- - - - - - - Langley Free Press Welcomes Your Comments - - - - - - - - - Name Email URL is optional
Why is it that Cllr Bateman's website, in my opinion, seems to me to never report any news that shows anything remotely close to possibly even a bit negative about him regarding anything to do with his position as a Township Councillor?
EG: the multiple Province and Vancouver Sun newspapers articles that seriously raise questions like this one and also the previous one about his raffle waffle as you called it? Is he now as well as the other council members perhaps embarassed that they sold 3 quarters of an acre of taxpayer land for only $12,000 despite having another tabled option buyer for more money?
Edited By Siteowner
The atricle in the Province might explain the 2 civic addresses posted on the front of the property. The illustration is not perfectly clear, but it now looks like just one of the two own the road now(?). The other has the right to use it probably.
The question now might be: Why was one chosen over the other?
$12,000 per acre????
Only our Township Council could be this STUPID. On one hand Bateman authors the highest tax rate increase in Township history, then votes to sell land for $12,000.
Is this council stupid or uninformed?
Let us know who voted for it and who voted agianest it.
We need to perge this council
Keep up the good work!
LFP EDITOR'S ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTIONS:
These 6 Councillors below voted to sell the 3/4 acre taxpayer owned land for ~$12,000;
Mayor Kurt Alberts
Cllr. Jordan Bateman
Cllr. Charlie Fox
Cllr. Steve Ferguson
Cllr. Howie Vickberg
Cllr. Grant Ward
The above 6 voted for the ~$12k land sale after Mayor Alberts essentially championed going ahead with this sale anyway!
The 3 veteran Councillors, Kim Richter, Mel Kositsky and Bob Long Voted to get a sober second opinion/look instead because of new information. The previous 6 said no and decided to go ahead with the ~$12k sale anyway!
Edited By Siteowner
In North Vancouver when a couple of homes very tragically slid off a cliff a few years ago I don't believe that North Vancouver was in any way responsible for any liability for the slope stability , or was it? Wasn't it because the slope was historically undisturbed property and the homeowners built there fully aware of this? Is this situation any different? Is this eroding slope on Township land or on the owner's or on both? Does it make any real difference? Who's real liability is it? Does the adage buyer beware make any sense? Another analogy - If I don't have any more water in my well is the Township then liable too given this example? Essentially has the council really done proper due diligence as Richter, Kositsky and Long asked for especially when another higher bidder for the sold public land, was ignored by council from the other adjacent neighbour and I assume accept all and any liabilities if any then? Was this a bad council decision then? This reader thinks so, definitely. At minumum the other neighbours should have been given an opportunity to purchase or even share the purchase and any liability if there really was any.
the township can afford to sell land cheap as long as the school district keeps overcrowding schools so they can close others and save money just to turn around and give it to a township project. 3 million this time and i think we will see more as the trustees secret agenda starts to come out. lets all watch for D.W. Poppy secondary to close now that they are making room for those kids at aldergrove secondary.
Edited By Siteowner
Anon, the road in question doesn't look any worse that mine from what I could see of it. The estimate of $100,000 to black top it looks very wrong IMO, based on my neightbor's similar length riveway being done for $20,000. I would leave it as is if it were mine because of the slope and maybe a future drainage problem.
This 3/4 acre narrow lot would probably on the open market have attracted a young yuppie Vancouver dink (double income professionals with no kids or with a baby or young child) to build a narrow 3 story townhouse type of structure with great appeal of country ambience with no less than the Salmon river flowing through it.
I assume if it is as wide as a normal road allowance it would be 60 to 70 feet wide?
I wonder what they would have paid for this great opportunity? $12,000, $150,000 , $200,000, $300,000, $400,000, $500,000?
It boggles the mind because they pay this much and way more for a narrow post stamp lot in the urban areas without a pristine salmon bearing river and a quiet nature filled wooded area to boot!
Yes, these urban yuppies would even have paid for this 3/4 acre lot as well as probably shore up or redesign any service roads on both properties. They would if neccesary even probably have put their house up on stilts in a ravine if required similar to the homes on the steep cliffs of West Vancouver. All for way more than $12k for the land is my thought. Opportunity lost by the Township Council or just a problem thinking outside of the box?
