- - - - - - - Langley Free Press Welcomes Your Comments - - - - - - - - - Name Email URL is optional
I note that the Bateman/Alberts slate sell out blog is using a not so subtle attempt at sexism against Richter once again. He uses words like "tease" to set it up for more anti Richter comments and anti female politician vitriol. Reminds me of the time Bateman allowed comments on his blog about Kim Richter's breasts that just shocked me. And guess what his solicitation has worked again. Note the vile comments about her. How sad that a man with two daughters and a pulpit regresses to this level. I'm furious once again!
Kim keep using videos at least once a week. Great idea.. Use them to give us the updates on the other candidates like Bateman, the minute man. Tit for tat innuendo?
Yes, the videos are going to be regular additions on LFP. We are considering hosting other candidates videos too perhaps. Wow...Maybe a rogues election gallery!
Any trained journalist/writer understands the power of a sprinkled choice phrase and word here or there. Wordsmithing. Especially the subtle messages that are imparted and the reaction that they elicit or rather are hoping to elicit.
Political criticism, sarcasm and punditry are always fair game. Carefully, crafted and veiled uses of borderline words that cross the line are not in my opinion, like referring to Belinda Stronack's association with the word 'bitch'. That stuck didn't it. Was it fair? I think not. But that worked did it not? She ultimately had enough and left the exclusive Ottawa good ole boy's club of politics. Another influential political woman bites the dust.
Then again inappropriate choice of words may all just be juvenile ignorance or an oversight?.... Nah!
On another note, my personal bet is that Mr. Bateman is just probably upset that Richter did not take the bait (who's the real TEASE here?) from his Liberal bud's poll to try to split the vote for a run off to hopefully lose either one of Richter or Alberts. This way he would be rid of one of them in this current 2008 election round and ready for the next 2011 round.
Whatever you say about Mr. Alberts though, he is certainly not politically stupid, certainly nor is Richter. They are the two most intelligent, politically adept and certainly the best spoken on Township council bar none. Too bad they obviously don't see eye to eye and are diametrically opposed on most major issues like spend & tax philosophies. They could not be further apart could they? Otherwise, It could have been one hell of a powerful and unbeatable team!
I predict the real run off will be 3 years from now! (You gotta know when to hold em, fold em and play em!) I note Richter's careful choice of words when she says that she has : "decided to seek one more term as Councillor.." But then I'm sure Mr. Bateman will simply say she is just "TEASING" us again won't he? And by the way I predict that Mr. Bateman will NOT be in that run off ! I certainly hope he will though! But that would just be TEASING him wouldn't it?
Gee, that word tease, just doesn't sound as effective negatively with a guy as it does a female, does it? Wonder why? As a trained writer, maybe Mr. Bateman could explain why that is?
Way to go Kim.
You have done a terrific job over the past 9 years.
You have focused attention on the true feelings of the citizens in this township
You have my vote.
The tax and spend crowd at city hall need to be weeded out.
All the best.
The kettle calling the pot black! Jordan Bateman teased Kim Richter and her group just a month or two before the last 2005 election pretending to be supporting them against the then Mayor Alberts group at that time. I was at one of those strategy meetings in that Walnut Grove home. I remember Bateman being one of those at that meeting around a board room table who repeatedly egged Richter on to run for Mayor against Kurt Alberts and Tom Ouelette. Teasing you say?
Since then Bateman jumped ship and joined the Mayor Alberts slate. Talk about reversal and being a turncoat! And at that meeting it was Richter herself that trusted him and tried to help him by introducing Bateman to the anti Alberts group! Boy did she make a mistake doing that. Turning your back on those that try to help you is how some politicians try to build their professional political careers. I call it despicable. Watch your back Mr Alberts!
I really think the people here are making a big deal out of the word "tease" that is commonly used in a non-sexual way every day in the English speaking world. For BR to mention Bateman's daughters and the pulpit has to be the most vile and despicable thing I've seen here in a long, long time. I'm shocked that the LFP Editor would even entertain this. Note this definition from Webster's and note that at no time are any sexually suggestive definitions given:
Entry Word: tease
Function: noun
1 a person who causes repeated emotional pain, distress, or annoyance to another— see tormentor 2 one who is obnoxiously annoying— see nuisance 1
Edited Comment By Siteowner - Miriam webster has this definition: " to tantalize especially by arousing desire or curiosity often without intending to satisfy it" See this link http://www.merriam-webster.com/d...ctionary/
teased -
GO Kim!!!
