langleywatchdog…. and more!

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.

Metro Vancouver is appealing the Judgment of B.C. Supreme Court Justice Neena Sharma in favor of the Township of Langley on a number of points in law! (NOTE: Justice Sharma is a NEWLY appointed judge and this was her first case.) My congratulations and thank you go out to the majority of the Metro Vancouver Board of Directors for their willingness to fight what can only be described as a travesty of justice if one with any knowledge were to review her judgment. This thank you is on behalf of all residents who are so fortunate to be living in the most livable region in the world and who expect a level playing field, not the favors for friends and insiders that exist here in the Township of Langley.

With respect to the news of the appeal, I believe a review of the comments by Mayor Froese in the Langley Times and Advance and those from our MLA Rich Coleman, Premier, and OH sorry Deputy Premier had to say last year on the subject says it all! Now remember, the RGS and actions by Metro Vancouver are spelled out in Provincial legislation

Rich Coleman says / Langley Times – May 17^th 2012 (Natasha Jones)

• “Metro Vancouver has gone too far by meddling in Township business”
• “the board has become too big for its boots”
• “It’s become a behemoth as far as the bureaucracy is concerned”
• “Metro has no business meddling in Township affairs”
• “absolutely supports a move by the municipality to consider breaking away from the regional district and form its own with other local jurisdictions”
• “an unaccountable government unto itself”

Minister Coleman’s comments are so off base they are frankly an absolute embarrassment. That he is publicly displaying such a complete lack of knowledge about how and why Metro Vancouver are in the position they are in under Provincial Legislation, is pathetic, but does tell a significant tale.     

Jack Froese says / Langley Times April 15^th 2014 and Langley Advance April 17^th, 2014 (Matthew Claxton)

• “Unfortunate Decision”
• “It’s disturbing that this much tax dollars are going into a squabble”
• “I’m very confident that they are going to lose again”
• “We can’t just sit down and let Metro Vancouver walk all over us”
• “We were in the right (to approve the district)”
• “It’s the law of the land”
• “I think it is ridiculous”
• “There is nothing to settle we won”
• “The judge was very clear”

So let us see if we can make any sense out of this – a few weeks earlier faced with a very significant loss and finding of wrong doing in court over the Coulter Berry Fort Langley building Mayor Jack Froese was publicly very critical of the B.C. Supreme Court Justice of his decision. The TOL filed an appeal, even though the applicant filed a new application making an appeal meaningless. Now we hear Mayor Froese complaining about an appeal which is part of our legal process. The Township started this mess by being underhanded in their attempt at sliding a series of developments through despite an already agreed upon process. A process all 23 members of Metro previously agreed to unanimously!

Mayor Froese agrees with the Township Appeal but not the Metro Appeal? Sort of says it all doesn’t it!

A further thank you to ALL Metro Vancouver Directors for not capitulating to a few bullies in Victoria – We know who we are talking about don’t we!

I am repeating my Blog Post of last year (following) which provides a recap of this issue, how it came about and what is at stake!

Metro Vancouver is suing the Township of Langley over the Trinity/Wall Development…..

The Township of Langley that is responsible for this complete waste of taxpayers’ dollars!

First of all, let’s be clear, I am not a public defender of Metro Vancouver, I have and still have issues with them as I am sure many cities and municipalities within Metro do; BUT as I have said repeatedly, Metro Vancouver has no choice but to stand up to our Mayor and his gang on Council that can’t shoot straight. What this clearly displays for all to see is Mayor Froese’s complete lack of knowledge of Provincial Legislation as it affects our Regional District.

To listen to our Mayor and others (i.e. Misty van Popta on her Facebook page, you know a candidate in the last election who was being recommended by non-other than Joel Shacter, (friend of Rich Coleman) tell it, the Township of Langley have been innocent victims in this court action initiated by Metro Vancouver as they are being prevented from making their own zoning and development decisions. What absolute crap! The Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) and the rules surrounding the RGS in terms of process and more are entrenched in Provincial Legislation, and have been since the mid-80s! They are being held to account to follow the process that is in place for every member. As much as every Municipality and City will have their own issues with Metro, and trust me there are a number, the RGS has assisted our region to be the most livable in the world.

