Recently Langley Township introduced a plan that will change the landscape of Brookswood from a community with rural (“Horse capital of BC”) roots to a crowded unban waste land of row housing and condos just like so many other communities in the Lower Mainland. We believe Langley Township is listening to the wrong people, and we wonder if the planners and “experts” who have devised this plan actually live in this community. It seems the Township doesn't care about keeping our community a beautiful place to live, where people can own larger properties with big trees, they just care about squeezing as many people (and as many tax dollars) out of the land as they possibly can. Don't let them do this to us and our wonderful community, don't let them destroy where we live the same way they did Willoughby! We CAN stop them! Gather together to save our homes and save the brooks and woods in Brookswood. Make your voice heard. Contact the Township of Langley, attend their meetings to find out what they have planned for your neighbourhood, voice your disapproval!

Thursday, October 29, 2020

Our Future Responsibility

The world is in a period of hyper population growth.

Remember not too long ago when the world population was 7 billion, that was 2011. We're now over 7.8 billion and climbing rapidly - mostly in other countries across the oceans that protect us.

Usually the rich, skilled and educated come here and they abandon people in their previous country to do so, as they're knowledge and skills are needed at home. Basically a 'see you later Suckers' attitude. Big business, influential developers and speculators take advantage of this wellspring of new immigration waving their converted dollars around because housing here is so 'cheap'.

Mixed together they destroy our future agricultural land, build their crappy houses, tear-up, fill-up and stack themselves into quiet neighbourhoods and upset the economical equilibrium for the long time local residents.

Countries like Canada have to show responsibility and NOT encourage wild growth, they should take care of their own people first, have a sustainable outlook, not one built on growth and MONEY, MONEY, MONEY... Immigration should not be a get rich scheme for underhanded greedy 'Canadians'.

Maybe you think stacking people in buildings like industrial egg laying hens is okay, it's not.

Worry about your kid's future, or your grandkids as more and more people are stacked together. Always keep in mind that large population concentrations can't help but pollute and destroy the world around them, destroy our beautiful country.

Future generations have to live in the mess you create.

And pandering to developers isn't helping - as it stands, the future's looking bleak.

Wednesday, November 21, 2018

Letter: Mayor should not have called Brookswood re-vote

Dear Editor,
I would like to express my dissatisfaction with the mayor’s decision to re-vote on the Brookswood-Fernridge OCP when he was seeming not pleased with the outcome of the first vote – despite his saying that he would “respect the wishes of the individual councillors to vote how they feel for their own particular reasons.”
I am confident that the councillors who opposed the plan did so for quite different reasons, some because they didn’t think the amendments went far enough, some who thought they went too far, some who thought it simply wasn’t a good enough plan. It seems evident to me that if five of nine vote against, it is not a good plan. A plan of such scope that is opposed by numerous residents for numerous reasons, as well as by council, could not possibly do justice to the residents and the community.
I am dumbstuck that a mayor could take it into his own hands to persevere with a plan defeated by his own council. Prior to the vote, he said “it’s the township’s plan, Brookswood’s plan, it belongs to the community – it’s not my plan.” Those are very nice words, but they belie his true conviction, and his doubling back when he saw that it had failed.
Kathy Marsden,

Saturday, November 3, 2018

'Jacked on Trees'

Trees Trees!
Jack loves trees!
Waving his gavel, developer apeased...
But when he wants votes,
does he herd Turkey's?
Not Jack!
For now loves trees!!

Trees Trees!
Jack loves trees!

Suddenly Jack LOOOOOOOVES Trees. We all know he cares about us. We aren't just "turkeys to be herded." You have to watch what you say with the mic still on don't you Jack?

Sunday, October 14, 2018


Essentially they are advertising to the world they are Mayor Froese's little pets! Are you guys?? Prove that you aren't and stay out of it.

Public servants should stay out of the election, ESPECIALLY emergency services.

You don't get to choose who to save, you don't get to promote what boss you get. That is what your individual votes are for - individually!

Give your collective heads a shake!!!

Wednesday, July 12, 2017

Remember when you voted against this Jack?? Remember? You were THE ONLY ONE! It was about public health and YOU voted against it! The welfare of your citizens. It seems you care not about your community.

