- - - - - - - Langley Free Press Welcomes Your Comments - - - - - - - - - Name Email URL is optional
Interesting post. For my response, click here.
Never count on big mouths...they'll let you down everytime when it comes down to where the rubber meets the road.~!!
Well Mr. Dithers government made ANOTHER HUGE GOOF today!!Isn't that great!! Now they have mailed out all the Income tax forms, and they have two mistakes in them. Now they have to mail out millions more, and it is going to cost you and I the taxpayers.....four million dollars~!!Isn't that just wonderful...Will it ever end????
Hey maybe I can delay my tax return this year!
PS: Jordan, we don't neccessarily agree with the 25% either. Sounds high. Also it should initially be in multi unit homes and not in single family homes. But we have seen motions with friendly and not so friendly amendments. Many other motions are discussed and sent to staff for recommendations. No initial motion is ever perfect especially groupthink behind closed doors partisan horse traded motions that you suggest you prefer. That's the problem with politics not the solution. Do it in public. You had a week to clarify her motion. The issue here is simple. You and the ole boys on council did not even discuss it at all to pursue any modifications or ask for reports on the motion. You guys just killed it. We think that's wrong especially from someone whose main election plank was about wheelchair accessibility. Question: is this just an attempt by the boys to muzzle contrarion or different views?
Kim never asked me what I thought... in the afternoon, she had plenty of time to give some logical explanation for an illogical motion. She just barrelled ahead, trying to embarrass Council into supporting an unsupportable motion.
There are many, many, many opportunities for Councillors to bring up universal design as we work through neighbourhood plans. I know you're all madly in love with Kim "Can do no wrong" here, but shouldn't some responsibility be placed on her to try and reach out to Council? If this issue was so important to her, shouldn't she try and see if she can find some consensus?
Why is the ball never in her court?
Jordan, first of all when you talk of concern of embarassing the council we shudder because you are starting to echo the establishment that you once railed about. Being elected should not mean that one must automatically join the establishment. Reaching out is a two way street. Consensus comes after discussion. That is what Council meetings are for, discussion, not silence. Council many times previously seconded and discussed other Councillor's weirdest possible motions that one could conceive of and ultimately crafted a viable final motion from consensus at the table not under it. Lets not go back to the dark days of pre meeting kitchen or back room decision making! It should not be hunky dorrey time in La La land! Before making a motion on the almost $1 million grandstand third or fourth cost overrun(we can't keep track) did you ask for Richter's opinion or was your motion just kneejerk & shortsight? We believe Richter was the only Councillor to vote against your motion to throw more money away on the Grandstand. But we are digressing and getting far too serious. That is really not our sole intent at LFP. Our intent is to help show all sides of the story which has not always happened in the past as you know. We are committed to showing other points of view. As an elected Councillor you now have to be able to take it as well as you have given it.
News flash: every building project in B.C. is over budget right now. Guess what: they'll all be completed anyway. The situation with the grandstand is hardly unique.
The practice of seconding a motion for discussion is highly abusive to meeting participants. In doing so, the seconder turns a meeting over to a lost cause, a windbag, or a grandstander when there is no chance the motion will actually be adopted.
Today's commentary harkens back to the 1960's. That's the last time I've seen the term 'establishment' ranted out so often. The days of the tie-died full length skirt, the acoustic guitar, and mass sit-ins on Wreck Beach are gone.
Similarly tiresome are the shrill anti-male rantings. Council did just fine with a female majority for three years. Since then, three female councillors have been defeated (one in an unsuccessful bid to become mayor) and two have stepped aside, but their gender was never an issue.
But $5 million for an open air stadium, almost doubling initial $, really, especially if the budget was revised up several times. Ask any professional quantity surveyor what they think of multiple budget overuns on the same project. Out of control. What gender issue? If you have one that's your problem. And by the way, give peace a chance and pass the joint Pundit. Your too young to remember the 60's & you should really get back to the campaign. I finally got it, you want to get the Pokey award don't you, even though Gumby was popular in the 60's!
I think that the reference to the majority being of the male gender on township council should be tossed aside. That situation ebbs and folows one way or the other from one election to another and isn't worth comment.
Regarding Pundit's news flash, not every goes over budget, but many do. The problem is that none of them should, and the reasons for overruns have to be explained publically in the case of any government body. That's what we're waiting for, but will we get it. Kim needs help on this one.
If you go to http://www.langleypolitics.com/
2...hortsights.html you can view Jordan Bateman's view on the posting we put up. Its always important to provide both sides of a story.
Commenting by HaloScan