Anon - Many would say a blind faith rubber stamp bureaucratic obedience afflicts the good ole boys on Township council on just about everything. Never mind being able to "think outside" of any box or "opportunity lost"!
Look at their at first blind faith on the draft water management plan! They blindly sent this vague and clearly, to say the least, loose and massive hole filled ambiguous document to the public without probably having read the whole report!
When Richter put a motion on weeks ago that two open houses only just before Xmas was not enough and ludicrous none of the good ole boys seconded it! Now that her concerns have been heard by the angry and vocal public, suddenly they have changed their tune.
Looks like Bateman has all the details and background on the issue with the new actual owner of the 3/4 acre land in question ...he comments about how this decision saved the taxpayers of Langley money and a potential law suit.....oh how Richter saved the day...no she , Long and Kositysky would have cost us all. Thanks to the fab six for having the vision to spare us all the big bill!
Edited By Siteowner
Wink, Speak of the devil and "rubber stamp bureaucratic obedience"! Thank the almighty that we can always count on your very unbiased opinion of Cllr. Richter versus Cllr. Bateman? Thank you so very much. Consistency in this area is definitely a strong suit of yours. No argument there.
I assume you then also love the back to back historic 4.95% Township tax increases courtesy of Cllr. Bateman and the rest of the good ole boys on Council in the past two years and that Cllr. Richter opposed both times? You have never commented on that though I wonder? Do you think that we can all count on a consecutive 3rd 4.95% increase this year too?
http://www.kimrichter.com/Blog/2...storic-
tax.html
Or how about the equally unbiased "Get Moving BC" website? You have never commented on that either? Can I assume you praise that as well too then?
http://www.kimrichter.com/Blog/2...-2-is-
this.html
Hey Wink, thanks again for your refreshing unbiased, non-partisan and unpoliticized non spin (gag!) attempts that clearly embarrass my obviously petty and unpolished politicized, partisan spin attempts in comparison to YOURS! You humble me Wink with your clear advantage over all my arguments about keeping taxes, spending and borrowing low.
Not to mention having second looks at property matters that raise obvious concerns and alarm bells. So who cares if someone else would have paid more for the property and then taken on any liabilities as well perhaps. Your obviously right Wink. Why even ask any questions anymore, just vote in favour of all the recommendations.
LFP,
From information obtained elsewhere, the impression I am left with is that the neighbour who offered the larger cheque was unwilling to accept the liability associated with the land. The quote in the other source read: $25,000 for the property "without any consideration for the associated liability."
Mind you I may have mis-read the line and so may be mistaken, but from my reading it would appear that the neighbour wanted the land but wanted the liability to remain with the Township (i.e. the Township would have to address the problem prior to the completion of the real estate transaction). If my reading is correct that would make his bid far lower.
Blair, this Editor has also been told that the bank erosion is not on the crown land being sold?
The real issue here is not any dispute between neighbours (that's their business NOT ours), it's the fact that Council didn't perhaps do full due diligence on this. Did any of them even go down and look at the property before they sold it? That's fair comment. Anything else is NOT.
LFP,
I would argue that no member of council would have the slightest clue, upon observation only, as to the stability of a slope near a creek. Heck, I work with civil and mechanical engineers and geologists and we still hire professional geotechs to make the kind of decision. In this case representatives of the Township, with specific expertise, did indeed visit the property. These individuals did the due diligence and supplied an opinion. It is my understanding that their opinions served as the basis for the Council decision.
So let’s try a little thought experiment in this case. Let us assume that the entire council went and spent a nice sunny Tuesday visiting the property. Let’s even supply them with all the tools they might need to test slope stability; we can include a drill rig, a whole whack of Shelby tubes, a nuclear densometer, a good solid hand sieve and a groundwater probe. Which Councillor would you suggest would have the expertise after that sunny Tuesday to effectively challenge the opinion of the Township engineers in this case? Put simply, slope stability is not easy, I’ve seen a slope of less than 5 degrees slump and I’ve seen slopes over 60 degrees that confounded my understanding of physics by holding firm. Certainly site visits by Councillors should be encouraged and are laudable...are they necessary in EVERY case where a lot goes up for sale or re-zoning? I would think not.
