for building an outdoor pool in our climate can only be described as beyond the pale. The Township of Langley initiated the sewer line and during my term as Mayor we approved the Metro Vancouver Water line so as to save our aquifers and to provide a safe, secure and stable water supply into the community of Aldergrove in addition to adopting a NEW Core Community Plan. All of this supported our endorsement and approval of the Metro Regional Growth Strategy which supported growth in Aldergrove to be in and around 25,000. Without that capital outlay, growth would not be possible.

In recent years the Township of Langley has spent in or around $70 million to provide stable support services (sewer and water) to Aldergrove and the Gloucester Industrial Park. With all of this population growth and development – We are building an OUTDOOR Pool? While I know none of you want to take my advice, I would strongly suggest an immediate review be conducted of the plan before you or you know what they say – it is going to jump out and BITE you big time! Residents will remember!!!

Mayor Froese – (Langley Advance Thursday March 31^st, 2016) “.. at this point there isn’t time to redesign the pool and still get construction underway this year – in time for the 2018 opening”. “We’re on a tight timeline”. RESPONSE – What unadulterated BS. Jack you have all the time in the world. A little leadership and commitment is required, IF a little more time is required, I guarantee the community would be behind you. Council directs staff, not the other way around. This is nothing but an absolute cop out!

Councilor Long – (Aldergrove Star Posted April 2^nd 2016 2:00PM) – Stated in a response to the protest underway across the street from his restaurant – “We will forge ahead with the current plan”. Bob Long, as a business owner and a resident of Aldergrove you are an embarrassment to the residents of Aldergrove with your complete lack of support and respect for your community! Not a deep breath, not a willingness to talk to anyone, just the typical arrogant condescending attitude that Council has become so well known for against the people you were elected to represent. You and Fox are a real pair!

Councilor Long is also on record with the following responses to questions posed on Facebook:

“a replacement for the outdoor pool has always been part of the plan” – RESPONSE – You are correct, BUT the replacement for the outdoor pool has always been a NEW INDOOR Pool, lets not try to reinvent history!

“a unique complex unlike any municipally owned and operated anywhere in the Fraser Valley” – RESPONSE – Once again you are correct, BUT unfortunately it is a uniqueness that is not acceptable nor wanted in Aldergrove and NO OTHER municipality would propose such a brain dead idea for their community! We will be the laughing stock of the Valley!

“The budget is approx. $26 million and the funds are coming from Capital Reserves, so therefore it will not require tax increases”? RESPONSE – What? Bob you and some members of this Council had no problem approving the financial boondoggle, that is the LEC, to the tune of $88.7 million (see below) plus, an annual operational subsidy of the LEC to the tune of $4 – $6 million plus the LEC expansion (NO public input or support) to the tune of $7.5 million (included in above). Then there is Blair and Walnut Grove with operational subsidy and the capital all supported by taxpayers in Aldergrove with NO reasonable and affordable bus service for Aldergrove residents to those facilities. FYI to Council – Capital Reserves come from the taxpayer, it is all taxpayer supported!

“that the costs and scope of some of these concepts far exceed our ability to construct and maintain” ..”A modest indoor facility would cost over $35 million and would need to service an area population far greater than what exists now in the Aldergrove area or what could be possibly forecasted for the future, to be viable.”  RESPONSE – Bob, remember the new sewer line you voted for, the NEW water line you voted for and the Metro Regional Growth Strategy that you supported? All of this was to ensure we had the services in Aldergrove to go from 10,000 residents TO 25,000 residents in the future. The decision to invest this amount of money to grow Aldergrove and then build an Outdoor Pool is beyond incompetence.

“The money for construction of the project was always to come from land sales and not from tax increases – but the public will recall, council was convinced not to sell certain lands and so it was faced with a considerably reduced funding source too.”  RESPONSE – So now we are getting at the truth, when Council changed it’s direction regarding the selling of land due to public pressure, they reduced the scope of the project to an Outdoor Pool WITHOUT TELLING THE PUBLIC? I know this is above your pay grade Councillor Long but there are many ways to finance the facility in question, but then again innovation has never been anyone’s strength in the Township or on Council.

Councilor Fox – In typical Charlie Fox fashion his debate against Councilor Richter’s Notice of Motion threatened “if this motion passes I will bring forward a motion to the next Council meeting requesting support for a Township wide referendum for an Indoor Pool in Aldergrove”. He also suggested that the Walnut Grove, WC Blair and LEC facilities were not paid for out of tax payer funds (ie Aldergrove residents taxation) What unadulterated BS – Capital funds and many of the reserves are built on taxpayer dollars! Who do you think provides the majority of funds, the tooth fairy? Who do you think pays for the subsidies, and has done so since day one, ALL Township taxpayers – Not the tooth fairy Charlie?

Councilor Quaale – A very important caution Councilor Quaale, IF you are ever going to start making statements while at the Council Table make sure they are factual. You stated the Langley Events Center only cost the Township $30 million? Absolutely FALSE! Please ask your office for a copy of Mayor Green’s Press Release on the LEC dated Wednesday December 15^th, 2010 – It is all factual – THE FACTS ARE:

Province of BC                            $15 million

School Board                               $3 million

Trinity Western University      $3.5 million

Langley Gymnastics                   $1 million

Township of Langley                  $43.7 million

Township of Langley   est          $10 million       (Land acquisition and prep costs)

NEW property purchase est      $5 million         (Nursery site)

NEW LEC addition                      $7.5 million

Grand Total                                   $88.7 million

Township / Taxpayer Costs    $66.2 million ( No referendum Charlie)

PLUS a TAXPAYER SUBSIDY of between $4 and $6 million PER YEAR!

So Councilor Quaale, if you are so concerned with taxpayer dollars initiate a Forensic Audit of the Langley Events Center, you will be amazed with what you will find! Further, think before you speak – Township costs of the LEC are OVER double your quote from the Council table.

Councilor Richter – While I have been critical of you over the years and despite your previous vote supporting this facility during an in-camera meeting (illegally), I must congratulate you for having the guts to bring forward your Notice of Motion requesting Council to revisit their decision. The debate that took place among members of Council last night showed it for what it is, dysfunctional and out of touch with the residents they suggest they support.

To members of Council – There is good news and bad news – The Good News is the Green Family have just sold their farm, the Bad News is the Green Family have just Bought a home in Aldergrove! We are not going anywhere!   

To Aldergrove Residents – From personal experience with years of political experience in Delta and 19 years in the Township I have never seen the kind of unaccountable elected representation that we have in the Township of Langley. I thought through my three years as Mayor I had seen everything, after last night’s meeting it can only be described as dysfunctional. As I have said many times, we have the government we deserve, however I do believe that we can mobilize the electorate into recognizing what is being done to them and what they can do about it! Get involved.

Anyone that has paid any attention to my years in the Mayor’s office will know that I spent considerable energy promoting residents to get involved in their community. I spent considerable time fighting on their behalf, in most cases fighting off other members of Council while I attempted to do so. From encouraging residents to fight the 208^th street Truck Route (residents won), to fight the Mufford Crescent Diversion (residents won), to fight landfill on agricultural land (residents won), to fight the Browns Pit gravel extraction by the B.C. Government (residents won), to fight against a fish farm in South Langley (residents won) and in the fight against Athenry Gate (unfortunately residents lost). We fought the Overheight Condo Wall in Fort Langley and we exposed the financial boondoggle that is the Langley Events Center and much more, I have always invited and welcomed the public’s participation, it is essential to our democracy.

The fight for an INDOOR POOL in Aldergrove is incredibly important to our community. It was promised during the last election, after the election the promise has been dismissed out-of-hand and after last night Council members totally insulted all taxpayers in Aldergrove!

We cannot allow a LIE to stand! If you sit back and accept it this time without a firm response you deserve the government you get – All bets are off!!!! Put another way, IF you are not part of the solution (fighting back) YOU ARE the part of the continuing problem!!

RG

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

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

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

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

Well Aldergrove, you have been waiting for years for this, you have participated in dozens and dozens of public information sessions, formed local societies, held meetings, held dialogue sessions with elected officials and expressed in the strongest of terms your wishes – Once again in a well-orchestrated Council launch of their decision you have once again been ignored!