At the momenmt Kim is the only person on the township council with a total grasp of good business management. When you look at the state of affairs at Lengley Township Hall, You can understand how she must be frustrated.
Sorry, my materials was from the same website, only the thesaurus. But seriously Mr. Ed, don't you think this is a bit of a far stretch with a very common word?
I must strongly object to this video. When the video is not being played a large arrow appears over the nose area of Councillor Richter. If this is not corrected pronto so that the arrow points left, then some of the electorate may place the councillor smack in the middle of the Warawa camp. Please have YouTube point the arrow LEFT please!
Edited Comment By Siteowner - ROFL !!!!
DITTO
Sorry, I deleted two comments herein previous, that while I believe were very accurate and very dead on, in comparing two other similar words, have the possibility of being equally viewed as sexually slanderous by other individuals too.
As I said, I don't mind Political parodies, comparisons, criticism, sarcasm and punditry but I don't like direct or subtle attempts of ANY negative words or phrases targeting sexuality, physical attributes or any attempted subtle veiled innuendo thereof.
And do I think this is a bit of a far stretch with a very common word? Nope, any trained professional writer/journalist worth their salt should darn well know better. As BR said this is not the first time.
Regarding the old blog post, I recall that it was posted by a blog reader (anonymous), and not Mr.Bateman (and before he was a councillor, during the 2004 Federal Liberal Camapign). It was during a time that Langleypolitics.com did not moderate any comments. I also recall that just as soon as it was pointed out to Mr. Bateman, he removed it. But what I don't get is if you were so enraged by this anonymous sexist comment, then why did you invite Jordan Bateman to this meeting you refer to as both "trust" and to "help" him?
Just to clarify my earlier comment.
The "DITTO" was for willynilly's comment of GO KIM!!!!!! All the best in the election KIM.
Injector asks why Richter "Trusted" and "Helped" Bateman during the last election. We should all remember that during the run-up to election day that year, Bateman had all the ear marks of an independent candidate. He challenged Alberts on his care free tax increases quite harshly, but when elected, he soon fell for the benefits of being a cooperative member of Alberts' secret slate. Why not? It's the easy way out.
What nobody has mentioned here on the blog is the fact that Richter remains commited as a truly independent member of the township council. To me, that shows her strength of character, and that she will devote herself to the interests of township residents, and not just go along to get along.
We have seen far too many instances where things are decided, and the opinions of township residents are cleverly ignored. There is a long list of questionable decisions that just boggle the mind when examined closely. This has had a large bearing on the sky-rocketing tax increases that the township has experienced.
Langley Township residents need to either elect more councilors like Richter, or replace the mayor himself. Personally the latter choice would be the easier in my opinion, but replacing both would be better still. This community is well overdue for a good shakeup at township hall.
This year I hope everyone listens closely to all of the candidates at the All Candidates Meetings that are scheduled. Let's select some new faces who don't simply nod their heads on cue.
That's a great political statement Lois and a not-so-subtle plug for Rick Green of course. But you do have the right to fight for your man and I admire your willingness to attack me for what you perceive to be my biased support of current mayor and council, while you are not shy to shout the party line. But hey, its silly season!
So now that Kim Richter is not running for mayor, is Kim putting her full support behind Rick Green? After all, Green has borrowed the Richter platform word for word, without any signs of returning it to Kim any time soon. Please let us know where Kim stands on this important issue of interest to all the taxpayers of the Township Mr. LFP Ed!
Edited Comment By Siteowner - I really don't know Inj.! Why don't you ask her yourself at the debates. The first one is next Tuesday at the township hall. I would be interested in hearing her answer on this one in that formal setting! After all the Mayor is just one vote and can't even move motions! The real important stuff is getting 4 or more new councillors to replace some or hopefully all of the Mayor Alberts not so subtle nor silent slate! That is where the difference will be that really makes an impact!
