- - - - - - - Langley Free Press Welcomes Your Comments - - - - - - - - - Name Email URL is optional
Bet Informed did not know about bateman's socialism experiment! LOL!
By the way not only did Township council add another tax on hotels that goes into the black hole coffers of the new Langley Taxpayer funded Tourism bureaucracy but it also doled out a Township taxpayer funded lump sum $50,000.00 top up kicker amount just recently in addition to the punitive and very questionable hotel tax the letter writer, an experienced tourism marketer and hotel operator has railed against very vocally. Your Langley tax dollars at work again or as the Mayor would say, "Working together to get things done"! Hotel tax and $50,000.00 tax dollar kicker throwaway, not to mention annual compounding ~ 5% property tax increases that you can bet on automatically year after year after year!
This all as a result of the "The boy Who Would Be King" (discussion roundly suggests he is eying the top political job to be MLA Coleman's replacement) supporting the Mayor Kurt Alberts "Good Ole boy's Club Slate" after he first electioneered with his laughable main platform of keeping taxes down!!! LOL...LOL...LOL....LOL!
Wonder how much we taxpayers are paying for the fulltime Langley bureaucracy Tourism Director - $65,000 or $75,000, much more perhaps? To boot we also I think have a Township paid Business Developement bureaucracy and leader. Did you know that? What has that bureaucracy done? Cushy jobs if you can get them don't you think?
Betcha if you eliminated both these bureaucracies and turned it all over to private capitalist business owners like the letter writer we could save up to maybe a 1% tax increase annually!!!!! What other useless Township Council "Good Ole boy's Club" bureaucracies could be eliminated or at least greatly reduced? Did I mention Township had a Public Relations/ Media bureacracy and leader too? And on and on it goes.....
All these bureaucracies created during the Mayor Alberts' "Good Ole boy's Club" slate time in power! But their group think slate spin is that it is the full time fire fighters that are causing these tax increases! RUBBISH!!
These bureaucracies should be using zero based budgeting that they have to prove annually to the taxpayers with cost-benefit hard cold cash rationale for existing and if they can't do so, eliminate them, FAST! How's that for socialism 101 INFORMED? My oh My, how much more socialist can this Editor ever be? L..O...L...!!!
Maybe Kurt should repaint the Municipal hall building in rainbow colors to help attract the gay tourism market too.
I think this is highly offensive to some members of our community, and it is very homophobic. It sends Langley back into the time warp of bigotry, and seeks to promote hate. I'm shocked that Councillor Richter would allow this on her blog. Just look at the comments here for proof of the hate. Its not worthy of any further comments.
Edited Reply By Siteowner - If you noticed you will see that I edited what I thought may be perceived as bigotry out of the first comment. But all in all the letter (also published today in the Langley Times too by the way! Why don't you call them bigoted?) as well as the comments herein are not bigoted in my mind at all but seriously lampoon and question the financial sense/wisdom of selling Langley as a Tourism destination to the Gay & Lesbian community conciously or perhaps even unconciously for that matter!
In ADDITION it also perhaps may even perhaps suggest conflict or perhaps bordering on infringement and perhaps lack of good judgement of using the very similar Gay rainbow colours logo. The actual rainbow picture logo (with the official gay rainbow colours)comes from a US gay community group and was not created by this Editor at all either! None of this herein in my opinion at all rejects gay tourism! But I betcha the radical Langley rednecks and perhaps some Langley religous fanatics will now surface vocally to the very same Langley Times posted letter! Lets see how they are edited at the Times!
And regaurding your accusations about bigotry. Heck, I think the letter writer would be the first to probably welcome with open arms the Gay community to spend their money in Langley on Tourism. Maybe you don't know it but he (to the best of my knowledge) and certainly even Councillor Kim Richter are both federal Liberals! She first ran under the Paul Martin election campaign as a Liberal against Conservative Mark Warawa. The Federal liberals supported legalizing gay marraige while the Federal Conservatives including our local MP DID NOT AND STILL DO NOT!
This Editor certainly would welcome gay tourists or any other similar tourist faction if I owned a hotel or a tourism related business in Langley or anywhere for that matter! Especially with the dramatic drop in US tourism that the letter writer mainly speaks to.