It has just been a little over a year since the last election, when virtually EVERY candidate for Mayor and Councilor came out in support and PROMISED a long anticipated INDOOR POOL facility for Aldergrove. Residents and Taxpayers sitting back and accepting the backtracking of a very clear promise can’t be accepted nor is it an option! This didn’t happen in Murrayville, Willoughby or Walnut Grove. It is a sad commentary on Township of Langley politics on a number of fronts. I will outline those concerns below.

First – Public Engagement / Public Input –

A lot of discussion and debate has taken place during the last two Municipal Elections over the wide-ranging issues surrounding public engagement and public input. As we all know very well, through a Pete McMartin column in the Vancouver Sun in the face of the Mayor’s decision over Coulter Berry in Fort Langley, Jack Froese was quoted that he doesn’t govern by petitions, nor the turn-out and input at Public Hearings. During the Mayors term 2011 – 2014, there were numerous irresponsible and questionable votes as reflected in numerous Public Hearing Minutes. During the last Municipal Election, after listening to all of the heat over the decisions of Council, Mayor Froese promised to set up a Standing Committee on Public Engagement, which in fact he has done. PROBLEM – Mayor Froese has shown by his actions he has no interest in listening to the public? You don’t need a Public Engagement Committee to hear and listen to the public. Under the Community Charter you can hold Public Hearings, Public Input Opportunities, Public Meetings, written verbal and video Submissions from the Public and Public Petitions! Mayor Froese, despite this charade surrounding an attempt to make the public believe you and Council are listening, you have once again proven that this IS a charade in spades. Frankly it is nothing more than a LIE!

Mayor Froese and Council HAVE NOT listened to residents! Council has made a decision for an outdoor pool despite a PROMISE to the contrary. By virtue of this decision Mayor Froese and Council have LIED to the residents and taxpayers. Strong words, you bet, BUT it is long past due that we tell it like it is!

Anyone remember the infamous Councilor Fox remarks made during an open house on the project? – “if the people of Aldergrove were not happy with the outdoor pool all they needed to do was raise the $10 million it would take to cover the pool, or in the alternative they could go to one of the indoor pools in the Township.” This is vintage Charlie Fox, condescending, arrogant and much more! Charlie, don’t look now BUT the people of Aldergrove helped pay for the W.C. Blair and Walnut Grove Pools, are you going to pay for the bus fare (for the very limited bus service that is available) for so many young people of Aldergrove to get to W.C. Blair? All of this is VERY insulting, and Fox touts his experience as a teacher and principle?

What about the annual $4 million – $6 million annual subsidy of the Langley Events Center? What about the approval behind closed doors, with NO public input and NO knowledge of the $7.5 million Langley Events Center expansion? The public was told two weeks after the start of construction, only after the press asked what was happening at the LEC!

Just as an aside there is an epidemic of skin Cancer (Malignant Melanoma). Why are we putting our population at risk with an outdoor pool?       

A reminder to all, during 2012 the Township held Public Meetings to look over two possible designs for a NEW INDOOR Pool, Ice Arena and Community Centre complex. This is what was wanted and what was planned!

Second – Sale of Township lands to support building this facility –

Talk about mixed messages? Many of you will recall the issue a few years back about the sale of Township owned Glen Valley lands stating that the resulting revenue would go towards the Aldergrove facility. This, rightfully so, caused a significant firestorm of protest by the general public. Feeling the wrath of the public it was announced that NO, they had changed their mind and that this was not going to be a prerequisite to building the Aldergrove facility. Then, during the last election campaign during a tour of the existing facilities (or lack of) in Aldergrove, it was asked by a few candidates where the funds were currently from property sales in preparation for the Aldergrove facility. Councilor Fox who was on that tour stated that no, council had done away with that idea. In the Langley Advance article of June 18^th, 2015 it stated that the Township has been raising funds from the sale of surplus lands? So the question has to be asked, did any funds from the sale of any lands go into the Capital Funds stated as already in place for this facility? Walnut Grove, Murrayville, LEC and the LEC expansion were not built and funded this way.

So what is the truth, property sale revenue was or was not used to fund this facility – Yes or No! Once again – Don’t lie to the public!

The original estimated cost for the complete expected indoor facility was up to $34.8 million. The stated cost of the announced facility is $25.8 million. Is Aldergrove not worth an additional $10 million? As stated earlier, Council approved a $7.5 million expansion of the LEC with NO public input, dialogue or discussion. A matter of fact they built the entire Langley Events Center in the same manner at a cost upwards of $66 million, and they can’t find $10 million for Aldergrove?

Third – Statements by Mayor and/or staff have to be questioned!

Mayor Froese – “The pool is a compromise of sorts with some of the conflicting demands that have come to the Township of Langley.” Response – This so-called compromise is a pathetic attempt at satisfying a long ignored public!

Mayor Froese – “The lap pool will be outdoor, but it will be a year round pool.” Response – Users, I am sure everyone will enjoy swimming outdoors from October through April in the cold and rain – NOT! Is our Council brain dead?

TOL Gen. Mgr. Jason Winslade – “One of the goals of this space is to kind of replace the Aldergrove Lake Experience.” Response – What? Come on Jason, you can do better than that! This is a significant stretch to draw any comparison to what was lost in Aldergrove Lake.

TOL Gen. Mgr. Jason Winslade – “Outdoor Pools that run all year are becoming common.” Response – A quick review on-line will show the only constant with outdoor pools is they are being closed and at the very least THEY ARE NOT year round facilities!

Fourth – Council decision?

It is stated that this was a unanimous decision of Council. When was the vote held? Where was the vote held? – Open Meeting or In-Camera? To the best of our knowledge it was not on an open Council agenda so it had to be in-camera! If that is the case, only items concerning staff, legal or property are permitted in-camera. Was this an illegal vote?

Information for residents – The reasons for the limitation of what can be discussed in-camera is that Council Votes and/or any associated DEBATE should be public and transparent so the public and press have all of the information on which the decision was made. Food for Thought? Is it possible, that Councilors Davis, Richter and Arnason voted for this proposal, afraid of how it would be seen by the public if they voted against it a pool? Message to Councilors, it takes guts to stand up for what is right, you have failed the people of Aldergrove.

Fifth – Council Announcement?

It is interesting that the announcement event by Council only came about on the heels of a letter sent by the Aldergrove Pool Committee. In answer to that letter there was a quick reply by Councilor Fox saying to wait for the press release which instantly appeared announcing a public meeting in Aldergrove in a couple of days. (Held Wednesday June 17^th, 2015) Interesting timing? Summer was coming? It is not lost that there was no public announcement of the Wednesday announcement either in our TOL facilities on the TOL website or in our local newspapers. Could we properly assume that it was a controlled event with supporters only receiving an invitation? I would bet on it!

Sixth – Proposed conceptual layout? Outdoor?

If you go by the layout as published in the Langley Advance, better than 3/4s of the water facility area is devoted to water park and slides which as stated will only be open spring and summer while there is very limited facility for general swimming, lessons and more.

An outdoor pool is nothing more than a brain dead idea trying to be sold as unique. Frankly it is nothing more than an insult to the intelligence to the people of Aldergrove.

Summary – This is nothing more or less than outrageous and yes the people of Aldergrove should be outraged. They deserve much better! There are a variety of innovative ways to finance this project, but it is clear that this Council is relying on staff’s recommendations. These recommendations from staff are either intuitively directed by some of their political masters, are poorly thought out by staff or as I have felt for years are a product of those who are masterfully directing this municipality and not accountable to the voter.

Where is the vision of our Mayor and Council? Mayor Froese, in a video released during the 2014 election offered and promised his vision for an indoor pool in Aldergrove. YES, he very clearly PROMISED an INDOOR POOL!

Where are our Council members who were so ready to make a promise during the election, but hiding in the weeds when the announcement is made? You should all be ashamed of yourselves. We expected much better!!!!!!!! Just another example of this Council’s idea of Public Engagement, as they say and it is true, we get the government we deserve!!!

RG

Stay tuned for discussion of top of mind topics that directly affect us in the Township of Langley and our region to be published in the months ahead and much more….!

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.

