- - - - - - - Langley Free Press Welcomes Your Comments - - - - - - - - - Name Email URL is optional
Very interesting comments. I hope there is some followup by other media orgs.
I’m often seen as a naysayer on this site so I particularly look forward to opportunities to point out when someone has it right and in my mind Cathleen has hit the target right on center with this comment.
I'm constantly amazed by our representatives who tell us that the Official Community Plan for such-and-such is sacrosanct when it agrees with their current proposals, but can be adapted at will when it doesn't. I look at the OCP for North West Langley and it includes 16 amendments that have utterly changed the character of the area from the original plan. The original plan from 1985 balanced commercial and industrial development in an area that at that time wasn’t considered appealing for residential use. Yet now 16 amendments later the area has great swaths of residential development with no accompanying amenities like parks, sidewalks or cross-walks. Yet when I send questions to the planners I get told that the new developments are consistent with the Plan...my response is what plan??? the one from 1985 which saw the area as commercial/industrial hub or the new one full of residential developments and a new major roadway leading to a previously unforseen bridge?
Someone in Township Hall has to take the bull by the horns and change the way development happens in this neck of the woods. The old plans have to be revised as a whole, not one development at a time, to reflect to new reality that is Langley Township, the Langley Township we want to live in and raise our kids in. Green spaces, parks and transportation corridors have to be reassessed to address the realities of the situation on the ground, not the fantasies of developers and their thralls in the development office. Finally, once a plan is established the amendment process should be toughened. A clear need for change should be a criteria for a change not just the fact that the change will benefit this developer or make that development more affordable. Because every change has unforseen consequences, the best way to avoid these consequences is to make a good plan and stick with it.
Good on you, Blair. Someone has finally put in words what I haven't been able to all this time.
You are absolutely right about these obsolete plans! I remember when we were at an meeting against the 'humps' on 0 Ave and it had been delayed so many times asking for more info, finally, to his credit, Mel Kositsky erupted quite loudly with"What Master Plan?"(transportation plan for Township) He continues on with saying he keeps hearing on and on about this 'master plan' ever since he's been a councillor and he still has yet to see it.
It would appear that the transportation plan isn't the only one thats delinquent. By the way, my property tax assessment came in the mail today and I'm asking myself what am I getting for all the moula they're taking.
I'm with you 100% Blair.
My overall impression from reading Jordan's blog is that council can't see the wood for the trees. It's a death by a thousand cuts.
I agree with much of what's being said here but I can't help but wonder if we're barking up the wrong tree. Yes, we have elected a bunch of goofy good ole boys to Council. But should we really be pointing the finger at them? What about the management at Township Hall?
Is it possible that Township management is taking advantage of a bunch of well-meaning but inept good ole boys? I mean who's steering this ship anyway? It might be the mayor - afterall he is a former bureaucrat manager at Township Hall.
But, my impression from watching the Council clowns at work is that they just rubber-stamp staff reports and staff recommendations. So who's really driving the recommendations and what qualifications do they have? For example, I understand that Township's former Parks and Rec Manager is now running the Planning Department.
So who's the real culprit anyway?
Good comment John,and possibly could be part of the problem, but my take on that theory is that we voted for each person, Mayor and Council to act on our behalf and they are receiving our money in renumeration and with the task they are called upon to do is to make hard decisions for the best of ALL taxpayers.
Granted, they do have Township staff that study and recommend but the bottom line is Mayor and Council have to discuss and VOTE on each matter and they are the one's that we are supposed to have our faith and confidence in and to be quite frank I don't feel that they are doing their job for us.
I know its easy sitting back and being critical because it always looks different from each person's perspective, but they are not listening to the people. I have gone to 3 open houses on various changes to our neighbourhood in the last 3 years and the residents overwhelmingly opposed the issues, but THEY just didn't listen. As far as I'm concerned it is just a waste of taxpayers money to even rent the halls and pay all the consultants wages to come to these meetings when they don't heed the residents wishes. There are people in our area that refuse to attend these open houses anymore simply because they're going through the process of having the hearings but not hearing the people.
Cathleen, as usual, has hit the environmental nail on the head and Blair, as usual, has hit the technocrat nail on the head. They both raise excellent points that deserve to be explored by Council.
But the comment that I think is the "piece de resistance" as far as this Council is concerned is Quaker's comment on the "death by a thousand cuts". This is exactly what's been happening in the Township.
If you can't provide greenspace in your development, then throw some money at a playground somewhere too far for the kids in the neighbourhood to walk to and Council will approve your development. Has anybody even stopped to ask what's going to happen in 10 years when all the little kids who play in home now are teenagers?
I've said it before and I'll say it again: "New development is NOT paying for itself". Just 3 weeks ago in a budget workshop (December 13, 2006), staff told Council how 2007 uses of funds represented a 9.72% increase (needed to maintain existing service levels and provide for some service enhancements for the growing community) while tax base growth (or new development) was only providing a 4.55% increase in revenues. That's less than 1/2 of what we apparently need just to "stay afloat" in this growing community. There's something very fundamentally wrong with this picture.
If new development is not paying for itself, then why are we growing? Cathleen has asked this question for at least 5 years now. She's right because the cost is more than just taxes - it's also the cost of lost environment and lost sustainability.
Something has to change and it has to change soon. This is not the future I want for Langley.
I'm not proud that we've got a Sustainability Charter now that we've allowed clearcutting of over 540 acres of land (and counting). I'm not proud that Council thinks a 6.5% tax increase is OK especially when the brunt of this tax increase will be borne on the backs of long time residents of this community whose assessed property values have skyrocketed. I'm not proud that we're now making all property owners in the township pay a Stormwater Utility fee (which is growing at 12% per year) in order to fix drainage problems caused by new development.
We need much better planning and we need a Council that understands the importance of planning and doesn't just give it lip service.
We need more meaningful input from the community.
We need a local media that thinks long term and raises bigger picture issues.
In other words, we need leadership not complacency.
I hope the people who write into this blog will continue to do so. Your thoughts and ideas are important.
Willy Nilly has explained a feeling that I have had for years about these hearings by our mayor and council. When a majority of those attending express an opinion, and it differs from what "staff" says, or perhaps by the politically connected, just wait a while. There might be a delay for a month or so, but the gavel will come down the way that they want it to. The Zero Avenue hearings were a slam dunk PLEASE DON'T DO IT and they did it anyway. Too much of that has already occured, and the turnout for hearings has to be suffering from it. Solution? Get rid of the old boys because they are far too comfortable with their ineptness.
Commenting by HaloScan
