langleywatchdog…. and more!

Let’s be upfront from the outset, the Langley Events Center is a great community asset! Now let’s also be upfront and state the inconvenient facts and tell the UNTOLD truth about its financial reality! A lot has been said about out of control Municipal spending, put this at the top of the list!!

No Business Plan – Very questionable Management Plan – NO satisfactory Oversight.

In short, the taxpayers of the Township of Langley are owners of a Financial Disaster, brought to you by your current local Township of Langley Municipal Council. From cutting an unnecessary cheque for $8.83 million to a non-existent private partner back in 2011, to a mind blowing annual subsidy! Read on, unfortunately this story just gets worse….

A Taxpayer Funded Annual Subsidy that has grown to over $11,000,000 for fiscal 2013 and it looks like it is still growing!!! Yes that is not a mistake, it is the correct number of “0”s over $11,000,000 for one year in taxpayer subsidy! Yet, there is more!

As I have said so-often before, you just can’t make this stuff up. There are many internally in the Township (Council) who have never questioned staff as to the lack of a business plan from the outset (pre-construction) let alone the operational costs and it’s needs going forward. Pretending a problem doesn’t exist doesn’t cut it. Suggesting anyone questioning anything about the LEC is opposed to the LEC is of course a lie, patent nonsense and an all too often used diversionary tactic, as an excuse in the absence any logical answer or explanation for you the taxpayer.

This is a sad statement, but with anything close to good management we could have had the Langley Events Center at a much cheaper cost without the questionable payouts to non-existent partners and an increasingly outrageous annual subsidy that is going who knows where; these are not mutually exclusive! This kind of annual subsidy for a Public Facility just doesn’t exist anywhere else except in the present day world of the Township of Langley. It isn’t even close!!!

As I have blogged on numerous occasions, the first significant and very difficult issue I had to deal with when elected Mayor in 2008 was the untruth in the public domain that the Langley Events Center was a P3 agreement when in fact it wasn’t! Just for the record, this story was told through Press Release after Press Release (all documented) over two years supported by senior TOL staff, our MLA Rich Coleman and all members of Council.
If all of this wasn’t bad enough there was much more to come, unfortunately for the best part of two years I couldn’t say anything as it was tied up under in-camera rules. All of these facts were finally able to be detailed to the public through my Press Release dated Wednesday, December 15th, 2010 after all agreements were passed by Council and signed off. I received severe internal criticism for doing so, but I was being consistent in fighting for residents.

Inconvenient facts for sure, but all have to be laid at the feet of Council. All of this was highlighted in an earlier BLOG Post Dated March 3rd, 2013 http://www.langleywatchdog.com/2013/03/ .

It does not cause me any pleasure, but with my three years of experience in the Mayor’s office combined with what we have just learned, an external review is in order, or going forward is demanded. With the new information that follows with respect to the operations subsidy, it only reinforces this need! While the numbers we are quoting are all audited numbers, this revelation is no reflection on the auditor, they were only dealing with the numbers provided.

The Annual Operational Subsidy? – What hasn’t been discussed to-date and made public are the annual subsidies for the Langley Events Centre? Good and responsible governments are transparent which is absolutely essential in gaining public trust. In the case of the Township it doesn’t exist. Voters should be demanding it and accepting nothing less. The Mayor should be providing it and Councilors should be insisting on it. Unfortunately ALL members of our Council have been silent with respect to all questions on the detail of the start, the construction, the finish, the expansion and now the operations of the Langley Events Center.

Do we all remember the financial debacle of a contract entered into by our neighboring City of Abbotsford with the Abbotsford Heat Hockey Team playing out of the NEW Abbotsford Entertainment Center? It had to be bought out at a healthy cost to the taxpayers by the City of Abbotsford. So what am I talking about? Let’s put everything into perspective:
Total Abbotsford City subsidy to Abbotsford Heat Hockey Team for 5 years – $7.2 million.
Total Abbotsford City buy out of 5 remaining years for the Ab. Hockey Team – $5.5 million
City subsidy to the Abbotsford Heat for the last year of their contract – $1.76 million
Abbotsford Ent. Center Facility Operations subsidy for the 2011 / 2012 year – $1.70 million
(not related to Hockey Team subsidy – more on this comparison below)

That contract and buy out, combined with the Operational subsidy while outrageous, is nothing compared to what you, the taxpayers are paying for the Langley Events Center in the Township of Langley.

The Langley Events Center – for the Record – First we must understand the complicated management structure of the Langley Events Center, an arrangement, if nothing else, that should cause one to pose a few if not many questions. The first that comes to mind “Is the best interest of the taxpayer being served by this rather convoluted management and operational structure”? So here it goes –
Langley Facilities Society – Established March 12th, 2009 under the Society Act of British Columbia. The purpose of the Society is to manage annual funding provided by the Township of Langley and other parties for the operation and maintenance of the Langley Events Centre.
Society Members:
Mark Bakken Langley B.C. Voting Member / TOL CAO
Township of Langley Langley B.C. Voting Member
Dellarae Sawchuk Langley B.C. Voting Member / Purch Mgr TOL
David Leavers Langley B.C. Voting Member / Director Parks
Society Directors:
Mark Bakken Langley B.C. CAO Township of Langley
Christine Ann Corfe Langley B.C. Director Corp. Admin. TOL
David Leavers Langley B.C. Direct. Parks and Rec. TOL
Dellarae Sawchuk Langley B.C. Purchasing Mgr. TOL
Hilary Tsikayi Surrey B.C. Director of Finance TOL

Ten Feet Sports and Entertainment – The Langley Events Centre commenced operations in 2009. On May 1st, 2010 operations of the Langley Events Centre were assumed by Ten Feet Sports and Entertainment Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Langley Facilities Society.
Owners / Directors
Margaret Mason 0 shares Partner – Bull Housser & Tupper
Langley Facilities Society 100 shares
Jason Winslade 0 shares TOL GM, Direct. Presid. and Secret.

IMPORTANT – It is important to note that there is an agreement in place between the Society and the Township dated April 14th, 2009. Both parties agree to a “Right of Reverter” related to beneficial title in addition to a “Keep Well” agreement. The Township commits to provide all the funding required by the Society to meet its financial obligations in the operation of the Langley Events Center. “A blank cheque for unlimited funds? Read on – You decide!” NOTE – Ten Feet Sports and Entertainment by contract is responsible for operations NOT CAPITAL PROJECTS! Are the $10.898 million in Capital Fund Taxpayer Subsidies an effort to bypass public scrutiny? What were they for?

TOL Financials – The Township of Langley’s Consolidated Financial Statement for 2013 lists the following – (note – they state that their Annual Financial report includes the financials of the Langley Facilities Society and Ten Feet Sports and Entertainment)
Recreation Culture and Parks
Revenue $11,948,000
Expense $28,784,000
Deficiency ($16,836,000)

What part does the LEC play in this 2013 deficiency?

Langley Facilities Society Financials (LEC) – According to the Langley Facilities Society, the Society relies upon annual grants (I prefer to use the words “Taxpayer subsidies” YOUR TAX DOLLARS!) because that is what it is from the Township to fund its operations. The following numbers are taken from the Societies audited Consolidated Annual Report.
Item Subsidy
2009 TOL Operating Grant (Subsidy)   $2,137,000
2009 TOL Capital Grant (Subsidy)       —————
2009 Total TOL Subsidy                  $2,137,000

2010 TOL Operating Grant (Subsidy)   $3,329,000
2010 TOL Capital Grant (Subsidy)       —————-
2010 Total TOL Subsidy                  $3,329,000

2011 TOL Operating Grant (Subsidy)     $6,281,000
2011 TOL Capital Grant (Subsidy)        —————-
2011 Total TOL Subsidy                    $6,281,000

2012 TOL Operating Grant (Subsidy)     $5,332,000
2012 TOL Capital Grant (Subsidy)          $3,933,000
2012 Total TOL Subsidy                    $9,265,000

2013 TOL Operating Grant (Subsidy)     $4,044,000
2013 TOL Capital Grant (Subsidy)           $6,965,000
2013 Total TOL Subsidy                    $11,009,000
Total Subsidy for 4 years and 9 months $32,021,000
2014 – What will it be – $12,000,000?
Salaries / Wages
2010 $ 691,000
2011 $1,220,000
2012 $1,072,000
2013 $1,526,000
2013 + 42% over 2012
LEC Revenue
2013 $2,370,000 (Exclusive of TOL Grants)

IMPORTANT NOTE – All numbers quoted come direct from the annual financial statements of the Langley Facilities Society and are audited by KPMG Burnaby.
Not only are the annual grants (taxpayer subsidies) completely out of line, the rate of growth of those grants (taxpayer subsidies) paid by the TOL since 2009 is completely irresponsible. The total taxpayer subsidy paid to the end of 2013 is over $32,000,000. That total is for only 4 years 9 months – March 12th 2009 to Dec. 31st 2013! What do we have to look forward to for 2014 – $12,000,000?