As you know, I have been speaking out about who is really in control in the Township, plus; a lack of any consistent planning process, an Omnibus By-Law process (changing zoning and OCP through ONE Public Hearing) and the majority of nodding heads on Council who consistently refrain from defending the public’s interest in the Township of Langley. Don’t believe me, just be objective – read the following: Would you be happy investing in your family home and then find your Council amended the OCP, changed the zoning and by doing so almost doubled the density in your community that was in place when you purchased?

Preamble: Anyone that has followed www.langleywatchdog.com since we started over three years ago will recall the many objections I have had and the objections I believe the general public should have about how your municipality is being managed and governed, who is really in control? Being the Mayor for three years provided myself with conclusive proof about all of my misgivings. Here is but another example of the manipulation of the process that favors a chosen few!

On Monday December 14^th, 2015 your Council dealt with an Agenda item H1 – It read as follows:

Rezoning and Community Plan Amendment Application No. 100124 and

Development Permit Applications No. 100783 and No. 100801 (East Gordon Developments Ltd. / 7038 to 7162 – 210 Street) Bylaw No. 5166 Bylaw No. 5167 Report 15-115 File CD 08-13-0085

Item of Concern – This Agenda Item was scheduled to be heard later in the meeting in its regular spot on the agenda. The order was changed by the Mayor at the request of Councilor Whitmarsh, who it seemed had to leave the meeting shortly to catch a flight out of town. Unusual! Why this item? Well these by-laws were created to serve the needs of Vesta Properties even though that was not identified in the Agenda copy. A quick review of all Financial Disclosures for the 2014 election shows that Vesta Properties were significant contributors to many members of Council – Mayor Froese, Councilors Fox, Whitmarsh and Quaale. With Councilor Richter absent it would have been a tie-vote therefore it would have been defeated…. See how it works?

Item of Concern – In typical slight-of-hand fashion a read of the entire copy in the agenda shows that nowhere does the name Vesta Properties exist (as mentioned earlier), it states East Gordon Developments Ltd. As stated by Councilor Sparrow in her discussion/debate, these two by-laws were being introduced to cover the last phase of the Vesta Property Development. Why then, given the by-laws purpose was to double the original density, was Vesta (a name that would have registered with any community member reading the agenda) not identified as the originator of the two by-laws? One would think that would meet the stated goals of some members of this Council, that is to be transparent.

Item of Concern – As this was the final phase of the Vesta Properties Development, as Vesta Properties knew and accepted the stated OCP and a zoning density that existed from the outset and part of their original overall development plan, how and why in good conscience could the majority of this Council be intimidated or coerced into providing the developer to virtually double the density? Any amenities that were offered by Vesta Properties in exchange for this density increase do not come close to the increase on Vesta’s return on investment.

Item of Concern – In what can only be described as a “what are you thinking moment”, Councilor Quaale supported by Councilor Whitmarsh, while approving of the development proposed a traffic study of the area, something that residents were concerned about. Her amendment for the traffic study passed at the same time as third reading which in essence has zero effect on the development approval. Message to Councilors Quaale and Whitmarsh, traffic will be a concern and a serious problem BECAUSE you doubled the density!!!

Item of Concern – In councilor Fox’s mind we need more affordable housing and Realtors say this is what is needed! Well Councilor Fox, at the price point these properties will sell at they will not fall under the affordable housing guidelines. While I have many friends who are realtors, with the greatest of respect you DO NOT ask the FOX, who is guarding the hen house, for an opinion!

Item of Concern – Councilor Long is now serving his sixth term on Council and one would hope that with that experience he would know the answer to the question he asked of staff “would a change of density require a NEW Public Hearing”? Surprisingly staff said yes, and that is wrong! If the density was decreased from what was presented at a Public Hearing, a NEW Public Hearing is NOT required. In true Township fashion some questions are asked by members of Council with a nudge nudge wink wink, give me the answer I am looking for.

The Township has made manipulating the development process an art form! A little history of interest! In 2008 Park Lane Homes were going through the development process for what I call their condo wall (A three storey building) in Fort Langley. This development was given 1^st and 2^nd reading, The Public Hearing heard considerable objection by the residents of Fort Langley at the time but was given third reading in spite of that outcry. What was shocking is that the Council proceeded with 4^th reading and Development Permit approval for a FOUR storey building. (No New Public Hearing). They increased density without a NEW Public Hearing. Was this not illegal! OH, and Bob Long, you were on that Council.  

Public Engagement – It has been no secret that I have been very critical of the Mayor’s charade, otherwise known as his Public Engagement Task Force that was solely designed to appear to the public that Council really cares. I am not critical of those selected to be on this Task Force, only for it being created in the first place. Under the Community Charter we have the opportunity for Public Hearings, Public Meetings, Open Houses and much more. All that it takes is a Mayor and Council that listens to the public. This is NOT rocket science!

Special note of congratulations to Councilor Sparrow – While I have admittedly been critical of Councilor Sparrow in the past I want to recognize Councilor Sparrow for a job very well done in her debate/discussion and vote against this project. She was articulate and honest in her comments and thoughts. We could use much more of that reasoned thinking in the months and years ahead. Councilors Arnason and Davis joined Councilor Sparrow in their vote against the Vesta project.

Summary –

In closing this is just another example of what is going on in the Township of Langley. I am not one to believe that change is impossible, more difficult at times Yes, but not impossible. The tentacles of those who created this monster run deep. A culture has been created and severely influenced by an interesting triumvirate of individuals that operate in the belief that they are entitled. Stay tuned for more interesting posts.  

RG

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

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

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

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

Our Year End Message: Well it has been a full and very interesting year in politics within all three levels of government. In 2015 I took the liberty of taking a sabbatical for most of the last half of the year given the Federal Election Campaign and the amount of politics we were all facing. Our sole purpose at www.langleywatchdog.com is to offer profile on major issues, to inform the public while offering my insight based on my first-hand experience as Mayor of the Township, Alderman in Delta (that is what we were in the late 80s) and about 40 years of activity behind the scenes municipally, provincially and federally.

We at www.langleywatchdog.com are gearing up for a very active year in 2016, preparing a number of featured BLOG Posts on issues that seriously affect residents of the Township, primarily at the Provincial and Municipal levels. Provincially there are numerous simmering issues that are going to be hot topics of debate and conversation. We are only a year and a half away from the next provincial Election.

Municipally we have numerous Township of Langley issues plus Metro Vancouver’s regional issues that include Transportation, unfortunately residents are just not aware of them. There is so much material and information that is just not getting into the Public’s hands; we will keep our readers informed. What is really happening behind the scenes, check us out starting again the first week of January 2016, tune into  www.langleywatchdog.com .

Over 60,000 views to-date! Feel free to contact me at any time by email, facebook or by phone. All contact information is available on our BLOG and ALL contact is confidential!

On behalf of www.langleywatchdog.com we want to wish all of our readers a very Merry Christmas and a Healthy, Happy and Prosperous New Year. See you in January 2016!

RG

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

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

Share this BLOG; FORWARD THIS POST TO YOUR FRIENDS, NEIGHBORS AND RELATIVES!

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

The Surrey Truck Stop proposal has been in the local and regional news a lot lately. It is controversial to say the least with a number of serious concerns by the public related to this project pertaining to the Township of Langley. One of the serious concerns is related to the potential contamination of the Brookswood Aquifer, a source of drinking water to close to 20,000 Township of Langley residents (Brookswood / Fernridge South) plus many on the Surrey side of the border.

While the approval of this project lies entirely with Surrey Council members, there is a very well supported principle by neighboring Councils to take neighboring community concerns into account wherever possible. For this to happen in a transparent and public engaging way (Public Engagement, sound familiar?) a motion of Council in a Public Meeting to state their position is the ONLY solution to show support for their resident’s concerns. Private discussions behind closed doors with a neighboring Council members, does not cut it! Taxpayers expect much better!

In a recent news story in the Langley Times by Dan Ferguson the following disturbing comments were made by members of our Council –

Councilor Kim Richter proposed a Council Vote to condemn the project, but agreed to a postponement in light of the discussion with Surrey. – Langleywatchdog: In what is consistently familiar with Kim Richter, she wishes to be seen as the defender of the public, BUT she has NO follow through and NO finish on behalf of the residents she purports to support! Message to Kim Richter – Your act is tired and is being seen for what it is, an ACT! Stop playing politics and start being serious. Do the job! Put forward the motion!

