- - - - - - - Langley Free Press Welcomes Your Comments - - - - - - - - - Name Email URL is optional
LFP,
Perhaps you should re-read the****************************not say he is NOW comfortable as you so nicely (and incorrectly) indicated in bold, but rather that he remains comfortable.
Let’s do a quick memory check for those in the blog world with short term memory problems. The original decision on the rental rates was based on a recommendation of the facility manager. Since the facility manager was an employee of the Township, the majority of Council chose to trust his best judgement. One Councillor, meanwhile, adamantly insisted that the deal was a horrible one. One might argue that this Councillor*************** ***********************but I’m not so bold as to make that assertion. As a consequence of this Councillor’s repetitive pounding of the issue in press and in Council Chambers (note in the audio clips previously presented on this web site the issue is raised in two of the three clips provided) it would appear that a request was made that staff confirm the information provided to the Council by the Township employee. Unsurprisingly, the staff determined that the manager (who works in this field every day) had correctly judged the local market for lots on airport lands, while the unnamed Councillor *******************was clearly incorrect in her interpretation of the regional market.
Based on the above information the author of the *************** indicated that he remains happy with his previous decision to trust the facility manager. Meanwhile the contributing editor to this blog tries to turns this around and slam the temerity of trusting a Township employee with doing an effective job on the Township’s behalf.
Frankly at this point I would suggest that the real embarrassed admission should be from a certain unnamed Councillor and an unnamed contributing editor who apparently have been shown to be incorrect. Sadly, however, based on previous history I don’t anticipate that this apology will be forthcoming.
Edited By Siteowner - Legal impugning
Maybe tougher questions should be asked much more often and independent answers provided nuch more often. Then we would not be spending, taxing and borrowing at historic levels.
I believe that the opposing Cllr. you refer to at the first meeting just raised the question of whether 24 Cents seemed awfully low, was valid and simply asked for an independent 2nd opinion and never got a proper answer or independent documentation at that time at all on her concerns other than essentially, trust us.
In fact many people I have spoken too sincerely are still in agreement of the same concerns, still now. In fact after that first council meeting even the reporting journalist did not appear to this Editor to have the proper information given to provide the proper counterpoint to the question of why only 24 cents a foot in his first news report.
Yet the Council voted yes. This is the crux of my point! They quickly voted yes.
Was this late request for clarification info as a result of the intial critical concern or only after the fact that it was publicized? I don't recall any formal council request to clarify. I may be wrong but I don't think so.
One has to ask one self were all the Councillors really fully and completly aware of the rationale provided today in the Times of the supposed competiveness of the rate at that time? I think not. (I add that the Township paid Airport administrator now provides this info weeks after the vote.)
The consistent blind trust by councillors of the staff's reports & recomendations clearly displays blind compliance & non critical thinking that has led us to perhaps many a financial and other wanting decisions. This is not to say that staff are incorrect or that they are not working towards what they feel is in the best direction. But it could well be they are also incorrect too or slanted in a specific direction, maybe even unknowingly. On bigger and very long term decisions a sober 2nd opinion serves everyone best.
It is indeed the responsibility of a Council to be an oversight committee that also sets overall direction. Not to be a rubber stamp. Clearly this council no matter what you say constantly amazes this Editor with bad protocol and bad judgement. Any rational uninformed person would surely ask for confirming solid evidence of a 24 cent 40 year long lease at CPI maximum being proper BEFORE EVER VOTING ON IT.
Does this Editor believe that 24 cents is right and that the Airport is a proven economic generator. No not yet. Not until an independent opinion is given. I agree with Cllr. Richter on this item. Perhaps on major decisions getting an independent opinion on any bureaucrat's best judgement is a good thing for both.
Finally my posting comment is meant as a critique of the Council as a
whole and not of any specific individual as you suggest. I therefore made no specific reference to any one individual. My posting example makes my larger point very clear which everyone has missed before including you. People see and hear want they want , yes even including this Editor.
I think it would be fair to say that the information that came 'after the fact' would have been far more beneficial at the time the votes were taken.
Having said that, I seem to remember Blair, that you said on one of the comments that you were fairly new to the region. If that is the case, you can be forgiven. You don't know how many times that council has given 'staff' full reigns to make decisions on very important issues, and it has ended up being the wrong decision. (take the cement blob at McLeod for example). Other times, absurd as it may be, they give staff all this work to look up and research, and then vote against it. (truck route on 216th, for example)
Its no wonder we question the decisions, it never hurts to get all the info in front of you, and to also let the public see the why's and how's of the decisions.
LFP,
You say: “my posting comment is meant as a critique of the Council as a whole and not of any specific individual as you suggest."
If I might point out a some minor difficulties I have with the previous statement: The title of your article is "Councillor's Embarrassing Admission". Early in your article you say (and I quote): “that he has, after the fact many weeks later, finally looked at the competitive rates of municipal airport leases and now is "very comfortable"."
Without relying too much on semantics I should point out, when an apostrophe precedes an “s” (as in the post header) this indicates a singular, were the apostrophe to follow the “s” that would indicate a plural. Additionally, the word “he” when used in a paragraph indicates that a single, male individual is being referred to. Had you used an alternative term (like “they” for instance) then it could be argued that you were referring to Council as a whole. Finally in the last line of the quotation you use the singluar "is" rather than the plural "are". As a consequence any grammatically aware reader would have to presume from your title and text that you WERE referring to AN INDIVIDUAL not to the Council as a group. Furthermore, since the text being misquoted comes directly from a readily identified source, it is not too much of a stretch to figure out which individual you were describing in your post.