The issue is not whether or not to promote Gay Tourism, the issue the letter and comments herin question in my opinion is the more important question of the financial wisdom & common sense of the tourism efforts to date including their choice of logo. Aka - the conscious or most likely unconcious sales attempt success likelyhood of attracting gay tourism to Langley opposed to other more traditional and much more successful locations, secondly - why not spend more taxpayer's money on tourism by wasting money painting the city hall building in the same multi colour logo, etc., etc.. Read more carefully INFORMED, and don't just always read what it is you want to see. Who's really homophobic? I note you also conveniently did not comment on my financial socialism or Bateman's support of tax, after tax, after tax, either!
LOL ITS ABOUT THE TAX & SPEND ISSUES NOT THE SOCIAL LIFESTYLES ISSUES AT ALL INFORMED, NO MATTER HOW YOU may TRY TO TWIST IT !!! ...LFP EDITOR...
Mr. Ed,
I didn't comment basically because I don't see how the tax would be considered socialist in any way. Room taxes have been used around the world to fund tourism programs and in my global travels I have had to pay many. Its part of the investment in things that build community. They have to be funded somehow.
You can gloss on by the hate overtones, but I've spoken with a few people this morning that considered this offensive.
Edited Reply By Siteowner - I consider wasteful spending and regular like clock work annual double the inflation rate Township tax increases way more offensive. But you will never choose to see that and just as you think you see only marvelous good in Township Council's over budget, over taxation, over spending and over bureaucratic excess, obviously, you will always seek to find offense with criticism of these financial revelations especially it seems on LFP. "It's about the economy stupid." not bigotry or now even hatred as you are trying to spin it.
The Langley Times printed the very same letter today. Are they also then offensive? The letter writer in my opinion makes excellent points that are aimed at lack of judgement financially and good judgement over all perhaps. I see no offense, bigotry nor hatred in his letter to the Editors and in fact as I said before I know him to be a very fair, open liberal progressive and to boot a wise, competent busessman and marketeer. To suggest otherwise is really most offensive. ...LFP EDITOR...
Why not write the whole blog and ALL the comments here Mr. Editor? Your comments are all much longer than mine. Another indication that you are so full of yourself and your ability to know it all. You really should marry Carol James...two peas in a pod and you can belly-ache to one another forever!
Kurt Alberts has enjoyed 3 terms and there is a reason for that. It's about "investing in the community and our future stupid". I predict Kurt Alberts and our hard-working councillors will be re-elected in November and prove to you and your gang that the taxpayers are informed and they agree with the current taxes, governance and services that we receive for our money. But of course after the election we will soon read here about low voter turnouts, apathy, etc. Just as Carol James will be crying in her coffee next year.
Edited Reply By Siteowner - We obviously agree to disagree. Short enough for you? (btw-you just can't shake calling naysayers socialists can you...The BOOGEY MAN syndrome?) ...LFP EDITOR...
Where did I use the work socialist in my last posting? Your database is chuck full of NDP policy and people endorsements and so I spoke of the party leader. I thought it to be fact and not calling anyone anything.
Yes, we can civilly agree to disagree Mr. Editor.
Boogey Man? Would that be Rick Green who must cause Kim to loose sleep?
Edited Reply By Siteowner - I refer to the McCarthy era socialist boogey man excuse for all things bad. How on heaven's earth is saying prudent financial management and proper business practices including right sizing government and letting private enterprise without subsidized taxes & bureaucracy promote themselves is full of "NDP policy, people and endorsements" ? Excuse my english, B.S. ! ...LFP EDITOR...
I notice that on Councillor Batewman's website he takes great exception to this letter about the Township subsidised tourism comments. Methinks he doth protest too much.
Some politicians will get it right when they start to shave.
Edited By Siteowner - But some never grow facial hair at all or just some spotty growth! And some just fake it for ever! LOL! ...LFP EDITOR...
You can't manage what you can't measure ! What irks me is that I know of no formal measurements or independent verifiable measurements that can be compared before and after the Cllr. Bateman "Tourism Langley" bureaucracy creation that they will be actually held accountable for. I think even Cllr. Richter fought for this unsuccessfully on Township council.
Far too many times Governments like Langley Township create these new bureaucracies that don't have PROPER & ACCURATE benchmarks nor measurements to justify their existence. I notice that Cllr. Bateman again is floating tons of justification without any referenced or reliable benchmarks and references that verify his statements. Prove it or shove it!