Ten Feet Sports and Entertainment Financials (LEC) – The detail of expenditure and revenue Information is not available as yet? How many employees? What is their compensation? What expenses are covered? What revenue is generated…. And much more!
The Facility Operating and Licensing Agreement between the “Langley Facilities Society” and “Ten Feet Sports and Entertainment” states the following – under section 5. Funding of Operations.
(a) At the beginning of each quarter (first quarter commencing January 1st, 2011) Langley Facilities Society shall pay to Ten Feet a sum sufficient to operate the LEC without running a deficit, or such other amounts agreed to by the parties, after accounting for all other revenues that Ten Feet may have received from operating the LEC pursuant to provisions hereof.
(b) Ten Feet shall use its best efforts to minimize any deficits, provided however that ten Feet shall not be responsible to repay Langley Facilities Society for any funds advanced to cover such deficits.

Without these subsidies the Society would be unable to meet its obligations during the normal course of operations.

On December 31st, 2010 the Langley Events Center was carried on the books of the Langley Facilities Society at a cost of $73,756,000.

There were additions during 2011, 2012 and 2013 totaling $15,512,000 for a total cost (cost of construction) of $88,138,000.

The LEC has been given as security for a B of M loan of $15,940,000. Interest on this loan was $446,000 in 2011 and a principal repayment was made of $1,000,000. It is clear that an increasing subsidy of what we have seen will be required as payments are simply not available out of operations of the LEC.

Question – Why was this loan (it’s purpose?) processed through the Bank of Montreal as opposed to the Municipal Finance Authority which as I understand it is required under provincial legislation?

Appraisal – Although the LEC cost $88,138,000 to build, its value is a completely different story. If it were appraised by a commercial appraiser, a major factor affecting its value would be the income generated from the property. That amount of income is minimal. It is clear the appraisal of this facility would not be close to the cost to build.

Comparison: How bad are these deficits (taxpayer subsidies) compared to a similar facility?
How does this annual subsidy of $11,000,000 in the last year compare to any similar facility?
(See above, but just in case someone was asking, here is something to think about?)
The NEW larger (and more expensive to build) Abbotsford Entertainment Center operations for the year 2011/2012 were subsidized by their taxpayers to the tune of $1,700,000.

The Township / LEC spent $7,565,000 MORE in taxpayer subsidy than Abbotsford for the same year by comparison (5½ times more)

The Township / LEC spent $9,309,000 MORE in taxpayer subsidy than Abbotsford by comparison (6½ times more) for 2013!

(Note – the Abbotsford subsidy above was stated by Mayor Bruce Banman at an Abbotsford Chamber of Commerce luncheon presentation in November of 2012 as reported in the local media.)

Summary – This information will be explosive to ALL taxpayers of the Township of Langley as it should be!!! Leading into a major Municipal Election (and it is by all measure) it is imperative that the sitting Council members are measured on their job performance while in office. If they are not held to account, you will have in essence said we are fine with this annual subsidy. It is unfortunately that simple. This is not about liking or not liking the Langley Events Center, but it is about whether your tax dollars are being managed with sound and prudent management which is clearly not the case.

Important Questions to ask yourself or any other resident of the Township of Langley?
Where were the elected members of our Municipal Council throughout the budget review?

Did they go through a thorough Budget Review?

How much did they know about this subsidy and when did they know it?

During the budget process (if there was one) were the Financial Statements of the Langley Facilities Society discussed? If so were they challenged?

Did Council members know about this taxpayer funded subsidy?

If Township Mayor and Council did not know about this subsidy they are grossly negligent in their elected responsibility and if they did know and it was left unchallenged this alone calls for a majority change of council by voters on Nov. 15th!

Does this information not leave residents / taxpayers speechless?

Further reasons to be concerned as a taxpayer aside from the obvious gross waste of your tax dollars? What about other Township priorities that have been put on hold?

Where is our promised NEW Aldergrove Indoor Pool and Recreation Center? Over $32,000,000 (up to 2013) in Langley Events Center deficits (taxpayer subsidies) with no end in sight and the taxpayers in the eastern side of the Township are left with a new promise from one election to the next all dependent on selling off taxpayer owned property assets?

The Township of Langley had no problem cutting a cheque to a non-existent private partner for the Langley Events Center for $8,830,000, they had no problem in secretly approving a deal to expand the Langley Events Center (not announced until 6 weeks after construction started) for $7,500,000 plus covering deficits from the operation of the Langley Events Center which by the end of 2013 (a little over 4 ½ years) had reached more than $32,000,000.

FACT! A total of $32,000,000 has been spent in less than 5 years on one facilities operations, plus $88,138,000 in capital for a total of $120,138,000 – none of it approved by voters!!!

What about other priorities? Council has been putting Aldergrove and East Langley residents on ignore regarding the Aldergrove Pool and Recreation Center, we can’t fix and widen 208th street through Willoughby, we can’t fund a community based planning function for Brookswood (we borrow from developers) and we can’t fund 4 man crews for our Fire Department as mandated by Worksafe B.C. to just name a few. There is much more than this which is being ignored as we know!

Message to voters – Don’t believe any renewed promises about a new facility in Aldergrove that members of this current council will trot out prior to the November election. They have repeatedly proven they cannot be trusted! If a sitting Councilor of the majority state they are fiscally responsible during the election campaign, sorry they don’t know what the words mean or how to spell the word!

Another way to look at it if we need one – Just how much does this deficit (taxpayer funded subsidy) represent of your total Township of Langley Budget or it’s potential affect on taxes if that amount was needed to be made up?
5.941%! Just think of that number, 5.941% or very close to 6% of the total 2013 budget went to a taxpayer funded subsidy of one Municipal Facility!

In the Township of Langley $850,000 represents about 1% in your Municipal Budget therefore an $11,000,000 shortfall represents a 12.94% property tax increase to make up the difference.

Question – Would YOU vote for that?

This takes the well-known Financial incompetence of the Township of Langley (see McLeod Park expansion) and members of our council to a whole NEW level! It is nothing less than a shocking development. The Langley Event Center is a fabulous facility of which our community has a great deal to be proud of BUT! That does not mean it is a great big black hole into which we pour your hard earned tax dollars unabated without investigating the cause and fixing it!
Question – Where has this money gone?
How are these costs possible or plausible?

As I said earlier, Aldergrove residents can have a new Recreation Facility, and other priorities can be looked after BUT ONLY IF the current long standing financial incompetence that has gripped this municipality for many years is eliminated. In the November election, Get Out and Vote, we owe it to ourselves, friends, neighbors and relatives who live in the Township. Spread the word!!!!

IMPORTANT NOTE: The figures listed above come from the Dec. 31st 2013 audited Consolidated Financial Statements published in June of 2014 for both the Township of Langley and that of the Langley Facilities Society.

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.

This BLOG, www.langleywatchdog.com has been up and running for the best part of two years outlining the disastrous performance of the current Municipal Council in the hope of seeing a voter backlash develop. My readers will recall my frequent suggestions about rising up and doing something about it, well it appears someone was listening! 

A surprising development just appeared in my email the other night, you may have received the same; In what appears to be a first in Municipal, Provincial or Federal elections (I have checked and can’t find anything comparable) certainly in Canada. This appears to be a significant united campaign to UN-ELECT the majority on Township of Langley Council that are responsible for this disastrous performance, under the creative name Un-Election Campaign. It has just been launched! A review of their website www.unelectioncampaign.ca and Facebook is an eye opening experience in what can only be described as democracy in action. While I certainly don’t agree with all of their conclusions (some ratings of members of Council higher than they should be), I certainly find the website and Facebook site to be very objective and balanced. I can only imagine the amount of work that has gone into this campaign, it certainly was not developed overnight. The work that had to go into it’s development in my mind is mindboggling, check it out, it is an education, informative and in short, outstanding! I would strongly encourage taxpayers throughout the Township of Langley to get behind this initiative! Remember this next election is for a four year term!

To be very clear and for a point of clarification I have been contacted on many many occasions by people in the community requesting my help and advice on numerous Township issues as well as asking for permission to use information from my BLOG. I was very supportive. This was obviously the initiative they were working on going forward. To all of them I say congratulations!  

The ongoing news and issues that have been an ongoing source of public dismay and frankly serious anger in the Township of Langley, if my emails, phone calls and messages are any indication, have been going on for over a decade. It appears to of now reached its boiling point through what appears to be a unification of all communities, an achievement that has long been necessary to make the changes needed. Up to now we have seen nothing more than a disjointed opposition based on individual issues. Uniting all of our communities, especially through a campaign of information and informing is what has long been needed! Well done!

www.langleywatchdog.com has been trying to fill the void on the information side of this equation for close to two years. I am thrilled at the launch and introduction of www.unelectioncampaign.ca ! Once again congratulations to all involved!

I am in receipt of the following Press Release which follows in it’s entirety! I will be following their Unelection Campaign with great interest!

For Immediate Release:

UNELECTIONCAMPAIGN.CA

Email: info@unelectioncampaign.ca Tel: 778-871-8182

For Immediate Release:

The Un-election Campaign 2014

The Campaign to un-elect the Township of Langley Municipal Council

Date: August 25, 2014

Concerned Residents of the Township of Langley are announcing today the immediate launch of “Un-Election Campaign 2014”. An initiative from united residents in the Township of Langley motivated to remove the majority of the Township of Langley Municipal Council in the 2014 municipal election.

