langleywatchdog…. and more!

In part one I uncovered and exposed the fact that the Township of Langley deliberately misled residents from November of 2005 about Soil Deposit responsibility on Agricultural Land. This lasted until June of 2010, the month we uncovered the November 2005 letter to the ALC stating they had a resolution but in fact they had no resolution. The Township of Langley knowingly went against the requirements of Provincial Legislation. It was now time to correct the problem. Well, anywhere else it would have been easy, but in the Township there were and are other forces at work!!

First let me be very clear – this is not about banning Soil Deposits on Agricultural Land but it is about abiding by legislation allowing appropriately planned, inspected and responsible Soil Deposits. Rural property owners should expect to have their property protected against the actions of irresponsible neighboring land owners. Unfortunately in the Township of Langley we have been pre-disposed with protecting the offenders (problem soil deposits) than we are innocent land owners that want nothing more but to maintain their land in the condition they bought it. They want to protect it’s value; not too much to ask?

This entire soil deposit on agricultural land issue – the uncovering of the 2005 letter to the ALC from the Township Chief Administrative Officer (CAO); followed by the memo to only five councilors by the CAO in an attempt to prop up his defense of that letter and most important; a letter from the ALC clearly defining soil deposit on agricultural land being a non-farm use. Up to this point, for the best part of the past decade the Township of Langley had been the wild, wild west for soil deposit on Agricultural Land. Put it another way it was and is “a license to print money”. This was all the result of a legal interpretation of the act by Township lawyers, so says Councilor Fox. Is that what it was, really Councilor Fox, or was it possibly an intentional attempt to circumvent Provincial Legislation? Just asking the question?

The following is an interesting contradiction; NOW WHO WOULD YOU BELIEVE?

In an interview with the Aldergrove Star May 31^st Fry said “both of these cases are considered non-farm use and local government has the authority to reject them and not forward them to the ALC for consideration. In our legislation for applications that are called non-farm uses, and in fact those involving fill, an application of that nature may not proceed to the (ALC) unless authorized by a forwarding resolution of Council,” said Fry. Colin Fry – Executive Director Agricultural Land Commission

Fox lashes out at ALC Staff – “Fox disagrees with Fry’s interpretation, believing council must send every application to the ALC for them to make a decision.” Monique Tamminga, Times Reporter.

In my view: – Somehow Councilor Fox you come out second best in that comparison which is certainly not surprising given your track record. Colin Fry’s reputation is beyond reproach! After three years sitting in the Mayor’s office I have another, very clear view – Staff and Legal Counsel are only advisers to members of Council, it is incumbent on members of Council to ask the pertinent questions and challenge those providing the advice and not sit there nodding their heads and taking orders. If bad advice is given by staff and Legal Counsel they should be called to account. This is an extremely serious miscalculation and misreading of the ALC legislation. It should never have happened let alone be defended by members of Council.

So where are we now? This brings us to a June 7^th, 2010 Special Council Meeting when the following resolution of Council was passed unanimously:

That Council direct that:

1. A letter of thanks be issued to the staff of the Agricultural Land Commission (“ALC”) for the Letter and the detailed analysis therein provided as quickly as they did; and further that
2. Staff work with legal counsel to amend and revise Township of Langley Bylaws and policies in accordance with the Letter (the “Review”); and further that
3. until the Review is complete that all soil deposit applications for the removal or deposit of fill in excess of 600 cubic meters (approximately 100 loads) be referred to Council for consideration; and further that
4. Council request that all soil deposit applications presently with the ALC originating in the Township of Langley be referred back to the Township for consideration in accordance with the Letter; and further that
5. processing of future soil deposit and removal applications by Council be deferred until the Review is complete; and further that
6. after Council has considered a soil deposit or removal application, that the ALC be provided with notification of the decision to ensure compliance with the Act and the Regulation; and
7. that this memorandum and the attached materials be released to the public.

Carried

This resolution was passed by Council on June 7^th 2010, with most of the above entered into the Township of Langley POLICY MANUAL – Policy 05-776 dated 2010.07.19. Number 2 and 5 above was ignored by council and staff. Why? Does staff get to pick and choose what they want to follow?

Fast forward to the Spring of 2012, a full two years later when a number of rural residents throughout the Township of Langley got together over some serious concerns about some planned fill sites. Delegations were planned and received by Township of Langley Council. Through this initiative which received considerable media attention at the time they discovered that the resolution of June 2010 was not followed in it’s entirety. The June 2010 resolution called for an amendment and revision of the Township by-laws. As residents found out in the Spring of 2012, this requested by-law revision and amendment was not acted upon.

So, in typical Township of Langley Council fashion they further complicate the issue – WHY was it not acted on? The June 2010 resolution of Council clearly stated that staff and legal counsel would collaborate in it’s revision and amendment? Who are we trying to benefit?

Councilor Fox once again gets in the way by offering the following motion for the Sept. 10^th, 2012 meeting of Council –

Whereas, the Township of Langley has received a growing number of fill site applications; and

Whereas, these applications are contentious and enforcement has been downloaded to Township personnel and resources at the local taxpayers expense; and

Whereas, the Township of Langley has received legal advice that it cannot formally establish a moratorium or prohibition on any fill site applications, it can only regulate them,

Therefore, be it resolved that the issue of non-farm use fill site applications on ALR Lands be referred to staff to provide an appropriate radius of influence and neighbourhood approval threshold to establish a benchmark before these applications may come before Council for due consideration, and

Further, all fill site applications presently in stream  be put on hold until the new approval threshold and benchmark details has been ratified by Council’ and

Further all future non-farm fill site applications on ALR land will be subject to these approval thresholds and benchmarks.

Councilor Fox here you go again – WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! 2^nd whereas – This was not downloaded by the ALC onto the Township, it has always been the responsibility of the Municipality despite Council’s repeated attempts to abdicate their responsibility. 3^rd whereas – Well after discovering what we did about their advice about responsibility of soil deposits, me thinks the Township should seek a second opinion. 4^th – Establishing so-called approval thresholds and benchmarks speaks to how out of touch Councillor Fox is and how far Council is willing to go.

Once again, why make things easy and beneficial to residents in the Township when we can throw more mud on the wall to confuse the masses?  

The Township of Langley held a December 3^rd 2012 CPC (Council Priority Committee) Meeting devoted entirely to the Soil Deposit Issue. A two hour meeting with delegations representing the community, the Ministry of Agriculture, the development community and Township Legal Counsel. I have to tell you that I am in possession of a written transcript of this meeting and there are more questions than answers.

Your Mayor – When your Mayor comes out with the comment “tougher rules create less compliance” you just have to shake your head. That comment will go down in history with his on the record comment that he “doesn’t govern by petitions” and he “doesn’t respond to numbers at a Public Hearing”. He wants to consider that all of those that didn’t come out to the meeting obviously approve, has to be the most inane thought process yet by any Mayor of record, at least publicly!

So here we are on April 2^nd, 2013 and we don’t have a by-law passed (there is one going through the process but it’s content is of serious concern and is seriously being questioned). Three years since we uncovered the truth and we are no further ahead in looking to protect rural residents. Remember 80% of our land base is in the ALR.

The reality is, soil deposit by-laws which are much stronger from surrounding Cities and Municipalities were ignored. Instead we have gone through a seemingly endless number of meetings eating hundreds of hours of staff and legal counsel time to achieve what?

Here is a thought for you – Given the rules that existed in the Township of Langley prior to us getting in the way, making that 2005 letter public and interrupting their way of doing business, are we seeing a new convoluted way of doing business. Is this Option B? This is looking like an extension of the policies this Council is starting to be known for in all aspects of government. Transparency is not high on their list!

I have to close with a very succinct comment from a very good friend. This is an individual who is a very good operator in the Soil Deposit business in another Metro Vancouver City. After reading the transcript of the CPC meeting he states

“Wow, to say that I am surprised would ignore everything that I know about the Township. This is more of the same shit that has gone on for years, hide the real issue behind a fake meeting that is seeking fake solutions to fake problems that will generate real profits for a chosen few.” This is a great example of why I won’t move back to the Township of Langley!

I find this comment sad but understandable. This friend sold his property in the Township about a year ago. You know – We don’t have to put up with it! Lets say enough is enough!!

I am working a few posts of interest however the next post will contain some Provincial Government election musings in the countdown to May 14^th, 2013!

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 would think that before the Township of Langley (TOL) took steps to try to alter their long established arrangement within Metro Vancouver they would take steps to communicate with their taxpayers! Sorry, that is the way it would be in any other city or municipality, but obviously not the Township. I wonder who was behind this.

As you may recall the Township of Langley is embroiled in an issue with Metro Vancouver over their by-laws that purportedly conflict with Metro Vancouver’s recent unanimously adopted Regional Growth Strategy (RGS). This conflict surprisingly enough has turned legal with lawyers on both sides costing taxpayers a significant amount of money. Now it is important to note that the RGS was adopted unanimously by the Township of Langley Municipal Council in 2011 and by all member municipalities, cities and councils throughout the region during that same year. Councilor Fox was the Township Director at the Board level and voted for the RGS and now we hear more of his bafflegab that goes nowhere! Fox has all of the answers, he just doesn’t understand the questions yet!

Lets’ be clear, this is not about siding with Metro Vancouver against the Township of Langley. It is about living within a Provincial Legislated mandated partnership for the benefit of the citizens within member cities and municipalities of the region. Every member of Metro can come up with a grievance(s) but that applies to the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC), Translink, the Provincial and Federal Government and more. The most important thing to remember is Metro Vancouver was initially established to provide sewer and water services for the region and has grown to include regional planning and parks. All of this was established under Provincial legislation, so what is the Township of Langley up to Now?

The News:

I am in receipt of inside information from a confidential source that the Township of Langley has sent a letter to the Provincial Government requesting its departure from Metro Vancouver and joining with Abbotsford to set up a NEW Regional District. The Township has further stated that they want to stay with Metro Vancouver for Sewer, Water and Parks. It is interesting that what they want to be excluded from is the planning function i.e. the Regional Growth Strategy. We want what we want but to hell with everything else! Wouldn’t life be great if we could pick and choose that way? Absolutely bizarre, but why should we be surprised by this group. They just continue to embarrass themselves.