Mayor Froese stated – “This isn’t the time for this (a vote on formal opposition to the proposed facility.)” Langleywatchdog:  Jack Froese is at least being consistent in that he is NOT standing up for residents and the community that he was elected to serve.

Councilor Angie Quaale stated – “I don’t think a motion to oppose something that we haven’t seen is a good idea.” Langleywatchdog:  Did she actually say that? After all of the input and information that this Council has either had or was available to them through presentation after presentation plus staff reports, this kind of comment coming from one of our councilors is inexcusable! Where has she been?

I am in receipt of the following letter to the editor which poses a few additional serious concerns.

Letter to the Editor

Surrey Truck Stop proposal – Mayor Froese miss-speaks: 

At the Township council meeting on Monday, November 2, Councilor Kim Richter put forward a motion to send an official letter of opposition to a truck parking and service center being proposed for South Surrey in the area of 16^th Avenue and 194^th Street.  During a lengthy discussion over the merits of such a motion, Mayor Froese said “this proposal is within the Special Study Area” and further, that “Surrey staff have not seen the application”. Both statements are incorrect, and while this might seem trivial, Mayor Froese was using them to support his position that the Township has plenty of time to make their position on the proposed facility known to Surrey Council.

The Special Study area (SSA) is a 600 acre parcel of land south of the Campbell Heights industrial park that is under review by Surrey staff for possible future uses. Currently the land is zoned Agricultural but is not within the provincial Agricultural Land Reserve.  Mayor Froese miss-spoke on two points.  First; On September 14^th, Surrey council unanimously approved a motion by Councilor Tom Gill that the 77 acre area proposed for the truck park be REMOVED from the 600 acre special study area so that the proposal could move forward “concurrently” with the land use planning process.  Second; Surrey staff AND at least three members of council: Councilors Gill, Vera LaFranc and Dave Woods (all members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee) received a presentation by the proponents GG Metro Holdings in late July of this year, and held further discussions at their September 11^th TIC meeting, not 3 days before the council vote on excluding the proposal from the SSA.

Surrey’s proposal to put a truck parking and service facility at 16^th and 194^th is of major concern to the Township.  As stated in Councilor Richter’s motion, it could have a substantial negative impact on the Brookswood Aquifer (a major source of drinking water to South Langley), Agri-Tourism and species diversity including endangered species.  It deserves timely attention from Township Council.  When our Mayor explains the significance or details of what is (becoming) a very controversial proposal, he should be sure to get his facts straight.

Name withheld

Langley, BC

NOTE – I will accept Letters to the Editor on major issues of relevance. It will be up to those individuals whether their name is used. Given the record of the Township as to intimidation and bullying of those in opposition, I will protect the privacy of all involved.

RG

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

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

Share this BLOG; FORWARD THIS POST TO YOUR FRIENDS, NEIGHBORS AND RELATIVES!

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

Well, for anybody who didn’t watch the circus that was passing for Township of Langley Council tonight, Council members tried to disguise themselves as working on our collective behalf, it was an unmitigated joke! Kim Richter who keeps trying to pass herself off as somebody that cares asked a question that wasn’t even related to the issue and the entire Council sat and absorbed Mark Bakken’s absolute non-sensical response. Not one other Council member spoke up to question the ultimate result of their actions OR Mark Bakken, which is long overdue! Just pathetic!!! 

In what can only be described as an affront to the residents of the Township of Langley, your Township of Langley Council will be passing a resolution Monday night to execute a Memorandum of Understanding between the Township of Langley and the B.C. Agricultural Land Commission. At first glance it is full of motherhood statements, platitudes and warm and fuzzy dialogue, however a detailed read tells the real and a different story – it is nothing more than a back door agreement to provide a smoother path to remove properties out of the Agricultural Land Reserve under the guise of terms like  “Edge Planning” ”Adjustments to ALR Boundaries” “ALR / Urban Interface” and more. There is no doubt, by having this in place it will ease the application process! Your Council agreed to this behind closed doors in an in-camera meeting. For the record, decisions like this made in-camera must have a Public Council Resolution before taking effect which brings us to this Council Agenda item for Monday night. One Question among many – Is this the NEW plan by the B.C. Liberals to circumvent and skirt the ALR? Was there ANY involvement by our MLAs? Just asking the question?

OH they will tell you that it is just a clarification document of roles, purpose and responsibilities, you believe that I have a bridge to sell you!

The Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) operates under provincial legislation, enforced by the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC). The rules and regulations are very strict surrounding this act and the protection of agricultural land. For a number of years, through a number of initiatives by a number of people, your Provincial Government and the Township of Langley has been suspect in their feeble attempt in support of the ALR. While there are many local examples to point to (landfill on agricultural land among many), look no further than their dismissal of Richard Bullock (Past Chair of the ALC) because he would not capitulate to the Provincial Liberals wishes in the decisions and reorganization of the ALC. Frank Leonard (long serving Mayor on Van. Island / defeated in the last municipal election) was appointed as the NEW ALC Chair, and now all of a sudden we have this back door attempt, hidden from the light of day. Remember this MOU was not being provided to the public as part of Monday night’s Council Agenda, it was only available if you asked for it.

Richard Bullock the previous ALC Chair, and I might add the best ALC Chair that was ever appointed, was the individual that sided with 98% of residents in the Township against the originally designed Mufford Crescent overpass which would have dissected the Hudsons Bay and Bella Vista Farms. This would have made obsolete 200 –300 acres of prime agricultural land. That original design was a product of Translink and this Provincial Government. It was a land deal, nothing more nothing less. You don’t think they were upset with me and our campaign to stop that injustice? Thanks to Richard Bullock, we won that fight!

Changing Provincial ALR legislation would create a firestorm of protest and the Provincial Liberals know that only too well. As mentioned above, what we are seeing in this initiative is nothing more than a back door method designed to get the changes they want out of the glare and spotlight of media and the public. After all it would be seen as a negotiated agreement between the ALC and the Municipality. Move along nothing happening here. This MOU would be referred to in every appropriate ALC exclusion application made by the municipality going forward. Yes, the same application process would be in effect, BUT this MOU would be front and center in every application.

For many reasons this is a damning indictment of those on this Council that support this attempt at intrusion. Supporting this MOU shows absolutely NO foresight on their part. This Memorandum of Understanding was developed and agreed to in July of this year, approved by Council in an in-camera meeting and put on Monday night’s agenda for execution by Council. As mentioned earlier, no attachment of the agreement was provided with the agenda; it had to be asked for and was provided late Friday afternoon. This is so damming by any measure. 1) What is the need for an MOU given the law through Provincial Legislation? 2) Why was this produced outside of the public eye? 3) Why was the MOU not provided as an attachment to the agenda (the public were not provided a copy of this MOU)? 4) Where is the transparency and PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT Jack? 5) Whose idea was this MOU, the Township or the ALC?

I have many questions with respect to the reason and/or need for this MOU? Starting from the premise that TOL’s history and reputation are suspect, which they are based on numerous cases, the following items / questions pertaining to this document support our stand against this MOU

• Why is there a need and/or reason for this MOU, who initiated it?
• Under Section 46 of the Act, a local government must ensure that its bylaws and plans are consistent…. The MOU states (2^nd whereas) “Whereas it is appropriate that the bylaws, regulations, orders, policies and other instruments of the TOL be consistent with the ACT where possible.” Two different meanings, Act states MUST be consistent, MOU states be consistent with the Act where possible.
• (3^rd whereas) “…consistency should further the interests of both the ALC and TOL…” Well the ACT states must be consistent, any watering down of that language to “be consistent where possible” weakens the ACT. Not legally but an MOU that has been agreed to by both parties serves the same purpose.
• (6^th whereas) This MOU states it is not legally binding BUT it is an intrusion and clouds the area of defined responsibility. If you have an MOU that is agreed to by both parties but conflicts with Provincial Legislation, what will any decision be based on. Remember the Act states “MUST be consistent” and the MOU states “consistent where possible.”

This MOU is 8 pages long and filled with, as mentioned earlier, motherhood statements, platitudes and warm and fuzzy dialogue. I have refrained from publishing the entire MOU.

