One of the major problems with hiring and paying for an independent consultant firm to create community plans is that you (the township employees and council) feel a certain obligation to follow the advice since you bought it. It is only human to feel you have to to justify the expenditure of money. Fortunately it isn't your money, it is being paid for by the people whos lives will be dramatically altered by you acting upon the consultant's report - ironic isn't it. Since the money isn't coming out of your pockets then you shouldn't feel obligated to act upon the plan and be free to think of the residents of Brookswood and their homes first - you will then be morally correct and with a clear conscience.
Comments:
Comments:
Mike MacDonaldNovember 20, 2012 9:18 PM
The(a) problem is that developers, with help of some "development-friendly" senior staff, have convinced council that Development fees are a revenue.
False economy: The way its done in Langley, its a net loss to the people.
Council actually has development fees as revenue on the budget, but fails to put any sign of prorated-capital-costs on the same budget
They therefore argue that we "need" high density to get more taxes and fees (to "balance the budget) but they don't account for the costs of development; the true costs.
They follow reports paid for by Developers as you mention here (this IS what is happening in Brookswood; a developer paid for report is our destiny)
They have people join the local committees like the 'economic committee' to further convey the false-economy that "development is a revenue".
Its a false economy indeed (the way Langley does development without community amenities grants = Development is a net loss).
Development with proper community amenities grants, assorted density, and planning can be very good; but Langley council believes time and again they need the cheapest high density they can get - "to balance the budget".
I look at 208th by Yorkson, (surrounded by ultra-high-density, ugly road, too narrow, unsafe markings, crowded, traffic, with hydro poles in the middle of the road...
...and I think the only things funded by all this development are "consultant reports" and "political campaigns".
False economy: The way its done in Langley, its a net loss to the people.
Council actually has development fees as revenue on the budget, but fails to put any sign of prorated-capital-costs on the same budget
They therefore argue that we "need" high density to get more taxes and fees (to "balance the budget) but they don't account for the costs of development; the true costs.
They follow reports paid for by Developers as you mention here (this IS what is happening in Brookswood; a developer paid for report is our destiny)
They have people join the local committees like the 'economic committee' to further convey the false-economy that "development is a revenue".
Its a false economy indeed (the way Langley does development without community amenities grants = Development is a net loss).
Development with proper community amenities grants, assorted density, and planning can be very good; but Langley council believes time and again they need the cheapest high density they can get - "to balance the budget".
I look at 208th by Yorkson, (surrounded by ultra-high-density, ugly road, too narrow, unsafe markings, crowded, traffic, with hydro poles in the middle of the road...
...and I think the only things funded by all this development are "consultant reports" and "political campaigns".
The(a) problem is that developers, with help of some "development-friendly" senior staff, have convinced council that Development fees are a revenue.
ReplyDeleteFalse economy: The way its done in Langley, its a net loss to the people.
Council actually has development fees as revenue on the budget, but fails to put any sign of prorated-capital-costs on the same budget
They therefore argue that we "need" high density to get more taxes and fees (to "balance the budget) but they don't account for the costs of development; the true costs.
They follow reports paid for by Developers as you mention here (this IS what is happening in Brookswood; a developer paid for report is our destiny)
They have people join the local committees like the 'economic committee' to further convey the false-economy that "development is a revenue".
Its a false economy indeed (the way Langley does development without community amenities grants = Development is a net loss).
Development with proper community amenities grants, assorted density, and planning can be very good; but Langley council believes time and again they need the cheapest high density they can get - "to balance the budget".
I look at 208th by Yorkson, (surrounded by ultra-high-density, ugly road, too narrow, unsafe markings, crowded, traffic, with hydro poles in the middle of the road...
...and I think the only things funded by all this development are "consultant reports" and "political campaigns".