In the opinion of a varied cross section of residents throughout all communities in the Township including Aldergrove, Brookswood / Fernridge, Fort Langley, Murrayville, Walnut Grove, Willoughby / Willowbrook and Rural Areas, we have all been adversely affected by the majority of this Council in their decisions and direction. We cannot chance the continuance of the current status quo and therefore must be proactive in assuring a fresh, fair and independent thinking Municipal Council is elected for the Township of Langley in November 2014.

Concerned Residents of the Township of Langley joined together over a number of months through many discussions of a common thread or issue – specifically that the majority of this Council are guilty of ignoring community input, ignoring petitions, ignoring Public Hearing presentations and ignoring the public culminating in flawed decisions that do not meet the expectations of the majority of residents throughout the Township of Langley. This is not about any one issue but the collective number of issues where the majority of Council members have been consistent in their misuse of power.

This is not the start of an election campaign for a candidate or group of candidates. Our Executive Committee identified on our website unelectioncampaign.ca will not be candidates nor will anyone that is part of the Concerned Residents of the Township of Langley who are responsible for launching this campaign.

This is a campaign by residents for residents to present information to voters about the past and present voting records of the current council members along with the facts behind the issues important to our communities.

UNELECTIONCAMPAIGN.CA  Email: info@unelectioncampaign.ca Tel: 778-871-8182 Cont’d – Page 2

The decision to initiate this united community Un-election Campaign was not entered into nor is it being done lightly, but is a result of numerous issues facing all of our communities that have been dealt with unfairly and undemocratically by the majority of this Council. We will be providing information to the electorate through the utilization of our significant collective networks as well as encouraging an increase in our Municipal Election turnout. The Township of Langley deserves better than what it has been receiving through its Municipal Council over the past decade.

As we are an alliance of many established groups we have a very strong initial support base. We will engage our networks to create awareness of the issues affecting our communities and encourage more residents to take part in our campaign. As residents learn they do have the ability to participate and affect positive change with a strongly united vote we believe this grass roots effort will have considerable impact.

It is our fervent belief that the Township of Langley has within its borders many very solid citizens who would be very interested in running for public office and would serve our community well. We encourage new independent candidates to step forward. It will be our community responsibility and role to communicate the facts about all candidates between now and election-day to help all residents of the Township of Langley make their single vote have greater strength on November 15, 2014.

Please contact us at:

Email : info@unelectioncampaign.ca

Phone: 778-871-8182

Webpage : www.unelectioncampaign.ca

Face book: http://www.facebook.com/unelection-campaign

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.

What is important now is the election that is coming up in less than 5 months! The following Directory of 62 BLOG Posts and links are dedicated to Township of Langley Issues and facts surrounding those issues. There are a few on regional issues that have links to the Township as well as a few on the Provincial scene.

This material is designed to inform the electorate on important issues of concern and for consideration when exercising your franchise right!! If anyone has a question, debate or thought of interest please contact me at any time. All of my contact information is available on my BLOG – For Private contact, my Phone and email are available on my BLOG and/or offer a public comment on my BLOG.

Here is a list of posts to better inform you in preparation for that important exercise in November!!!!

www.langleywatchdog.com Blog Post Directory

Date                                                Blog Post Content

Jan. 30^th, 2013               Taxpayers – What are you willing to accept from the Township?

www.langleywatchdog.com/2013/01/

Feb. 4^th, 2013                 When are politicians going to wake up to community consultation?

Feb. 7^th, 2013                 Township Muzzles and banishes citizens in Council!

Feb. 11^th, 2013               Wall Townhouse Dev. Vs Metro RGS – The truth behind the fight!

Feb. 16^th, 2013               Translink – New Taxation? More waste…..

Feb. 18^th, 2013               The Throne Speech by Christy Clark & Rich Coleman              !

Feb. 22^nd, 2013              The Mufford Crescent Diversion – Your Council mislead you!

Feb. 26^th, 2013               The sad reality of the upcoming Provincial Election –

www.langleywatchdog.com/2013/02/

March 3^rd, 2013            Langley Events Center – The Inconvenient Facts! The uncomfortable truth!

March 11^th, 2013          Development in the Township of Langley – The Inconvenient Facts!

March 14^th, 2013          B.C. Rail – “Remember – An election is a referendum”

March 18^th, 2013          Soil Deposit on Agricultural land – It is about Money!

March 23^rd, 2013          Politics in the Township – Some factual insight!

March 30^th, 2013          Exclusive Breaking News – What is Township up to now?

www.langleywatchdog.com/2013/03/            

April 5^th, 2013                Soil Deposit on Agricultural land – It gets more interesting!

April 12^th, 2013              The B.C. Liberal Government is a product of leader and cabinet!

April 21^st, 2013              Township residents experiencing a deficit in Municipal Leadership!

April 24^th, 2013              Wall Townhouse Development  Closing comments speaks volumes!

April 30^th, 2013              Township residents denied just benefit in land sales!

www.langleywatchdog.com/2013/04/

May 9^th, 2013                 Is Township of Langley Council “Morally Bankrupt”?

May 11^th, 2013              Well it is time to vote, here is my view! Think about it!

May 15^th, 2013              The fear of the devil we didn’t know vs the one we knew!

May 17^th, 2013              Municipal Finances – The truth in Langley!

May 29^th, 2013              Langley Speedway in Campbell Valley Park? Thinking?

www.langleywatchdog.com/2013/05/

June 5^th, 2013                UPDATE – 4^th Reading Trinity Wall application

June 13^th, 2013              UPDATE – Thank you Metro RE Coal transferring facility

www.langleywatchdog.com/2013/06/

July 4^th, 2013                  Interrupt Holiday – Councilor Fox; Council creating farmland?

July 10^th, 2013               Metro Parks Committee – Say no to Campbell Valley Park Track.

July 11^th, 2013               Thank you Metro Directors for rejecting track proposal!

www.langleywatchdog.com/2013/07/

August 19^th, 2013         Coulter Berry – Complete show of contempt for residents!

August 28^th, 2013         Coulter Berry – It could only happen in the Township

www.langleywatchdog.com/2013/08/

Sept. 23^rd, 2013             Township sues citizen over FOI request! Concerned yet?

Sept. 26^th, 2013             UPDATE – Township sues citizen over FOI request! Facts!

www.langleywatchdog.com/2013/09/

Oct. 26^th, 2013               Breaking NEWS – Township acted improperly Coulter Berry

www.langleywatchdog.com/2013/10/

Nov. 5^th, 2013                UPDATE: Coulter Berry – Froese says he is very concerned?

Nov. 5^th, 2013                Township Property Deals: Stench is palpable and rising!

Nov. 12^th, 2013              Township treatment of accidental Mercury Spill?

Nov. 22^nd, 2013             Changes coming to ALR, be concerned!

www.langleywatchdog.com/2013/11/

Dec. 5^th, 2013                 Township of Langley: Out of control taxation & spending!

Dec. 16^th, 2013              Common Sense Coulter Berry decision. The Rest of the Story!

Dec. 20^th, 2013              Recap of a successful first year for langleywatchdog.com

www.langleywatchdog.com/2013/12/

Jan. 14^th, 2014               Township pays Trinity 80% over assessed value!

Jan. 23^rd, 2014               Trying to make sense out of Township Council & creative leg.

www.langleywatchdog.com/2014/01/

Feb. 4^th, 2014                 Translink Referendum? An unmitigated joke!

Feb. 17^th, 2014               Coulter Berry – It is about preserving Heritage and Community

Feb. 23^rd, 2014              Coulter Berry – Stand up for what is right!

Feb. 28^th, 2014               Urgent – Brookswood Plan a sadly failed effort by Council

www.langleywatchdog.com/2014/02/

March 3^rd, 2014            Coulter Berry call to action – Poster Child for bad government!

March 18^th, 2014          Coulter Berry Public Hearing a circus

March 24^th, 2014          Brookswood Plan – Don’t accept referral!

March 28^th, 2014          Brookswood Com. Plan – Inconvenient facts and truth!

March 31^st, 2014           Monday night Council Meeting – Unprecedented opposition!

www.langleywatchdog.com/2014/03/

April 5^th, 2014                And the decision is… No surprise to anyone!

April 22^nd, 2014             Metro Vancouver Appeals Trinity Wall Judgment

www.langleywatchdog.com/2014/04/

May 13^th, 2014              Township sues citizen / Township loses badly!

May 24^th, 2014              Transportation needs South of Fraser / Council fails badly!

www.langleywatchdog.com/2014/05/

June 16^th, 2014              Metro FOI – Breaking News – Coleman email!

June 22^nd, 2014             Fort Langley BIA… The plot thickens!

www.langleywatchdog.com/2014/06/

July 1^st, 2014                  TOL politics more interesting / Liberal Poll

July 8^th, 2014                  Appeal Court decision – What does it mean?

July 21^st, 2014                Move along nothing happening here? Right?

July 22^nd, 2014               http://www.langleywatchdog Directory, election coming!

www.langleywatchdog.com/2014/07/

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.