Reason for serious concern! – It is interesting to me that this clearly came about because of the dispute over the Wall development proposal (69 Townhouses smack in the middle of a large piece of quality agricultural property) and the controversial University District which has been in the planning stages for years. Now, despite their unanimous approval of the RGS at the Metro Board level here they are trying to do an end run around the previously adopted RGS.

It is also interesting to note that our MLA Rich Coleman came out very vocally against Metro Vancouver and it’s RGS despite the fact Metro Vancouver Directors were following Provincial Legislation. Why would he be interfering? Here we go again with the Rich Coleman school of bullying tactics that seem to have become common place in the affairs of the Township and the Province. Just today we see two full Rich Coleman pages in the Langley Advance with endorsements from the likes of Councilor Charlie Fox and former Mayor Kurt Alberts. Do we start to see the connection?

Now lets’ not forget The Walls are strong Liberal supporters and strong Christy Clark supporters. Rich Coleman told me personally in 2008 (a conversation I described in detail in my first BLOG Post on this site and one I would swear an affidavit over) that THEY (Who are they? The elite? The TOL establishment?) but he says THEY are OK with the property deals. Now let’s see what we have; a letter to the Province (would this not to have had to be dealt with by cabinet?) with Rich Coleman carrying heavy influence on a subject he is already publicly identified with. Could Rich Coleman have had anything to do with this move? Just asking the question?

The local media are also on record as supporting Rich Coleman’s comment that Metro should effectively stay out of our business. Well this is further proof THEY (the local media) don’t know what they are talking about. Taking this to its illogical conclusion, Metro Vancouver should ignore any urban containment boundaries between Urban and ALR and sit back while we grow in an ad-hoc fashion with little or no control. This move would be absolutely asinine!

So where on earth is this Council coming from or going?

Once again their arrogance is only exceeded by their stupidity! Consider….

The supply of municipal services such as Water and Sewer are essential to growth in the region. Good planning is essential for the planning of those same Water and Sewer services. You cannot separate those components (Water / Sewer / Planning) for a well-planned region; whether that is for a University District or a Townhouse Development.

The Metro Vancouver Region is world class and world renowned for its quality of life. This reputation is well deserved and has been well earned through a very concerted effort by past Provincial and Municipal Governments. This move that is being attempted by the Township of Langley is nothing more than a self-serving attempt by special interests.

Now does the region have it’s problems? Absolutely! We have to continue to perfect our model with a heavy emphasis on Transportation. It is incumbent on all elected officials throughout the region, Federal, Provincial and Municipal to commit themselves to solving this and assorted other problems. Transportation is the region’s biggest issue. I might add, the Provincial Liberal Government despite an endless number of initiatives by Mayors in the region have been an abject failure with Translink. Establishing another Regional District because someone in the Township or elsewhere doesn’t like losing control over development is absurd! I can only wonder who would ultimately benefit?

This is once again a poorly thought out action that this Council is gaining a reputation for, a knee jerk move, poorly thought out!

This Council owes the residents of the Township of Langley an explanation. Who made this decision? Based on what input? Legal? Cost? Planning? The questions are endless!!!

OH and by the way, in case you were wondering I will go out on a limb and suggest that this attempt has NO chance of succeeding, and while Mayor Froese is putting on a public display of his complete lack of experience and no ability or willingness to work within the same rules as all other Cities and Municipalities in the region, sanity will prevail. You have to ask the question, who is pulling the strings? If we follow what is going on I believe the answer to that question is painfully obvious. As a taxpayer I can only hope that the Township of Langley will settle this dispute with Metro Vancouver before anymore legal bills are racked up on such a ridiculous exercise!

My next Post later next week will be – Soil Deposit on Agricultural Land – A non-farm use “Out of Control”

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.

For the record I am not a believer in Conspiracy Theories BUT in conversation with a very well-known individual in the Township of Langley the other day he states, “The Township of Langley is the only place he knows of where Conspiracy Theories are True”. This Post will provide some interesting proof of what is really going on behind the scenes. I don’t want to insult anyone but “We get the government we deserve”!

I can only present the facts and hope people will start to listen and think for themselves. I welcome disagreement and debate but don’t bury your head in the sand.

Over the years, going through a wide ranging number of life experiences I started following my own philosophy very early on. In particular that was 1) I would trust everyone unless they give me reason not to and 2) I would do what was right for those I represented ie family, business and public service elected or appointed regardless of the fall out that may result. It has served me very well! Some are going to like you and some aren’t, it is what it is! Following this mind set, I have had many surprises over time. You go into business or public service with an idealistic view of things, wanting to believe the best in people and their intentions. Unfortunately there are far too many surprises and I have found through experience in business and politics when those come to light, it is only the tip of the ice-burg! These surprises, in most cases, lead to even bigger surprises. Welcome to the Township of Langley!

In political life there will always be tough decisions; the result is good or bad depending on your particular point-of-view – welcome to democracy. All of that is life in politics. Then there are those decisions that regardless of how hard you investigate to understand the reasons behind them, you conclude there is NO common sense rationale for them to have been made. You have to ask, in those cases, and there are many of them in the Township. Why? Who benefits? Where is the local media?

• The Mufford Crescent Overpass Diversion – Despite secrecy, no public process, negative affect on agriculture, 95% community opposition when we made it public; it took a community committee to make a presentation to ALC staff to point out the serious inaccuracies of the proponents report before it was rejected. NO objective local media.
• Langley Events Center – Despite a multitude of irresponsible decisions as outlined in an earlier LEC Post they had an opportunity to correct many of them. Unfortunately they chose to continue to move forward and leave the Township at risk and cost the Township taxpayer an unnecessary $8.6 million. NO objective local media.
• Soil Deposits on Agricultural Land – Despite ALR legislation designating responsibility to the TOL, our staff without resolution chose to ignore that legislation and mislead the ALC. I would ask at who’s cost? Who is responsible? No objective local media.
• Athenry / Forewest / Fort Langley / Bedford Landing and much much more – The underlying principles of community input and consultation in Township of Langley development are wide open to serious questions. NO objective local media.

This obviously leads to suspicion about what is really going on behind the scenes.

Unfortunately the problem today is everyone is too busy in their own lives. To meet day to day minimal obligations including housing and commuting costs the average family requires two incomes. The time left is devoted to family. This separation of attention to community is dramatically reflected in our very low municipal voter turnouts. Fact, municipal government affects your lives more than any other.

In my view, we have accepted very low standards of performance in our elected leaders. Speaking of low standards of performance; the electorate’s knowledge and attitudes have been driven by those same low standards of performance of our local media. Good journalism should be driven by facts, investigation, research and questions, all of which are absent in the Township of Langley. Why? Is it because certain local politicians intimidate or feed rumor, gossip and innuendo against their opponents? Is that what local media is accepting, buying into and being run by? Are they accepting this on face value? They should be far more challenging than they are! As of this moment they have been doing a complete disservice to residents.

So who is really running the Township of Langley?

I have had an incredible opportunity to be elected Mayor of the Township of Langley. This experience gave me an otherwise impossible insight into the inner workings at our Municipal Hall ie who is friends with who and who is inappropriately influential? Our MLA Rich Coleman made that abundantly clear to me in a conversation ten months before I was elected. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to get the message, but that was a message I chose to ignore and Rich Coleman received a message in return from me during that same conversation. (See the first Post in This BLOG) It would have been easy to stay in the Mayors Chair, just go with the flow. That was wrong then and it is wrong now! It is costing all of us in a serious way.

Now, here is some very interesting proof about connections and who is working for whom?

IMPORTANT / Caution – The following contains a little colorful language so I don’t want to offend anyone. For that reason I wanted to start with a slight caution. I have left the emails intact (exactly as written) to provide accuracy to what was being said and show the stated (by Mr. Schacter) interference by your Provincial MLA and senior management at the Hall. What could they have been afraid of, who at the Hall was involving themselves in the Municipal Election Campaign and to what extent? I could respond to all of Mr. Schacter’s comments and accusations, but from beginning to end he doesn’t know what he is talking about and is showing himself for what he is. Was this just to ensure that nothing changed at the Hall so he could retain his influence? Just asking the question? The comment attributed to Rich Coleman re all the Provincial money that had been going to Surrey because of me is interesting; now you get the picture – do as I say or else. There is that Bullying again! Is this the type of individual you can be proud of as your MLA? I would be interested in what money Rich Coleman sent to Surrey and not the Township? Talk about irresponsible representation!

Introduction to the following – The following are copies of emails that were extensively distributed to hundreds of Real Estate professionals and many others in the Township of Langley. It was started by Joel Schacter, a well-known Real Estate Agent friend of Rich Coleman and Mark Bakken with respect to the 2011 Township of Langley Municipal Election Campaign. It was distributed widely during the week prior to election-day. It speaks for itself. The second is a response email from a Real Estate Agent in that same office responding to Joel Schacter’s email. The third email is a further response to Joel Schacter’s email with additional thoughts. I have eliminated the name of the company, another individual, all of whom were named and who are immaterial to the story, as well as the distribution list of names and email addresses.

1^st Email

Sent: Tues, 11/15 2011 3:00 PM          (Election Day was November 19^th, 2011)

Hi Fellow ___________,

I know that there was some questions at this morning’s meeting regarding the upcoming election and being as I and ________ have been personally involved, affected and have some grave concerns over our current Mayor I thought I would pass on some of my personal thoughts (these are my thoughts alone, not _____  I am hoping that if you haven’t taken the time to research out the different candidates yet, you will do so soon.

For those of you have do not have the time or desire to do the research I am happy to provide you with the names I have researched also knowing I have had personal conversations with each and every one of them

The Mayor’s position is the most contentious one and I will be voting for Mel Kositsky.  He has 18 years of experience on council and has been very diplomatic during his terms.  He is not one to sling mud quickly and takes a methodical approach to all his decisions and votes.  He does not appear to be swayed by the vocal minority and attempts to make a decision that benefits all of us as residents and property owners.  I also feel things will become a lot more respectful at the council table and it won’t be so embarrassing to read about our leaders in the local news for the next 3 years.

