- - - - - - - Langley Free Press Welcomes Your Comments - - - - - - - - - Name Email URL is optional
Dear Editor,
Can you tell me how much the tax hike means in annual dollars?
In your review of the budget, was there any fat in the system?
Lastly, what changes in Township budget were made with a .93% budget?
Thank you
This is a tough question for sure but in fact the Twonship has little or no option. Firstly, $60 a year shouldn't bankrupt anyone, if it did then their financing is pretty screwed up to begin with. Secondly, the Township has to maintain it's infrastructure and this is very important in the long term.....items left to rot now cost much more in the future. Thirdly, this doesn't include a whole lot of new projects as I understand it so it is not lavish. Fourthly it can and will imrpove the items like snowplowing which your very own Cllr. wanted yet are not contained in her 0% or .93%. Lastly, I have seen NO print on what should or will be the recommened cuts from the services or projects from either Green or Richter. If they want me to buy in to their plan then tell me what it is, I won't buy in to something with long term liabilities but I have no idea what they are thinking. They can say it but it is time to get to the meat and potatoes so to speak and I see nothing. At least at 3.95% or 5% I have an idea of what is included.
I can and will not buy in to any plan that stipulates save now (0% or .93%) and we pay the piper in years to come with double digit increases (14+%). It doesn't balance and won't sell in my opinion!
I just went to the tax open house and had some questions about proposed spending, in particular the bridge to be replace on 232 at 68th ave. According to Bateman it is dangerous. I was also told that Fox commented that he had to back up when he approached a truck on the bridge. Another story has it that the bridge has pieces falling off it.
So on the way home I stopped and walked to the bridge to look at it. Doesn't look like it has anything falling off it. The road does narrow a little on the bridge and there is no shoulder but it is similar to a bridge in Maple Ridge that I cross frequently but that bridge has significantly more traffic. And its no more narrow than driving on the Lions Gate bridge.
If Fox had to back up when a truck approached then he should look again.
I'm going to ask to see the engineers report on that bridge.
And as for the fort to fort trail they want to spend 80,000 on it. I say that is a waste of money.Ostensibly it is to faciltate foot traffic across Glover Road. Although that street has a lot of ferry traffic now the ferry is shutting down in July so there will be minimal taffic after that. This trail connects Derby Park and the Fort, neither of which are owned by the township. When I questioned why it is our responsiblity to build the trail I was told because it is on our property. What a waste!
Horny toad
Edited By LFP EDITOR
Oh,and one more thing. It is apparent that a lot of the increase in expenses comes from adding the full time fire fighters. I say we pospone that for awhile.
Horny toad
You 5% percenters are from another planet obviously. In any large private corporation the Board of directors (similar to Mayor & Council) don't go line by line to reduce a budget!
They look at the economy, their clients (us taxpayer smucks in this case) and their products & services and then they TELL their CEO (Township Admin in our case) where they have to hold the financial line in the sand for their SHAREHOLDER'S (us Taxpayers again!) benefit in overall spending and bottom line!
So, it's simple 5% percenters Group of obviousdly the six supporters on council! Council should just TELL Admin, to just hold to 0% or 0.93% at most and then see what ADMIN says the specific fallout will be from THEIR point of view (not the other stupid way around) and work it back from there.
How stupid is it to start from 5% instead! Really stupid! How stupid is it to go more than 1% in these hard financial times? REALLY, REALLY STUPID!
So 5% percenters, give it and us Taxpayers a break and give us taxpayers at least a break for at least one year for crying out loud!
My municipal taxes have increased almost two fold in the last 9 years because of your regular annual 5% percenter group of six supporters financial ignorance.
I choose to remain anonymous only because I know I will be probably personally slandered in this community by the group of 6 supporters if I reveal my name just like anyone else who dares support Green & Richter who oppose tax increases!
That is the saddest part of the NEW Langley politics reality!
I am told and is it true, that the anti Green back room clan, some election losers and some blog supporters of the anti Green gang on council, have again activated their broadcast email distribution of their close partisan sports and fire fighter allies to flood the newspapers and the council with pro 5% tax increase emails? How believable and credible are any flood of emails supporting a big tax increase in this day and age? Has anyone ever seen any real citizen movement that demands tax increases anywhere?
Edited By LFP EDITOR
No Way,
You win the big prise for your comments. When economic growth factors and consumer spending take a downturn, it is NOT up to civic governments to stimulate the economy by further burdening its tax payers. The Federal Government must take the lead when this happens. No other government has the basic tools for the task.
There is a shameful lack of financial awareness among certain TOL council members. They are a disgrace imo.
So I just received a reply to my request for a copy of the engineers report on the 232nd and 68th Ave bridge slated for replacement and surprise-surprise-there is no engineers report.
Another MAKE WORK-COST MONEY PROJECT..
What a waste!!!
Is ther nothing Bateman can't spend money on.
Horny Toad
Running a large municipality is in many ways akin to operating a large business.