One of the oldest tricks in the book by municipalities that are ethically and morally challenged are to attempt, where possible, to conduct business on potentially controversial development projects during the dog days of summer! Or at the very least get done what you can get done! Well what else could we have expected? Check out the following, on the agenda for tomorrow night’s Council meeting!

The following residential development projects scheduled for tomorrow night’s Council meeting are an example of how the moral compass of a municipality can and has gone wrong. For those that don’t know, tomorrow night’s Council meeting, July 21^st, is the last one before September 8^th 2014, providing a six week break for members of your Township of Langley Municipal Council. It is no surprise to anyone that the summer period of Council activity is not high on anyone’s agenda. It frankly in many cases flies under the public radar. As mentioned above, it depends on the ethics and morality of your municipality? It is not about eliminating work during the summer, what we are talking about is residential development and density, something currently high on the radar screens of residents being rammed through in the dog days of summer. What should be of serious concern primarily is the list of developments that came to the Public Hearing of July 14^th and are subsequently being considered for third reading (approval in principle) tomorrow July 21^st, a short one week later! In addition there is an interesting item coming forward for a Development Permit as well as one for Final Reading. So here is some of what is being considered –

E.3        Development Permit Application 100620 – Focus Architecture Inc. / 19913 70^th Ave.

Well it just gets more interesting. For many of you this item may sound familiar, it is the old Willoughby / Routley School / land swap issue which was very controversial and was dealt with at Public Hearing June 27^th 2011 Bylaw 4853 chaired by yours truly. Looking at the records it didn’t come back for 4^th Reading until June 11^th, 2012 under a NEW Council. It was passed at 4^th with Richter and Davis in opposition. The developer according to the report had requested that a Development Permit not be issued at the time due to some issues with lot lines? Possibly more? So here we have a very controversial development that goes to Public Hearing June 27^th, 2011 and doesn’t request a Development Permit until July 21^st, 2014 – More than three years later? What else is involved? You can still appear tomorrow to speak to the Development Permit although given its timing mid-summer, out of sight, out of mind!

Surprise! – Not a question or comment about the past controversy, not a question or comment about past OPPOSITION – Approved, Development Permit issued!

H.3        Third Reading – Rezoning Application Qualico / 20445 and 20477 – 86^th Ave. Willoughby!

This development (Bylaw 5099) is applying to rezone a portion of a 1.87 ha (4.6 ac) site to Residential Compact Lot Zone R-CL (RH) to permit development of 24 rowhouse units.

The issue here in my mind is the lack of good planning, lack of Community Based Planning and the endless continuation of Spot Zoning of which this is a prime example. What is going to happen with the rest of the site? Are we going to see another application for spot zoning in this development? In this Neighborhood Plan?

For the sake of all current Willoughby residents and those who are going to make a decision to invest in this community in the future, it is time long past time to bring sanity to our planning process.

Surprise! Third Reading passed, no questions about the planning process, no questions about Spot Zoning. Richter opposed with Ward clearly in favor of anything! What is it Ward continues to say, staff are the experts so how could Council go against their recommendations? Boy, that is comforting!

H.4        Third Reading – Official Community Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application 100109 and Development Permit Application 100738 / Portrait Homes Ltd. 20300 65^th Ave.

This could happen to you and you probably would not have heard about it! This is another prime example of bad government. While many residents who live just on the bottom of the Willoughby slopes, just above the 20300 65^th Ave., are busy with family and summer holidays; your Municipal Government is busy scheduling a development proposal Public Hearing that will have serious impact on your quality of life and household investment.

On July 14^th your Municipal Council introduced for consideration an OCP Amendment and Rezoning Application, there we go again with our all in one Omnibus Bylaw changes, for a change from a “Business Office Park” to “Comprehensive Development” consisting of 91 Townhouse Units, and two mixed use buildings containing 120 apartment units plus retail and office space.

One thing that you can say for this Council is when they are elected they are oblivious to the wishes of those that voted them in. It is hard to fathom how drunk they can become with power. Despite a number in opposition just last week, they have scheduled 3^rd reading for Monday night, tomorrow July 21^st, 2014. What do you think their vote will be, three guesses and the first two don’t count!

Surprise! It was referred to staff to clean up a few issues but clearly in the words of most  of Council it is accepted as is. Not a word about density, not a word on changes of zoning, move along nothing happening here! In his own scare tactic way Fox suggests what would local residents prefer, what is being proposed or welding shops repair centers etc. Well Charlie, it was being rezoned from Business Office Park, doesn’t sound like welding shops to me! Council makes the final decision you are not obligated!

H.5        Third Reading – Official Community Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application 100114 and Development Permit Application 100751 / Kelson Investments Ltd. / 4877 and 4887 – 221^st and 22070 – 49^th Ave.

Once again this could happen to you and you probably would not have heard about it! This is another prime example of bad government. How many neighborhood residents are busy with family and summer holidays; while your Municipal Government is busy scheduling a development proposal Public Hearing that will or could have serious impact on your quality of life and household investment. I am not suggesting that it will but your Municipal Government should exercise every caution to ensure the neighborhood has a clear opportunity to respond to a development of this nature. That is the least they should be able to expect.

On July 14^th your Municipal Council introduced for consideration an OCP Amendment and Rezoning Application, there we go again with our all in one Omnibus Bylaw changes, for a change from “Multi Family Three” to “Multi Family Four” to accommodate the development of 105 rental apartment units.

Surprise! Adopted unanimously! Not a word about density, not a word about our inadequate planning process and not a word about what is effectively spot zoning!

H.6        Third Reading Rezoning and Community Plan Amendment Application 100107 and Development Permit Application 100733 (East Gordon Developments Ltd. / 7021 to 7165 – 210^th Street) Bylaws 5078 and 5079

A wildly comprehensive Omnibus Bylaw and OCP Amendment change, that was dealt with at the June 16th 2014 Public Hearing. This is the same ongoing planning disaster that is affecting Willoughby, an all in one Omnibus change of two changes in one.

Once again it featured significant community opposition to these proposed changes. A constant thread of that opposition dealt with the concern about the changes that have been made or proposed since the original plan was tabled and accepted by the community.

Once again this could happen to you and you probably would not have heard about it! This is another prime example of bad government. How many neighborhood residents are busy with family and summer holidays; while your Municipal Government is busy scheduling significant changes to bylaws that could have devastating impact on what you thought you had bought into. Your Municipal Government should exercise every caution to ensure the neighborhood has a clear opportunity to respond to changes they are proposing.

That is the least residents should be able to expect. You deserve better!

Surprise! Given Third Reading – Davis and Richter opposed! Not a word about the significant community opposition, not a word about the changes in development plans, not a word about poor planning, move along nothing happening here!

Summary – This post features a cross section of examples of what is wrong in planning within the Township of Langley. This IS NOT anti-development but it is about good development and a good return for the Township of Langley taxpayer. It IS about the need to bring COMMUNITY back into Community Planning.

Lets be clear, I do not fault the developer, I lay the blame at the feet of senior staff and Council, who for whatever reason are willing promote and accept bad planning. Good developers want to be a part of well thought out and planned development and community.

Let’s stop accepting mediocrity! Let’s stop accepting a continuing barrage of Spot Zoning!

I would encourage residents to watch Council proceedings on the Live Stream provided. It gives anyone who is willing to go through that pain (also great cure for those with insomnia) to see what passes for a Council who is charged with the serious responsibility of looking after the taxpayers best interest!

I rest my case! And after doing that damage they are now off for a 6 week holiday!  

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.

Can Council and the Municipality just do what they want, when and for WHO?

Last Thursday’s unanimous decision, after sitting through the hearing on the morning of June 24^th wasn’t entirely a surprise. It was an eye opener for sure, but the argument and decision was very instructive on a number of counts. This post is not about crying over the decision, as much as I don’t agree with it – “it is what it is” as they say! More importantly it is time to give an analysis of the decision and to look at what very real message this sends to all taxpayers? It appears that Government can almost do what it wants with impunity, if it uses creative license with it’s arguments and content surrounding resolutions, policy, bylaws and guidelines.

After reviewing the reality of the issues going on within this Municipality and listening to the Township’s legal arguments in a court setting you can only come to one conclusion – the Township of Langley while winning legally has become morally and ethically challenged or put another way to be blunt, morally and ethically bankrupt!

Changing our Municipal Council this November has clearly become THE ONLY choice!

Well, what is THE argument pro and con:

Density – The Local Government Act (LGA) clearly states, and it is not ambiguous, 972 (4) The following restrictions apply to subsection (2) 972 (4)(a) “the use or density of use may not be varied”, that was used in the common sense decision by Justice Groves of the B.C. Supreme Court.

The Appeal Court noted that the TOL had provision for a residential density limit for this C-2 commercial zoned property, but did not have a density limit for commercial uses. Therefore technically the TOL had not altered density in their opinion because TOL had not stated density limits for commercial use. It is important to note that Judge Groves had offered comment on this particular issue in the first case. He suggested that if the LGA felt density was such an important issue, it seemed odd a municipality could get around this by simply not declaring a limit on density. (common sense?)