Put simply, your statement that you were talking about Council as a whole rings rather hollow to this ear. Admittedly, others may disagree but I would wager a nickle versus a cup of coffee that a vast majority of objective readers would agree with me on this one.
As a note, considering the effort I made not to name any offending sources or individuals I was particularly amused by your editing of my post. It reminds me of the frozen vegetable commercial where they edit out the word “frozen” to make it sound like they are hiding profanity.
Willy,
I will admit to being a relatively new viewer in this neck of the woods (I’ve only lived in the area for seven years) and to be honest I had forgotten about the 216th Street affair. Still, any organization that so distrusts its staff that it will challenge their recommendations over an open mike needs a shake-up. Dysfunction at that level can only be a bad thing in any organization of this size and complexity.
Thanks for the English lesson. On the real point I tried to made are you saying that when any staff recommends anything I guess in any government the elected politicians should simply approve what they say and should not ask questions that may especially be construed as "challenges". Wow hope you don't work in the corporate world where brutal challenges are the norm compared to timid Councillor's questions. Unbelievable.
I gotta ask, Do you or Did you work as a professional bureaucrat?
So why do we need this rubber stamp Township council at all? Let the bureaucrats run it. Let's elect them only instead! Heck some say they already are. Wasn't the Mayor one of the senior managers at Township before he was elected as mayor?
Blair, Obviously my example made my point and got your attention. Basically I think you are confirming that Council took staff's word and voted for the 24 Cent lease because staff said it was just ok? No questions asked, no concerns, just yup and included a lot of back slapping arn't we all just one happy compliant familiar ole boys club. Imagine If they did this all the time council meetings should not last more than 5 minutes! And bureaucratic heaven is ever expanding services, spending and taxes! Just Imagine unfetered bureaucratic nirvana. But alas it already exists.... in Langley Township!
Blair,...You made comments regarding the lease rates at Langley Airport on another string (which I cannot locate)in response to my suspicions. Thank you for the input that you expressed so nicely, and your point is well taken.
Since that time, there has been much clarification on comparable rates by the airport manager George Miller, and a partial analysis of the airport business as well. I suppose you might call this tardy flow of information a form of review, but it's not very independent, and possibly not even complete. Perhaps if there is more, and we will hear of it soon. I think that Langley residents would have appreciated all available facts facts some time ago.
Would you care to comment on the 40 year lease that is part of the deal. I'm not sure anyone has justified that yet, and you have not yet given your opinion on this part of the agreement. Thus far it appears that increases will not exceed the CPI
maximum. If that is so, one has to inquire as to why township residents are not afforded the same consideration. Do you think this is fair?
Incidently Blair, your comments are usually always worth reading, and I read them with interest, but I am puzzled by the emotion that have displayed on this issue.
I should also add that I am personally very much in favor of all things related to our local airport. and have expressed this previously. I am also in favor of fair practices for all of us who live, work, and do business in Langley. No one group of us should carry the can for the others.
methinks,
Oddly enough I'm not sure why I feel so strongly on this one. It probably has to do with the combination of my friendship with workers at Acrohelipro and a feeling that LFP is being unfairly mean on this one.
Regarding LFP's comments above, to start I am not nor have I ever worked as a bureaucrat. As an outsider I was led to believe that the role of the Council is not to act as a rubber stamp, their role is to take the information provided to them by their staff; by the public (through hearings); and by their own personal experience and research; and use it to decide what is in the best interest of the community. Needless to say there is room for disagreement on what is in the best interest of the community. There should never, however, be room for doubt about the independence, competence or truthfulness of your staff. Regardless of whether you are in the private sector or the public sector you have to be able to rely on your staff. If the Council had such serious doubts about the reliability of staff recommendations then they shouldn’t be taking advice from staff, they should be firing the staff.
Maybe I'm a bit naive in this and I will admit the 40 years sounds like an overly long commitment but if Acrohelipro does build a decent facility then it may well be worth the money in the end. As for the economic driver from them, I think that is there without a doubt.
All my best,
Blair, as an aviation enthusiast, I am happy for anything that helps the
aviation industry. I do however get a little nervous about the hit and miss management skills at the township hall. We have to keep in mind that staff members are not elected, and are better able to shrug off any errors in judgement.
The airport manager's duty is to look out for the best interests of the airport. Our council's duty is to look out for our interests. It looks like Miller did his homework well, and is to be admired. Time will tell if council has shown the same management skills.
The Airport Manager is NOT a township employee, but in fact owns a Company that runs the airport. That means he has a vested interest to HIS COMPANY NOT THE TOWNSHIP. The foolish child councillor should realize this
Is Jordan Bateman reading his packages?
Another Grant Ward in the making
If you cry "wolf" too often, no one will listen to you when there really is a wolf.
After all of the fuss and another review, the correct decision was made.
Now, can you spend some of your excellent energy on reducing our transportation frustration?
Jordan gives me the impression that he isn't doing his homework before attending council meetings. But now I wonder is he sleeping during the meetings. I was there, I heard Richter bring forward the motion, regarding the land lease scandal. Bateman stared at her and didn't second it. But did Jordan or others vote a few weeks earlier that Kims motions not be entered on the official record if it is not seconded? Wow talk about double speak, Jordan Bateman is now being very economical with thew truth here. It really makes me wonder what else he is not telling us? Why is this land lease scandal being pushed by Jordan so hard?
Commenting by HaloScan
