- - - - - - - Langley Free Press Welcomes Your Comments - - - - - - - - - Name Email URL is optional
Blair, do you think maybe Richter's research and due diligence may have led her to resource this appraiser as well as a lawyer?
As the paper notes: "Dybvig said airport lease rates charged by governments should be "basically" the same as the value charged for industrial land." The paper also notes: "Dybvig, who advises Vancouver and Abbotsford airports"
Considering that Abbotsford Airport only charges $0.23-$0.32 per square foot for lease rates it would seem that the Abbotsford Airport Authority takes this gentleman's advice very seriously.
Blair, I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, but I somewhere recently read that Abbotsford A/P after a review said recently they were going to move up their rates to reflect what they should be charging. Wasn't Richter simply asking for an independent review too especially before agreeing to a major new tenant's 40 year lease? Why did we get it half baked through the Province instead after the vote? Simply put was proper due diligence followed here? The correct answers to Richter's questions will ultimately tell the true story.
What we have now is the result of Kurt and his muted supporters not doing their homework. When they were given the opportunity to look a little deeper, they instead satisfied their desire to embarrass Richter, who does her job thoroughly.
These characters that somehow got themselves elected, will have to look inside themselves to change their attitude. It seems at the moment that their heads are too thick, and next it will be their skin, if they persist in their ways.
LFP,
After having read Mr. Dybvig’s comments in the paper I can’t be more confident of my previous open letter to Cllr. Richter. The money quote is from the Langley Advance where the following is recorded “Dybvig said the practice of looking at their neighbours for hints as to rates is keeping lease rates down. All these folks do is look at what each other charges,"
So what Mr. Dybvig says is that the MARKET is too low not that Langley has given a value that is BELOW market. As a consequence of Mr Dybvig’s statements I would advise Cllr. Richter to go have another quick chat with her advising lawyer on this as everything I wrote regarding the Charter has been reinforced by her own consultant.
The Community Charter makes specific reference to “market value” and market value is defined by what the market is currently charging. Your own consultant has admitted in a public forum that the deal was done by looking at what other similar facilities charge, that is a textbook definition of market value. As a consequence it is not a subsidy under the Community Charter QED.
We've moved past negotiations for this haven't we? This contract is signed, sealed and delivered, now; isn't it? So, how about spending timeand resources on relieving traffic congestion in Langley! Or, is this airport lease just another political statement?
LFP,
I’m not sure how my posts could be described as the work of a “groupie”.
If you look at my comments to date on this issue they have been consistent. My view is that Cllr. Richter has built up a decent amount of credibility in the last year. Now she is wasting it on the wrong topic. You only get a handful of bullets in this game and you should fire them wisely. If at the end of this brouhaha it is demonstrated that her claims were overblown do you think the Province will send a beat writer the next time she has an issue she wants raised? If her Community Charter argument gets royally squashed do you think that the Langley Advance will feature her next complaint on the front page?
My opinion is that she hasn’t been very wise in her choice of targets. It’s not as if this is the only opportunity she is going to get to score points before the next election. She should be saving her ammunition for when it can make a difference not blasting away wildly hoping to stay in the news.
I think OK put it best on an earlier thread “If you cry "wolf" too often, no one will listen to you when there really is a wolf. After all of the fuss and another review, the correct decision was made. Now, can you spend some of your excellent energy on reducing our transportation frustration?”
OK, Political statement? It was a political decision in the first place, and therefore the original statement. I could also be an example of dereliction of civic duty, or impulsiveness, incomplete research? You can call it any one of these, and perhaps add a few, but to just move on will not solve the problems of our civic administration. Their bumbling is adding to our tax burden and will do so until they take their work more seriously.
Lets look back at the millions wasted an things like the golf course, the McCloud blob of cement, the Berry farm purchase, as well as what could have been done with the money to do the things that you mention as needed. These are examples of what we didn't need and simple waste. Do we move past this and on to the next example of undue responsibility? There's more to being a councilor than just showing up on Mondays.