So one of the key arguments by the society that issued the challenge was that this was an increase in density, after all it was 3 stories not 2, it was 67% site coverage not 60% and it incorporated something like 9 suites for accommodation on the third floor. And it had an 8 inch rear yard setback to the adjoining property.

The Township lawyer argued this is not a change in density, using, in an around about way, this commercial vs residential argument. Just because it is an additional story it could have higher ceilings and on and on and on!  The bottom line is that if the height limit, not coverage and setbacks had been calculated into a standard floor area ratio like other municipalities use for mixed use commercial density limits, this development would have clearly been shown to increase density contrary to the LGA section 972.

Interesting and for the record – At the original Public Input Opportunity on November 20^th, 2012, Eric Woodward is recorded saying no less than THREE TIMES that there was a DENSITY INCREASE with the addition of the third floor.

Mayor Froese also notes his approval of DENSIFYING the Coulter Berry Development, supposedly in some way to protect encroachment on ALR lands?

All of this on record and then we have the Township lawyer in court denying an increase in density.

By the way Jack, is this why you have voted to approve 69 Townhouses in the middle of some of the finest ALR land in the valley for the Wall family – What is that you say? You are approving this in a bid to “Protect encroachment on ALR lands”?

(And yes if anyone would like to challenge me on this I have the audio!)

You can’t make this stuff up! 

So Mayor Froese states “If the decision was allowed to stand it would have set a precedent that would have limited the ability of all Municipalities to manage development”. This will go down as one of the most outrageous statements Mayor Froese has come out with and believe me he has a lot of competition from his own statements for that title!

• For starters Mayor Froese, how about the strengthened bylaw adopted unanimously in 2005 by a number of your Councilors that was to ensure the commercial core would be limited to 2 stories? To the residents of the Township, how much protection do you place in the Township’s security of your assets through its’ current resolutions, policies, bylaws and regulations? It obviously depends on who applies for special favors. It will be the luck of the draw if you happen to border on one of their friends properties who has requested special consideration!

• “To manage development” in the eyes of this Mayor and Council means they can alter, change or do as they please regardless of past promises, resolutions, policies, bylaws or guidelines! You can only judge your politicians by their actions and this Council has proven in spades that past, resolutions, policies, bylaws and guidelines are not worth the paper they are written on!

• While the Society won the first legal decision in the B.C, Supreme Court which has now been overturned on Appeal, it does not change the facts. Those facts surround the story of how this Council with the support of senior staff permitted the breaching of long standing resolutions, policies and Heritage Guidelines. All of these resolutions, policies and Heritage Guidelines were in place thanks to literally decades and thousands of hours of volunteer work provided by citizens that were only deserving of respect. What do they get in the end for their community work and commitment from this Council? Complete and an embarrassing disrespect!

• An apology from this corner? No I am afraid not! Council and staff is definitely not deserving of one! Past statements hold true as the facts were at the time the statement was made. I have clearly provided the decision of the Appeal Court. Now I am sure Council members will be drinking their own bathwater with this decision, but what I said earlier is the issue ahead for all residents – the Township of Langley while winning the legal challenge they have become morally and ethically challenged or put another way they are morally and ethically bankrupt!  

So in a nutshell, regardless of what our Municipal Government initiates in terms of resolution, policy, bylaws or guidelines, if the Government you have in power is absent of any morality and ethics, they can and will do whatever they like. Here is proof of what can happen when you have elected members who are not prepared to stand up for their citizens.

Given this result and the actions of this Council, can any resident reasonably sit back and feel comfortable that their elected members of Council will protect their interests? Will they stand up for them in the protection of their community? The answer is an obvious NO!!!

The way I see it Township of Langley residents have four choices against the actions of your Municipal Government 1) launch a lawsuit and take your chance against the deep pockets of the collective taxpayer 2) say to hell with it and not fight something that is obviously wrong and somehow stomach it, 3) Move to a community in which their elected members respect their citizens or 4) VOTE IN A NEW COUNCIL!

They have made that choice for us! I don’t know about you but I would rather stay to fight and change our Municipal Government. My family and I enjoy this community too much to abandon it! Please become active, participate in the process and Elect a NEW Council this November!

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.

Did you get your phone call? From the calls I have been receiving many did and many have questions as to who is behind this and who is really running our municipality. As I have repeatedly said on this BLOG, all you have to do is connect the dots, it really is that easy. If you will recall in the past I have often posed the question of the utilization of Provincial Resources to try to effect our (your) local election outcomes (to-date they have been successful by the way), are you happy so far? Are we going to put up with continued attempts by some unknown to attempt to manipulate and control your franchise right? Are the Provincial Government through their MLAs involved in the politics of local government? If so it shows a complete lack of respect to you the taxpayer.

For the record: The “Community Survey” of the Township of Langley is being conducted by (as stated above) the Innovative Research Group which is owned by one Greg Lyle. It is well known that Greg Lyle is a political operative, he ran the 1996 Gordon Campbell Election Campaign, conducted a poll for Christy Clark’s failed Point Grey by-election attempt and conducted extensive political polling and survey work for the B.C. Liberal Party. The connection is close, consider Mike McDonald was hired by the Premier as Chief of Staff, after her leadership win, who worked for Innovative Research Group. He has since left the Premiers office to go back to the private sector. I knew Greg Lyle back in the Socred days during the late 80s. You can’t make this stuff up!

Why a Survey? Who Commissioned it? So, what brings the Innovative Research Group to the Township of Langley, you ask? In virtually an identical tone to surveys and research commissioned by someone (?) in the fall of 2010 and a couple of times during the election year of 2011, this survey featured a lengthy dose of questions pertaining to the then upcoming Municipal Election. It contained just a smattering of questions that could only be of interest to the governing B.C. Liberal Party?  Would these of been posed just to make it worthwhile for them to pay the bill? Who else would want the answers or would benefit from the answers to these questions, doesn’t it just make sense? Connect the dots? Just asking, wasn’t Rich Coleman, our MLA, Co-Chair of last year’s Provincial Re-election Campaign for the B.C. Liberal Party?

Back to the survey: After being asked about what were the most important issues in our community out of a list of 20 or so they go on to ask – Have you heard of these people? (Favorable or not favorable)

• Michelle Sparrow
• Angie Quaale
• Bev Dornen
• Eric Woodward
• Blair Whitmarsh
• Charlie Fox
• Kim Richter
• Rick Green
• Jordan Bateman
• Jack Froese

So many questions and no answers? Well I certainly have some questions and some thoughts!

• Should Steve Ferguson, Bob Long or Grant Ward who all missed on getting onto this preferred (by some) list, be happy or sad? David Davis who is left off the list, should be ecstatic!
• How was my name selected to be on this list, I am retired and I would add, I am happy in retirement!
• Eric Woodward, the land baron of Fort Langley running for Council? OH that will be interesting! I can see the public uproar and total community revolt within 6 months if he runs and is successful!
• Blair Whitmarsh, a very fine individual working in a senior management capacity with Trinity University. Unfortunately with its association with the Township on issues with Metro, University District, land and the Langley Event Center relationship, it causes me to pose a serious potential of a conflict or perceived conflict of Interest on so many fronts. Can he excuse himself from the table, sure, but there are just far too many issues of a potential or perceived conflict. It certainly could be a potentially serious issue going forward.
• Jordan Bateman, he of his new found hypocritical protecting the taxpayer fame? Jordan’s voting record clearly shows that he never met a tax increase or spending increase he didn’t like. This is the same Jordan Bateman that publicly stated that he didn’t know why the Mayor made public that there was no P3 agreement in place for the Langley Events Center as was told to the public by staff and Council. This is the same Jordan Bateman who was deeply involved in the Langley Events Center FINANCIAL fiasco that caused us taxpayers to pay out an $8.6 million settlement that was completely unnecessary. This is the same Jordan Bateman that didn’t hear the overwhelming public opposition to an additional 4^th story at 4^th reading (legality in question?) at Bedford Landing, the Mufford Crescent Diversion, Athenry Development and more and more and more….. (sound familiar, just like the current council? Nothing has changed!)

Next Question:

If there was a Township Election tomorrow would you vote for Jack Froese? Yes or No

Next Question:

If there were these three people running for Mayor, who would you vote for?

• Jack Froese
• Jordan Bateman
• Rick Green

My thoughts?

• Is this Jordan’s announcement? It could be a very interesting fall! (my thoughts above) You might ask yourself which Jordan Bateman are you going to elect, the one embracing Taxation and Spending or his new found belief that some would suggest is one of convenience? Given his record, how could anyone trust any of his pronouncements?
• There they go again, while I am honored to be considered, I am retired, and once again, I am very happy!

The survey then goes on to ask about the degree of support or non-support on issues such as  Coulter Berry in Fort Langley, a tree cutting bylaw in the Township and what I will call a disingenuous diversion list of quasi provincial interest.