1.15 COHESIVE URBAN AND SUBURBAN PRECINCTS (PAGE 6)

“Consideration of adjustments of the ALR boundary….” Plus the following 2 points below that title in my view that are an opening for more applications and excuses for applications for ALR exclusion. This MOU would be a document that would be pointed to as justification for all applications going forward.

• More rational ALR Boundaries – (Question – Rational in whose opinion?)
• Better means of protecting the ALR boundaries and communities with shorter, more defensible ALR/Urban edges. – (Question – Shorter, more defensible? In whose opinion?)

1.17 MITIGATION – Among the normal TOL agreement platitudes it contains the following of concern.

“It is recognized that adjustments to the ALR boundary may be necessary to achieve the goals and objectives of this instrument. The parties mutually understand that it is the TOLs intent to avoid the identification of ALR lands for other than agriculture, but where it is not possible the TOL may put forth proposals for agriculture enhancements at the time of TOL or land owner initiated applications made under the act.”

2.1 CREATE A DEFENSIBLE AND DURABLE URBAN / ALR EDGE –

“The TOL will work towards designating appropriate land uses, and other practices and strategic acquisition on both sides of the Urban / ALR edge to ensure provision of a distinct and permanent boundary between affected areas. Furthermore the Parties will work to consider integration of plans and possible adjustments to the OCP and ALR, as necessary, to ensure creation of a well-defined permanent edge for Urban communities within a permanent rural setting.”

This process of developing MOUs under the guise of developing a working agreement can, and I suggest WILL lead to an abuse of power. It IS the thin edge of the wedge. Its intent may not be the same for all parties who negotiated this agreement in good faith, unfortunately there is a serious potential for abuse which is why legislation and laws are developed to negate. For those who have a personal need to benefit, this is certainly a creative way to achieve that desired result.

RG

NOTE: This BLOG Post is the first written in or about 6 months. I have taken the liberty of taking a sabbatical over the past period of time, recharging the batteries. It hasn’t stopped me from keeping track of local, regional, and provincial issues which has motivated me to get back to informing and communicating to our residents.

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

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

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 whole idea of a Mayor’s Standing Committee on Public Engagement was created in the Froese political back room before the last election (by those who are truly running him, the majority of Council and this municipality) in an orchestrated attempt to deflect the severe criticism (well deserved) being thrown his way over a variety of issues – What were they? Off the cuff they are the Brookswood/Fernridge OCP, Coulter Berry, Willoughby, Aldergrove, Landfills on ALR and refuting any public display or input of rejection by the taxpayer. Unfortunately for all of us, he was successful in selling his bill of goods, or put another way the public bought into drinking his Kool Aid! A sad reality but true!

In another display we have his idea of Public Engagement on the Translink Tax which the Mayor was campaigning so hard for. It was defeated by a large 74+% of Township voters. Had anyone of you ever been asked your opinion of the Translink Tax? Where was this Council?

Mayor’s Standing Committee on Public Engagement:

So from being in the middle of the Mayor’s Standing Committee on Public Engagement the community gets NO relief from bad decisions and ignoring the communities message of dissatisfaction in the last election. 7 months ago!!! The latest examples follow:

Question – to those who were politically active in the last election:  So you were convinced that politics would be done differently – Well are you happy now with who was elected?

I believe the worst is yet to come.

Now clearly I have not been shy about sharing my opinion of the Mayor’s idea / charade of a Standing Committee on Public Engagement from the outset. My opinion is based on knowledge gained through three years in the Mayor’s office. In one of this committee’s first action, they conducted a survey of other municipalities and cities to research their current public engagement process. The result was clear, there are no magic bullets, politics is a people business, and always will be. The tried and true long standing approved methods have stood the test of time – Public Hearings, Public Information Meetings, Community Drop Ins, Public Forums, Petitions, written, oral and video submissions and the TOL Website.

Message to Mayor and Council: The one and only thing that has been missing in the Township – is a Council that listens to the voters! I really think the Mayor’s true intention was to find a way to educate the taxpayer into his way of thinking. No Jack, the public are a very educated group that can come to their own conclusion through the communication vehicles that are in place.

It doesn’t require a Standing Committee, the hiring of a consultant at significant expense to go through a report writing process (which I might add have proven to reach VERY underwhelming conclusions) and months of meetings with a costly report to Council at the end of the exercise when all that was ever required was to LISTEN to your residents (not just developers) through all of the Public Engagement options allowed under the Community Charter!

Conclusions from Consultants Report – Before I get to a few of the latest prime examples (it has only been 7 months since the last election) of ignoring the public’s wishes and/or Council’s complete lack of consultation, here are a few of the Consultants Conclusions and my response –

Langley Township politicians and staff lost the trust of residents (Brookswood/Fernridge and Coulter Berry) – NO, you have to be kidding us?

Even though they (Council) acted properly. – WHAT? The only thing the Council of the day did correctly was to hold the required Public Hearings because they are mandated to by law! They didn’t listen, they didn’t consult!

The redevelopment of Willoughby into a high-density residential region cast a long shadow over the Brookswood/Fernridge planning process. – Well that is stating the obvious isn’t it. The shadow that was and still is cast (more on this later) is the approvals of bad development despite public outrage, end of story.

The consultant partly blames the media coverage (Langley Times). – On this he has a point in that for far too long the local media have been decidedly biased  (perceived as pro development, just view all of the display advertising in every issue), at the very least not utilizing their communication product to present more facts, more community opinion and more challenges of Mayor and Council.

BUT – Blaming the confusion on the Times using incomplete Community names or starting the Griffiths Plan before the Brookswood/Fernridge plan being interpreted as the Township considered the Community Plan being a fait accompli engendered mistrust of the Township. –  This conclusion by the consultant insults the intelligence of the community of Brookswood/Fernridge. This was all about a disjointed, poorly planned and a poorly thought out process which DID NOT embrace or involves the citizens of the community. Its results were pre-designed by the involved principles (developers) involved.

Summary of the Consultant’s Report – The report goes on and on with quite a bit of nothing more than filler but suffice to say this report was and is intended to look like they are doing something when in fact it is an exercise in futility. Anyone with an ounce of experience understand what is required and that is members of Council willing to stand out above the crowd on Council willing to stand up for what is right and continue the fight meeting after meeting issue by issue. Easy, NO, but it is what is and has been missing from Council for decades. A Council members simple NO vote is and never has been enough. It takes guts and determination in debate on Council to either sway others on Council to your way of thinking or at the very least to light a fire under the media and the electorate. A simple NO vote doesn’t cut it!

So how is this so-called NEW (as promised) Public Engagement working out (You know, listening to the public)? Remember it has only been 7 months, enough time to either show the public there will be change or there will be more of the same –

I can only guess based on a couple of the latest examples (that follow) that Mayor Froese didn’t expect to change his attitude at all, coming out of his committee sometime next year? But then again, whatever is added or subtracted from the process, listening to the public will always be the key ingredient missing, based on past and present practice. Words are cheap, actions are what matters!

Just a few of the latest examples –

Aldergrove Pool –

A review of my last BLOG Post reviews this issue in total, but in summary after years of PROMISING an indoor pool facility, Aldergrove receives an Outdoor Pool. This was probably one of the most insulting decisions to the residents of Aldergrove in decades.

Willoughby Development – 1^st and 2^nd Reading Last Monday –

In a stunning act of community neglect and rebuke, Mayor Froese and the majority of Council approved the following development at 208^th and 80^th (SE corner) – (A Poets Wynd Development)

Two Six-Storey Condos

Two Five-Storey Condos

Total of 286 apartments

Plus

Total of 138 Townhouse Units

The issues? Where do we start?

The approval of a separate and NEW Community Plan Amendment by-law at 1^st and 2^nd reading.

The approval of a separate and NEW Zoning Amendment by law at 1^st and 2^nd reading.

(Because both of the above are being passed in one process they only require one Public Hearing.)

1st and 2nd READING AND PUBLIC HEARING DURING THE SUMMER – This process of 1^st and 2^nd reading of BOTH by-laws (at one time) were initiated, passed and will go through a Public Hearing during the summer, prior to Council’s Summer break, when a vast majority of the public are on holidays. NOT ONE member of Council objected to this development being handled during the summer. Another example of VERY poor Public Engagement, which feeds into that cloud of mistrust citizens have with this Council. Clearly nothing has or will change.