The Wall Housing Development application has been innocently portrayed by the Township of Langley as housing to support the University District application. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was never part of the University District Application. If Metro gave into this application it would be open season on the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) which would end up being a useless document. The lower mainland, despite a large number of political tugs and pulls has prospered and is recognized as the most livable region in North America, let’s not lose it! As Mayor I was very pleased to play a part!!!

It is interesting that the RGS was an initiative that Township Council supported unanimously as did ALL municipalities and cities in the region; with Mayor Froese leading the way, no experience led by those with ulterior motives we are now fighting a legal battle against 22 other municipalities and cities in the region. What an exercise in cooperation!

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

Vs Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy – The Facts!

Rich Coleman, Mayor Froese and members of Council are

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

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

Ask WHY? WHO REALLY BENEFITS?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RG

—————————————————————————————

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

Protect your Democratic Rights – Protect your NEIGHBORS

Democratic Rights – stay informed, stay involved and VOTE!!!

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

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

Monday night’s decision had been long in coming and was well-orchestrated by the Township of Langley Council. The decisions on the two issues coming on the same evening, allowed for an apparent win for residents of Brookswood Fernridge and an, as expected, loss for the residents of Fort Langley and the Township of Langley by extension. The manipulation and game playing just doesn’t stop, unfortunately it is our residents who continue to pay the price.

As I said above, the results should not surprise anyone who has spent five minutes following the antics of this elected Council. This was a well thought out misdirection play trying to come off as balanced when in fact it was anything but. A bad decision is a bad decision! Did Brookswood Fernridge actually win anything? Actually not but I will explain further below.

What I truly believe happened last Monday night? Read on….

Fort Langley Coulter Berry 2.0 or is that 2.1?

I believe the Coulter Berry (Don’t get too comfortable yet Eric Woodward) is still in some serious trouble and rightfully so. But to start with let’s put this issue and process into its simplest of terms. Remember this is not about one building; it is about one Historical B.C. Village. The village of Fort Langley has very strong Provincial Heritage recognition and legislated protection as well as significant local heritage protection through bylaws, regulation and policy.

You can’t write this stuff, here is what happened –

• Eric Woodward starts to build a property portfolio in Fort Langley, now amounting to over 50% of downtown Fort Langley.
• In a wide ranging interview by Frank Bucholtz in the Langley Times over a year ago, Eric Woodward was asked clearly if he was aware of the Heritage Guidelines and everything it entailed in terms of height and façade guidelines within the Heritage Conservation Area. He stated yes he was aware of them, thought they were a great idea and agreed with all of it.
• After buying the old IGA property and the Hardware sight next door, he proceeds with plans for a 3 story building breaking every guideline conceivable led by none other than his consultant Kurt Alberts. You remember the former Mayor who, while in office, put in place strengthened bylaws so this kind of abuse could not happen.
• With the help of Kurt’s friendly Council they approve of the breaking of these rules, regulations, bylaws and approve the building, ultimately ruled by the B.C. Supreme Court to be illegal.
• The majority of Council participates in a sod turning while a Judicial Review is underway and NO Building Permit was issued.
• Township taken to court by citizens group and loses. Construction stops.
• Township states they will appeal the decision, apparently it is currently underway.
• Eric Woodward reapplies under a new process requesting an OCP change and Spot Zoning for his site only on Coulter Berry 2.0 with a virtually unchanged building size and lot coverage.
• Council gives 1^st and 2^nd reading, holds three nights of Public Hearing and gives 3^rd reading last Monday night despite unprecedented opposition from residents of the Township of Langley.
• To add insult to injury – Council Kim Richter brings a Notice of Motion forward to this coming Monday’s Council meeting (April 7^th 2014) calling for a moratorium  on three story buildings in Fort Langley until the Fort Langley OCP is revisited and this is to be placed in a priority position.