Blair, BLIND FAITH IS NOT DUE DILIGENCE. You make some good points but heck I would not even trust some of the Councillors carrying that equipment on a sunny day on a slope (they like to drop the ball a lot!).
But, I think your making an assumption that Township staff have the in house expertise to make the same call. Do they? Just because there are engineers in Township hall dosn't mean they are slope stability experts.
The issue is what info did they use to make the decision and was it verified by outside experts in the field?
This Editor still has to agree with a previous commenter. How the heck does Township have any liability for completely undisturbed crown land if it was decided by others to build near a slope and river anyhow. One would expect that it was the builder/owner's issue to maintain proper stability from the get go, not the Township. If the river overflows too then and creates damage to a property is that Township's liabilty as well just because someone decided to build beside a river too?
PS: Also Blair if they go and look then MAYBE they can much better understand and ask for clarification and justification of what they see or think they see or understand instead of again simply rubber stamping a report or recomendation! Blind faith is not due diligence!
PS: I do know that to date one Councillor did go to see the site. Yup, you guessed it ....Cllr. Kim Richter.
LFP Editor;
The Township has the same responsibilities as any private property owner when it comes to maintaining their property. Every property owner has the responsibility for maintaining support to surrounding properties, if your property fails/slides/slumps you are responsible for any damage that occcurs to adjoining properties as a result of that failure. It is the owners responsibility for determining the stability of their property; their neighbours are not legally or finanacially responsible for making that determination. If the Township owns the land they are responsible for any damage the stability or lack thereof that land causes - undisturbed or not (Rain and ground water pressure are a major cause of slope instability)
In fact the Township has additional responsiblilities because they are the ones that issue development, building permits and determine appropriate restrictions on property use and boundary distances. Builders and owners pay for permits which include an expectation of expertise which is beyond that of a layperson. If the employed engineers didn't have the needed expertise then the Township should have hired someone who did before they issued permits.
No one can decide to build beside a river without the Township issuing approvals.
Legal Opinion, in my mind the remaining questions are who evaluated the slope problems, who or what caused the slope problems, who estimated the repair costs and other options and ultimately on which property does the slope problems really exist. It is my understanding that the Cllrs. did not perhaps get all answers on these.
Does Kim plan to make this an election issue next year?
Keith, I don't know but in my opinion this is just simply another symptom of the terminal disease of this council's bureaucratic out of control spending, taxtion and borrowing that these good ole boys are clearly responsible for. But rumour is that Richter definitely has her eye on the Mayor's chair though.
The real question is was appropriate due diligence done by council given the strange circumstances in this case? Really, come on now, $12 or $25k for 3/4 of an acre in this hot market! Anyone I talk to is aghast at this as well. Only in Langley you say!
Interesting. So Kurt Alberts may actually have some meaningful competition this time. 
Hey ***** everything is an election issue. Including stupid land deals. Oh you must rent and not pay taxes otherwise the grey matter in your brain would let you know when your getting screwed.
Edited By Siteowner
Councillor Jordan Bateman not only voted to sell this taxpayer land for pennies on the dollar ($12,000 for 3/4 of an acre), but he also won't let me publish this comment on his blog, I call it the "BATEMAN BAN". Come on everybody all the kids are doing it now its the "BATEMAN BAN".
Edited By Siteowner
Anon says: Hey ***** everything is an election issue. Including stupid land deals. Oh you must rent and not pay taxes otherwise the grey matter in your brain would let you know when your getting screwed.
Keith says: I am surprised LFP editor finds such disrespectful vitriol acceptable on this blog, but such is the editor's right. FYI, I own my place, not rent. How about you, Anon?
LOL, has the BATEMAN BAN bit anyone else out there in blogland like it bit Anon.? Please let us know. This Editor bets it's not those praising him!
LFP, in fairness, you have banned your share as well, have you not?