SERIOUSLY DEFICIENT PARKING BY-LAW – This development is being guided by and incorporating a SERIOUSLY DEFICIENT PARKING BY-LAW requirement that continues unabated. Continuing with this development under the current parking by-law will devastate Willoughby.

NO NEW SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT – Lack of planning for NEW SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT, no provincial support. Does everyone remember the infamous letter of interference from our two MLAs during the Municipal Election? How do you like the Province delivering on our needs so far?

NO COMMUNITY INPUT (A community consulting process promised during the election) into needed changes to the Neighborhood and OCP.

NO RECONSIDERATION OF DENSITY LEVELS being accepted by staff and Council. Our Mayor suggested in his debate that this area allows for up to twelve storeys. That is encouraging Jack.

NOTE: In typical fashion, in answer to a few Councilors concern over parking, there will be opportunity for changes down the road and that the first phase of the project will be the Townhouses. A Development Permit request for the Condos will come to Council when they are ready to proceed. Councilors Richter, Davis and Arnason voted against this project following what can only be described as a less than inspiring public debate (in one case NO debate)

To Council – Why would you #1 accept dealing with this project during the middle of the summer?, #2 Not deal with a motion from Council to refer this back to staff to impose a significant change to the parking by-law given this should be dealt with in September or later in any case? And #3 Given the so called interest in changing the Public Engagement process (can’t imagine what that would be) why would nobody on Council refer to this process?

OH and by the way Councilor Richter and Council – Yes an improvement in the Parking By-Law would mean a reduced density to the developer, as was answered by Mr. Saifi to a question from Councilor Richter. Message to Council – It is not your responsibility to deliver any specific density, it is your responsibility to act on behalf of the Public. A foreign concept I know to some members of Council.

Salmon River Uplands Development by Infinity Properties? – While this is only at the community information stage by the developer (Meeting scheduled for Wednesday July 15^th, 2015), if you believe this hasn’t been thoroughly discussed with the powers that be at the Hall I have a bridge to sell you in the Sahara. This is a further example of the stranglehold the development community and some major insiders have on this community. Stopping this kind of unbridled development will take a grass roots revolt from all areas of the Township of Langley. It will also take more than a simple unimpressive vote against by a couple of members of Council, it will take a no holes bard willingness to fight the wrong doing. Spare me the we must be nice routine!          

Conclusion –   

I am not sure what it will take to shock residents into action, but I will continue to raise these issues of importance hoping upon hope that there might be a public uprising. From everything I am hearing there is much more to come from friends of the majority of this Council. It is ultimately going to take nothing less than a very public backlash to change what has been happening in this Municipality for years. It will take some guts to stand up and be counted, are you in for it?

RG

Stay tuned for discussion of top of mind topics that directly affect us in the Township of Langley and our region to be published in the months ahead and much more….!

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.

Well Aldergrove, you have been waiting for years for this, you have participated in dozens and dozens of public information sessions, formed local societies, held meetings, held dialogue sessions with elected officials and expressed in the strongest of terms your wishes – Once again in a well-orchestrated Council launch of their decision you have once again been ignored!

It has just been a short seven months since the last election, when virtually EVERY candidate for Mayor and Councilor came out in support of a long anticipated 50-metre indoor pool facility for Aldergrove. In reading some public comments about this announcement, there appears to be, by some, a willingness to accept or at the least offer a grudging and reluctant acceptance of this decision. Once again sitting back, accepting the backtracking of a promise, suggesting we at least got something…. This didn’t happen in Murrayville, Willoughby or Walnut Grove. To me, it is a sad commentary on Township of Langley politics on a number of fronts. I will outline those concerns below.

First – Public Engagement / Public Input – A lot of discussion and debate has taken place during the last two Municipal Elections over the wide-ranging issues surrounding public engagement and public input. As we all know very well, through a Pete McMartin column in the Vancouver Sun in the face of the Mayor’s decision over Coulter Berry in Fort Langley, Jack Froese was quoted that he doesn’t govern by petitions, nor the turn-out and input at Public Hearings. During the Mayors term 2011 – 2014, there were numerous irresponsible or certainly questionable votes as reflected in numerous Public Hearing Minutes. During the last Municipal Election, after listening to all of the heat over the decisions of Council, Mayor Froese promised to set up a Standing Committee on Public Engagement, which in fact he has done. PROBLEM – Mayor Froese has shown he has no interest in listening to the public? You don’t need a Public Engagement Committee to hear and listen to the public. Under the Community Charter you can hold Public Hearings, Public Input Opportunities, Public Meetings, written verbal and video Submissions from the Public and Public Petitions! Mayor Froese, despite this charade surrounding an attempt to make the public believe you and Council are listening, you have once again proven that this IS a charade in spades. You and Council HAVE NOT listened to residents! A decision has already been made and yet the Township will be holding public information sessions?

From a variety of sources attending the announcement on Wednesday night it was suggested by none other than Councilor Fox that – if the people of Aldergrove were not happy with the outdoor pool all they needed to do was raise the $10 million it would take to cover the pool, or in the alternative they could go to one of the indoor pools in the Township. This is vintage Charlie Fox, condescending, arrogant and much more! Charlie, don’t look now BUT the people of Aldergrove helped pay for the W.C. Blair and Walnut Grove Pools, are you going to pay for their bus fare (for the very limited bus service that is available) for so many young people of Aldergrove to get to W.C. Blair? All of this is VERY insulting!

Among numerous objections to this plan there is the current epidemic in skin Cancer (Malignant Melanoma). Why are we putting our population at risk with an outdoor pool?       

A reminder to all, during 2012 the Township held Public Meetings to look over two possible designs for a NEW INDOOR Pool, Ice Arena and Community Centre complex. This is what was wanted and what was planned!

Second – Sale of Township lands to support building this facility – Talk about mixed messages? Many of you will recall the issue a few years back about the sale of Township owned Glen Valley lands stating that the resulting revenue would go towards the Aldergrove facility. This, rightfully so, caused a significant firestorm of protest by the general public. Feeling the wrath of the public it was announced that NO, they had changed their mind and that this was not going to be a prerequisite to building the Aldergrove facility. Then, during the last election campaign during a tour of the existing facilities (or lack of) in Aldergrove, it was asked by a few candidates where the funds were currently from property sales in preparation for the Aldergrove facility. Councilor Fox who was on that tour stated that no, council had done away with that idea. In the Langley Advance article of June 18^th, 2015 it states that the Township has been raising funds from the sale of surplus lands? So the question has to be asked, did any funds from the sale of any lands go into the Capital Funds stated as already in place for this facility? Walnut Grove and Murrayville facilities were not built and funded this way.

So what is the truth, property sale revenue was or was not used to fund this facility – Yes or No! Don’t lie to the public!

The original estimated cost for the complete expected indoor facility was up to $34.8 million. The stated cost of the announced facility is $25.8 million. Is Aldergrove not worth an additional $10 million? Council approved a $7.5 million expansion of the LEC with NO public input, dialogue or discussion. A matter of fact they built the entire Langley Events Center at a cost upwards of $66 million in a similar fashion, and they can’t find $10 million?

Third – Statements by Mayor and/or staff have to be questioned!

Mayor Froese – “The pool is a compromise of sorts with some of the conflicting demands that have come to the Township of Langley.” Response – This so-called compromise is a pathetic attempt at satisfying a long ignored public!

Mayor Froese – “The lap pool will be outdoor, but it will be a year round pool.” Response – Users, I am sure everyone will enjoy swimming outdoors from October through April in the cold and rain – NOT!

TOL Gen. Mgr. Jason Winslade – “One of the goals of this space is to kind of replace the Aldergrove Lake Experience.” Response – What? This is a significant stretch to draw any comparison to what was lost in Aldergrove Lake.

TOL Gen. Mgr. Jason Winslade – “Outdoor Pools that run all year are becoming common.” Response – A quick review on-line will show the only constant with outdoor pools is they are being closed and at the very least THEY ARE NOT year round facilities!

Fourth – Council decision?