It seems at least one of the old boys club on council has finally outed and is hoping to help sweep this one under the carpet now. Perhaps another whitewash or rewrite of history attempt in the making?
I guess if you ignore prudent questions on council it should be even much easier to ignore them off council! Also what's really perplexing is when an elected politician uses their so-called latest 'inconvenient truth' parody attempt that if others maybe are doing something financially stupid we will too(some might say it sounds like a stupid reverse cartel)! Stupid Lemmings you say? But then again they are a slate on council!
Then they hope the tough questions will just eventually go away. Even the now clearly partisan commenters also conviently overlook that the bigger issue is still proper information, knowledge, proper discussion/debate and especially due diligence initiated at the council table, not after the fact in the blogs! Are these not the attributes of what you call a good democracy(obviously not in Langley). But then these have never been especially strong points of the ole boys club council members, have they? Why?
LFP,
You seem to have a misunderstanding of a term as this is the second time I’ve seen you misuse it in the last week. The term I refer to is “partisan”. I have never claimed to be an objective observer I have strong opinions on some subjects and as you note a minor contrarian streak which causes me to act as the devil’s advocate to foster discussion in other cases. One thing is clear however, I maintain my claim to be non-partisan. To be a partisan you have to be aligned to a group, sect, political party etc.. I am not aligned politically with any group, in the Township nor in the provincial or federal spheres. I have offered advice, council and expertise (where I have it) freely when asked (and often when unasked) but have yet to align myself either formally or informally with any group or faction.
And about the bigger real issue about due diligence, democratic discussion/debate, etc. your non-partisan point is...? 
LFP,
As detailed elsewhere by another party, but confirmed by an examination of Council minutes available freely online, the following is noted regarding recent airport lease votes by Council (including Cllr. Richter):
“On Sept 25, 2006, council unanimously approved the Harbour Air lease.
On Aug 28, 2006, council unanimously approved the Helo Investments lease.
On July 17, 2006, council unanimously approved the Golden Arrow lease.
On Feb 6, 2006, council unanimously approved 13 other airport horth [sic] side leases.”
As noted elsewhere but confirmed by an examination of the Council minutes “Coun. Richter was presented [sic] and voted in favor of each and every one of those. In fact, that same day (Feb 6), she voted in favor of the $564,000 internal loan the Township made to the airport.”
Clearly the issue did not arise out of thin air during the January 8th vote. None of the Councillors, including Cllr. Richter, raised issues with respect to due diligence prior to the January 8 vote.
You keep asking me questions but dialogue is a two-way street. I would like to hear YOU explain how this can be described as a NEW issue that required NEW due diligence considering that the same issue had been raised and passed in four previous votes within a twelve month period? Did someone not do their due diligence before the first vote? How about the second? The third maybe? Or could it be the fourth? How come only on the fifth vote within a twelve month period the due diligence card is pulled? Just wondering?
You did not answer the question? 
Why?
partisan, noun
1. an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.
LFP,
Which question? You asked “And about the bigger real issue about due diligence, democratic discussion/debate, etc. your non-partisan point is...?”
As demonstrated in my posting above the question of due diligence and democratic discussion in this case is moot. Clearly all individuals in question felt they had carried out sufficient due diligence over the last twelve months to vote in the affirmative four times prior to Jan 8th. At no time prior to Jan 8th did anyone have their right to democratic discussion denied on this topic. Where is the driver for this sudden change of heart? Certainly not political expediency I hope?
As for your view of partisanship, in my youth I was a card carrying Liberal and worked on numerous political campaigns. What drove me from that direction were the political operatives who thought that winning was something to be done at any cost. The political operatives who said misleading and insincere things solely to advance their cause. The folks who criticize others in an unfair manner, heck they even have a word for the action (look up “zoilism” in your dictionary). As a young man my judo instructor taught me a credo for life that comes from a famous martial artist “In victory, be humble. In defeat, be strong. In all things be fair." My responsibility was to challenge what I felt were your unfair statements as I was taught to do and have striven to do my entire life.