I do have a concern if we split the vote between Jack Froese and Mel as this could easily put Rick Green back in the Mayor’s seat.  Jack is a good man but I was hoping he would have run for a council seat before jumping right for the chair of the Mayor.  Unfortunately, it appears a vote for Jack looks like it will end up being a vote for Green in the long run.

I have had discussions with some of the senior management at the hall as well as our MLA Rich Coleman and 2 former mayors….they are all suggesting Mel has the best chance of taking Green out.  Rich will be making an unprecedented press release endorsing Mel as well as several current members of council and 2 new prospective members in the next 24 -48 hours.  He believes strongly in getting the right people locally who can work with them provincially.  This will stop all provincial funds from being diverted to Surrey, as has been for the last while.  This was mostly due to the antagonistic and adversarial posture the current Mayor took with them when funds were either requested or offered.

As for the rest of council, I believe the following people will work together well and provide a mixture of perspectives and balance to the counsel table.

For the Council seats

Bob Long (incumbent)

Charlie Fox (incumbent)

Bev Dornan (incumbent)

Grant Ward (incumbent)

Steve Ferguson (incumbent)

Michelle Sparrow

Misty van Popta

Dan Sheel

For School Board

Rod Ross (incumbent)

Alison McVeigh, (incumbent)

Kari Medos,

John Mckendry

Please feel free to either email or call me if you wish more detailed information or have further questions.  I do ask that each one of you get out there and vote.  There is an advance poll tomorrow, Wednesday, Nov. 16 from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. at the Township hall should you be unable to do so on this coming Saturday.

Best regards to you all!

Joel Schacter

2^nd Email – The response

Joel

I for one, am truly embarrassed to be even closely associated with you and your bunch of urban cowboy idiots.

Perhaps you might be kind and courteous enough to keep your bent political bullshit to yourself and out of our office.  It is bad enough that you have your Bible study sessions utilizing our office facilities.

Go rent a room some where else.

Sending this garbage email to everyone in the office….. creates the impression of Guilt by Association.

It is likely, that most of the people in the office are not aware of your behind the scenes smear campaign against what I consider to be ………..a very intelligent, honest and fair guy who is being slammed by a bunch of self-serving idiots that have their own hidden agendas…..just like you do.

If not, then why would you bother to spend so much of your time on this shit ?

Are you scared of losing your inside connections to all of the Township and School Board real estate deals ?

Pretty easy to prove my point.

Mel Kositsky may be a very nice guy, but heh……what other job has he had in his career ?  He is in this deal for the pay cheque and pension, just like most of them.

You seem to feel some right to open your mouth and spew this garbage to everyone…..then I suppose I have the same right to retort.

Get a life.

Glenn Duff

3^rd Email – Further response

Joel

Now that you have seriously got my attention, I would actually like to make a formal and public inquiry as to what really is your agenda here ?

Why is it, that you and Rich Coleman and Mark Backman all hang out together and scheme about how to “take out” Green ??  What is it really about Rick Green that has got your collected attention ?

I was told along time ago, to find the truth……..simply follow the money.

After my long days working in Real Estate, I am simply looking for the couch to hang out and relax.

It seems however, that you have a lot more energy than me……… as I see various political figures in your office at the end of the day……….  You seem to be very popular, so you should try closing your office blinds when night time arrives.

I have often asked myself, why does this born again Jewish guy, (I only reference that because you never miss an opportunity to tell me) care to involve himself in politics when he could be out playing golf or even spending time with Seniors at the care homes or even lawn bowling ?

Personally, I rarely spend too much time doing things, that do not bring some form of benefit to either myself, my friends or my family.  Charity work is the exception for me, but I somehow suspect that you are not doing any of this smear campaign for Charity.

You have now created a bit of a legacy within the Township of Langley….of course with all of your hard work on the School Board (right J) and lately with your behind the scenes work, ensuring the “right” people are elected.

What you actually do is create a bad smell and it is getting worse.

I am not speaking for ________ here………..only myself……..but for me, It would be really nice if your could find it in your heart to go and work at some other office……or heh !!! …….Run for office yourself !!!!

Joel Schacter for Mayor !!   I will be your campaign manager.

That way, I would not be subjected to seeing you everyday with all of your political cronies pretending to be do-gooders.  You are really far from that.

Do the right thing for a change and keep your biased opinions to your self.

Glenn Duff

Further Food for Thought (Previously undisclosed) – On the Sunday after election-day I contacted my assistant to schedule a meeting with her to go through my office ie desk, personal items, files and more which is part of the normal process. I was still the Mayor until December 1^st, 2011. We scheduled a meeting for Monday night at 7:00 PM in my office. (Just less than 48 hours after the polls closed on election-day.) Well, surprise surprise – On arrival I found my office swept and wiped clean. Both front and back doors open with a small cart in the foyer with my personal belongings. Filing cabinet removed, book case removed with the office in a state as though it had just been constructed. My desk, credenza and cabinet were ready for a new occupant, not a phone call to ask about anything, just done without my approval. In answer to my question – where did everything go? I was told that everything was recycled! Talk about a rush to judgment!!!

Why? Who was responsible? I was still the Mayor for two weeks. Put it another way, this was my private office for two weeks! Wouldn’t it make sense that the new Mayor would want to review files on issues of significance that I would leave in detail for him? The incoming Mayor should have been asked the question. Now that would be the natural assumption that the incoming Mayor cared, which quite frankly (recent actions of the Mayor support this statement) I don’t believe he did.

Now I can assure you that my assistant did not do this without direction. I did not question my assistant as to who directed her because in fairness to her she was doing what she was told and I wasn’t about to cause her some serious aggravation.

So look back at those emails and you will clearly understand the movement behind the scenes to rid themselves of the problems I had caused them. Imagine, someone in the Mayor’s office who was committed to residents and taxpayers, wanting to see a transparent and responsive municipal government in place. What a unique concept!!!

My next Post later next week will be – Soil Deposit on Agricultural Land – A non-farm use “Out of Control”

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 Township of Langley is the home to numerous and very questionable soil deposits that have left devastating consequences in their wake. What has the Township of Langley been up to? It is long past due to call each member of council to account! They are responsible!

Important Note: The Landfill issue is a very serious rural concern and another example of Municipal neglect that affects property values and livability, not unlike Athenry, Forewest, Mufford Cresc. Overpass and Fort Langley issues do in our urban environment. Regardless of where you live in the Township of Langley, issues such as this affect your fellow residents. We should all be very concerned about how all of our communities are being treated by Municipal Hall and your elected Council. 

This is first in a series telling the real story! Due to the length and complexity of this issue I will lay it out in increments in a series of Posts.

I think a little history is in order to put this issue into context! – The Township of Langley is a very unique municipality in the Province of British Columbia.  50% of all farms in Metro Vancouver are in the Township of Langley and we have more farm properties than any other Municipality / City in British Columbia. (75% – 80% of our land base is in the ALR) There is a good deal of history that goes with that but it starts back at the time the Agricultural Land Reserve was being established. The stampede to subdivide rural properties prior to the implementation of the ALR left the Township with a very large number of 2 acre, 3 acre, 5 acre and 10 acre properties, all in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR). Unfortunately, due to years of mismanagement by an endless number of Township Municipal Councils who have been pre occupied with property deals and looking the other way when it came to soil deposits, not one of them has addressed the problem of soil deposits and Intensive Agriculture on small acreages. While there is Provincial Legislation on “Right to Farm” which affects intensive agriculture, soil deposits on Agricultural Land (ALR) are a Non-Farm use and in THE control of the Municipality / City involved.

We have an endless number of permitted devastating soil deposits on properties throughout the Township of Langley where there has been absolutely no oversight and/or control. The end result of these permitted and non-permitted soil deposits have caused serious flooding and reduced property values throughout the Township of Langley. Actual deposits have been exceeded by up to twenty times and more, their permitted quantity. Many of the types of soil deposits being deposited are devastating for any possible agricultural use. When you talk to the uninformed about soil deposits, their first questions is why isn’t something done? There is one short and quick answer “Follow the Money”! Soil deposits are a very lucrative way of making money; consider a soil deposit of 20,000 truck-loads at a fee of $60.00 per load (fees can range from $50.00 to $80.00 per load) Income in this example = $1,200,000.00. NOT A BAD RETURN, at the expense of the neighbors! More important is the question, a return for who?

Starting in the fall of 2008! Soil Deposit abuse had been going on in the Township of Langley for decades with hundreds if not thousands of dumpsites, permitted and non-permitted over the years. Controls over those soil deposits have been virtually non-existent as many affected land owners have unfortunately found out with devastating results. As development grew and expanded in the Township of Langley, pressure grew for more and more soil deposit sites and in my view the already non-existent oversight was magnified exponentially.

Leading up to and after the 2008 election, when I was elected Mayor, all we heard from staff and Council members in the community in answer to community complaints on soil deposits was “approval was the responsibility of the Agricultural Land Commission”. Well that is what we thought and what we were told at the time. As I said in an earlier post “I trust everyone until they give me reason not to”.

Well, speak of a reason not to!

Shortly after the election I got very involved with a number of resident complaints, all justified as I saw them. The problem grew with more complaints and thus more investigation on my part. The more we investigated, talked to staff and talked to our lawyers, I took the view that we had to challenge this senior authority and the ALR Provincial Act as we were told that it was the governing body over this issue. After more than a year of my office challenging and I might add disagreeing with staff and our lawyers on many occasions as to their interpretation of the legislation, a very interesting letter came across my desk. The truth was out!