In 2 years only 5 were banned of which 2 were pure spam advertisers. And 3 were heavy libel mongers. As you can see this Editor still allows the likes of Rennie, Wink ( who by the way gush over Cllr. Bateman on his blog!) and a host of other venom spewers, who to say the least don't think too highly of this Editor or especially of our host and publisher, Kim Richter.
LFP Editor,
I think the search to uncover the answers you are seeking would cost more than selling the land below market value. Regardless of who or what - the ultimate responsiblility rests with the Township because they controlled the planning and development of the area. It was better for the Township to cut its losses and sell than spend thousands researching only to discover they had to spend many thousands more to stabilize the gully.
Natural Resources Canada
http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca:80/site...ds/landslides/
1 says:
"Landslide risk can be controlled. The first method of reducing risk is simply avoidance of the hazard. With expert input and careful planning, communities can identify unstable slopes and restrict or control development in the hazard zone. Planning allows homes, schools, hospitals, fire and police stations, power-lines, gas pipelines, and roads to be safely located away from potentially unstable zones. For communities that are already established, the municipal or provincial authorities must consider whether protective engineering measures or buy-outs and moving of people and buildings should be undertaken."
If Councillor Richter wants to make an election issue of colleagues who did not want to hold a taxpayer (who bought in good faith) responsible for poor municipal planning, she will have an uphill battle with many residents.
Legal Opinion & Keith, pay attention. First and foremost the only questions and comments that Richter ever expressed on this issue as far as I know is when she and Kositsky & Long voted against the sale after another neighbour came to council and said he would double the sale price of $12,000!
And then all that these 3 most veteran Township Councillors just wanted was a sober second opinion after a lot of questions were raised on the sale. Would you not question it as well? Was this wrong? I think not. That is professional and due diligence in my mind.
The vocal opponents to this fire sale came from the immediate neighbours first, and not just one either! You would think that they are closest to the story, the sale and the liabilities issues than most others! I know that in my neighbourhood all of us know intimate details about each other's properties, neighbours and history!
Also this Editor still won't believe that this was the best deal possible(my questions have never been answered adequately) and then the Province newspaper investigated and covered the story and we have also since heard from lots more people that think this was a poor or at minumum a questionable sale.
So in response to you and Keith's comments, I don't have a clue as to whether or not Richter, Long or Kositsky will make an election issue out of this or not. It's certainly an issue for this Editor, the actual properties neighbours and a lot more who read about it as well.
As I said this is just another log in the bonfire of terrible, bad, poor and questionable Council decisions and very possibly a demonstrated lack of proper due diligence by this Township Mayor & council in this Editor's opinion.
FOR INSTANCE:
The historically high year after year Township tax increases,
http://www.kimrichter.com/Blog/2...storic-
tax.html
and
http://www.kimrichter.com/Blog/2...ers-49-
tax.html
out of control spending, now habitual borrowing, questionable Township ownership & purchases of Golf Courses and a restaurant/bar
http://www.kimrichter.com/Blog/2...ial-
fiasco.html
as well as grossly overbudget construction projects like the $3-4-5-6 million Grandstand,
http://www.kimrichter.com/Blog/2...-2006-
over.html
and the police funding fiasco,
http://www.kimrichter.com/Blog/2...ooling-
who.html
and the airport leasing business subsidy,
http://www.kimrichter.com/Blog/2...ey-
airport.html
which all along with many more fiascos, in this Editor's opinion, dwarf this questionable $12,000 3/4 of an acre Township taxpayer owned land sale by a far country mile that any new prospective Councillor or Mayor candidate can and probably will use in next year's upcoming election.
Oh, by the way, anyone new out there wanting to run for Election to replace any one of the good ole boys on council should have a good read of the aforementioned LFP postings and are invited to email this Editor for even further clarification!
{EDITED}LFP editor says:
First and foremost the only questions and comments that Richter ever expressed on this issue as far as I know is when she and Kositsky & Long voted against the sale after another neighbour came to council and said he would double the sale price of $12,000!