'Mayor' Froese? Hey Jack? The vote has passed. Is that not final enough for you? Is that not democratic enough for you?

'Mayor' Froese should review his personal ethics. Especially ethics that deal with manipulation. Just because it's subtle, doesn't mean it's not manipulation. Like selecting who YOU wanted on the OCP committee...

Apparently, the 'Mayor' Froese isn't satisfied with the democratic process. 'Mayor' Froese wants to bring things back again and again at highly inconvenient, early times when many are on vacation so he can get HIS way. It seems 'Mayor' Froese, would have been a good 'Mayor' in a South American country during the 1980s - he would have fit right in along with his 'corporate' sponsors...


The Brookswood ∞ OCP Update

Brookswood OCP No Vote

The council No vote was the right thing. It was rushed and the document really is full of holes that will be exploited by developer greed.

Jack's vote never really counts since he ALWAYS votes FOR DEVELOPMENT.  He's still trying to push it through.

Maybe the council should now wait until late September when everyone is not away on vacation. Or is this summertime OCP timing by design?

There still isn't any trust guys. We've learned.

Monday, June 19, 2017

Got Trees?

Remember this?

This is one of the triggers that caused so much anger the last time...

Monday, April 15, 2013...

Whoa! Population spike on a whim!

Quote from latest draft land use plan:

'Population Summary 

The population forecast for the area, based on proposed Land Use Designations, is approximately 42,000 people.'


Wow!  That is quite the sudden population increase from 36,000!!  Or 33,600 or even 32,000 as stated in the questionnaire last time...

Yes, yes, it's just an estimate you say.  But if we can't trust you to come up with proper estimates what can we trust you with?  If I was managing you, we would be having a little talk behind closed doors.

It makes one wonder if the planning department really knows what they are doing.  It also shows an offensively disdainful regard for the residents of Langley, the same residents that you milk for votes and tax revenue.

The people of Brookswood were lead-by-the-nose to view a presentation involving 3 options only!  You can't combine or mix, or befuddle, blend, defuse, finesse or slime those carefully manipulated distinct options into any sort of hybrid without us howling blue murder!

Doesn't the planners and politicians understand that we (the present residents and lion share of the property owners, tax payers and voters in Brookswood) Don't want to live in high density.

You did it elsewhere don't do it here!

This gives you the appearance of being money-grubbing, crooked and OBTUSE 

I feel a betrayal will be ensured when this thing (which shouldn't have been attempted in the first place) comes down the line...

Oh and by-the-way having almost half of all the undeveloped land mass in Brookswood designated 6 units (houses) per acre is a 150% increase in density compared to what exists presently in Brookswood.

"Protect the natural environment..."

The policy in the proposed Community Plan that allows neighbourhood plans to consider a range of 4,000 ft2 to 7,000 ft2 lots in the Single Family 3 designation (in specific areas or under certain conditions) supports a number of the Plan’s Guiding Principles:
  • #2 (protect the natural environment) by providing opportunities to cluster new housing on a portion of a development site to protect natural features, including trees, on the other part of the site.
"Protect the natural environment"...

Let's make something clear here.  Every house built is going to make the environment worse.  It will tear another hole in the ecology, create more open space and less animals, less trees, more carbon, more warming, more solid waste, less room, more people siphoning off the water from the Brookswood aquifer.  It protects nothing, but humans, and there is already 7.2 billion of them on this earth.

Ha! Protect the environment??  What BS!!

This statement is right up there with the AECOM consultant's comment that "development would be good for the aquifer" during the very first open house years ago. That comment spurred me to help protect our beautiful community from greed.

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

Once again those in charge of the Brookswood OCP Planning have stepped in it.

Once again, at the last possible moment, they have slipped in a change that wasn’t on the roster.

This is what triggered all the outrage last time.

Once again they think the residents are fools, but we aren’t.

This is our community!

You will listen to us, not those who don’t live here!

Sunday, June 11, 2017


The following will be protested:

1. Density levels being more than Fort Langley and Murrayville.

2. Willoughby building practices including row housing and apartments.

3. Lot sizes less than 7000 square feet.

4. Any attempt to slip in 4000 square foot lots as 'Back fill' or On Site Density Transfers.

4. Brookswood-Fernridge borders being changed (without proper door to door public consultation) pushing Fernridge north well into the borders of Brookswood.