A lengthy letter was sent to a landowner in South Langley from senior staff member Colin Fry, at the ALC in which he stated “Soil Deposit on Agricultural Land is a Non-Farm use and under the control of the Municipality / City involved.” I was copied on this letter. With this clearly stated, contrary to previous statements made by those involved at the Township, I called our CAO and our lawyers at Bull Houser &Tupper (BH&T) for clarification given we had been told something different than previously thought. Senior staff continued to disagree despite this statement by ALC Staff, however I requested legal Counsel to contact Mr. Fry for clarification. BH & T did, and after a long telephone conversation with the ALC and two letters back and forth we now had an agreed understanding of the truth behind the rules. Staff continued to say this was a change in interpretation; something that I believe was and is patently false. This led to a little shock treatment to members of council as it was a complete change from what they had been told by staff. Well interestingly enough this was only the tip of the iceberg!

Fast forward to the Spring of 2010 and the Monday morning of an in-camera Council meeting at which we were going to deal with the whole issue of soil deposits with our lawyer present. I can tell you, in this job you never knew what was going to happen next!

Well what was next? Of everything I was dealt during my term, what transpired next was quite frankly the most shocking and that is saying something. On the Monday morning of that in-camera meeting I received a call from a resident who told me that he heard there was a resolution of Council in November of 2005 to send all applications for soil deposits to the ALC for review and approval. With all due respect to the individual that phoned me I believe I told him that he didn’t know what he was talking about, but I would investigate further. Having said that I phoned Mark Bakken our CAO and asked him if there was a resolution of Council in November of 2005; His answer, no there was no resolution of Council but there was a letter from him to the ALC. I asked for a copy of it immediately and was quite taken back at what was put on my desk a short time later. Well here it is:

November 22, 2005                                                                                                   File No. 5280-14

Provincial Agricultural Land Commission

Room #133, 4940 Canada Way

Burnaby BC V5G 4K6

Attention: Colin Fry

Re:  Council Resolution for Fill Sites Located Within the Township of Langley

The Soil and Other Material Deposit Regulation Bylaw 1993 No. 2871, approved by Township Council on March 14, 1994, provides that Council may, by bylaw, regulate or prohibit the deposit of soil, sand, gravel, rock or other material on land within any area of the Township of Langley, and require the holding of a permit for this purpose.

Council has enabled Township staff to control the deposition of soils and other materials within the Township by giving Township staff the authorization to issue Soil Deposit Permits on behalf of Council. Furthermore, Township Council has authorized staff to forward all non-farm use applications associated with applicable soil deposition to the Commission for review and decision.

If you have any questions or comments please contact Clive Roberts at 604 533-6144.

Yours truly,

Mark A. Bakken

MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATOR

Now remember, under Provincial ALC Legislation a resolution of Council is required before a soil deposit application can be forwarded to the ALC. Now here we have a letter from the CAO of the Township of Langley to a Provincial Crown Agency (ALC) stating there was a resolution of Council when in fact there wasn’t a resolution of Council. As a result of this action they proceeded to send all soil deposit applications to the ALC for review and decision despite the legislation that was in place and essentially washed their hands of any repercussions. Staff and Council have a Fiduciary responsibility to residents of the Township of Langley to act in their interest. What went wrong? How could they disregard this responsibility?

We then went into our in-camera meeting and took steps to correct what had been going on in the Township for a number of years. The question I have – How many soil deposit applications were forwarded to the ALC between Nov. 22^nd, 2005 and the date we uncovered the document without a resolution of Council being passed? Are these applications legal? What is the potential liability to the Township for damages potentially caused by this action for this interim period, about 4 ½ years?

Now on the heels of this revelation (on or about June 10^th, 2010), I received a copy of the following memo dated June 23^rd, 2010. This memo was sent out to those Councilors who were on Council at the time Mark Bakken wrote the letter to Colin Fry of the ALC (Nov. of 2005). It is interesting on a couple of points, 1) all members of Council as of June 23^rd, 2010 did not receive a copy of this memo, only those on council as of Nov. 22^nd, 2005 and 2) The members who were on Council with me and were on Council as of November 22^nd, 2005 did not react nor respond to the letter and memo despite there being no resolution as stated. What did the June 23^rd, 2010 memo from Mark Bakken imply to Councilors Ferguson, Kositsky, Long, Richter and Ward?

The following memo was on Township of Langley letterhead      

TO: COUNCILLORS FERGUSON, KOSITSKY,

LONG, RICHTER, WARD

DATE: JUNE 23, 2010

FROM: MARK A. BAKKEN, ADMINISTRATOR

FILE NO:

SUBJECT: FILL SITE APPLICATION PROCESSING IN THE FALL OF 2005

As you may recall at our meeting of June 7, 2010 a Memo was distributed with recommendations which were adopted by Council as to the processing of fill sites.

Inquiries have been made about the process and decision in the Fall of 2005 to forward all nonfarm use applications to the ALC. As you are the Councillors that were on Council at that time the following information may be relevant.

As you may recall, after thorough discussions with the ALC and Township Legal Counsel, Staff and Council were of the understanding that there were two types of fill applications: farm usefill applications and non-farm use fill applications. There was a further understanding that any fill applications that would assist, improve or make lands better for farming were required to be forwarded to the ALC for processing. If there was a non-farm use fill application it was understood that the Township could make the decision but that if the Township were in favour that the application would then be sent to the ALC for consideration.

Records and recollections from that era indicate discussions with Council which indicate that if farm use fill were to be handled by the ALC they should also process the non-farm use fill applications as it was likely they would only be approved if there was some collateral farm benefit. Again, this was discussed with Council, however no formal resolution was obtained.

The appropriateness and propriety of this approach has been raised and Staff are still comfortable with processing simple non-contentious matter on the advice of Council, however these concerns may be raised again in future. If Council requires we can be more formal on these matters, however Staff are still comfortable acting on items discussed at the Council table.

This matter has become topical due to the recent clarification by the ALC Staff that the physical act of importation and deposit of fill in virtually all circumstances is considered a non-farm use and therefore the Township has jurisdiction in the fill site issue. For your records attached is the copy of the November 2005 letter and the June 7, 2010 Council resolution.

Thank you.

MAB

Attach (2)

IMPORTANT NOTE Re above memo: In the attempt to provide a prompt to the affected councilors to some history Mark Bakken states in the last sentence of paragraph 3 above “If there was a non-farm use fill application it was understood that the Township could make the decision but that if the Township were in favor that the application would then be sent to the ALC for consideration.” This statement was made while ignoring the legislated requirement for a Resolution of Council. What? Do we now get to decide what rules we have to follow?

Summary: Well I believe there are many questions that should be asked. First there is a letter to the ALC speaking to a resolution of Council when there wasn’t one. This is an apparent violation of provincial legislation related to the need for a municipal Council resolution (and one did not exist) and then there is a follow up memo attempting to remind those members of Council of some history related to the Nov. 2005 letter to the ALC. Now I am not a lawyer so I won’t suggest any wrong doing, however I am not stupid, having had years of successful business experience, both ownership and Corporate. I have never seen anything like this. You make up your mind and ask if your best interests are being served by staff and Council.

I am working on a few posts at present that I believe are of significant concern to Township of Langley Residents plus a continuation of our series on Soil Deposit issues! 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.

Important Message to Readers: I am publishing the following letter to the editor on B.C. Rail  which has been sent to all papers (local media especially), I can only hope they will print it but I doubt it very much. After all, the whole issue isn’t very comfortable for our local Fort Langley MLA Rich Coleman. This letter is well done and presents the argument well.

Now, I can hear the comments already, we are still talking about B.C. Rail after 10 years? Remember this and don’t forget it, the B.C. Liberal Government lied to the people of B.C. and that includes Rich Coleman and Christy Clark who were in cabinet and agreed with that deal. They had to of agreed or they would have parted company publicly with their government. It is as simple as that despite what some would suggest.

B.C. Rail was just the start of the lies (remember the HST) that have been perpetrated on the people of B.C. by this government and all of it’s members – Mary Polak and Rich Coleman are you listening!

“An Election is a Referendum, a vote for the B.C. Liberals is accepting of their performance.”

March 9, 2013

Dear Editor

Selling Off the Peoples Assets…

Beware of governments selling or privatizing public owned crown assets based on their political philosophy.

BC Rail $1 Billion Sellout to CN Rail.

From 1918-1972 it was the PGE, a Crown Corporation then in 1972 became BC Rail, 3rd largest railway in Canada.

We lost a viable BC Railroad that in the late 1970’s, 80’s and 90’s had 23 consecutive years of ‘operating profits’ and 18 years with net income, sending $138 million dividend dollars to the provincial treasury.  ‘Operating profits’ are separate from ‘capital expansion’.

BC Rail had ‘operating profits’ every year but the Socred and NDP gov’ts. interfered and used that equity to incur more debt by borrowing money from BC Rail to fund other projects.  That and capital expansion, rail extension lines further into the BC north/interior for the forest, mining and coal industry, increased the long term debt on the books, but it was still a viable railroad owned by us, the people of BC.

The BC Liberals prior to being elected promised they would not sell BC Rail but since forming a majority gov’t. in 2001, fabricated complete (gov’t. math lies) about BC Rail’s finances, to suit their privatization ideology so they could sell it. http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2010/03/29/GordonBCRail/

They sold it in 2004 then fairy-tailed us that a 990 year lease to CN Rail was not a sale. (13 average human lifespans constitutes a de-facto sale).

This became a scandal known as ‘Railgate,’ turned the Legislature into a crime scene with an unprecedented RCMP raid in Dec. 2003, resulting in the political corruption trial of David Basi and Bob Virk.

It’s not conceivable that the gov’t hierarchy, instigators premier Gordon Campbell and deputy premier Christy Clark would not be fully apprised of the details in a $1 billion deal where the gov’t. negotiated with their chosen preferred bidder, CN Rail… It’s just not believable that the top decision makers can plead ignorance.

Basi/Virk/Christy Clark scandal ongoing to this day.  Basi and Virk were both so called ‘aids’ to gov’t ministers, aka slang- ‘bag men’ or Party campaign $ solicitors.

Even though Basi/Virk plead guilty, (2 years house arrest) the government paid their defense legal fees of $6 million in Oct. 2010. Why? Was the negotiated $6 million indemnity deal paid to buy their silence, so as not to implicate any politicians?

Highly suspicious mysteries fester for 8 years while costs to the public could be $20 million says Attorney General Mike de Jong.