Thanks! I guess it must be a secret!
Injector, I think you need to listen to Kim speaking again on the above link. If her statement of being independent is not clear to you, you might consider reading it instead. Anything beyond that, you will have to ask her yourself. I have spoken to her myself, and she is very approachable.
Regarding the likelyhood of Rick Green
borrowing from Kim's platform, I find it hard for anyone to ignore covering some of the same ground. That same ground happens to be the dismal performance of Alberts regarding the control the township's purse strings, and so much of his failed performance relates to that point. If I were a candidate I would home in on that same weakness, because it's at the foundation of much of what ails this township. When it comes to wise spending, and the disposal or purchase of very costly assets, Alberts shows no understanding or good judgement in my view.
With a budget the size if Langley Township's, I want to see a good business manager at the controls, and not someone who seems to view our tax dollars as monopoly money. Our money is real and precious, and we don't have it dropped off for us at our doorstep each and every July.
I'll say it again Injector. Langley Township has virtually nothing to lose, and everything to gain by giving Alberts his walking papers. We are overdue for a change, and what better a time than this?
OK Lois, so assuming you are right and the taxpayers of this Township feel there needs to be enhanced management and more controls. Rick Green has said he will form a large number of committees and task forces to deal with the issues as he sees them. While I think that will be very costly and fail to lead to any real results, he does have a platform of sorts. But despite all the protests from Kim Richter, I've not seen any real specifics in years. It is fair to offer criticism and that can be healthy. But the alternatives must be specific.
Injector, I think if you check in with Rick Green, you will find that he intends that the committees you speak of are volunteer. It's possible that he plans to have a councilor heading them, but you will have to ask him because I am not involved in his campaign. I only read his news letters. I can also assure you that if you give Rick Green a call, you will have a very interesting discussion on many subjects that should concern all of us.
If you had a chance to attend some of the council meetings you would appreciate the fact that Richter is only one voice among 9, and often experiences awkward silence when promoting her position. To suggest an inquiry into something like a cost over-run, or a suspicious land sale, it would simply goes nowhere because of the robotic support that Alberts' gets from his puppets.
I think that 9 years in office coupled with the poor fiscal management record of Kurt Alberts is good reason to replace him. The only thing that I would add to that statement is that voters should choose wisely. To this end, I think we are very fortunate that Rick Green has come along this very year, because we are now about to face a real chalenge to our economy AT ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT.....and Langley Township is no different.
Lois,
Committees and task forces in the Township have always been volunteer. But meeting rooms and staff costs are very high to support these committees and commissions and that is why council recently had staff review all of them and see where cuts may make sense. Kim Richter and most of council agreed that the staff costs were considerable and cuts should be made if possible. In an objective manner I counted at least 12 new commissions or task forces in Rick Green's platform. I don't believe he has counted the cost of that, nor has he performed a cost-benefit analysis. If the mayor, council and staff cannot put their minds to these issues, I fail to see where any committee members can. We should be electing a mayor that is a LEADER and not a mayor that forms committees to make all the decisions for him.
Injector, if it's your opinion that the township's mayor should NOT act in concert with the opinions of the citizens of our community, you are very close to the situation that we now have. Also there are far too many variables to simply say that more opinion seeking would bring about additional expense.
One very good example of NOT listening to the opinions of the community was when the Township Engineering made it seem to me that they would not be influenced by the opinions of the neighborhood concerning the placement of a roundabout on 16th Ave. Ironically this was after two public meetings were held to listen to ways to solve a problem by the locals who know the neighborhood, and questioned the need for a roundabout! Conclusion #1. The public knows nothing I suppose!
Coclusion # 2. Let's just spend the money anyway!
Another example was when the mayor himself ignored over 600 of his constituents in favor of less than 50 others who sought to impede the flow of traffic in Zero Ave. Again ironically, the opinions of residents of South Langley were ignored and they suffer greatly from this on a daily basis. This edict occurred after much money was spent on public hearings, and the opinions of the majority were ignored. If there were any benefits to this decision, there certainly are no statistics to indicate it. On the other hand, there are loads of stats when it comes to the many who have lost their lives on 16th Ave, which has had to suffer the increased traffic load. Leadership??? Try being stubborn when faced with logic.
