- - - - - - - Langley Free Press Welcomes Your Comments - - - - - - - - - Name Email URL is optional
LFP,
I've read the article carefully and was unable to find the passage where they reported: "that legal action will be commenced against the township over their refusal to apply their own bylaws against themselves"?
Did I miss something or did the editors cut that part out?
LFP,
Since you are on the ball on these things could you clear something up for me? The bylaw only applies if a "Development Application has been submitted" (Section 4 Application of the bylaw).
It is my understanding that the Council does not actually have to submit a "Development Application" in order to undertake a development?
Am I correct in that statement?
If my understanding is correct then that must be the "out" being used by the Township lawyers to explain why the Township can avoid having to apply the bylaw to itself. As long as the Township doesn't have to submit a "Development Application" to itself it doesn't have to follow the bylaw...interesting if true....of course I could be out to lunch here 
Blair's interpretation sounds accurate to me. The township most likely wants to avoid situations where they might be handcuffed. How they use or abuse this priveledged position will be what to watch for.
Blair & Methinks, Why is it that bridges collapse? Perhaps because they don't require institutional development permits and proper checks & balances! My guess is this double standard won't pass the legal hurdle at all because a bylaw is a bylaw for one and all.
While you are checking into things Blair, why is it that this park is being built where there is not even a neighbourhood plan in place! Curious don't you think? Also Blair ask the Batenator why he would not second to even discuss Richter's motion to address Arnason's very legitimate issue that she got a legal opinion on?
When will they ever learn to be more progressive & forward thinking? Why the CONTINUAL ole boys club group think is beyond me. The next election requires TRULY independent thinkers.
For a laugh look back at Batenator's blog quotes where he accuses Albert's council of being a "silent slate" BEFORE he got elected! No more mention AT ALL of any silent slate AFTER the election! Curious? And why does he now appear to this Editor to almost always go along with the ole boys club council silent slate for an overwhelming majority? Most specifically on Langley Township large SPENDING, TAXING & DEBT increases.
On a different but related note, Opportunism awaits? My bet is there will be a third MLA seat in the Langley environs and I wonder who will want this seat after the provincial riding distribution analysis is done shortly? Clever of the Libs, because it would be another new safe Lib riding in this still red neck riding! Perhaps conformity, compliance & a safe non confrontional stance can help make one a life time member of the Province's political party pension club! Do you know any logical & local Provincial Langley Liberal candidate out there that has NOW well developed those political pandering attributes? Doh...! LOL!
Re: Legal challenge, stay tuned for part 2 asap! 
Bull Housser and Tupper is the legal firm that can clarify the situation.
Stay tuned for legal action! Our sources say part 2 is coming. Sadly, the ole boy's club township council could have avoided spending our tax dollars unnecessarily on this stupid double standard issue! As said they sure do seem to like double standards!
LFP,
Quite the fascinating segue LFP, you attempt to relate a national-level human tragedy to a minor local political squabble. You aren’t just comparing apples and oranges but rather you are comparing unicycles and jetliners. Sadly, bridge construction is such a heavily controlled activity that you simply end up sounding utterly irrational to the informed reader.
As for the lack of a community plan, unless I am mistaken doesn’t Bylaw 3800 present a "Community Plan" for Willoughby? The long range land use map presents the area as a proposed “major park”. Certainly a revised plan is under development but you seem to be slightly off-base when you say that “there is not even a neighbourhood plan in place!”
I was most amused by your statement “because a bylaw is a bylaw for one and all”. It is routine for municipal governments to exempt themselves from components of their own development bylaws. The basis of the exemption is that, by definition, any municipal development has to have gone through, and been approved by, the municipal planning office so to then require them to jump through the normal hoops is redundant. Additionally, since municipal development undergoes municipal oversight (have to be passed by council) the normal hoops just don’t apply. To suggest that this is a feature special (or unique) to the Township indicates that you had better warm up your search engine and start reading because you appear to be sadly ill-informed.
Blair, if a head chef in a kitchen sets the safety standards of food preperation for his hired line cooks and staff, who checks up on the the head chef's compliance? Is he any less obligated to protect his consumers with the same procedural rules? Since he makes the safety rules should he be any less liable to conform with them himself when he himself cooks or prepares food?
In this specific Township case, without any more redundant & repetitive debate with you, I am sure that the courts will decide this outcome if I am correct that it will be challenged shortly. Unfortunately the ole boys club council did not, would not or perhaps could not grasp or understand what Arnason & subsequently Richter were trying to point out and rectify. Now sadly it probably will cost taxpayers tons in legal fees for something that rightly and simply could have been corrected by Township council. But alas they did not even second Richter's motion to EVEN discuss the matter! Jeniuses! I guess their simple trademark solution is just to continue raising taxes. But I guess with these remarks I'm once again probably comparing unicycles and jetliners! If so, so be it!
Regarding your other points, why is it that if anybody wants to develop in an area they are not permitted to unless there is a neighbourhood plan? But obviously this is again not applicable for the municipality which is again just another example that shows that they can simply flaunt their own laws at will. Outrageous! What other rules and laws are they not following as well one has to wonder? Why are they exempt on these basic and important bylaws, rules & guidelines? Are they better, smarter and more reliable than anyone else? I think not.