The ‘Auditor Generals’ attempt to get documents on the $6 million payment, have been strongly opposed and ‘stonewalled’ by the Liberal gov’t. The BC Supreme Court ruled that it is solicitor/client privilege and denied the Auditor Gen. access to this government information.

The government’s lawyer Richard Butler misleads Supreme Court with affidavit stating he did not have missing documents then later admitted the gov’t. did have them.

Political ideology can be a dangerous thing when you can’t respect the peoples assets. We need what’s good for BC, not what’s good for their ego’s, philosophy, political career, political party, or personal gain.

Roland Seguin

Langley, BC

I am reasonably sure that when you decided to buy your home in the Township of Langley you checked into what Community Plans and zoning were in place, right! After all, you would have to believe that your Municipal Government (elected council) can be trusted to protect your largest personal investment? Well that is the way it should work!! Unfortunately in the Township of Langley there are other forces at play.

Why would I suggest such a thing of our Councils past and present? Look at the Facts, the “Inconvenient Facts” for some! I can’t make these things up! I learned very early, when first elected in Delta, you cannot escape your voting record. Politics are very unforgiving. Ignore the wishes of the electorate at your peril. Lie about your intentions in government at your peril. The voters WILL send you a message. You may get away with it in the short term BUT NOT in the long term. (That should be the case.) I believe the day of reckoning will come for the majority sitting on the current council.

As a staunch supporter of Free Enterprise, I am sorry to have to say that this is an “Inconvenient Fact” the B.C. Liberal Party and its candidates will learn in spades May 14^th.

Challenging the decisions of Council – The following are examples of blatant wrong doing, in my opinion? Are they actionable? That is an interesting argument.

• An interesting side-note to consider – The current Liberal Government under Gordon Campbell adopted legislation called “The Community Charter” in 2003 which replaced much of the old Municipal Act. In my opinion it was another inappropriate Liberal move that did away with a number of oversight protective mechanisms that were in place. In response to a question from me on behalf of a resident on a particular issue while I was in office to the Ministry responsible; their answer “they would have to litigate”. In other words, if in your opinion your council has breached the law on something affecting you, other than seeking the help of the Ombudsmen your only choice is to sue. Suing carries with it a significant cost and risk, win or lose. If some of these decisions are not illegal they are immoral as hell! More should be expected of our council.

A Council or Councilor can only be measured by their performance which includes their voting record. What has been very clear for a decade or more, for whatever reason, the majority of Council in the Township seems to be very willing to limit public input and/or ignore public opinion. Staff has developed an entrenched; some would say creative culture of making development fit the wishes of developers and not the community and taxpayers it serves. Why?

As hard as the following comments are to believe, they tell an interesting story of the contempt the current Mayor of the Township of Langley has for Public Hearings and Public Consultation – He isn’t doing this by himself, he needs and is getting the support of the majority of council.

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

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

• “He does not govern by petition”.

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

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

Pete McMartin states “How Froese intuited that this absent cohorts silence was in favor of the Coulter Berry development and not against it, or split down the middle, is a mystery I will leave with him. Politicians have powers of the mind I cannot fathom.” Despite the size of the opposition only one councilor voted against, it sure says something about what is going on, doesn’t it!

Mayor Jack Froese, his comments and the voting record of the majority of Council are the “Inconvenient Facts” that support the criticism being directed at them.

The Township’s Community Planning process is fundamentally wrong – The Township of Langley has created a process that is ripe for abuse. In short they divide up an area, appoint professional staff to conduct a Community Planning Charet, invite residents to take part for about six hours, go back to the office and magically a Community or Neighborhood Plan is presented about six months later. (A period of time sufficient that those that participated forget about what was collectively asked for).

What should happen in the Community / Neighborhood Planning process? Look at Aldergrove! During the 2008 election I promised residents in Aldergrove that we would revisit their Community Plan as they had been consistently forgotten about. Staff, following my platform brought a report to Council dealing with initiating the Aldergrove Planning process; unfortunately it was following their Planning Charet format. This appeared on the Draft Agenda, which I then had withdrawn from the Agenda for that week. I met with our CAO and Director of Planning to lay out a NEW planning process, one I wanted Council to consider for Aldergrove. It was passed. The NEW process; we advertised within the community for residents, business owners, non-profits, School Board and Council to sit on a Community Planning Committee. Council selected a committee from applicants. They selected a Chair for all meetings. We appointed a professional to guide them but they were in charge of holding meetings and managing the process. The result was a Community Plan the substantial majority could support. It was passed by Council.     

The Inconvenient Facts – Just a few examples of bad practice:

Fort Langley’s Bedford Landing Parklane Waterfront Condominiums “The Condo Wall” – In mid-2008 the first phase of the ParkLane condominiums on the waterfront of Fort Langley was approved at 3^rd reading for a three story development. At 4^th Reading and Development Permit Phase, despite resounding objection from the community, Council approves a four story development. Now known as the “Condo Wall”. Under the Community Charter you can only change Form, Character and Design after 3^rd reading. Adding an additional floor breaches that rule in my opinion. All of this happened before the 2008 election.

Fort Langley’s Bedford Landing Parklane Waterfront Condominiums “The Condo Wall” – The second phase of the Park Lane Condo Development, despite numerous public meetings and public dialogue, a four story configuration was approved. The Public Hearing was contentious with very significant public opposition in the form of petition and speakers at the Public Hearing. In my opinion the public consultation was a token sham! All of the 2^nd phase occurred post the 2008 election.

The Forewest Condominium Development on the bottom of the Willoughby Slopes. Staff worked with the developer and made an attempt in my last year in office to change the OCP and complete a rezoning (two by-laws) in one process that would completely change the density and character of this community. With a very strong opposition it was turned down. With very little change from the original proposal this development was brought back in front of the New Council, received strong opposition and it was approved. Ask yourself WHY?

The Coulter Berry Building in Fort Langley – How is it possible that Council passed the Statewood application for the Coulter Berry building which did not comply with the OCP or the Heritage Conservation area, was turned down by TOL staff in Heritage and Planning and yet was passed 8-1 when the developer presented it to Council. This building for the record is three stories or 14.5 feet over the height limit of 29 feet and two stories. Site coverage exceeded the allowable limit by 7% and it was contrary to the town’s main street heritage character. Approval was given despite wide spread opposition of a 950 person petition and 2 – 1 in opposition at the 2 evening Public Hearing. (There are only roughly 2,500 that live in Fort Langley)

• Now the kicker! In Fort Langley, – Eric Woodward, the owner of the Coulter Berry building, owner of a substantial property portfolio in the Fort, a Township of Langley appointee to the Heritage Advisory Committee, President of the Fort Langley BIA, fellow resident with Jack Froese in Bedford Landing and a donor of $2,000 to Jack Froese in the last election received approval!

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

Athenry Development / Willoughby – During the week of Nov. 22^nd, 2010 I became aware of an agenda item (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 bared 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!

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, a two story office building and a Cultural Center. This change impacted all surrounding private homes severely with a dramatically reduced set back, increased height of buildings and close imposition immediately next to surrounding homes. In my opinion and experience this was and is a travesty that happened to local hard working taxpayers. (NOTE – As I understand it, 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 in this development, it has cost them about $100,000. This has been verified by local real estate representatives. (A Full Post on this issue at a later date)

What is the problem, what is their game plan? – First there has been a long standing tradition of initiating what I call omnibus by-laws. (All in one process) While time saving for the developer, abuses the rights of the community. How does it work? Putting it in layman’s language – You purchase a home in a single family detached home community. You did so after checking into what the Community Plan was for that neighborhood as well as zoning. Along comes a developer who has consolidated enough land over time in your neighborhood to talk to the planning department and suggests a much higher density i.e. Condominiums, like Forewest as an example. These are changes that don’t fit either the current OCP or zoning for that area. Staff works with the developer over a period of time and comes back with two by-laws for council to consider – 1) changing the OCP to fit the proposal for much higher density and 2) another by-law to change the zoning. These would all to be dealt with at the same time.

Second, there are many residents in the Township of Langley who, because of the volume of new construction move into a new development. They are feeling good in that they have checked everything out satisfactorily with respect to zoning and OCP. It seems to be a habit for the Township, before one development is finished, will make changes to the OCP and zoning next door which boosts density. Unfortunately those changes happen before anyone in the area is aware as nobody or very few have moved in or not built yet.

• What should happen? A process by which you introduce and process a by-law for the OCP change which includes two readings, a public hearing and then IF it receives favorable community response give it third and fourth reading. If the OCP change is passed then introduce the re-zoning by-law which features the same process as the OCP by-law and gives the community a second opportunity to speak to the proposal through all readings including a Public Hearing.

Conclusion – I believe the actions over the best part of the past decade of the Township of Langley Council reflects a concerted effort to adopt Community and Neighborhood plans with a reasonable density; and then over time introduce developer driven amendments to the OCP / Neighborhood Plans and zoning through what I call omnibus by-laws to increase density. Official Community Plans have to be seen by staff as more than just a best guess or early vision of the community. I have heard that come from the mouths of planners and frankly it is shocking. The fiduciary responsibility of staff and council must be to the residents of the Township of Langley. Not the wishes of developers! You have to ask yourself WHY?

Over the next week I will run a very interesting guest editorial on B.C. Rail and following that we will start dealing with the atrocity of Landfill Farming in the Township of Langley. Both will be very interesting reads.

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

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

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

I ran for Mayor of the Township of Langley in 2008 because of a number of significant issues; Nobody could have prepared me for what I found after taking office!

Given the litany of issues, there should be a demand for a Forensic Audit.

I have always been guided in business with a belief that “I trust everyone UNLESS they give me reason not to”. Well what I uncovered in my first agenda and my first meeting of council tested that belief to the extreme. I would strongly suggest that if all of what I am going to outline in this post was to happen in the Private Sector or for that matter anywhere else but it seems in the Township of Langley “Heads would roll” and serious questions asked. It is probably THE single best example of what is wrong in the Township of Langley. This IS NOT a condemnation of the very popular Langley Events Center, but it is, in my opinion, about the financial mismanagement, incompetence and questionable business practices that are rampant within the Township.

