So what does Ipsos-Reid charge for calling up 300 Langley residents (give or take a margin of error of plus or minus 5.7% 19 times out of 20)?

I suppose each council member could have phoned some 34 people over the same eight days, (about four calls a day) and come up with similar results.

It would have saved some money and councillors could say they've consulted with the community.

I think this is more an exercise to soften residents to a huge tax increase. Poll results can be manipulated by the way the question is phrased.

It appears more and more that council is governing by polling.

I can't wait to hear some council members reply to questions from the local media, " but this is what people want...the polls back it up"

Let's have some honest discussion and debate rather than hiding behind polls.

btw: How many polls does the Township commission in a year? This must be an expensive exercise.
anon-y-mouse | 12.01.06 - 9:41 am | #

Mayor Kurt and his faithful will stick it to us again with a tax increase no matter what. I can see them now dreaming up new capital projects. I would like to see three years of spending on maintenance and improvements to transportation and infrastructure of the township only. No more $5-6 million for more blobs of cement like that last boondogle.

And by the way, I see that the listing agent selling the Brooklyn Bridge also has a golf course for sale. Somebody please hold Kurt down when he finds out.
methinks | 12.03.06 - 11:04 am | #

Anon-y-mouse, I'm sure Ipsos-Reid poll isn't cheap but you are dead on that this exercise is just manipulated justfication to get another tax hike. Bank on 5% hike annually with this Alberts Silent Slate Council.
LFP Editor | 12.03.06 - 1:08 pm | #

Another glass half full statement! I remember distinctly that one Kim Richter (the female council member) so vehemently campaigning for improved public safety, more police, full time fire etc. etc. And you folks are so foolish as to believe this comes at no cost to tax payers. Do the math, if you campaign for it, then you must accept the cost.....therefore expect Kim R. to back the budget as she wanted the items that cost the most! If she doesn't support these items then she is one fickle councillor!
Liberal Federal Party or LFP | 12.03.06 - 4:51 pm | #

Dear Federal Liberal Party or FLP:

You seem to have a pretty short memory. I campaigned for tax restraints because I believed then as I do now that a little bit of efficiency can go a long way.

I said then that I supported full time fire service because the people in this community after a lengthy and detailed public input process said they supported full time fire fighters and were prepared to pay the extra 2% tax increase per hall to be able to do so. I said that I felt that we could find this extra 2% without having to resort to tax increases.

In the budget last year, staff requested tax increases well in excess of 2% and Council in its infinite wisdom agreed to a 4.95% increase in the General Levy EACH year over the next 10 years. So what happened to 2%? We only brought one full time fire hall on and it did not start until 3/4's of the way through the year (October 2006).

Now flash forward 1 year. What is Council being asked to approve this year? No easy-to-read-one-line summary figures have yet been given to Council. Instead, the General Levy has now been split into 3: General, Transportation and Protective Services.

Projected increases in each of these new levies are: General - 3% across the board each year to 2016; Transportation- 11% increase each year to 2009 then 10.5% increase each year to 2016; Protective Services - a 10.5% increase each year to 2008, then an 8% increase to 2016.

Is this clear as mud to you? It is to me too. From what I can determine, the 4.95% increase in the general levy approved last year has just ballooned to 7.4% this year, 7.6% next year and 7.7% the following year.

And let's not forget that the Water rate is projected to increase 6% each year to 2016. The Sewer rate will also increase 6% each year to 2016. The Stormwater rate is projected to increase 12% each year to 2009, then 6% to 2016. Finally the Garbage rate is projected to increase now at 3.5% each year to 2016.

I've requested some clarifications from staff on these numbers and a total overall % increase. I'm still waiting for that information.

So will I vote in favour of this budget? The way it stands now, not a chance.

I believe the public is being misled. I believe there are efficiencies that need to be investigated. I believe new development should be paying for itself. I don't believe Council needs Blackberries and other perks. I believe we should hire an efficiency expert like Alexander Proudfoot to go through Township's books and programs with a fine tooth comb and make some unbiased recommendations to Council on programs and services that offer value for dollar, and those that don't. Then and only then will I consider a tax increase necessary.

I hope this clarifies my position on this latest greedy budget. There is a limit to what the taxpayer can bear. In Ottawa, they just threw out a long-serving Mayor for continually increasing taxes above the cost of living. Should Langley start thinking the same way?
Kim Richter | 12.03.06 - 6:43 pm | #

Are your plans to run for mayor? It certainly sounds like you are positioning yourself to make a run at it this term. It was rumored you were going to go for it last term, why not do so in '08and let the voters have the final say?
Liberal Federal Party or LFP | 12.03.06 - 7:34 pm | #

Do you think I should? And if "yes", can I count on your support?
Kim Richter | 12.03.06 - 7:55 pm | #