I created the 'Leave Brookswood Alone!' Blog and Facebook page because I was angry and I could see people in positions of power were manipulating us at the start.
I value integrity and honesty and I saw that
we weren't getting it. I detest being
used and I feel that there has to be a fair exchange with our elected officials
plus an appreciation for each other. We
deserve good leaders and in exchange we support them.
I loathe the corruption that is leaching its
way into this country and I'm going to continue to speak out against it in the
best way I can.
In this case developers
influenced the decisions of the local government against the citizens of
Langley. It seems like they are going to
get away with it because there is no true official recourse or lawful body
that has any power to do something about it.
I want any shady behavior nipped in the bud BEFORE the wrong-doers get a
firm feeling they can do more.
It's like
organized crime, you have to keep it suppressed otherwise you get another
Mexico.
As Canadians we deserve more
because our country is built upon the rule of law, not just the reflection of
it.
2 comments:
- I'm from Walnut Grove, and just saw the article about the overflowed town hall which appraised me of the situation.
While I can see being against the rows of townhouses as a visual blight, I don't think development is as evil and corporate as you allude. In 2014 there's a huge problem with urban sprawl. The environmental footprint per capita of suburbanites is huge compared to their urban counterparts. Responsible city planners are trying to figure out how to address that.
Bringing elements of urban design to suburban communities really help address this problem. It's also in demand with the new generation of homeowners. Yes, the population increases, but so do the nearby amenities. Everything you need will be within a kilometre, preventing the need to drive everywhere, saving money and the environment. Kids can walk to school again, which is good for their health. New development comes with improvements to infrastructure, like roads, transit, better parks, and more pathways, not to mention the updates are much more environmentally sound than their 30+ year old counterparts.
I'm not familiar with the specifics of what they intend to do with Brookswood, but if they're building over old development, then I think it's a good thing. If the majority of proposed development is going over natural space, that's a different story.
Either way, just holding up a sign and spouting outrage is never the way to get things done. I hope the discourse going on is one of pros and cons and coming to an amicable conclusion instead of opposed parties just screaming at each other across a chasm. There is something beautiful about a rural community, but today that lifestyle isn't as sustainable or affordable as it used to be. People have to live somewhere, and it's a much better choice to retrofit old communities than to bulldoze acres of trees for a completely new one. - I can see both sides as well. In this case it will be fresh land with old trees. One of the first things Developers do is cut down around 98% of the trees to make it easier and cheaper to plan and set foundations and utilities. There is no harmony in this and no need to do so. Brookswood is well known for the trees, without it just wouldn't be Brookswood any more. That's what we are mostly fighting against, that and the awareness that our politicians can be bought.
I'm from Walnut Grove, and just saw the article about the overflowed town hall which appraised me of the situation.
ReplyDeleteWhile I can see being against the rows of townhouses as a visual blight, I don't think development is as evil and corporate as you allude. In 2014 there's a huge problem with urban sprawl. The environmental footprint per capita of suburbanites is huge compared to their urban counterparts. Responsible city planners are trying to figure out how to address that.
Bringing elements of urban design to suburban communities really help address this problem. It's also in demand with the new generation of homeowners. Yes, the population increases, but so do the nearby amenities. Everything you need will be within a kilometre, preventing the need to drive everywhere, saving money and the environment. Kids can walk to school again, which is good for their health. New development comes with improvements to infrastructure, like roads, transit, better parks, and more pathways, not to mention the updates are much more environmentally sound than their 30+ year old counterparts.
I'm not familiar with the specifics of what they intend to do with Brookswood, but if they're building over old development, then I think it's a good thing. If the majority of proposed development is going over natural space, that's a different story.
Either way, just holding up a sign and spouting outrage is never the way to get things done. I hope the discourse going on is one of pros and cons and coming to an amicable conclusion instead of opposed parties just screaming at each other across a chasm. There is something beautiful about a rural community, but today that lifestyle isn't as sustainable or affordable as it used to be. People have to live somewhere, and it's a much better choice to retrofit old communities than to bulldoze acres of trees for a completely new one.
I can see both sides as well. In this case it will be fresh land with old trees. One of the first things Developers do is cut down around 98% of the trees to make it easier and cheaper to plan and set foundations and utilities. There is no harmony in this and no need to do so. Brookswood is well known for the trees, without it just wouldn't be Brookswood any more. That's what we are fighting about, that and the awareness that our politicians can be bought.
ReplyDeleteHm, that's not as ideal then. Taking the "wood" out of Brookswood seems silly. I really wish they'd optimize all that ugly, empty sprawl in Surrey before clearing forests farther out. There's just vast swaths of ugly nothing along King George or Fraser hwy (cleared, but undeveloped lots, big box stores or needlessly huge parking lots). I guess those are different municipalities though with separate leadership, finances and goals. Maybe you can push for redevelopment of old stuff before flattening any new space. That way they can do the development they want without affecting what people like about the area. I hope it all works out!
ReplyDelete