The Langley Events Center, for the record, is the single largest Municipally owned construction project and property in our history. It started out as a planned $45 million project and culminated in a final $66.2 million project not counting an estimated $10 million in land acquisition / development costs. The difference between the planned cost and final cost is a product of incremental add-ons and valuable community partnerships that came about, up to and including the construction period. That increase, once it got underway, was not the problem.

So what could possibly be the problem? Where do we start – Read on!

First it is important to understand the fact that on a $66.2 million project there was NO business plan, NO taxpayer referendum and NO comprehensive public consultation. The process leading up to its planning, development and construction was missing the fundamental community inputs that would be required of any project 1/20^th this size let alone something this significant – this was only the tip of the ice-berg!

My concerns started with my first council meeting!

My first Council Agenda for my first Council Meeting – After reading my first agenda which included a 15 page report on the LEC with 10 significant recommendations asking for an additional $7.5 million; I scheduled a meeting with our CAO for 8:00 AM Monday morning asking for a signed copy of the P3 agreement. His answer, there was NO P3 agreement.

By the way this is why NO P3 agreement was so critical to this project! The following is an excerpt from a “Partnerships British Columbia” document on P3s:

What are Public Private Partnerships (P3)? “… the provision of assets and the delivery of services that allocates responsibilities and business risks among the various partners.” The LEC did not include a P3 agreement as promised.

It was a little late in the process with the LEC 75% complete to find out that taxpayers were misled in such a significant way. BUT there was much more to come!

The next step was later that day in my first in-camera meeting with Council.  I informed Council members that there was in fact NO P3 agreement in place as was publicly stated and advertised to the taxpayers of the Township of Langley for the best part of 3 years. It is essential for taxpayers to understand the impact on them for this not being in-place. Again all risks will now be solely on the backs of the Township taxpayer.

Given the gravity of this situation I requested Council’s courtesy for a one week deferral to allow us to better understand and deal with what we had just learned. In support of that request I added that they had a New Mayor, a New Councilor and one councilor was away – The answer, very quickly I might add, was NO; call the question on the motion. I would suggest that any well-meaning council given this information would at the very least take a step back and cooperate fully to know all the facts, or did they know all along? Just asking the question? Does anyone still wonder why I became very concerned? Great start in co-operation with a new Mayor, in the first meeting!

After this disappointing decision by council I immediately asked Mark Bakken for a copy of every document produced on the Langley Events Center since it started. I received a very large binder within a couple of days. I have seen and read every document.

So I started off in this Post with the surprise that faced me immediately after the election, but where did this whole thing start?

A little history – The Township of Langley was planning for a Community Center up in Willoughby. I am assuming that Rich Coleman who with TOL staff had bigger plans because Coleman had the Province of B.C. commit to a $15 million grant (conditional on the use of B.C. Wood) in what was then heavily advertised as a P3 agreement. This fact was heavily promoted and marketed by both the Provincial Government and the Municipal Government per Press Releases of Dec. 18^th, 2006, Jan.8^th, 2007 and Nov. 19^th, 2007. Again there was NO P3 agreement.

An RFQ and RFP was circulated (I am not convinced that it was a transparent process) with five submissions received as I was advised by staff. What evaluation process was used to score the various bid responses? What was made public? The winning bid announced was a group known as “The Langley Development Group” (LDG), ownership partners Mr. Jim Bond and Mr. Moray Keith. These are the same principles that built the Prospera Center in Chilliwack for the City of Chilliwack. Mr. Jim Bond, co-owner of the LDG, is the owner of Vantana Construction who had the construction contract to build the Langley Event Center. Interesting connection?

So, as stated above, our $66.2 million project minus a Business Plan, minus any Comprehensive Public Consultation and minus a Public Referendum was underway. OH yes and there was NO Partnership Agreement let alone NO P3 agreement. There was a Construction Contract and an Interim Development Agreement which contained a Proposed Partnership Agreement. So outside of the foregoing here is the list of issues of serious concern. Some had been corrected by me when I discovered them (I have indicated corrected where I was able to make changes).

NO P3 Agreement was just the tip of the ice-berg, it became far worse, here were the issues, here is what I faced:

• One large downtown Vancouver Law firm was negotiating a partnership agreement for both parties, the Langley Development Group and the Township of Langley. (Corrected)

• No plan for independent legal-counsel to protect the taxpayer’s interest. (Corrected)

• Township of Langley Council (pre 2008 election) passed a couple of resolutions to direct staff to negotiate and complete a development and partnering agreement for the LEC. TOL Council abrogated their responsibility to staff by passing these resolutions. Until I intervened staff had the authority to sign off on all agreements without coming back to council. (Corrected)

• Council approved the authorization of the disposition (at fair market value) of high density residential locations on the Langley Events Center site. (Corrected)

• Council stated that $5 million of the $7.5 million request for more money at our first meeting of our mandate was due to an unfulfilled promise by the Federal Government. After careful review of all correspondence that was not true. There was NO promise made by the Federal Government.

• The Township of Langley were eligible to be considered for the Federal Government  Grant had they applied before the start of the project. Further proof of very poor planning.

• No plan for a Senior Accounting Firm i.e. BDO Dunwoody. (Corrected)

• The Interim Development Agreement states …”acknowledges that the price does not include any fees, payment or other consideration to be paid to LDG for its services.” How can a municipality, a public body, enter into an open ended agreement without a firm and committed outline of commitments and responsibilities? What fees? For What services? It was silent on these details which opened the Township up to the potential for serious abuse! Is that what happened? Just asking the question?

• While the project was 75% complete the Interim Development Agreement states “Langley and LDG are working towards the creation of a public / private partnership? – How is it possible that an agreement wasn’t in place prior to the start of the project? Never concluded, never initiated.

• The proposed Partnership Agreement was suggesting a 20 year operating agreement with KBR, (Keith, Bond, Ringdal) (Corrected)

• The proposed Partnership Agreement between the Township of Langley and the Langley Development Group called for a 40 year partnership agreement for high rise development around the Langley Events Center. (Corrected)

• The Interim Development Agreement refers to an agreement similar to the Chilliwack Model. It has been clearly outlined that this is not similar to Chilliwack. Chilliwack is a true P3 with a maximum yearly liability to the City of Chilliwack.

• As part of the argument in negotiating a settlement with the Langley Development Group, the LDG commissioned an independent appraisal of the facility which came in at $100 million. In a media question with reference to me being critical of the settlement Rich Coleman interestingly enough sang the praises of it being a good deal referencing the appraisal. (Why would Rich Coleman speak in defense of the settlement, remember his habit of phoning elected councilors, just asking the question)? A very qualified senior appraiser completely disagrees with that appraisal outcome, but Council bought into the private group’s argument. I can’t understand why?

I challenge anyone with an iota of common sense and/or business experience to look at the foregoing issues and not seriously question – Who is responsible and HOW could this have happened? There is a litany of questions that still have not been answered, by council and staff! In my 45 years in business dealing with my own business and corporate management responsibility I have never experienced such irresponsible decisions.

Mayor Rick Green’s Press Release December 15^th, 2010 – After the conclusion of negotiations with the Langley Development Group and therefore the release of all information I issued a detailed Press Release. It is clear that I have been critical of our local media for some time and I believe the pathetic lack of detailed reporting on the issues contained in my Press Release surrounding the Langley Events Center is the best example of what I have been talking about. Nobody is or has been holding this Council’s feet to the fire. It is out of control. It hasn’t changed.

An interesting comment by the local media – On the day of my Press Release I was at an event and got into a discussion with an Editor of a local paper. His comment says it all “it isn’t as bad as you say it is and isn’t as good as they say it is”! Now isn’t that a brilliant statement – I rest my case. Any journalist with an ounce of integrity would challenge council and my Press Release! Ask questions and investigate what happened! Apparently not in the Township of Langley.

Conclusion – There are a number of other concerns that I had as we went through this process on the Langley Event Center. In any event, despite all of the issues that I have listed and many more not covered, the Langley Development Group were paid out a settlement of $8.83 million despite the wording in the Interim Development Agreement that was silent on the services they provided or the amount, if any they were to be paid. This very willing and very quick settlement by the Township of Langley is the equivalent to a 10% property tax increase.

NEW Development – Now we have a $7.5 million expansion of the LEC currently underway (The LEC is only 4 years old) that was well underway without the slightest amount of input from or notice to the public. Mayor Froese had such little respect for the public he didn’t announce it until construction was well under way. More on this at a later date!

Now you will hear from members of Council what a great facility the LEC is and I completely agree. That is no reason or excuse for such a boondoggle to occur. It is crying out for a Forensic Audit! When are we going to wake up? Who really benefited? What is the truth?

Late next week – Development in Langley, where are we going wrong and why?

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.

So let’s see what we have today; Gordon Campbell’s Liberals became Christy Clark’s Liberals became Today’s Liberals? Who is kidding whom? Today’s Liberals are Yesterdays Liberals!!!

What is happening today is a mirror image to what happened in the dying days of Social Credit – I know – I was there in the thick of it. They are trying to trot out and sell the same old and tired un-saleable rhetoric of the scary NDP. When is Free Enterprise going to learn that when you become arrogant, cocky, non-consultative, don’t listen, introduce self-serving policies and legislation and above all have a major credibility problem, the province pays the price? Remember the sale of B.C. Rail (they said they wouldn’t), the introduction of the HST (they said they wouldn’t), multiple deficit budgets (they said they wouldn’t), the intriguing payout of $6 million to pay Basi and Virks legal bills on the eve of MLA Gary Farrell Collins court testimony despite their guilty pleas (against Government policy) and the list goes on! To top it off they remove the best Auditor General this province has ever had and they want to be re-elected?

After a decade of the foregoing and with bad news breaking daily the public just wants a change. Many don’t know who they are going to vote for they just know they are not voting B.C. Liberal! A message to Rich Coleman – You need to do far more than change the deck chairs on the Titanic.