It is stated that this was a unanimous decision of Council. When was the vote held? Where was the vote held? – Open Meeting or In-Camera? To the best of our knowledge it was not on an open Council agenda so it had to be in-camera! If that is the case, only items concerning staff, legal or property are permitted in-camera. Was this an illegal vote?

Information for residents – The reasons for the limitation of what can be discussed in-camera is that Council Votes and/or any associated DEBATE should be public and transparent so the public and press have that information. Food for Thought? Is it possible, if Councilors Davis, Richter and Arnason voted for this proposal, that they did so being afraid of how it would be seen by the public if they voted against it? Message to Councilors, it takes guts to stand up for what is right, you have failed the people of Aldergrove.  

Fifth – Council Announcement?

It is interesting that the announcement event by Council only came about on the heels of a letter sent by the Aldergrove Pool Committee. In answer to that letter there was a quick reply by Councilor Fox saying to wait for the press release which instantly appeared announcing a public meeting in Aldergrove in a couple of days. (Held Wednesday June 17^th, 2015) Interesting timing? Summer coming? It is not lost that there was no public announcement of this Wednesday announcement either in our TOL facilities on the TOL website or in our local newspapers. Could we properly assume that this was a controlled event with supporters only receiving an invitation? I would bet on it!

Sixth – Proposed conceptual layout? Outdoor?

If you go by the layout as published in the Langley Advance, better than 3/4s of the water facility area is devoted to water park and slides which as stated will only be open spring and summer while there is very limited facility for general swimming, lessons and more.

An outdoor pool is nothing more than a brain dead idea trying to be sold as unique. Frankly it is nothing more than an insult to the intelligence to the people of Aldergrove.

Summary – This is nothing more or less than outrageous and yes the people of Aldergrove should be outraged. They deserve much better! There are a variety of innovative ways to finance this project, but it is clear that this Council is relying on staff’s recommendations. These recommendations from staff are either intuitively directed by some of their political masters, are poorly thought out by staff or as I have felt for years are a product of those who are masterfully directing this municipality and not accountable to the voter.

Where is the vision of our Mayor and Council? What is their vision for our municipality?

Where are our Council members who were so ready to make a promise during the election, but hiding in the weeds when the announcement is made? You should all be ashamed of yourselves. We expected much better!!!!!!!! Just another example of this Council’s idea of Public Engagement, as they say and it is true, we get the government we deserve!!!    

RG

Stay tuned for discussion of top of mind topics that directly affect us in the Township of Langley and our region to be published in the months ahead and much more….!

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.

Every time you think you have heard it all, along comes our Premier who makes public statements about Translink that is completely and unequivocally false! How she can stay in office by showing herself to be so inept is mind boggling.

Have you heard her comments pertaining to the Transit / Translink plebiscite as picked up by CKNW the other day? Premier, I hate to be so frank but as they say if the shoe fits wear it – “Madame Premier, you have been either lying to us or you are too stupid to be running this Province”! Read 0n – Quotes from our Premier –

“And for those who think Translink itself is the problem” Clark says, “its up to Metro Vancouver mayors to fix it.” Premier, they can’t YOUR legislation does not permit it!

“Translink belongs to the mayors, and only the mayors, if there are problems that need to be addressed in Translink, the mayors can fix those because it is not a provincially run organization.” Premier, they can’t YOUR legislation does not permit it!

“As for criticism that Translink’s bad image and lack of accountability are undermining the Yes campaign” Clark says “that’s also the mayor’s problem”. Premier, they can’t fix it your legislation does not allow it!

Conclusion – “The definition of INSANITY is accepting a NEW Transit Tax to generate more funds to feed a fiscally irresponsible Translink, expecting a different Result!”

The full BLOG Post follows!!!

From the brain dead idea of holding a Plebiscite by Christy Clark, to the creation of a brand new tax, to the manufacturing of the question, to the creation of a region wide Capital Transportation Plan (Which is Nothing more than a WISH / VISION LIST) ….

I started to write this BLOG Post about four weeks ago, every time I got ready to publish it more news comes out, I would suggest information on incompetence comes out in the News. The latest, Ian Jarvis CEO stepping out BUT not stepping down as he is staying on in an advisory capacity with a NEW temp CEO coming in at a rate of $32,000 PER MONTH for six months? WHAT???? Selecting a fall guy does nothing to change the incompetent culture and governance structure of Translink!

HAVE WE ABSOLUTELY LOST OUR MIND?

Metro Vancouver Mayors, a number that are friends and former colleagues, (I don’t know how many will be after this BLOG Post?) have given into the well-known bullying tactics of the Provincial Government. This is the EASY decision, not the responsible decision – Trust Me! What would the responsible would be to stand firm against the referendum and to demand the immediate transformation / change of the current bankrupt governance model that is in place. IF the Provincial Government is not prepared to do so, let the province wear it publicly, it is not the responsibility of the Metro Mayors to do so. I say this based on my first-hand experience on how this Provincial Government operates when I was sitting at the table. (For the record I am a staunch Free Enterpriser, a review of my BIO will clear up any confusion in that area, so this is not a political attack but it is the truth and something that needs to be said.) This exercise is a sad joke perpetrated on an innocent and unsuspecting public who is only wanting value for their tax dollar.

Remember “The definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result”!    

A little history to start! The current Provincial Liberal Government is completely responsible for the inept, irresponsible, unaccountable and operationally bankrupt Translink Governance model currently in play. Until the governance model is changed NOTHING will change in Translink’s effectiveness, efficiency, accountability and/or responsibility to the communities they serve!

In December of 2009 after being elected Mayor of the Township of Langley I was appointed to the Transink Mayor’s Council. I am not sure anything could have prepared me for the reality of the politically dictated (Provincial) Governance Model of Translink. What was also so obvious at the time was that the Mayors were awakening to where the Provincial Government was leading them through the governance model they created. While I have written on this before consider the following (you can’t make this stuff up).

The Mayor’s Translink Council is responsible for funding approval, BUT their only choices they have by provincial legislation (up to the result of the pending plebiscite) is through gas tax (maxed out), fares (maxed out) and property tax (currently allows up to a 3% increase every year without approval of the Mayor’s Council). The Mayors Council has zero influence or input into Capital projects, region’s needs, regions priorities, or technology. (All of that is the responsibility of the Private Board) despite having the responsibility to approve funding.

OH yes the Mayor’s get to appoint members of the private board from a list of about six as selected by a separate Selection Committee. I can recall in my last year, I asked how many applicants we received and it was over 230. So, the reality is the Mayors are completely neutered in the management of Translink while taking the heat for all of its decisions and problems – Just like the Provincial Government planned and intended!

Welcome to the artfully constructed set up otherwise known as the B.C. Liberal Taxpayer Charade.

The first challenge we were confronted with was the need for $400 million as the region’s share to fund the Evergreen Line. Now to be clear, that commitment (years earlier) was made by the Mayor’s Council based on the Tri Cities and local groups calling for a Light Rail surface transit system, a fraction of the cost of elevated Sky Train. Unfortunately a message was sent and received – to receive approval of a NEW transit system, Skytrain was imposed on the region by the Federal and Provincial Governments of the day. The message to the Mayors – it was our way or the highway! An example of more irresponsible decision making off loaded onto the region (taxpayers) by the Province.

At the time of my election Kevin Falcon was the Minister of Transportation and was the one responsible for the firing of all Mayors on the Translink Board a year earlier. He is responsible for creating and imposing the NEW Private unelected and unaccountable Board of Directors onto Translink. Through the course of the next two and a half years (during my term), all members of the Mayors Translink Council fought off wide-spread intimidating efforts by the Provincial Government and the minister to impose an additional property tax increase (in addition to the 3% increase per year noted above). In search of a solution to find a source to fund our share for the Evergreen Line (The Provincial Government’s initiative) and the need for a change in the governance model (The Mayor’s initiative); the Mayor’s and the Province signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Premier Gordon Campbell which carried with it a mutual agreement to address the need for a change in the Governance Model. That promise and commitment has been broken! By the way, the initiative for that Memorandum of Understanding was strongly driven, negotiated and encouraged by Peter Fassbender, then Mayor of the City of Langley. Now Minister of Education for the Liberals, interesting! This is the same individual that oversaw the infamous RCMP contract with the government.