In particular you feel I am a partisan for one Councillor. I would suggest that this is not the case. I have sought to address what I felt were unfair comments and it is solely due to your preoccupation with this individual that I end up defending him more than others.
In fairness I admit that I have met the individual once (we had coffee and discussed a subject for which I have both a personal interest and professional expertise) and have corresponded with him by email. I might note that it was Cllr. Richter who directed me to continue my correspondences with him and my early correspondences were addressed to both Councillors. Of note, I made myself available for a meeting with Cllr. Richter but we never got around to having that meeting.
To summarize, I am no more a partisan than you can claim to be unbiased. Simply put when folks behave in a manner that I view as unfair I tend to react negatively.
This is now the 2nd time that apparently rookie Cllr. Bateman is dredging through Cllr. Richter's voting records. One has to wonder why he lives so much in the past. Is there a concern about the present?
I am always curious as to why politicians dig through old voting records at critical junctures. It somewhat reminds me of the current Conservative Dion TV attack ads. Obviously the Conservatives are concerned and will attack using any primitive measures to attempt to politically discredit him in their case.
The last voting record Cllr. Bateman used as a reference was I believe some 7 years ago. If these are so important to both you and him now after the fact why did he not on Feb 8th second Richter's motion and ask her these questions then I wonder? Obviously he was well researched?
If he was so well researched as he says he probably would have been able to get her first hand comments at that time by simply seconding the motion for discussion. Then in debate he could have justified clearly his well researched reasons for voting in a $0.24 40 year lease at CPI as well as ask Richter those questions! But he did not, did he? Why not? Curious?
I obviously do not know any of the reasons for these previous specific voting records or motivations for them. Nor do I see this as pertinent at this time on this issue other than perhaps for reasons as mentioned above.
As I equally also have no in depth knowledge of the motivations of why Cllr. Bateman championed the motions that led to the two concurrently highest historic ~5% tax increases in Township history or why he championed the motion to add < ~$1,000,000 more to the pink elephant Grandstand cost overrun either. But at least those Bateman motions were seconded and discussed and then passed! Democracy was served properly even though I dislike and disagree with all 3 Bateman decisions. And will this Editor hold his feet to the fire on these issues? You betcha. And if you think that unfair so be it sir.
But what I am concerned about is muzzling democratic discussion and now these re-writing history attempts that Mr. Tomblin is now referring to and not the least apparent attempts to now obfuscate (confuse, bewilder, or stupefy or a smoke screen - since you like term definitions so much!) . It was attempted on the Grandstand fiasco through doublespeak. Is this simply another attempt on another important issue? I think so.
But I tire of this silly game now sir.
So you admit you were a card carrying Liberal, that means you are one of three people in Langley.
Are You Steve ?
Are You Bill ?
Are You Gary ?
Give it up, Blair. The guy's a dolt.
Furthermore, he keeps raising the "highest historic 5% tax increases in Township history."
Apart from being ridiculously redundant. The statement is patently false. As soon as you use a phrase like "in Township history" you have to go all the way back to 1873. Check your numbers LFP editor, or quit blowing so hard.
Or perhaps more pertinently, "One has to wonder why he lives so much in the past." Especially since, in this case, it is not a past that actually exists.
So who else would bring up the back to back 2nd annual ~5% tax increases that we have to shoulder while they keep on compounding too. (I'm sorry I did forgot to mention their combined historic value didn't I!) Obviously not you, because you love tax increases I guess. Who's the real dolt here?
Don't hear too many politicians and papers really complaining loud enough yet about skyrocketing taxes in the Township. But I do see increasingly angry letters from joe public finally to the editors. That's the audience that really counts not the ole boys club extended circle of mutual satisfaction.
What is your financial breaking point? Obviously not as critical as the older long term residents on fixed income I guess. Good for you & don't forget to put premium gas into your Hummer tonight too!