Conclusion –

What is so sad in our community are the provincial fingerprints all over due process. I have provided what I believe to be significant proof whether it was the messages I received at my meeting with Rich Coleman 10 months before election-day of 2008 (my election as Mayor), the lack of a P3 as promised on the Langley Events Center, the Trinity / Wall interference whether on the public comments about Metro or his email to Chair Greg Moore requesting NO appeal on the B.C. Supreme Court decision and his admitted phone conversations with Surrey Councilors prior to their vote on the major South Surrey Casino. It goes on and on and on. When are taxpayers / residents going to stand up and revolt against these actions and say no more! Just ask yourself, and use common sense, who else has the access to resources that could influence a campaign? Fight now or you will be very sorry later! I rest my case!!

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.

You can’t make this stuff up…. Only in the Township of Langley! The over sized and previous B.C. Supreme Court decided illegal process and building (prior to friends on Municipal Council changing the law through the use of Spot Zoning) the Coulter Berry 2.0 building is only the tip of the iceberg to what is happening in our Municipality. As we are informed about icebergs only 1/7^th of its size is visible above water, 6/7^th is invisible, and so it is in the Township of Langley. Comfortably wired in as President of the BIA (no surprise) it appears on the surface Eric Woodward is now dictating his vision to the Township of Langley and this Council. Is Council tripping over themselves to fall into line? Don’t believe me? Check out the underground wiring project on Glover Road in Fort Langley and how, once again with the stroke of a pen by your elected Council, again it appears that Eric Woodward is dictating the use of your tax dollars and the dollars of many other businesses who don’t agree but are outvoted !!!! How is it possible? Read On….

The Business Improvement Association (BIA) – What is it?

Essentially, Business Improvement Areas were made possible under Provincial Legislation, affording a local municipality or city the opportunity to set up an area within their boundaries. A Business Improvement Area must be established through a Local Area Service bylaw (LAS). These, for lack of a better way to explain it, are local taxing authorities (a special property levy on commercial properties) governed by their members under the one member one vote principle of democracy and managed through their duly elected executive.

Fort Langley Business Improvement Association (BIA) –

Eric Woodward – President                   Owner of Coulter Berry plus numerous properties throughout Fort Langley.

Jim Dyck – Treasurer

Dixie Jacobsen – Vice President           Supporter of Coulter Berry

Blair Shpeley – Director

Brenda Alberts – Director                      Supporter of C B, Spouse of former Mayor Kurt Alberts Consultant to Woodward

Catherine Doyle – Director                    Supporter of Coulter Berry

Kevin Speilman – Director                     * Supporter and Contractor for Coulter Berry

(Note – Kevin Speilman was appointed by Eric Woodward at AGM after long time Director Casey Smith resigned. Rather than taking the next person on the ballot who didn’t get in the President appointed Kevin Speilman. Democracy, you be the judge?)

Permitted Initiatives of a BIA?

Under Provincial Legislation the intended use of these funds is for effective marketing, promotional and revitalization programs for the area in question.

Why underground wiring?

It is clear to anyone with an ounce of objectivity, reviewing the facts show that the current power lines would be unsightly from the top floor of the new Coulter Berry building. More important, the required transformer requires a 6 meter set-back which is an impediment to the building of the now infamous Coulter Berry 2.0 three story building. Proof of that was the approval of this project (underground wiring) two weeks prior to the green light on Coulter Berry.

The Heritage Society appealed to Council to find an alternate route down the lanes for the power lines so as to save trees, sidewalks, lamps and to minimize the hardship on business and costs to owners, many who are business owners but did not have a vote.

Is Underground wiring covered under this legislation?

In typical Township of Langley fashion they proceeded with a vote on a project that must be questioned as to whether it is permissible under the bylaw that was in effect at the time of their questionable vote. Once again it appears interesting to see the lengths that this Council and staff will go to manufacture a process to look after the needs of a friend? How else can you look at it?

In what has become typical for this Council and staff we see what is being described as a NEW housekeeping bylaw and policy changes introduced and read three times at the April 28^th Council Meeting. I am sure most Councilors and our Mayor have not bothered to read through the bylaw (or maybe they have and they agree with it) so let’s help them out –

Section 5.18 Cost Recovery

Staff are not proposing changing the previous approved cost recovery mechanisms for the different types of requested work, but has conveniently added Utility Undergrounding to the LAS program because of recent requests. Staff is recommending that 100% of this service is to be paid for by the benefiting property owners.

Questions?

1. By virtue of the fact they have identified and added Utility Undergrounding, they would have to agree that it (underground wiring) was not considered a part of revitalization under the previous bylaw under which the recent vote was conducted. So, why is a vote allowed on a project or initiative that was not covered, or once again do we allow staff to add or subtract at their or council’s pleasure? This Council has become known widely for inconsistent, unstable and self-serving governance decisions.  
2. The use of the line in their recent report to council “Because of recent requests?” By whom and where, or is this another self-serving statement of convenience?
3. In the staff report to Council 12-145 dated Oct. 15^th, 2012 page 81 of 114 it is stated – “The Township contribution (taxpayer contribution), using the Local Improvement reserve accounts is estimated at approx. $1,013,000 in frontage costs for the three Township owned parcels, The Fort Langley Community Improvement Society (Fort Langley Community Hall) and ALL roads and laneways fronting the proposed works. This amount does not include an additional $50,000 estimated private property (building conversion) costs for the 4 properties referenced above with funding from existing capital budgets.” So to the question – All Township of Langley taxpayers are on the hook for $1,063,000 plus hook up costs (whatever that will be) despite being told by a staff report it is 100% funded by the benefitting area? Given the fact Eric Woodward owns at least 12 of these properties (if not more), we (us taxpayers) are subsidizing this initiative for his personal benefit? Not a bad deal if you can get it!  

Where has it gone wrong in Fort Langley? Where do we start?

I am quite sure everyone would agree with our generally held principle of one member one vote in our democracy. It must also be noted that that principle has held true when our Provincial Government (whether you agree or disagree) has as recently as this year rejected the often requested change by UBCM (Union of British Columbia Municipalities) and the Chambers of Commerce to permit business owners a municipal vote. This has continually been rejected based primarily on the rationale that in most cases it would provide many business / land owners with two votes. (business owners who also reside in that municipality). I believe we would also agree that our municipal government’s primary responsibility is to provide specific services we all need for a tax dollar we hope we can all afford. The LAS initiative of a BIA is no different; it is a tax initiative on, in this case, local business owners.

Well back to the case of BIAs in general and the Fort Langley BIA specifically. I am quite sure that legislators when preparing the responsible BIA legislation would have concluded the same principle of one member one vote given the potential tax or levy impact they could have on all members within a BIA area. I don’t believe the following would have been considered possible by Provincial Legislators. You think? Not within the Township of Langley you say?

Here are the inconvenient facts (At the time of the last vote) Has Eric Woodward purchased more properties since? –

• 33 properties were affected by the “beautification”, 3 owned by the Township who abstained from voting. Of the remaining 30 votes –
• 17 voted for it
• 13 against it
• BUT 12 of the 17 yes votes were Eric Woodward properties. In other words Eric Woodward was responsible for 40% of the available votes at the time!
• One of the no voters approached Council to plead her case as her cost was to be over $80,000 plus a connection fee. Eric Woodward jumped to her rescue and paid her costs. It must be great when you have that financial clout, I am sure there are other business owners who could use that help, but I digress.

Well here are a few more inconvenient questions pertaining to the vote!

• In a letter from Eric Woodward President of the Fort Langley BIA to one Roeland Zwag Township of Langley confirming the preliminary petition states “… subject to the Township of Langley providing substantial funding for lands other than its own, not expected to exceed 40% of the total cost.” The recent bylaw passed by the TOL states all costs are 100% the responsibility of the landowners. Given that the above statement of 40% is incorrect the preliminary petition is null and void!
• The Fort Langley Community Improvement Society (Fort Langley Community Hall) voted to support the LAS but had its fee of $152,922.85 paid for by you the taxpayer and their property taxes are forgiven by the taxpayer. At best they should have abstained, this vote should not count, no different than the three Township owned properties.
• The requirements for a successful yes vote under the old Municipal Act required the petition to be signed by 2/3rds of the property owners having a value of at least 50% 0f all parcels. Under the new Community Charter it has been changed to 50% of all land owners with a value of 50% of the assessed value of land. So folks, here is where it is at, once Eric Woodward’s new building is up, regardless of him purchasing anymore properties with the NEW assessed value he can write his own ticket, and all of the local business owners (taxpayers) get to pay – Are you happy yet?
• Put it another way – One developer and President of the BIA can basically push this through when those opposed / abstained will be paying 56% of the costs!

What are the potential ramifications of this kind of control?

It doesn’t take a genius to realize (something that I am sure was never considered as an issue) the potential for cost sharing for projects of convenience for one Eric Woodward. So work with me for a moment. Eric Woodward, with his new found purchased voting clout, and we understand more to come, can now implement projects of his fancy, all he needs is five friends within the BIA. With underground wiring firmly affixed to the NEW bylaw how many of his other buildings will be coming forward with replacement construction applications? Who will benefit from this now shared responsibility? Is it fair, not in my books? But it does fit well with the long standing culture that has been in place in the Township of Langley, a culture of benefits to a few paid for by many!

Conclusion –

I can only hope that exposing issues such as this we will wake up the majority of taxpayers in the Township as to what is being done to them without their knowledge. For those that would suggest that this doesn’t affect them, believe me it does, it will be on your tax bill one way or another BUT you will never see or notice it.