In regards to the 2009 budget process (fiasco)it is clear that the fabulous six on council have no idea what they ought to do in the tough times we are living in. So they just follow the path of least resistance laid out by Kurt Alberts; namely tax and spend and rubberstamping the requests of the various departments, especially the engineering department.
Council was elected to lead, not being lead.
One has to wonder what qualifications, if any, these councillors have to direct the financial affairs of a large municipality, beyond running a small business at best. This applies in particular to councillor Jordan Bateman.
Taxpayer.
Exactly HT.................taxpayers are paying for a firefighting service that is no better or faster than the old paid call system. Paid call members were/are a dedicated, well trained force. Just look around the full time hall areas.....lots of times they are cruising the area doing "busy" work.
".lots of times they are cruising the area doing "busy" work."
You mean like when they take a $200,000 truck that gets 5 mpg(at best) and go to the grocery store.
There is a big grocery store in Vancouver that must get a fire inspection weekly from what I've seen.
HT.
That same $200,000 fire truck in the paid call system only left the hall when there was a call. Saved on wear and tear on the vehicle along with fuel cost. What is the township fire departments gas budget now???
Why did we replace the fantastic firefighting system that we had?.......because a slate in an election 4 years ago wanted to be elected.
Sincere Apologies To Councillor Charlie Fox from the LFP EDITOR. It has come to my attention that I made an editing mistake and let a comment get by me without vetting it completely.
Despite the fact that LFP has more edits than any other local political blog by far, I let one get by me without having read the comment completely before allowing it to post on LFP.
This Editor absolutely does NOT like nor permit any comments about physical characteristics at all, no matter how slight and abstract, because it has no place in political discussion what so ever no matter how minor in my opinion. Unlike other blogs we no longer allow unfair and unfounded disparaging comparisons to any person's physical appearance and especially their non political jobs unlike others!
And again I very sincerely apologize to Councillor Charlie Fox for this error on my part. It was my mistake to not have read the full comment before posting it.
It's hard to believe that for over a year we at LFP let ALL comments go without any vetting at all in retrospect! But as said we choose to not allow this stuff on LFP any more. In fact unlike others we also have now chosen never to again allow words like "Bully" or similar disparaging words either to become any part of the LFP published vocabulary any more.
We hope to elevate far above simple name calling and personal derision. We want substantive information and discussion not personal derisive stuff.
Political and satirical comments/disagreements are more than welcome however.
Again this one admittedly got by us and we again feel we blew it and will admit it profusely and apologize sincerely for it as well as edit it.
Other local blogs may certainly have let this specific error go I know but as said we will not allow any ANY physical comparisons whatsoever of anyone nor allow any words that we feel are not proper either.
Again sorry Charlie Fox.
If anyone ever sees LFP make a similar editing mistake please let us know asap.
In fact we have considered at times that we should perhaps just remove entirely all haloscan comments and just permit editorial letters to the Editor.
I believe that it speaks a lot about those that complain about comments on your blog site yet complain on another blog site as well.
Especially a blog site that calls me and hundreds of other anti Mufford overpass council protestors "Scum".
A blog site that names and accuses someone of negotiating to run with the NDP and when it is proven absolutely a lie does not apologize and makes no correction.
A blog site that does not just call a politician's politics "kooky" but calls the politician "kooky" and then even makes fun of that politician's hair too.
A blog site that calls the same politician's husband a "predator" & "sick".
A blog site that many identifieable politicians and their even larger than life supporters contribute to with comments, editorials, pictures and audio recordings yet all of the same people say they are not affiliated at all with this blog site.
In fact no one at all is accountable for that blog site and some of it's associated contributors are even now still trying to distance themselves from it.
A blog site that even Jordan Bateman has multiple times referred his readership too from his blog site.
Isn't this all just the pot calling the kettle black? And what does this really speak to about all those complainers, contributors and promoters?
H.T.'s comment in my opinion was far from slanderous and at best can be labeled in poor taste. The other blog in question and it's real supporters who remain completely anonymous can certainly not be held to the bar that your attempting to. Not even close.
And Richter is ultimately responsible as your blog's publisher as well as being a writer who openly admits to contributing to your site and being accountable for her blog.
What would you then call the other blog site's accountability and credibility not to mention their writers and supporters?
Edited By LFP EDITOR
I would still like to identify the hidden owner of that poor excuse for a blog. Some one must know how to do that.
Check out this site for domain name owners:
whois.domaintools.com
This will show you who owns a blog.
Edited Comment By LFP EDITOR - Just for information this editor also once wrote about domainsbyproxy.com when we did a piece about Jordan Bateman's Get Moving BC blogsite which was hosted by this proxy site. It's a proxy web hosting site that charges so that you don't find out who the owners are. If you check out any .com address you can otherwise find out who the web address owners and administrator is. Unless you use domains by proxy. See our previous posting at--->
http://www.kimrichter.com/Blog/2...-
political.html
ps; Curious again that both sites in question use domainsbyproxy though. Coincidence! Thanks sharon. I did not know that. ---LFP EDITOR---
Commenting by HaloScan