NOTE – In typical Township of Langley fashion, a special deal has been made for a friend and insider. A number of residents have built commercial buildings in Fort Langley and have been forced to abide by the rules of the Heritage Conservation Area. So to those members of Council who ignored. Yes Councilor Richter, you ignored the wishes and decades of hard work by so many residents of the Township of Langley and you ignored the fundamental principle of the preservation of the History of Fort Langley. You have just poked the BEAR!

After everything that has happened (read above) Councilor Kim Richter having supported this oversized and out of character building from the start on a prime corner in downtown Fort Langley wishes to place a moratorium on any additional three story buildings until the OCP is revisited? Am I reading this correctly? Richter supports one developer for one building then wants the door slammed shut on anyone else until the Fort Langley OCP is revisited? OH I see, we will once again experience our well used flawed planning processes which will what Councilor Richter – make these building sizes commonplace! NOT! After spending 15 years on Council you offer this insult to residents of Fort Langley and the Township of Langley? What an absolute embarrassment! Kim Richter is showing her true stripes in spades!!!! Do you still believe in her repetitive attempts in getting you to believe in her sincere concern for your community? Just asking? The image is breaking down, reality is showing through!

Stay tuned, I have good reason to believe that there is much more to come.

Brookswood Fernridge Community Plan?

It was on my initiative, driven by many Brookswood Fernridge residents who expressed their interest in revisiting the Brookswood Fernridge Community Plan, that we had staff address this long standing thorn in the side of so many. The key reason behind their concern was the influx of speculators and developers who were buying up property, leaving homes boarded up and vacant, inhabited by drug dealers and more. It was expressed many times that they didn’t like what was happening and that it was very similar to what was happening up in Willoughby. They wanted protection from this happening in their community. That was the start and was the impetus for revisiting the Brookswood Fernridge Community Plan. Funding was an issue raised by staff and they were going to come back with a plan to achieve our needs.

For the record, NO, I did not know anything about ten land owner / developers forming a Corporation with $50K each into a $500,000 Planning fund. I obviously was not aware of this Developer based Advisory Board. I was also not aware that staff went back to their top down planning model of convenience to everyone but residents! As I have said in an earlier post, the first I had heard of this was the local media in recent weeks. This was a flagrant conflict of interest. For Mayor Froese to deny this conflict appeared or was real speaks volumes.

Here is my view of where we have been, where we are and what is possible!

• Make no mistake about it, this Mayor, Jack Froese and this Council took an initiative and completely botched the plan and intent of the plan which was originally set by me to give this community ownership in the development of their Community Plan. By going back to the failed Township planning process that gives you the Willoughby problems they were on track for failure once again. By agreeing to an MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) agreement with ten developers in the development of this plan they displayed a terrible case of bad judgment. Who are the developers? What is contained in the MOU?
• After a series of well attended Open Houses, Council gives 1^st and 2^nd reading of the appropriate bylaws, went into a well contested Public Hearing over three nights and after an attempt by Charlie Fox to hold on through a referral motion which was defeated, the plan was rejected at 3^rd reading 7 – 2. Mayor Froese and Councilor Ward, despite unprecedented opposition, still supported this disaster of a Community Plan.
• Jack Froese advised this week of a “Notice of Motion” to be addressed at the April 7^th Council Meeting by Councilor Long which involves holding onto the input of the planning process. My answer would be NO many times over. This is the definition of insanity, following the same failed planning process expecting a different result! It never ceases to amaze me.
• The current Brookswood Fernridge Community Plan was adopted in 1987 showing a population growth over time to 35,000.
• The proposed Brookswood Fernridge Community Plan that was just defeated called for a population growth to about 42,000.
• The Metro Vancouver Regional Growth numbers are projections; they are estimates per community which makes up a global number for the Township. The RGS controls where town centers will be located and curbs urban sprawl which is good for every Municipality and/or City in the lower mainland. It does not preclude communities having a say in what they want for their specific community, which is what has been totally ignored to-date.
• Community planning (OCPs) and neighborhood planning in the Township of Langley is in my opinion top down and fundamentally wrong. It is badly flawed. It is the smoke and mirrors system and method of planning. They hire planners and staff to look after their need. They hold, a one day planning charet inviting a number of residents to play with marking up maps giving them a sense that they are going to listen to what they want to see in their community. They feed everyone, thank them for their input, promise follow up and the next thing you see is an Open House with their view of what they claim they heard you say. Trust me, both do not equate. Their listening is very shallow.
• They followed this process in Brookswood Fernridge, held a couple of Open Houses which were contentious but went forward to 1^st and 2^nd reading, Public Hearing and 3^rd reading. They defeat 3^rd reading despite a number of councilors expressed attempt, led by Charlie Fox, to put lipstick on a pig. It failed.
• What is needed in the Township of Langley is a Community Based Planning Model consisting of an established Community Planning Committee made up of residents and retail business owners with non-voting members from School Board and Council. The Community Planning Committee would elect a chair from their number and would lead the initiative with an assigned professional facilitator / planning support from the Township. We introduced this into the Aldergrove Core Community Plan and was accepted by the community very well. For the most part you get what you ask for!