So consider these issues going into the next election:

• Financial mismanagement of the Langley Events Center!
• Out of control Willoughby growth!
• No community in community planning!
• Non-existent community listening!
• Special favors for friends like Coulter Berry and Wall!
• The Wall Townhouse development on ALR land against Metro RGS!
• Buying a piece of property from Trinity at 80% over assessed value!
• Outrageous attempts at ramming through a new OCP for Brookswood!
• The Forewest Development in Willoughby!
• The Athenry Development in Willoughby!
• The Creekside Land Development in Aldergrove!
• Plus it seems a bottomless pit of money (our tax dollars) used in lawsuits – Coulter Berry LOST, Jacob deRaadt LOST and Metro Vancouver ongoing and Under Appeal! Are there more legal challenges to come? Stay tuned!

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.

While some who have been close to Township politics for some time have a good handle on who is really running our municipality, Rich Coleman’s chain of emails between himself and Greg Moore, Chair of Metro Vancouver surely confirms any doubts if there were any, doesn’t it? This FOI response goes some distance to fill in the blanks. With this kind of attempted interference by Deputy Premier Coleman into a decision under discussion and consideration by a regional government, who were only following the direction of Provincial Legislation, speaks volumes as to what really goes on behind the scenes. Remember, the Township of Langley Council adopted the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) unanimously in mid-2011. They were only following the dictates of provincial legislation and then the Deputy Premier gets involved? Also, does this not also shine a spotlight on the true intentions of this Liberal Government re changes to the Agricultural Land Reserve and it’s Commission?  

The following were gained from a Freedom of Information request I submitted some time back, post Metro’s decision to appeal. Here is the copy (word for word) of the emails I received in answer to that request between the MLA for Fort Langley Aldergrove and Deputy Premier Rich Coleman and Greg Moore, Chair of the Metro Vancouver Regional District. This communication, as you will see, was initiated by Rich Coleman with respect to the decision under consideration by the Metro Board whether to Appeal the court decision on the Trinity / Wall development application putting 69 Townhouses into the middle of Prime ALR farmland.

1^st – Email from Rich Coleman

From: Coleman, Rich

Sent: March 14^th, 2014 11:44 PM

To: Chair Moore

Cc: Mark Bakken

Subject:

Greg, I told you this was a problem. We won the lawsuit as we discussed. Please accept the result graciously and work with the communities in Metro. Otherwise the region will not be able to stay together.

2^nd – Email response from Greg Moore

From: Chair Moore

Sent: Sunday, March 16^th, 2014 7:10 PM

To: Coleman, Rich MEM:EX

Subject: RE:

Rich

I am not sure I understand whom you are representing when you say “we won”, are you speaking as the Provincial Government Deputy Premier?

I also don’t understand how you would suggest that we accept this result graciously when we are simply working in accordance with the Province’s regional Growth Strategies legislation, which is within your Government’s jurisdiction. How this can be a good ruling for the region or for the Province? This region unanimously supported both regional growth documents, at the Metro Vancouver board and each council table. If we cannot enforce a regionally approved document, what is the use of having such a document?

I am curious how you think how this region might not be kept together. The regional district is stronger now, than we have ever been in the past and we achieve significant economies of scale through our regional governance model. If you know of any reason why our local governments think things should change, I ask you to enlighten me.

3^rd – Email response to Greg Moore

   From: Coleman, Rich MEM:EX   (RTC@gov.bc.ca)

Sent: March16, 2014 7:10 PM

To: Chair Moore

Subject: Re:

Well, we went to court and the court clearly stood on the side of my community. Our frustration with Metro is such that we would gladly join the FVRD I think. The treatment we get from those weighted votes from the other side of the river is tiresome. So yes we feel we won something because we have been treated with disrespect.

4^th – Email response to Rich Coleman

From: Chair Moore

Sent: Sunday, March 16^th, 2014 10:00 PM

To: Coleman, Rich MEM:EX

Subject: RE:

Rich

With the exception of this item, what other issues are you referring to? Langley’s neighbor, Surrey, has the second most votes, there is no fact to your comments that north of the fraser dominates the votes. There is a reason why Langley wants to stay with Metro for most of our services, we provide excellent value and are equal in our decision making. I can not think of one item Langley has voted against, other than this RGS issue.

5^th – Email response to Chair Moore

From: “Coleman, Rich MEM:EX” RTC@gov.bc.ca

Date: March 16^th, 2014 at 10:18:46 PM PDT

To: Chair Moore chair@metrovancouver.org

Subject: Re:

I guess you need to get better informed on the history of Metro and us. Lots of files led up to the reasons to go to court on these ones. I was at an event the other night politicians from Surrey, Delta, Maple Ridge, all happy for the court decision. None of them had any doubt that Metro has reach a level of arrogance that needs to be curtailed.

Questions in response to Metro / Rich Coleman FOI – Why did this happen and how widespread is this activity? Is this an attempt to try to influence a decision being considered by a lower level of government? Just asking the question?

• Why is our Deputy Premier involving himself and interfering directly in an issue between Metro and the Township of Langley? Once again he refers to “we won the lawsuit”? Who is he talking about? There is that “we” again. Who is “we”?
• As wrong as he is by involving himself in a Municipal issue why has he cc’d Mark Bakken, the Township CAO and not Mayor and Council? (For the record, Mark Bakken is a close personal friend of Coleman’s, by his own admission.)
• What is the Deputy Premier doing attempting to interfere in a regional legal issue? Is this not improper influence, interference and/or obstruction by a provincial politician in a legal matter? This could be perceived as a threat at the very least, pertaining to IF Metro was going to appeal the Metro vs Township of Langley’s original court decision, something Coleman was obviously trying to prevent. Why? This issue dealt with the Wall application for 69 Townhouses to be constructed right in the middle of prime agricultural (ALR) farmland – (Wall has made campaign donations to some local politicians as well as the B.C. Liberal Party and was a key contributor to Christy Clark.)
• What is the Deputy Premier, in what again could be considered a perceived threat at least, suggesting “otherwise the region will not be able to stay together”? What does he mean? Is there more to it? Given Metro Vancouver operates under permissive Provincial Legislation and Rich Coleman is Deputy Premier, was he considering some other Provincial action? Was he speaking as the Deputy Premier, he never answered that question?
• The Deputy Premier states “I told you this was a problem. We won the lawsuit as we discussed.” Obviously, by virtue of this statement there was a previous conversation and / or written communication? What was said? Should there be an RCMP investigation into what interference and/or discussion may have taken place by or with Deputy Premier Coleman?
• This kind of action by our Deputy Premier could very easily be described as bullying, threatening and/or intimidation which is eerily similar to his actions leading up to the Surrey Council vote on the South Surrey Casino. (Phone conversations with a few Surrey Councilors prior to the vote) Is this a senior Provincial Government elected official making a suggestion, you do this OR the region WILL NOT be able to stay together? Just asking the question but Rich Coleman should be asked to step down until an investigation takes place.
• This attempted action of interference by our Deputy Premier is unconscionable and must be investigated to establish, from ALL players involved, just what was intended. It should not allow a typical dismissive comment from Coleman to derail what should be considered a serious case of poor judgment at best.
• Coleman states “Lots of files led up to the reasons to go to court on these ones”. In three years in the Mayor’s office I NEVER had one so called file brought to my attention by staff, Council or Coleman with respect to Metro. I am very skeptical of this statement from Coleman with respect to Metro politician’s comments – In three years of working with Metro Board members I have never heard of any such comment. Issues yes, but on balance it is a very workable regional government, one that has gained considerable praise from many other regions in North America. This very clearly was a comment of convenience not of fact.

For a reminder of what all of this is about RE the Trinity / Wall issue you can go into our www.langleywatchdog.com BLOG Post Directory – Post #55 – www.langleywatchdog.com/2014/04/

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.

Has anybody paid attention to the news coming out of Translink and more important out of Victoria, namely from our rookie Minister of Transportation Todd Stone, MLA from Kamloops? Making a long story short, imposing a referendum on Translink and the lower mainland, taking charge by saying they would create the question and then in typical fashion throwing this hand grenade back at the Mayors Council of Translink to develop. A number of months ago the Mayors were advised that they had to formulate the question as well as develop a costed priority list of projects for the Lower Mainland with a deadline.

Well the Mayors, despite their continued lack of support for a referendum which I agree with them on, dutifully set up a committee to follow through with these instructions by the imposed deadline of June 30^th this year. Well, in the Township of Langley a funny thing (it would be funny if it wasn’t so irresponsible) happened on the way through this exercise – Our Engineering Division submitted a report to the May 12^th Township Council meeting requesting Council “authorize staff to forward their report and attachment to the Mayor’s Council Subcommittee on Regional Transportation Investment Plan as well as the full Mayor’s Council requesting acknowledgement of the need for consideration of grade separation at provincial highways, Major Road Network roads and railway crossings.” Now remember, this committee whom they are sending this report to, is setting a priority list of need throughout the region… and this is all they could come up with for the Township?

