- - - - - - - Langley Free Press Welcomes Your Comments - - - - - - - - - Name Email URL is optional
Well, if your significant other got her way on council, crooks would have their hands in our pockets because Langley would no longer be protected with an adequate police force nor fire service (ex. her supporting the layoff of 40 police officers) and other cutbacks to the fire dept, let alone implementing full time halls especially where we need them!
Dear Gone Anon: At what point did I say: "Lay off 40 police officers" and "cut back on the fire department"? I don't recall saying that and before you make false accusations based on misinformation presented on other websites, I suggest you check your facts. Better yet, go and listen to the audio tapes of the Council meetings so that you will be assured that you are getting the real facts and not some fabricated garbage being spun out by someone with a PR background who's trying to look good at the expense of others.
OK there Kimmy, how would ya reduce the 4.8% tax increase down to zero. There's been a whole lot of rhetoric and spin on yours and Bobby's part on this site, and now's your chance to come clean on the details of how you'd change the current budget, obviously without cutting back on public safety services.
Hey Gone JS Anon, I know you already know this but if you read previous posting http://www.kimrichter.com/Blog/2...e-of-
spins.html
the average property tax went up 40% while Alberts was mayor. You would think we could fund a couple of our neighbouring city's fire departments too with this kind of tax gouging!
That inane spin you linked to says absolutely squat and you know it! Again, anyone can twist stats to favor one's own myopic opinions, which you've illustrated through that prior posting. Even though I know how you do everything in your power to distance yourself from your dipper ties, it was YOUR NDP pals in the 90's that froze tuition rates across the province, thus leading to an astronomical market readjustment when the current BC Lib administration swept to power in 2001. Perhaps it's more prudent to have relatively small tax increases every year instead of deferring the inevitable for so long that it becomes crippling when it happens. But do sadsack dipper hacks know about business and financial management anyways.
And Kimmy, I must say that's sure not the way to start to mend fences with your current council colleagues. Like I said before, you keep this up, and you'll continue to be Langley's answer to Surrey's councilor-for-life, Judy Higginbotham.
Congratulations, your random rants and thoughts and cast adrift comments as well as your abundant paranoia earn a 
. Where the heck does tuition rate freezes come into the discussion?! If you have such a great phobia about anything, anybody or any concept even a tad left of centre let me suggest a few good psychologists that I could refer you to. Fortunately my tolerance threshold unlike yours, spans the whole political spectrum from left to right!
"Where the heck does tuition rate freezes come into the discussion?!"
My bad. I forgot that dippers like you believe that the public should foot the entire tuition bill for students. Here, let me explain it in as simple terms as possible in order to get it through your thick skull. If the NDP gov't of the 90's didn't freeze tuition, and instead had small increases throughout their term to keep up with normal inflation, there wouldn't have been the need for post-secondary institutions to dramatically raise rates once Campbell and Co. lifted the freeze. By your logic, you'd rather have the Township freeze taxes for infinite number of years while Kimmy's on council, for her to look like a hero, while the next council would have to be the bearer of the inevitable bad tax increase news. This is pure, basic, petty politics on Kim's part, for personal gain only.
Gone, I can't figure out your rationale on taxes whatsoever. You must be hooked to the hip with your Prince Alberts. Its all about spending. Its all about budgets and being able to afford to spend.
In case you don't know what a budget is, look it up in the dictionary. Whenever you spend more money than you have coming in its called a deficit and quite frankly Alberts has put us into that position by persisting on his wish list.
These would include a grandstand that is way over budget, a golf course like we need like a hole in the head and which we wouldn't even be able to set foot on for 30 plus years(unless we coughed up the fees to play golf) then theres the great "Museum" that he is trying to shove through, as if we don't have enough expenses and taxes now.
Rome wasn't built in a day and Langley Township should be holding the line on their "wish list"
Given your anti-Campbell/BC Lib rantings on the *other* blog, I can't say I'm all too surprised to see yourself allying with your dipper friend Kimmy. Left-leaning Fed Libs (aka BC NDPers) like you and Kimmy define "reasonable" expenditures as those that either provide personal gain to oneself and/or pad the wallets of your big labour bosses.
Besides, when did I ever give unwavering support behind Redwoods. In fact, I'm quite lukewarm to its purchase, but given the alternatives provided, I'm quite satisfied parking my vote behind the overall council makeup we have currently.
Yeah SOS with anon, gone anon, or anonymous...call yourself whatever you want but you're a dead give-away when you start your rants.
I'm not "allying" with anybody. I just want good management of the money I'm compelled to hand over to the tax man every year.
I don't think thats being irrational or radical, its just plain common sense.
I think that almost everyone on this blog could relate to that. Whats wrong with wanting good fiscal management instead of all these over runs and over costs and 'I want this' and 'I want that' that we tax payers have to write the cheques for?
Don't look for a hidden agenda in everything someone says because some people are just plain honest and don't play your games.
Commenting by HaloScan