The simple basic question, which the courts will decide I believe is why is the Township of Langley exempt? Answer this important question Blair. I personally believe they should not be.
There should be little or no wiggle room by those who make the laws and then consider themselves:
- not obliged to live by them,
- are above them or
- flipantly justify any non-compliance at will or on the fly as neccesary.
Could you imagine the many broad consequences possible? As a simple example, imagine the implications of potential election campaign contributions. What benefits could be garnered if political contributors realized that they had the potential to encourage elected officials to bypass their laws for any unique benefits by side stepping their own laws on their behalf! The mind boggles.
No double standards should be allowed at all or at best only in extremely rare and narrowly pre-defined and justifiable exceptions by any government, their politicians and/or their agents. The laws should apply to all, equally. That my friend is proper and correct democracy. No one should ever be above the law, including and especially the law makers themselves!
LFP,
As I was taught many years ago, the danger with depending on analogies to make your point is that they seldom fit the case exactly and often detract from your argument as people start to knit-pick the errors. As with your kitchen analogy, much like a sieve, it looks solid but holds no water. A chef at a restaurant is overseen by the owners, the management and ultimately the food inspection agencies. But most importantly, if a chef does a bad job then his restaurant will go out of business. Not terribly relevant to the Township discussion.
As for your later argument about financing elections. Back in the early days of democracies, there were no laws governing the practice of bribing officials. Then public backlash caused laws to be written on the subject. Campaign financing laws are a direct result of that. The only reason campaign financing laws exist is the community revulsion against the practice of buying votes. Thus legislation was specifically written to stop the practice. Were the politicians sufficiently cavalier about their jobs they could throw out the law (write a new law excluding themselves from the first laws) and they would be well in their right. Of course they would get tossed on their assess come the next election. The government is kept in check by the people come election time. If you want the Township to be beholden to all its bylaws then feel free to argue the case come next election time. But be prepared to have your opponents point out how ridiculous it is to have a planning office waste resources reviewing a development prepared by the planning office, and don’t imagine that they would simply rubber stamp the reviews because, as you say, everyone has to be treated equally. Auditors would need to be sure that the planners followed the rules to the letter.
As for your main point, once again without repetitive debate this one will never get through the opening stages of a court case. Municipalities commonly exclude themselves from certain development bylaws. It is their statutory right. The main purpose of development bylaws is to ensure that input from the community (in the form of the community planner’s office, open debate in council and public hearing of issues) is a consideration in developments. Since any Township plan will, by definition, have to have been approved by the Township Planning office and the Council, requiring them to do so again, after the fact, is simply wasteful duplication.
No court in the land would waste more than a few minutes times discussing whether the Township has to right to exclude themselves from their bylaws. If Ms. Arnason succeeds in forcing the issue it will only be because the portion of the law excluding the Township was poorly written (of note, my lay opinion is that the bylaw is solid in this way). That will be to a court to decide, but don’t worry, if the bylaw is found to be wanting the Township has the statutory right to re-write the bylaw to clearly exclude themselves...which they will most certainly do.
As for the development itself. I have never actually expressed an opinion on whether it is right or wrong. I’m just pointing out that the Township has the legal right to have done what it did, plain and simple.
All government will sue and jail us if we don't follow their laws. Lets sue them if they don't follow their own laws. Better still sue the politicians.
Well stated Blair! LFP - is Richter running for the supposed 'new' seat....she once ran as a Liberal correct???? If you want power and infleunce aspire for the big seat of power.
Rennie, there is a difference between fed and provincial libs. She ran Fed as a Lib. As said my hunch is there will be a new seat or two in the fraser valley after riding redistribution. If one new riding sort of like encapsulates some of Langley I will take bets as to which councillor will obviously run in this $100,000.00 job for the new riding!
Would it, could it, should it be 'the rookie'???? It appears he has aspirations much larger than 'just a councilor'......hmmmmmmmm
But why do we always end up electing these 2 faced self serving people who only crave power, money and influence and don't really care?
Its because the one's who care and bother to get out to vote cannot outnumber the amount of votes that these 'bible' people manage to get out to vote.
I've never been but have been told by responsible, honest individuals that people in the church are reminded and even have a transportation plan to get all the members out to vote for 'someone' that leans to their way of thinking.
In a bible toting town, as is Langley and the Township, this makes the difference of who gets elected.
I'm hoping this ratio will be changing with the huge influx of 'varied' families moving into the Langley's due to cheaper accomodation prices.
But how many polticians are real "religeous people" or just conveniently religeous to help get a politician's free ride money and pension? Also they sure seem to me to compromise, lie and step on and use other people to get to their goals more than others do don't they? Never met a religeous politician who shows any real caring, kindness or forgiveness that their religions preach. They are the biggest hypocrites..
Just FYI, LFP editor, your link to the Province article does not work anymore. They must have taken it down.
Commenting by HaloScan