Source of needed funds? From the Province – Property Tax! From the Mayors – Carbon Tax!

So to today’s controversy(s)……

NOTE: In response to NDP questioning in Question Period, Transportation Minister Todd Stone stated that if the NDP had read the Translink legislation they would know that there are two Mayors on the Board and the Mayors are in charge of Translink Operations – Minister Stone YOU are WRONG, It appears you have not read your legislation!!  

The Reality is – It IS a Transink debate, it is a Translink plebiscite! While the Yes side of this Plebiscite debate wants to stay away from it being a debate on Translink, the reality is, that is exactly what we are voting on. Suggesting otherwise would be convenient, but IT IS NOT A FACT! Translink is inept, irresponsible and operationally bankrupt. How can anyone in their right mind suggest this isn’t about Translink? Where to start? From service levels, to non-cost effective technology, to the Compass Card financial boondoggle, to outrageous Transit Police Costs, to extravagant executive pay and perks (i.e. a $1,200 per month car allowance) and much much more, putting more hard earned tax dollars into this unaccountable money pit would be foolish. If we bend to their scare tactics today, we will be feeding this bottomless money pit with your tax dollars with no accountability.

To The Translink Question – Otherwise known as the “Metro Vancouver Congestion Improvement Tax” – What does it say? Here is how it will read!

Metro Vancouver

Transportation & Transit

Plebiscite

The region’s mayors have developed a Transportation and Transit Plan called “Regional Transportation Investments” – a Vision for Metro Vancouver. The Mayors Transportation and Transit Plan will:

Add Bus service and new B-Line rapid bus routes.

Increase service on Skytrain, Canada Line, Seabus and West Coast Express

Maintain and upgrade the region’s major needs

Build a new Patullo Bridge

Build rapid transit connecting Surrey Centre with Guildford, Newton and Langley

Extend the region’s cycling and pedestrian walkway networks.

A new Metro Vancouver Congestion Improvement Tax would be applied as a 0.5% sales tax on the majority of goods and services that are subject to the Provincial Sales Tax and are sold or delivered in the region.

Revenues would be dedicated to the Mayors’ Transportation and Transit Plan. Revenues and expenditures would be subject to annual independent audits and public reporting.

“Do you support a new 0.5% Metro Vancouver Congestion Improvement Tax, to be dedicated to the Mayor’s Transportation and Transit Plan?”    Yes ____ or No ____

Why I say to VOTE NO? Where do we start – much to consider?

Reasons for NO with respect to the Question –

There is NO guarantee to deliver any of the above, this, as stated is only a vision!

There are no costs attached to the vision items in the question? It is a dream at best!

This establishes a NEW tax, today it is 0.5%, what will it be 2 – 4 or 5 years from now? You can be sure there will be no plebiscite asking your approval for an increase!

Through the creation of this NEW significant slush fund, under the existing Governance Model there are NO controls over expenditure. Audits on revenue and expenditure are nothing more than an annual accounting and security that the funds were spent as identified. The decisions on what to spend it on are still up to management and the Private Unaccountable Board.

There is NO oversight / approval by elected members of the Mayor’s Council, the only people accountable to voters.

Surrey keeps talking about light rail when in fact the Province changed that to Rapid Transit? Another way of stating Skytrain, a proven unaffordable option. (Bombardier is in a serious financial  crisis / SNC Lavalin, their civil partner are facing major scrutiny for their business practices)

Reasons for NO with respect to Translink’s proven record of financial mismanagement –

My first-hand experience on the Mayor’s Council suggests there is a better than fair chance that the funds collected via this new tax will be eaten up through operations and not the projects designated. Mayors have NO control!

Compass Card debacle

Expending tax dollars for unused rental space

Outrageous salaries of Translink executives / highest in North America!

Outrageous Translink policing costs and salaries

A Translink Efficiency Review conducted in 2012 for the Translink Commission compared Translink’s performance to four Canadian transit peer systems. It shows revenue hours increased by 24.7 % while costs rose 50.7% between 2006 and 2010. Translink revenue passengers per kilometer were the lowest. The highest operating cost per revenue passenger, a third higher than the average cost and the highest administration cost as a percentage of revenue, (The above quoted from Gordon Clark Vancouver Sun)

Unpaid fares – An FOI request by the CTF (Canadian Taxpayers Federation) shows that 2,762,363 did not pay bus fares in 2013.

Reasons for NO with respect to Translink’s current make up, mandate and tax introduction!

The introduction of a region wide tax increase will unfairly punish businesses and taxpayers in Metro Vancouver, driving business into the Fraser Valley – Abbotsford West! That could be devastating to Langley and Surrey.

The Mayors of Metro have, prior to the latest bullying tactic by Christy Clark’s government, repeatedly rejected the idea of a referendum and have strongly requested a change in the governance model.

The Mayors of Metro have consistently requested the use of Carbon Tax dollars which by definition would be THE best use of those dollars.

What is Plan B if voters turn down this tax?

A clear message will have been sent to Metro Vancouver Mayors and the Province that you are demanding accountability for your tax dollars. Fix the Governance Structure of Translink and bring fiscal accountability to the operation first.

The Premier suggests Property Tax is the only other option – Well Premier, show me a politician that will support a property tax increase in the face of this rejection I will show you a fool!

Options – Change to an accountable Governance Model and look to the Carbon Tax Funding option.

Remember the dire messages given if the HST referendum was turned down? The sun came up the next morning and the message was delivered – it is time to send a new message!

Cost effective routes and technology should be a part of the solution, something Translink has refused to consider despite the FACTS being laid out before them. Check this video out which was prepared by the South of Fraser Community Rail Task Force and produced by Shaw Cable  https://langleywatchdog.com/topics/

In summary – About Trust in Translink’s ability to manage your tax dollars? Seriously consider the following –

You know, what has become very true in my years as an Alderman and in the Mayor’s office, the public have a serious case of misplaced TRUST in their elected representatives. In my experienced opinion this is the case at every level of government but for today let’s talk Municipal Government. During my three years in the Mayor’s office I tried in spades to bring accountability to our local government, much of that has been in the public domain during those three years. I won’t rehash them here other than to say all of what we tried to do was met with campaigns to discredit and assassinate the character of the writer with apparent support of a local biased media. So be it, but all of that won’t stop me from delivering my message through this BLOG which is supported through first-hand experience which backs up what I have to say!

My arguments above speak to the entire region, as to the Township of Langley, it would be irresponsible to vote anything but NO. While three Mayors in the region had the guts and intestinal fortitude to stand up against this irresponsible tax (Burnaby, West Vancouver and Maple Ridge), Where was Mayor Froese? He was doing the bidding for the Provincial Government supporting the YES side! As of last night’s Council meeting, the majority of Council has decided to stay silent on where they stand – Yes or NO! Don’t you think the public have the right to know how your elected representatives will vote? All of this despite a serious imbalance of services vs what we currently contribute in tax revenue (property and gas). It is shameful but not surprising!!! Message to Council – Hiding behind the “I have to hear and understand all sides of the debate” political statement is a reflection on your inability to do the job you were voted to do. It is a political cop out and will be seen for what it is!

I will say it again; it is long past due that taxpayers stand up to resist another tax that will only increase in the years ahead.

What should happen? I can’t resist offering my opinion based on my experience –

There should be One Transportation Provider from Whistler to Hope. Merge Translink and B.C. Transit into one revamped transportation entity that is open and accountable. (Two transit providers are wrong). It should be managed by a Board of Directors consisting of elected municipal leaders, Business Community and Provincial representation. All meetings to follow the rules of the Community Charter.

There should be One Regional District from Whistler to Hope (Not two as there is today) as well with a planning function (currently in place within Metro and FVRD) with staff representation in the NEW transportation entity. (How can we properly plan the lower mainland without close ties to transportation planning?)

Post Script – Was there Political Interference in our Township of Langley Election? Are you happy with OUR democratic process being hijacked? Was it? Was there financial gain? Many questions and much to consider! Go to January 29^th BLOG Post – You decide?

RG

Stay tuned for discussion of top of mind topics that directly affect us in the Township of Langley and our region to be published in the months ahead and much more….!

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.