So I am inclined to see what you describe as a "Leader", more as an autocratic "Know it all" who listens to his staff and cronies more intently than the people who place their trust in him as well as their tax dollars. It is the easy way out after all.
You might also look at how Rick Green will develop other sources of revenue instead of simply spending at will, and asking taxpayers to pony up as does our present smooth talking mayor and ex town planner when he needs more money for his grand schemes.
Injector, the point is that anything worth spending a bundle on, deserves public input. Green explains his wish to eliminate the wasteful and simplistic practice of the Tax and Spend method employed by Alberts. Look it up at- www.rickgreenformayor.ca. Anything that may be unclear to you can be further explained by calling him at (604) 607-7339. I have talked to him about his approach to township management, and things became much more clear.
Edited By Siteowner
".....we should be electing a mayor that is a LEADER and not a mayor that forms committees to make all the decisions for him."
We have that now injector, and it's not working, Alberts is basically a one man show and he has to go. He has no one to answer to as the majority of Councillor's votes are in his back pocket. Its not a healthy situation and its not doing anything for the taxpayers of Langley township.
I say anybody but Kurt.
Recent reports indicate the new township hall cost is close to a staggering $40 million. This was a building that was so badly built that no one wanted it. They found a sucker to buy it. Even the windows had to be replaced along with everything else. This is Alberts legacy of incompetence.
Now he wants to fill it with beauraucrats.
It gets better. One of Kurts pet projects is Tourism Langley. They are giving him free advertising. Tourism Langley just spent $60 thousand to make a web site. The site they made should have cost 2 or 3 thousand tops.
Guess who is leading that group. None other than another master of incompetence Jordan Bateman
I would agree that the residents voices need to be heard in the decision process. I would further agree that staff don't know it all and sometimes they make mistakes. But at what point do you ignore staff options (based on their advanced degrees/education and extensive experience), and accept the thoughts and ideas of people that lack the education and expertise in these matters?
There is an existing process for public hearings and input. Council members have the right to propose motions that address the concerns of the citizens and it works, I have seen it with my own eyes. On the other hand, getting 20 people around a table to review technical data and make informed decisions does not seem practical or efficient to me. If that worked, then 8 people on council could agree on everything and you wouldn't be asking for a new group. The fact is, even council must listen to the experts (the staff) to review technical data and allow them to make informed decisions. Ruling by committee just doesn't work.
Injector, there is a fair amount of truth in what you say about the benefits of input from professional staff members. This is really only the starting point though. Example; GM will put it's best engineers to work on a new model, but it will not hit the streets until it meets the comfort and drivability requirements demanded by DRIVERS. The same thing applies when staff members lay out their proposal on the technical aspects of township projects Using the roundabouts as an example, the traveling public should have user input as to the concept itself, the need vs the cost, and whether they feel safe using them at each location.
The one proposed for 248th and 16th ave for example was little better than a farce in my opinion, as well as that of many of the other locals.
Looking at the decision to impede traffic on "0" avenue is an example of pure pandering I'm believe. Any other explanation does not pass the litmus test. Nobody, professional or otherwise could make that rediculous decision and then boast about the wisdom of it. Traffic engineering must appeared to take a dive on that one, and the reputation of ALL traffic engineers must have suffered if the decision was ever used as a case study.
Lending an ear to what the public has to say requires the simple art of listening as well. Projects that begin with a mind already made up, and damn those who might disagree, do not need an explanation about how the practice will eventually go off the rails. This is how I view the situation in Langley Township under the leadership of Kurt Alberts.
Lois...what you describe is much the same as user group input, and that is basic to the introduction of almost every product or service. What you describe as the error committed by the township council regarding the 0 ave decision illustrates a blatant disregard for the huge user group that objected so loudly, but were ignored.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the objections of the user group concerning 248th and 16th was effective, but the engineering department just moved the idea west a few blocks and rammed the idea through anyway. I have very serious doubts about any benefit from the heavy exp4ense. Money to burn I guess, but some of that money is mine.
Commenting by HaloScan