That is it, that is all we asked to be included, no involvement by our Council, no kickback by our Council, excuses by Mayor Froese that we are out of time, the Mayors blathering endorsement of our traffic engineer and his report and that the report must be finalized. It is too late for more input! It is being dealt with in-camera, can’t talk about it. What?

Where has our Mayor been over the past six months, where have our Council members been over the past six months? If they haven’t been receiving information from the Mayor on this issue, it has been splashed all over our regional newspapers for months. No questions? This has been a complete abdication by the Mayor of his responsibilities to Council and to all taxpayers who deserve a return on investment of their substantial Translink Property Taxes being submitted each and every year! 

This is no different in importance than what we went through with developing the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy and I can tell you that Council was involved in every respect of that process going forward, which is as it should be and they were unanimous in their support.

Transportation in the Township of Langley is the single most important issue our taxpayers and property owners will face in the decade ahead. I have dealt with the idea of a Translink referendum in an earlier post but suffice to say the wording of it and the selection of the projects to be included will be all important to its success and/or failure. In simple terms consider these questions –

• If the referendum fails what does that mean for the prospect of looking after our transportation needs going forward? If a NO vote is received that will be the end of it for years to come? In a growing municipality that would be devastating.
• If a NO vote is received it will not change what all of us are now paying for the non-existent Translink services we are now receiving.
• What NEW Township specific Translink project(s) will be incorporated in to the referendum question? If any?
• Will a couple of major Light Rail projects in Surrey satisfy Township residents to the extent of receiving a yes vote?
• Will Translink endorse a Light Rail project down Fraser Highway from Surrey center to Langley City at a cost of close to $2.5 Billion (12 miles) when they could endorse the Chilliwack to Scott Road Station Interurban corridor at a cost of approx. $900 million (65 miles)?  We don’t think so. This is otherwise known as the Fastbender Fantasy!
• What is the position of our Mayor and Council on what Township beneficial projects should go forward within this proposed referendum?
• What is the position of our Mayor and Council on what additional funding options (if any) should go forward within this proposed referendum?

The privacy and secrecy with respect to the whole issue of Translink Township of Langley services and the proposed referendum is outrageous. Yes, the Mayors Council of Translink can have their in-camera meetings while going through the challenge ahead of them but it is not OK for Council to have no debate, no input and no involvement in formulating a public position of demands. The only thing that is consistent is this Council’s non-transparent method of dealing with serious issues out of the public view. It is clearly not acceptable!!!!

Another past Transportation Issue that is conspicuously similar… The ineptness of this Council just doesn’t quit! Remember this?

The Roberts Bank Rail Corridor Initiative Signed in Private – On June 28^th 2007 an agreement was signed by 12 funding partners in Township of Langley Council Chambers at what was a closed session initially, but after complaints from some present were allowed in with the proviso no questions would be asked. This Rail Corridor agreement was put together to put in place nine overpasses from Delta through to Langley to deal with the issue of needed grade separations due to the imposed expansion of the Roberts Bank Super Port. A key part of those expansion plans is the controversial Terminal 2 given its lack of a lineal environmental assessment.

Where this issue is conspicuously similar to the Translink issue is its complete lack of transparency, public input on community impact and lack of open Council debate. This has been a significant issue within our community for years but the community was not being listened to. Our esteemed Traffic Engineer just recently went public with a statement suggesting that our area will be in a state of gridlock given that no overpasses were built on our key traffic corridors. What? We have been saying that for years and now somebody is waking up? Ask yourselves, when Terminal 2 is finished and we go from 15 to 38 unit trains a day what do we do about the following corridors with NO overpasses –

• Fraser Highway
• 200^th
• The bypass

The majority of this Council is not standing up to our Federal and Provincial Governments due in large part to their respective intimidation to fall into line. Any time that senior levels of government become so influential on your local council, the community is the big loser!          

Back to Translink – What is being developed is a 10 year transportation investment plan. What is at stake for the Township of Langley is a 10 year void of any transportation improvement! Are you satisfied with how your Council has represented us on this issue so far? Given everything they have known, they are now lighting their hair on fire for public show? Don’t be fooled it is nothing but incompetence and we are paying the price.

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.

The following historical account of the Athenry Development issue and subsequent actions spells out in detail how this Council and staff are completely out of control and must be stopped. The Township of Langley LOST in this misdirected and irresponsible appeal to a B.C. Supreme Court Justice regarding a Provincial Information and Privacy Commissioner decision. The Township of Langley’s B.C Supreme Court action named the Commissioner and Jacob de Raadt (a local area resident and consultant) in a Judicial Review action.

(The Langley Times) – The decision – In a 22 page written decision filed in the Vancouver Court Registry on April 15^th – Justice Bruce Cohen ruled the Township rendered the whole matter moot when it handed over different versions of a storm water management plan for the Athenry Development project in Willoughby per the Provincial Information and Privacy Commissioner decision… but there is more!

What makes this an even more relevant and damning decision Justice Cohen goes on to say (which he was not required to do) “he would have ruled in favor of de Raadt and the commissioner”.     

I have written about this travesty four times on this BLOG, on February 4^th, March 11^th, April 24^th and September 26^th 2013. In my opinion the Athenry Development will go down as the biggest injustice done to neighbors of any development that I have had any familiarity with over my many years in local politics. It was and is just wrong. Here is a recap –

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

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

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

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

The decision of your Municipal Council to bring this reinvented proposal forward for fourth reading and Development Permit from the PREVIOUS elected Council’s first and second reading, public hearing and then third reading was wrong and completely off base given the following –

The Local Government Act – Division 4 – Public Hearings on Bylaws

Provision after a Public Hearing

894(1) After a public hearing, the council or board may, without further notice or hearing.

1. Adopt or defeat the bylaw, or
2. Alter and then adopt the bylaw, provided that the alteration does not

i.      Alter the use,

ii.      Increase the density, or

iii.      Without the owner’s consent, decrease the density of any area from that originally specified in the bylaw.

The approved Athenry development in my opinion breached i. and ii. above. Unfortunately that would require affected citizens to take the Township of Langley to court in what is always a risk and patently unfair. The approval of this development was in my opinion poking residents in the eye with residents only recourse being a lawsuit. The Township of Langley’s deep pockets (taxpayer funded) is nothing more than financial intimidation against well-meaning and affected taxpayers.

Another case – The 2005 Council approved the first controversial phase of the Bedford Landing Condominium development in Fort Langley adding a 4^th floor at final reading and development permit stage, which once again breached the above Local Government Act 894 (1) b ii. (it increased density at final reading which is not permitted)      

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

You made the decision to buy and move into your dream home based on what had been explained to you by the planning department at the hall. How would you like to be made aware of these changes after you moved in?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. The Township of Langley is seeking to have the order to release the documents overturned? Excuse me! THEY RELEASED THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS AS ORDERED TO ONE MR. JACOB de RAADT. So, NO Langley Times, they had released the documents as ordered but at the same time appealed their release through the courts. What you say? Only in the Township of Langley. Why spend a few dollars on legal bills when you have an open ended budget using tax payer dollars! (BY THE WAY, THE JUDGE AGREED!)

2. Why was Jacob de Raadt named in this Judicial Review? Yes he sought clarification which surely is anyone’s right in our democracy, BUT it was the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner that investigated, conducted the review and issued the decision and Order. The Township’s argument, IF they had one, was with the others named on the Petition namely The Information and Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia and the Attorney General of British Columbia NOT Jacob de Raadt. This couldn’t have anything to do with their on-going fight and intimidation of Mr. de Raadt could it?

3. A fair question would now be, is this the Township’s new strategy? That is to force anyone who applies for information through an FOI request, is denied and appeals successfully to the Information and Privacy Commissioner to challenge that decision through a Judicial Review? Forcing tax payers (at their expense) into court to defend themselves against what has to be considered their basic democratic rights? Is this another way of saying, to anyone who is attempting to get at the truth, if you try this, the same thing could happen to you? What is happening in the Township? Is this what you want out of your local government?

4. The Langley Times stated the Township of Langley is suing over the FOI request. NO, Langley Times, the Township of Langley is petitioned the Court requesting a Judicial review of the decision and the Order of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. So, Jacob de Raadt is named in the Petition for a Judicial Review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner decision, not his FOI request. All of this because a taxpayer exercised their democratic rights? Shame!

In summary, I am not sure who is running this municipality but IT IS NOT Mayor and Council. However, Mayor and Council are complicit in everything that is going on in the Township of Langley by their actions or more important their inactions in their support of staff decisions! So where are we at, as a community?

Does something have to happen to you personally before you will be responsive and fight back? This Mayor and Council are worse than the Council of Kurt Alberts, IF that is at all possible, they are completely out of control.

I know it is nice that members of Council claim they get along, nothing could be further from the truth. Remember the majority of council’s claims that during my term and the last election campaign that the dysfunction was the fault of the Mayor!

The INCONVENIENT TRUTH – All of the dysfunction that has gone on within our council for the last three years and beyond can be laid squarely at the feet of Richter, Ward, Fox, Dornan, Long, Froese, Ferguson and Sparrow!

In my opinion all of this makes this Council’s decisions suspect!

RG

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.