A little history – For those that don’t know, Social Credit used to be the Fee Enterprise Coalition in this province at one point in the late 80s with over 110,000 paid up members. I was a life member since 1975. Elected Alderman in Delta in 1987 I won the Social Credit nomination for Delta North in 1989 and lost in the election of 1991. Social Credit was a government that won consecutive elections from 1975 through to annihilation in 1991. Make no mistake about it, we deserved that result in spades – the public had enough! As is the case today, we filled the news daily with blunder after blunder and dumb decision after dumb decision. That was THE end of the Social Credit Coalition as we knew it and it was the birth of the B.C. Liberal Party under then leader Gordon Wilson. The early years of the B.C. Liberals were dysfunctional at best. Gordon Campbell subsequently took over the leadership of the B.C. Liberal Party, ran and won in the Quilchena by-election of 1994. The B.C. Liberal Party became the new Free Enterprise Coalition which in my view had its problems for years convincing traditional conservatives that any banner with the name Liberal is something they could support!

The reason for laying out this history becomes obvious when you look at the fiasco under the current governing B.C. Liberal Government. As a traditional Free Enterprise supporter I always had difficulty with Gordon Campbell as leader, knowing him during my early municipal days serving on the Metro Labor Relations Bureau. Having said that I have voted Liberal since 1991 but never again, enough is enough!! A vote for a Liberal candidate this year is “an endorsement of their record”! If the voter does not start standing up to government, Municipal, Provincial or Federal who have been so responsible for such irresponsible actions, what will it take? The election is your only chance to make a statement!

Today’s Liberals – “They have completely blown their credibility” The responsibility for the decisions that put the B.C. Liberal Government in this situation are of their own making. Take a long look at the current Liberal MLAs that are running for re-election? Now go back to our abbreviated list of bad decisions (above) and ask yourself which MLAs fought against the sale of B.C. Rail? Basi / Virk? HST? Deficit Budgets? Not one with the exception of John van Dongen who had the guts to take a stand, albeit a little late in the process. At least he is paying his own legal bills in his hunt for the truth!

My thoughts, from a Langley perspective? Our representatives are culpable in supporting every one of these controversial decisions and did nothing except to preach their virtues. No consultation, no public input, they know better! The art of ignoring the public has been practiced and preached in the Township of Langley for years. Should we be surprised?

• Rich Coleman – Deputy Premier, Minister Energy Mines and Natural Gas, B.C. Housing, B.C. Lotteries, Liquor Branch and PAVCO lately of Surrey Casino Gate and of Smart Meter fame.
• Mary Polak – Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

In my three years in the Mayor’s office I gained a good deal of first-hand experience as to the record of our MLAs, a record of consistent defense of bad government decisions. This is the government that eliminated $80K immediately from the Langley Senior’s Resource Center for much needed senior transportation.  These two ministers were nowhere to be found to find funding for that much needed service. I took my initiative to take a request back to our council and had interim funding approved to year end. Unfortunately funding was terminated for the next fiscal year by the Provincial Government!

B.C. Liberal Candidate Rally just held – So now we get everyone trotting out the line of renewal. First you have to ask yourself who in good conscience could run with a collection of individuals who so abused the public trust and have NO credibility with the public. We hear they have attracted a number of star candidates. Well I guess that is subjective, what qualifies as a Star Candidate?

What are my thoughts about Peter Fassbender running; from a Langley perspective?

• Mayor Peter Fassbender, Langley City – Now being called a “Star Candidate” in Surrey Fleetwood. Really?
• Now Peter Fassbender is quoted as saying “I am not a parachute candidate” and he is serious about winning. Well if that is the case what should the residents of Langley City think about their Mayor who just, one year ago, was reelected Mayor. Does this mean that if Mayor Fassbender loses he will run and be satisfied with being Mayor in 2014, or will he run for Mayor just to hold him over to the 2017 Provincial Campaign? Just asking?
• This is the same Mayor Fassbender that was appointed Chair of the Provincial Crown Corporation PAVCO by his good friend and Minister responsible Rich Coleman. (Coleman said that in the Legislature). Peter Fassbender gets appointed and then Peter Fassbender becomes a candidate? Just asking the question? Sounds like Lets Make a Deal?
• As the Mayor of the City next to a much larger neighboring Municipality Mayor Fassbender showed zero respect and consideration over the difficult Mufford Cresc. decision by writing, in opposition, an open letter to the Mayor of the Township, no phone call, no conversation, no respect.
• As Vice Chair of the Translink Mayors Council during my three years, Mayor Fassbender showed his stripes by supporting the provincial position for property tax increases despite the majority of Mayors opposing this position, thankfully he wasn’t successful.
• As the observer and point person for the recently concluded RCMP Contract negotiations, it seems there were cost issues that have arisen that were unknown, but Peter Fassbender worked with the Province (AG Shirley Bond) to get it signed off. Mayor Fassbender, the father of an RCMP member, (not that there is anything wrong with that) consistently took the lead role in representing member municipalities during contract negotiations. If you are going to volunteer to do the job, you had better understand who you are representing! (Municipalities / Cities as opposed to the Province)
• And now in a Global BC News report Saturday evening Mayor Fassbender, the NEW Star Candidate for the B.C. Liberals is quoted as saying:
  • “There is no question that there are a few things that we could of done better but you know It is great to be an armchair critic and say I would have done it differently and I would have done that.” – Well Mayor Fassbender I could only of hoped that it wouldn’t take an armchair critic to have to tell their MLA the difference between right from wrong. We would only hope our MLAs knew the difference! For you to not know the difference, I rest my case!

So the election is on (well almost) and it is incumbent upon all of us to weigh the options pro or con. Who deserves to benefit from the exercising of your franchise? Your Vote! I wanted to write this piece early on in the process and offer my thoughts based on many years of political experience. I am sure I have managed to outrage some, appease others and hopefully at the very least get people thinking!!

As I said in my opening BLOG Post my intent is to educate, engage and inform residents. Given my first-hand experience in the Mayor’s office we have more to be worried about than you would think.

Of considerable concern is municipal interference by MLA Rich Coleman contacting and meeting with selected candidates in the last municipal election, clearly stating that his purpose was to establish who he would support in the upcoming municipal election. An affidavit can be provided. Here we go again with the resident Bully, Rich Coleman, just how involved was he in the last municipal election? Who does he think he is? What a contemptible action!

Don’t be apathetic or indignant, if you disagree with me do so based on facts you know to be true, not rumor gossip or innuendo. If you want to challenge me on my facts please do so, I am prepared to back up everything I say. Your comments and thoughts are always welcome!

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 TRUE story behind the high profile public fight over the Mufford Crescent Diversion (Highway and Overpass) which best exemplifies what is and has been so wrong in Langley politics BY the current elected representatives, Municipal, Provincial and Federal!

The start – The Mufford Crescent Diversion is a product of the 2007 multi-stakeholder (Federal, Provincial and Municipal Governments / Private Industry) Roberts Bank Rail Corridor agreement featuring nine projects (overpasses) in the lower mainland of British Columbia. This agreement was arrived at in secret prior to it being signed in a closed door meeting in the Township of Langley Council Chambers. A limited number of the public were allowed to attend as observers only, no questions were allowed. While the need for an overpass has never been in dispute, the process, design, location and a secret decision that was foisted upon the unsuspecting residents of the Township of Langley is what has always been at issue.

What was being planned that you were never told about? (Not a surprise in the Township of Langley)

In the 2008 (pre-election) we discovered information on this project. It took three visits to the Township Engineering Department by three different citizens to have someone admit, confidentially, to the facts complete with a map of the project. The secret plan for the Mufford Crescent Diversion (Overpass and highway) was a design that split the historical Hudson Bay Farm which included the Bella Vista Farm property in half funneling 500 cars an hour onto 64^th at 216^th, onto farm roads incapable of handling that traffic.

For the record, the Mayor of the day in answer to questions from a resident in mid-October 2008 said NO application had been made to the Agricultural Land Commission. THE TRUTH? Contrary to what the Mayor said (surprise) an application had been made in September of 2008. The decision to give conditional approval by the ALC was given the week after the election in 2008 a week and a half before the swearing in of the new Council. No public consultation, no notification, no advice!

Important, for the record! – As the Mayor Elect I contacted the Agricultural Land Commission the Wednesday following my election and served notice that despite what they may do in their deliberations I would follow through with my promises made during the election campaign and bring this project back to a public consultation process. The ALC went ahead with conditional approval that week in spite of my call.

Public Consultation as promised and the RESULT! – Two Open Houses and a Public Meeting later that saw over 1,000 people involved with 97% in opposition. This was the measure of public interest and public opposition. This level of public response is unheard of.

Throughout this consultation process we tried, unsuccessfully, to have Translink, the lead agency, move the dollars for this project to another Langley location. The Roberts Bank Rail Corridor Agreement states “In the vicinity of 64^th and Glover Rd.” The response from the nine funding partners to our request was NO. The then Minister of Transportation Kevin Falcon wrote me an open public letter stating this plan was the only option.  Langley City Mayor Peter Fassbender, wrote an open letter saying the City of Langley had no interest in another plan. What a great start post-election. An interesting neighbor showing no courtesy of a phone call, no class! All I was doing was delivering on what I promised during the election. If all of this doesn’t reinforce the belief that there is an incestuous relationship with Langley politicians at all levels, nothing will!

The Vote – At the conclusion of the public process the Council of the day at a 4:00 PM afternoon Council meeting (nobody in the audience) indicated they wanted to have a vote on the Mufford Crescent project as presented. I advised members of Council that if their wish was to vote and it was in favor I would use my Mayor’s authority to bring the vote back for another vote in two weeks at a public televised evening meeting. Council chose an immediate vote which we held; the result 6 – 3 in favor of the project. I served notice as promised that I would bring it forward for another vote. My point was that on such a contentious issue you cannot hide behind an afternoon meeting with nobody in the audience. Well, not that it was a surprise, but two weeks later with over 300 overflow in the Council Chamber audience and on TV the second vote was held, the result a 6 – 3 in favor. Mayor Green, Councilors Richter and Kositsky opposed, Councilors Ward, Ferguson, Fox, Dornan, Long and Bateman in favor. These six dismissed the results of the public consultation process and the wishes of the electorate.