Meanwhile in the city of Ottawa they are reviewing their city expenses line by line to achieve a 0% tax increase despite the dire warnings of their administration. Yes 0%! I bet if they have a municipal airport there they will try to run it more like a business as opposed to an exclusive flyboy country club. Hey it worked in Van Itl. why can't it elsewhere? Oh yeah, the venture capitalists who run the local airports watch each other more than the market don't they? I wonder if there really is such a thing as a reverse cartel? This annual line by line budget justification and holding the increases to at LEAST CPI never mind 0% is unfamiliar to this ole boys club council and obviously to you as well. Are you a bureaucrat by any chance?
Insofar as repetition, you bet, maybe it might eventually get through to the real dolts. Notice I never called you a dolt despite the yearning! Gee, I guess you got me going. Being called a dolt does that. Thanks. Have a nice day!
LFP,
Funny you should mention the Ottawa situation since there was a great story on it at Canoe.com today. Check out: http://www.ottawasun.com/News/Co...08/
3558375.html
Oddly enough the attempt by the Ottawa council is failing miserably and according to Ms. Sherring. The mayor “O'Brien would rather dip into the city's surplus than cut services -- or increase taxes. To get to zero, he's willing to use the $15-million budget surplus, which is roughly the same as the amount needed to get to zero.”
By the bye Glen, my real name, not surprisingly, is Blair. If you look carefully on this web site you will see that early in its life I wrote a letter and used my full name.
Ottawa, another example of the administrative tail trying to wag the dog! Sound familiar. At least the newly elected Mayor & council in Ottawa are standing behind their election promises and are trying to eliminate tax increases this year and reduce ever growing bureaucratic spending.
Contrast this to our newly elected councillors who also spoke to similar things before election time and then joined the establishment and championed back to back ~5% tax hikes. KUDOS to the new Ottawa Mayor & Council who stand by what they promised and their principles!
Ottawa council should now bring in the consultants, efficiency experts or better still a new Ceo who specializes in critical reviews, cut and burn tactics & rightsizing where neccessary. Obviously the CEO administrator there is not capable or not willing.
Every org. usally rotates through one of 3 cycles of CEO types.
#1 - Visionary (builder, growing & creative & big spender)
#2 - Maintainer ( status quo, yawn, spender hold the programs, etc.)
#3 - Change Agent (review, effienciency reductions, cut , burn & slash, reductions, rightsizing, frugal, etc.
Orgs must cycle through these to maintain balanced growth and govts including municipalities very rarely ever go #3. Because it's easier to just raise taxes each year by ~5%. Sound familiar? The smart org/muni CEOs from time to time hires an efficiency expert/company or risk being replaced by a#3!
Obviously Ottawa has a #2 CEO , maybe a #1 and needs a #3. The rare Ceo has both #1 & #3 capabilities. So what do we have in Langley?
Municipal councils could also as a group be characterised this way too. Clearly Township is an out of control 2 with 1 tendencies especially in spending now in majority & Langley City is a 1 with 2 & 3 (3 cut back on Twp/City program spending!) tendencies.
Dear Editor,
I do feel Blair (I'm glad he is using his real name) has brought up some valid points and perhaps LFP is going a little off subject to disagree with Blair. Both of you have articulated your viewpoints very well, sometimes it is best to agree to disagree after all that is what free speech is all about. Blair has done some homework and is not doing a drive-by, you must give credit to writers that take the time to view an opposing opinion, right?
Glen Tomblin
Absolutely Glen, Blair & I should perhaps try to get our points in to sell each other in less than 50 words or less, then probably give give up on each other and then shake our digital hands 
there after! We are setting comment length records and using up all the ink! But Blair, we must have agreed on something so far! Gee 62 words here alone! Make that a 100 words!
LFP,
Heck I agree with you a lot of the time I'm just not always happy how you express your position. I tend to go for the less confrontational approach on most issues.
As for public agreement, look at the first letter to the blog (yup that was me railing against the parking tax). Heck I remain the sole winner of the "smiling gumby award", having been awarded it twice.
I will point put we don't waste any ink here....only electrons
Ditto on comments... did forget about Gumby! Confrontational? You bet! 
So sad, but Smiling Gumby passed away...
I thought AMAN was the winner of the gumby award. No? Maybe that was the grumpy gumby.
Commenting by HaloScan
