- - - - - - - Langley Free Press Welcomes Your Comments - - - - - - - - - Name Email URL is optional
I just did a quick read of Kim's article, and I am wondering if the sweetheart deal involving a form of partnership as well as tax relief with REDWOODS GOLF CLUB might come into question under SECTION 24.
Good grief, has staff goofed on this?
Councillor Richter,
As someone who supports your general philosophy regarding spending I can’t help but wonder if you have chosen the right topic upon which to stage a major fight. As an activist in my youth I was taught that politically you pick a fight where you are clearly in the right and your opponent has made a mistake or is on unstable ground. Your stand on the Grandstand was just such an issue. Your fight to keep the tax increase down is another one. The airport deal, meanwhile doesn’t seem to fit the bill.
Let’s start with your insistence that rent on airport land be compared against commercial/industrial land prices. In debating you are taught never to advance an argument against settled facts because it gives your opponents the option of painting you as either uninformed or dishonest. Put simply airport land IS NOT normal commercial/industrial land and no matter how many times you try and argue that they can be compared the simple fact is they cannot. I’m afraid you are drinking LFP’s kool-aid on this topic, except he/she doesn’t have to worry about his/her credibility as he/she stands in front of a room and tries and sell the story. Your opponents are going to pull out the restrictive covenant and the local bylaws and point out that you are comparing apples to airliners and they will paint you as either someone who did not do her homework or someone trying to make a cheap point and in either case they will argue that you should have known better than to make that argument and you will look bad.
As for the subsidy aspect, given your previous history with regards to airport rents you are already fighting an uphill battle on this topic. Follow it up with the fact that while some Councillor’s may have indicated that the price was below market value, the determination of market value is flexible. The inclusion of the new facility goes into the calculation and the Airport Manager has always insisted that the rent is fair market value and apparently has the data to support his conclusion. So in this case your opponents have fully transparent, easily accessible data that clearly shows that their rental rate is within the normal range charged for similar facilities in the region. You may wish to argue it is a subsidy but once again you are fighting against superior forces on poor footing.
Your Community Charter argument, while it has the benefit of being colourful, is also unconvincing (in my view). As discussed above any challenge will likely hang on the definition of “market value” and market value is a flexible condition. As a result you will not likely get any traction there. As for your concerns for “partnering agreements” these are strictly defined in the Schedules of the Act and rely on the provision of a “service”. The definition of a “service” in the act is defined based on “an activity, work or facility” since a lease doesn’t meet the definition of a service then by definition within the Act no “partnering agreement” can be said to exist. Since market value is a flexible term and by definition the lease is not a partnering agreement the remainder of your challenges cannot be supported under the Charter.
Finally and most importantly, as LFP notes, for the first time in my memory you have the local papers starting to come to your side, mostly thanks to the issue of taxation. If you show yourself to be unable to budge on such a straightforward issue the prevalent view will change. Instead of presenting you as a maverick who fights for the little guy you are going to be seen as a crank who goes against everything reflexively and without thought.
All my best
In any debate ther are people for, and those against. When one wins his case we call him the winner and move on. Debating is not a crime. On the contrary, it is the foundation of democracy, and whether Kim is right or wrong matters not at all.
Her point from the very beginning was to take a longer look at the rates and lease lengths (40 years!!!). Getting the cold stares (which has become the norm at council) would provoke any red blooded person to probe where all others show a tendency to sluff it off, as though no problems exist. Let's wait a week or so to see if there is any merit in the research that Kim has done, and we'll ALL move on. Surely folks have noticed, that we have all become more aware of the pros and cons relating to the airport issue. If anything detrimental to us tax payers lays waiting to be revealed we should be listening.
If and when we elect all 8 councilors that sit with rubber stamps poised and marked "aye", we will all regret the day. Municipalities get involved in so many aspects of business, that no one councilor can ever understand every issue requiring a decision. This is where staff referals become involved, BUT, we don't ELECT them, and they do make mistakes. When they do so, and I will acknowledge that this occurs infrequently, the municipalities are left with the damages and cost. Staff members simply move on.
I often don't agree with Richter, but I am very glad that she is there. She does her job, and tries her best to look out for those of us that don't even go to council meetings.
I think these are all fair questions to be asked to avoid any doubt that there may be or may not be any unfairness or special deals at the tax payers expense.
I don't think of Blair as being mean spirited in this issue and obviously he feels very comfortable with the decision, albeit he did say that he was friends with many of the company employees.
I am sorry to say that my level of understanding is not high in this particular issue, so any added information is OK by me. I don't think it ever hurts to get as much data as you can where a decision has to be made at other peoples expense.
Blair, your arguments are based on the assumption that Cllr. Richter has not done any research. Its obvious that she's talked to a lawyer. Why are you assuming that she has not also talked to an appraiser?
LFP,
On the contrary I feel comfortable that Cllr. Richter has done some homework and may well have spoken to an appraiser and even a lawyer.
Regarding my post I have made no unstated assumptions and have simply extrapolated based on the data at hand.
To summarize, my advice was freely given and offered with no malice, it is worth every penny Cllt. Richter paid for it and as such she is free to heed it or ignore it at her leisure.
Dear LFP
Is George Miller an employee of the Township?
Does he own a Company?
He says the airport books are open, can we see what he bills us?
Does he have other contracts?
Could he be in a conflict of interest?
To the best of my knowledge he is not a Township employee but apparently administers the airport for the township under contract via his own company I believe.
Insofar as what he bills the Township you would have to ask the Township staff to provide that info. If you do, please let us know the details. I can only assume that the contract should be public knowledge. I don't see why it would not be.
I have no way of knowing what other contracts or work if any he may have.
In any business/vocation there are always potential for conflict of interest.
I'm sure the Township staff and all the consultants and contractors that work for the Township are always cautious to never be placed in a conflict of interest. Insofar as the airport is concerned at this time I am not aware of any conflicts now or in the past.
Interesting sequence of events? When Richter asks for discussion on the merit of having a consultant look at the aitport lease rates, we get an answer from Bakken.....and it's in the Langley Times! The other councilors give her the dumb stare, instead of airing the facts that we (remember us?) might like to hear on how our tax dollars are being maximized. Not only that, we learn a a few other facts from the airport manager who's job it is to manage the airport efficiently.
Bakken is not clear on when a consultant gave his last revue of rates, but does mention a survey done in 1999. We are left hanging as to whether that was the last one or.....?
It's seems that the township itself did the rate settings I think...er
...maybe...but maybe they had help...., but when?.
The point is that if there had been a seconder to Richter's motion, we might all have been made wiser and the issue then put to bed. When will the mayor and his six pack begin to act like professionals?
Methinks, very well said. Best summary to date by anyone. Meanwhile others now dare label it 'Richter vs Airport'. And then fall very uncharacteristically silent! That's BS, its 'Richter vs Censorship' or 'vs The ole boys' or 'vs the silency slate'! Hey I like the last one. Saying it's 'vs the airport' is simply put a misrepresentation and political mis-direction attempt and simply very unfair. In fact LFP thinks Richter's questions are pro airport and especially pro taxpayers.
Commenting by HaloScan