Keith asks: *******---
DELETED BY LFP EDITOR 'FAIR COMMENT ISSUE'- Keith, I am not posting your comment because it makes a claim that has never been stated as a matter of public record. In situations where it's quote, "I said - he said", I suggest you have 3rd party substantiation of the comments made. There has been none as far as I know. For that reason, and because libel is not a nice legal situation, I have chosen not to release your comments on LFP. As a publisher of a blog Keith, be careful of what you publish because ultimately you are responsible for it regardless of what others may have published on their sites.- LFP EDITOR
Edited By Siteowner
Lead
Follow
or get out of the way
I'm fed up with this council screwing the taxpayers on their endless list of questionable land deals. Keith are you an apologist for the blogger councilor Jordan?
Glad to hear Keith pays property taxes, he is going to love the 8% increase mentioned in the rumoor mill. This mayor and his majority on council could never get away with these foolish decisions without the help of wimps that support them, not mentioning any names!
Go to the mirror Keith, give your head a good shake and then research the last time property sold for $12,000. I think Sir John A. Mcdonald was the Prime Minister. If you still think it was smart, please let me know when your selling your home, I can go up to $17,000.
Edited By Siteowner
Anonymous,
I don't know about Keith, but I didn't vote for Cllr. Bateman nor will I vote for him in the next election. That doesn't mean I want my tax dollars spent unnecessarily. There are times to make a stand (restaurant purchases) and times to cut your losses (questionable slope stability).
Have you heard of risk analysis? Painting every scenario with the same brush, discredits your valid concerns and makes you a naysayer no one listens to, because you disagree with everything based on personalities rather than factual information.
Legal, $12K for 3/4 of an acre???? Get real. I still have not seen the evidence/data that this was a wise decision. So I choose to be a disbeliever until then which apparently will be never. If the neighbours are upset about it should we not have A 2ND LOOK. We sweep enough under the carpet as it is out of expediency political and otherwise! So I don't buy your cut your losses comment. Nuff said
I went to the location sold for $12,000, guess what? In my opinion it isn't even the Township property wher the land is slipping, not even close it is the adjacent land that is slipping. Can you believe this? Has any off these councilors gone to see the property in question or do they just except what the adminastration tell them?
Edited By Siteowner
LFP,
With all due respect, take a look at the photo of the property as presented in the Province article. By my view it looks like at least and average 20 degree slope. Under the Riparian Area Regulation, none of that slope can be developed (without an incredible and costly set of studies and a bank stabilization plan). Moreover, under current liability law if the slope collapses during a heavy rainfall and the property owner loses his driveway then he could successfully sue the Township for negligence for not stabilizing the slope.
You seem to be fixating on the $12 K for 3/4 acre issue. What you have failed to grasp is the $12 K is the net worth of the property. That is, while the property may be worth some number say ($115K) it needs work to make it safe (say $100K worth of rehab) as such its net worth is not $115K but rather $15K. If all you care about is price then do I have an offer for you. I know of a property in Vancouver (almost a half acre) that I could get for you for a dollar. Of course you would have to accept the environmental liabilities associated with the property (the current estimate is that the property will costs millions to clean up) but that doesn’t seem to be a consideration on your part since all you will see is a half acre of prime land in Vancouver for a dollar.....
Blair,
Do a drive by and check out the road in question. If you can, walk down the road until you see another road. Tell us wich one of these roads neads $100,000 in repairs in your view.
Methinks,
As shown in the photo the land in question is not a road, it is a right-of-way. It has never been paved...and for good reason if you look at the photos.
(EDITED)- Hey, LFP ed, where is my follow up comment regarding the one you edited out? Did it not come through to you?
LFP EDITOR : Re Your previous comment, I never published it at all, you were incorrect and just repeating yourself again and it was NEVER said publicly as I said before. I am positive. I am very picky especially when naming or directing or directly attributing a specific comment to another specific person without 3rd party confirmation. Nuff said.
Edited By Siteowner
Yes Blair. I have been at the site. I think paving would not be wise IMO. Grading would perhaps do fine. There are 2 sections of road though.
BTW, Blair the trail in the picture of the Province paper is NOT the road in question. That is the neighbour's switchback to the immediate south of the property in question. The road is actually quite a bit behind this picture taker.
Commenting by HaloScan