All Township of Langley departments and bureaucracies should live and die based on these independent verifiable indices. Past Free Woman & longest serving Councillor Muriel Arnason always fought for annual zero based budgeting and for 9 years so has Councillor Kim Richter to no avail.
Meanwhile without these independent verifiable benchmarks this Mayor Alberts' "Good Ole boy's Club" slate goes merrily along creating no real reliable benchmarks and keep spending like drunken sailors and enlarging our bureaucracy ( I would love to know what the comparison today to pre-Alberts Slate Township headcount -full time & part time- and subcontactors are!? Betcha its pretty dramatic bureaucratic growth in head count !).
Even Cllr. Bateman is today in response to Mr. Martin's Langley Times letter on his website again quoted saying; " Are there any tourists in Langley?" Yes there are. In fact, visitor centre visits have been strong and the hotel tax has generated revenue ahead of our projections. There are people here, Mr. Martin, and they are enjoying Langley greatly." Does more revenue from tax based on initial estimates really prove more tourism? I think not sir. This is not prudent business measurement or good sense in my business opinion. In my opinion this is at best amateur and wishful politicking. Pure and simple.
Prove it!
You can't manage what you can't measure ! And if you really can't measure it , don't do it at all in the first place, especially if you are creating new bureaucracies and spending your taxpayers money. This is pure and simple good business sense.
I most enjoyed your posting on bureucracy and the hotel tax that you posted on October 19, 2006. Deja vu.
Edited By Siteowner - To see the posting click below on link
http://www.kimrichter.com/Blog/2...spend-
your.html
The Chamber of Commerce got out of the business and so what was the Township to do? They decided to try and experiment that works in many other places and we are 6 months into that.
I challenge you, Councillor Richter and all the other "experts" here to design a tool to effectively measure the entire Tourism benefit to the Township. Yes, some things can be measured, but you can hire 50 people just to track it and you will only have a few bits and pieces. Its much like measuring how much crime the police deter. Think about it. OK, now you can attack me and call me names.
All things financial can be measured. Don't be fooled. The exceptions are very , very rare and as said before if you can't measure something as a bureaucracy or as a government, certainly never do it because like our 100 year old obsolete bylaws they will bureaucratically continue to fester, grow and mutate especially in governments and especially in Langley Township!
Remember always, You can not manage what you 'Can't' or 'DON'T' or 'Refuse' to measure. If you were a businessman you would understand what that means. Informed, It is not up to a councillor in this Editor's opinion to design a tool, system or procedure to measure management, productivity, outcomes or efFieciencies. It is their job to ask for it and to make sure it is fair, honest and true. And especially ask important and relevant questions which they all hate when the only female on council is the only one who does so (or maybe able to do so?). For a councillor to design it is ridiculous and micro managing. Richter who was a consultant, has a masters in business admin and teaches business at Kwantlen University most certainly could probably do , but that's not her job is it and if council ignores it why should she do it at all?
I do know that Richter once asked that professional measurement goals and outcome comparisons, planned and actual especially for the financial and tourism numbers insofar as the Tourism initiative be firmly developed and incorporated. She got no support.
I believe Township have very professionally trained staff, consultants, accountants, bookkeepers and managers who could design and implement measurements so very easily. The senior staff & managers are all trained and educated professionals each earning anywhere between $150,000 to $300,000.00 annually. As a socialist as you dare call me (LOL) I would even incorporate financial bonuses at minumum for these Township Managers to reward, punish and especially measure their performance to plan. That's the capitalist and normal business way! Still sound like I'm a socialist or your scary version of a NDP'er, Informed? LOL!
The real issue in my mind is, is there a desire by Township Mayor & Council to measure realistically, consistently, independently and especially verifiably. It would not appear so to me. Why? I am constantly amazed how the Good Ole boy's get away with carefully selected comparisons with other cities and villages to justify tax increases, mayor & council pay hikes, project cost overruns, etc. These other cities probably do the exact same thing, selectively! In the end they they essentially all help each other ramp up their own financial justifications too and this is how they get away with ever increasing costs, spending , taxes and borrowing. Pitiful!