The Brookswood Fernridge Community Plan Going Forward?

The Brookswood Fernridge Community came together like never before to fight off what was being attempted to be done to them. Did you win? You won the battle but DID NOT win the war! There will now be an attempt by most members of this Council and staff to somehow resurrect the remnants of this failed enterprise for use within what will be suggested as a new process with new community dialogue. Don’t believe it for a second. It will be the same flawed process that created the situation you are in now. It is long past due to blow up the Planning of Convenience Model, used by this Council and staff of the Township of Langley and elect a new Council (except David Davis) who will bring in a NEW level of concern for our citizens.

Don’t be fooled; don’t buy what this Council and staff will be selling!

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 Monday night Council meeting will be the line in the sand pitting two Township Communities against a Municipal Council majority. The issues:

• Fort Langley (Eric Woodward’s Coulter Berry vs Heritage)
• Brookswood Fernridge Community (DOO Group – Developer Owned and Operated Community Plan vs A Community Plan of interest to residents) is the tip of the iceberg.

Next on the agenda:

• Aldergrove has been forgotten and ignored (development approvals on Township land with a satisfactory Pool / Recreation Center becoming a distant memory)
• Willoughby residents (unprecedented out of control growth following a poor planning process which includes no satisfactory parking for residents).

The readers of this BLOG understand and recognize what has motivated it’s creation. It was created out of pure frustration that the majority of Township of Langley residents were not aware, due to poor local media coverage, about what was really happening in their community. It is clear that more and more residents are being made aware about the facts in local Township governance. Three years in the Mayor’s office provided me with a real understanding of the systemic problems in the Township of Langley.

Today, Sunday, over 600 residents representing all communities of the Township braved the weather to hold a protest rally about what was happening to them in their Brookswood / Fernridge community and Fort Langley who are all strongly united. The majority in Fort Langley are fighting to hold onto Heritage Preservation which is what Fort Langley is all about despite subliminal and some not so subliminal threats and intimidation by those wishing to throw out the rules for one developer.

Fort Langley petition against Coulter Berry over 1,400

Brookswood petition against this proposed plan over 2,200

Brookswood Fernridge Petitions signed against tree cutting today 531

Now tell me there is NO interest, OH I forgot, our Mayor is on record as saying he doesn’t rule by petitions, he has a special power to consider all that didn’t come out to the Public Hearings are in favor? WHAT – You can’t make this stuff up!

It goes on and on and on! I know for a fact, after talking to many residents, that Aldergrove has had enough. Willoughby residents can’t believe what is happening to them, after making the largest purchase of their lives they are now questioning that decision to locate in the Township. All communities are now joining together.

As I see it, this Township of Langley Council has one last chance Monday night, defeat Coulter Berry 2.0, reject the Brookswood Community Plan entirely and introduce a NEW Residential Community based model. There is much more needed, both in Willoughby and Aldergrove to get the Township back on track. More on these communities shortly!

Members of Council, over to you, YOU HAVE A CHOICE, don’t blame the messenger!

Council Meeting PLEASE attend –       Council Decision 7:00 PM Monday March 31^st.

Venue change – Christian Life Assembly for the Council meeting and to observe Council’s decision.

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.