Just a thought – Given the incident in Surrey over Casino-Gate with Rich Coleman contacting members of Council during a Public Hearing, is there any chance he contacted members of our Council prior to our vote? Do you think? Just asking the question? Interesting thought isn’t it!

If all of this was the case, how on earth did this original proposal get defeated? – At this point I was satisfied despite the insurmountable odds we faced; we were able to bring this project forward to see the light of day. I was pleased, for reasons of democracy and a solid public process, that I was able to buck the wishes of all senior levels of government, their agencies and Private Sector partners. The vote was the vote, it was a done deal. At this point, in my opinion, it would be up to the public in the next election to deal with those members of Council who ignored their wishes if they wished.

That was the case until June of that year. I was apprised of the submission by the proponents consultant to the ALC on behalf of the funding partners. This submission was in answer to the nine conditions (conditional approval) by the ALC with respect to this initiative. I contacted our CAO Mark Bakken requesting a copy of this report.

Reading this report was a revelation! How wrong and misleading could a report possibly be?

Now here is the Question for those reading this Post. What would you do in the position as Mayor? Now consider your promise during the election campaign, the overwhelming response to the public process, the attempts by the Provincial Government and the City to interfere and the two votes held in favor of the project despite an overwhelming public rejection of this proposal.

Then you read a report submitted on behalf of the funding partners to the ALC in answer to the ALCs conditions and you find statements that are patently false. You can use whatever adjectives you want, I prefer to be polite! Do you support the truth or do you capitulate and give in to the powers that be?

A couple of the nine ALC conditions required for ALC to support:

• 216^th St from Milner through to Murrayville must remain two lanes.
• The bisected farm properties south of the New Mufford Crescent Diversion road shall be consolidated to enhance farming activity.

Well here are the facts:

• 1) Nobody can guarantee 216^th St. would remain two lanes. No Municipal Council can regulate or enforce a future government to live by that decision. 2) Funneling 500 cars an hour onto a two lane country road would require four lanes on 216^th from 64^th up to Murrayville.
• Who was going to consolidate the farm properties in question? The Township of Langley is not in the farming business nor would it have the funds required to purchase the properties in question to consolidate as required.

Given the fact that the proponents through their representative, had misrepresented the truth to a Government Agency (on the above points at least) and given the ALC was preparing to make its decision based on that report we had a choice; respond to the ALC with the facts or let it go despite the truth.

I asked our CAO, Mark Bakken if I could respond with a group from the community in response to this report; he advised I could as long as it was clear I was not representing Council. I proceeded to book an appointment with ALC Staff and made our presentation. My letter of introduction to the ALC emphasized that I was not fighting the vote nor was I representing council. I made it clear that when the ALC made their decision they had to do so knowing the facts.

A short time later, members of Council made a presentation to ALC Staff countering our presentation. It seems they were very upset that I would make our presentation, despite the facts involved. Given their actions and votes throughout this process I have to believe they were in on it from the beginning. There was never any interest in facts, a different option or public process. As I have said throughout this Post, I had a choice – be honest or buy into the long standing Township program of deception!

During the period of time that followed, the ALC was considering all submissions with respect to the proposal before them. It was during this period that the Provincial Government appointed a new Chair of the Commission, Richard Bullock. Surprisingly it was Richard Bullock who ultimately initiated a series of public and private meetings with residents in the Agricultural Community. Richard Bullock also initiated a large Public Meeting at the Langley Events Center with about 350 people in attendance. Easily 95% opposed to the project. At Richard Bullock’s request I had a phone conversation with him with respect to my opinion on this project as he apparently had with numerous people on both sides of the equation.

The Decision – Well after all of this the community won on the principles it was fighting for, an overpass yes but send it back to the drawing board for a different option. The decision to reject this proposal was made primarily on the two points I raised above and why we had to make our points on the facts!

The point being made in all of this – It is a lesson for all of us, you don’t have to accept wrong doing in your community, you can fight City Hall. While I was in office we won a number of battles, now all we have to do is win the war! I would do it again and I don’t apologize!

RG

_______________________________________________________________________________

The first of next week will be a surprise but I believe WILL be interesting to all readers!

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.

How pathetically bereft of any ideas that aren’t fantasy! The death knell of a political party!!

The B.C. Liberal Government’s Throne Speech this past week was an unmitigated joke, perpetrated on an unsuspecting public that has had enough of the embarrassment going on in Victoria! Looking under the surface and behind the scenes, who is really running things?

As I am obviously going to embark on a critique of what is happening in Victoria, I want to make it very clear; I am a staunch free enterpriser and have never voted NDP in my life nor will I. I will say that I have friends who are staunch NDP supporters and we get along well, we certainly have many disagreements on principle but we respect each-others views.

Now, to the Throne Speech – By design it is supposed to be a message from the government of the day laying out a framework of priorities for the public. It is traditionally designed to lay out the government’s vision for the immediate year ahead and possibly the remainder of their mandate. In the case of the current Liberal Government it could lay out a vision of their ideas for another term, should they be elected; BUT a pie in the sky proposal that goes out thirty years estimating a market price that is impossible to establish with no contracts and no industry commitments for one LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) Plant let alone the five they are talking about? How stupid do they think we are?

In principle the “Prosperity Fund” is a great idea, but it should not be established as a vehicle built around a single resource (LNG). Many have compared this to the Alberta Heritage Fund which is a fare comparison, but unlike Alberta, B.C. has a greater diversity of natural resources and not a single resource the size of Alberta’s oil industry.

The success or failure of this LNG supported Prosperity Fund as proposed will be determined by the market prices of the day. I spent a good part of my life as a professional buyer in the food industry where we had to buy correctly within the dramatic swings of the commodity marketplace (on a daily basis) or you would become non-competitive very quickly. Being non-competitive at retail in the food industry meant huge losses. Failure wasn’t an option! Pinning the province’s future on a speculative plan of gauging markets 20 – 30 years out? Absurd! Today you are paying 1/6 of the current world price because of no access to world markets, North America is awash in supply of Natural Gas thanks to fracking, and would you take this gamble?

What is behind such bizarre Liberal actions? Why, in the face of such party adversity did the B.C. Liberal Government come up with such an inept and ill prepared Throne Speech? I have another view of what is behind the actions of this Liberal Government, and his name is Rich Coleman. The Township of Langley’s resident Bully, the MLA, Cabinet Minister Rich Coleman, Liberal Provincial Campaign Chair is in my view in charge – move over Christy Clark! Isn’t Rich Coleman the Minister responsible for the provincial LNG initiative and the fact it took over the Throne Speech? It fits his power broker status within the government which has increasingly been unwelcome within the Liberal Caucus. There are an increasing number of Liberal MLAs within caucus who has had it with his actions and decisions. It is interesting though that a few months back when Kevin Falcon and other senior Ministers decided to announce they weren’t running Minister Coleman announced he was staying on – OH right, on the heels of that decision he was awarded with the Deputy Premier’s job, held onto his major portfolio as well as the responsibility for B.C. Lotteries, B.C. Housing and the Liquor Branch. As an aside Coleman has held onto those last three responsibilities for a number of years which is very unusual for a Cabinet Minister. Governments usually move these responsibilities around frequently so as not to get into familiarity problems, no different than your local bank branch (if you know what I mean?). Do you think Christy Clark could have withstood a Rich Coleman departure? It sounds to me like it was “Let’s Make A Deal”- Rich Coleman wrote his own ticket. If anyone has watched Coleman’s body language lately during interviews – he comes across very blustery, bombastic and fearful. That he should be!

I don’t know who Rich Coleman thinks he is speaking to when as recent as a couple of days ago he was raving in the media about how great and qualified Christy Clark is as Premier. The fact is she is completely incompetent (which suits Rich just fine) but forget about Christy Clark, as long as Christy Clark is in the Premier’s Office Rich Coleman will be the most powerful politician in the province, supported by those back room power brokers (I talk about below) you know the ones from the 80s and early 90s!

History is definitely repeating itself! What is happening today is a mirror image of what happened to Social Credit 1990 – 91. I know because I was there. As an Alderman in Delta, President of the Delta North Constituency Association, a Life Member of Social Credit, our party and our government imploded. I was a Social Credit candidate for Delta North in that election. Through the actions of Social Credit this province was turned over to the NDP. The NDP did not win it; we lost it and deserved everything we got! Unfortunately it was the poor unsuspecting public and the provincial economy that paid the price for the best part of ten years. Now I could go over the list of wrong doing (there is not enough time nor room to do so) but suffice to say, as bad as that period was by Social Credit (and it was bad) heading into the election, it was nothing compared to the record of this corrupt and dishonest Liberal Provincial Government that is in Victoria today.

Another interesting comparable is the election and/or selection of the Premier. Back in the Social Credit days, Rita Johnson was selected by Cabinet to take over as Interim Premier after Vander Zalm resigned until a party leadership campaign was held. It IS interesting that many of the same power brokers (hangers-on) were backing Rita Johnson who won the leadership back then as who backed and supported Christy Clark. Why? A simple fact, they can be controlled. Christy Clark is in a million miles over her head. Now that is not a sexist remark, I can think of a number of female leaders who could handle themselves very well equal to any man out there.

The Day of Reckoning is coming! There is no question in my mind that the public have written off a government they no longer want anything to do with. I am sure there are a quite a few sitting in government today in Victoria or former B.C. Liberal provincial politicians elsewhere sweating a few bullets, and they should be. It is my fervent hope that a new government would immediately establish a provincial inquiry into B.C. Rail and more as the need requires. It is imperative that in cases of intentional wrong doing, governments and the people in them must be held accountable. That is the only way the public will ever re-gain a measure of confidence in their elected representatives.

RG

—————————————————————————————

Later this week I will post the true and enlightening story surrounding the Mufford Crescent Diversion overpass project. It is a detailed account of how citizens successfully helped the Mayor fight City Hall, the Provincial Ministry of Transportation, Translink, the Federal Government and more. WE WON!

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.