Worse still some Councillors say stupid thjings like "Studies prove that XXXXX works and is the right thing to do" yet they don't say who or what study they refer to! LOL!.They really buy partisan hearsay! LOL! Dreadfull!
Richter and Arnason always asked for proper validation and measurement of the financials, departments and projects. As well as asking for zero based budgeting. I don't think most of council even knows what that means! The rest of the "Good Ole boy's Club" slate were always opposed. So obviously then does the head stink from the top down?
Simply look to the pathetic excuses and back peddling on the famous $3-4-5-6-7 million and still not completed and growing Grandstand project (Cllr. Bateman's baby) which they still all blow smoke around to cloud the fiasco. See this link for details:
http://www.kimrichter.com/Blog/2...-2006-
over.html
Are these examples of fact as you always credit Cllr. Bateman on his site or fiction as you always accuse this Editor and our contributing columnists. How really credible are you , INFORMED, in face of all the facts herein and your very obviously partisan opinions? Be honest.
And don't get me going about the chamber of commerce seperate boy's club and their issues. I'll report on that after the November Township "Good Ole boy's Club" slate un-election!
The local papers are reporting on more growth in the buraucracy. As I understand it they are now hiring management for the new rec center. That makes me wonder what the cost of operating that facility will be. My business eye suggests to me that the operation is unlikely to pay for itself. I am also curious about the capitol cost overun that only the township is on the hook for. Does anyone know that number?
If there ever was an example of Kurt Alberts being incapable of transactions involving our tax dollars, the McCloud Park grandstand is it. The problem began with the original agreement, and simply went from bad to worse. Meanwhile his reliable supporters (Slate?) just went along for the ride. The township is like a ship without a rudder. November can't come soon enough.
By the way, I would like to see what the latest cost esimate is for the Rec Center also. Somebody at township hall has those figures, and they should have the decency to keep us informed. Is Kurt Alberts pushing this project a bit too hard trying to have another gala RIBBON CUTTING event just before the election (One of his known skills)? He did this very thing prior to the last election when the new Township Hall was in the last hurried stages of completion. IMO it's a cheap and purely political stunt, and the cost is picked up by....you guessed it, the tax paying sucker as usual. A good way to lay off election campaign costs on the public though, as long as they remain blind.
Frank Bucholtz follows up on Wally Martin's recent letter to the edit;
Here's my take on his letter. Responses are welcome.
Martin made the point that tourism from the United States is down dramatically. That is undoubtedly true.
The U.S. is in the midst of a serious recession, and the American dollar does not have the purchasing power it once had in Canada. In addition, crossing the border has become a major hassle and many people simply can't be bothered to sit in border line-ups for three or four hours to wait to be questioned by officials.
It's not surprising that tourism is down.
Martin somehow blames Tourism Langley for this fact. That's a bit of a stretch. Tourism Langley has just got up and running over the past six months, and it clearly has no power over the recession or the value of the dollar.
He has been opposed to the entire Tourism Langley concept from day one, mainly because his small bed and breakfast has to charge a 10 per cent hotel room tax to fund it. I don't blame him for his opposition - it's ludicrous that small bed and breakfasts must charge a room tax. However, a change must be made to provincial law, and Martin would be far better off lobbying Langley's two cabinet ministers to have that change made.
His continued attack on Tourism Langley is unfair to an organization that is doing its best to get up to speed. It
’s far too early to judge its successes or failures.
Anon, your assessment of Walley's situation is fair and accurate IMO. I think that hell will freeze solid before anything is done to help him now though.
Is it government's role to assist each and every small business to make them profitable and fill the pockets of each small businessman?
It seems to me (and you can disagree) that Tourism Langley is responsible for the broad picture...sell Langley, promote all the that we have to offer, etc. Then tourists come and discover our area and what we have an get an opportunity to be exposed to local businesses and perhaps the Princess and the Pea B&B. Then maybe some time during this trip or their next trip they give some business to Wally. But its a process and it doesn't happen overnight, unless you are the casino and can give them some significant reason to frequent your business.
I just have to muse to myself here and I ask myself 'how would Informed feel if he put him/herself into the position of ownership of the Princess and the Pea B&B?' I'll just betcha' there'd be a lot of wailing and knashing of teeth, were that the case.
We should all try to do this and we'd all have a better understanding of our community and its residents.
Commenting by HaloScan