5. Widening of roads to 4 lanes which will destroy the character of the community.

6. Widening of 42nd, 40th 36th and 24th Avenue beyond the width they are now.

7. Town centres that go beyond the size and character of the Brookswood town centre as it stands not just add elements that emulates the look of a town centre while adding density like done by developers in Willoughby.

8. Non responsible and greedy developer practices.

9. Any attempt to change our wonderful, natural, community into a people packing, property racketeering, pocket padding, developer/planner playground like Willoughby.

This is our community not yours, not the planner's, not some planning consultant's, not the developers.

Respect us and the place we live!

Just because some plan has been created doesn't mean we stop - nothing is written in stone.

Saturday, February 25, 2017

OCP REDUX: the development serving questionnaire.

As a 'supporter' of development you can answer the questionnaire but if you aren't a supporter you can't.


This community plan update will accommodate population growth in the Undeveloped Areas of Brookswood-Fernridge. (remember when the Frose gang expanded the 'Undeveloped' Areas to more than half of the community) Fig 1  When planning for population growth, defining and locating “centres” that will accommodate a large portion of population growth is a major strategy.  Centres are compact places that offer a mix of commercial uses, residential uses, and community amenities.  They function as the “heart” of the larger community.

Question 3:

To accommodate growth, Brookswood-Fernridge will need to have multiple centres that vary in size and scale. A community-serving centre would be the largest, providing a broader range of shops and services that serve the needs of the whole community. Neighbourhood-serving centres, would be relatively (relative to what?) modest in size and scale, consisting of smaller shops and services that serve the day-to-day needs of the local neighbourhood. 

Idea: Given that the area around 200 Street and 32 Avenue is relatively central and accessible to the whole community, a new community-serving centre should be considered near 200 Street and 32 Avenue.

Why not ask:  Do you want a shopping and service area built in the 200 Street and 32nd Avenue area?

Be clear and don't try to phrase things to your advantage, or for the purpose of future plausible deniability - even if you stick the word 'IDEA:' out front.

Remember, a development skewed OCP Planning process is what caused all the problems last time.

Considering the increased land mass of the 'Undeveloped Areas' this will become a greater concern to a greater number of people this time.

Is the hand picked Frose dream team taking us down the same road?

FIG 1.

Monday, May 30, 2016

Friday, May 20, 2016


Inaction is not the answer.  Proactive pestering is.

For instance there are vagrants camping out in the park at 208th and Fraser.  What are you going to do about it?

Suggestions: Constant lawn mowing at a safe but annoying distance?  Unusually frequent health checks?  Taiko club practice?

The question is this: is this park the community's park or does it belong to vagrant campers?

Remember the broken window theory.  Do nothing and it will always get worse.



You already dropped the ball on meaningful measures against drugs and vagrancy while you 'studied' the issues.

Don't let this get worse.

Saturday, April 9, 2016

Building developers are reactive and megalomaniacal. Just like Trump.

"Building developers are reactive and megalomaniacal. Just like Trump."
--- Washinghton Post April 8th by Faroll Hamer
Very interesting article in yesterday's Washington Post.
What do you think?
From my experience most local developers are professional, courteous and very respectful like Quadra Homes as an example. They don't attack community groups or their thought leaders, municipal council decision makers, or the average tax payers at public hearings or on social media. Following are some of the most provocative quotes in this article.
"They view themselves as victims. They see regulations as getting in the way of what’s good for economic development and society as a whole, and believe governments exist to pick on them. Everything they do is for us, because they are building places for us to live, shop or work."
"The scary side is that they sometimes brush aside legal obstacles to what they see as a worthy goal. They know the difference between right and wrong, but often they aren’t particularly worried about the letter of the law."
"While tactically inventive, they are strategically unimaginative. They’re not people who enjoy creative thinking or the big picture; they’ll build the same building over and over, but they are endlessly flexible about achieving each project. It’s all about the next step. In negotiations they’re willing to get only part of what they want because they know they’re going to come back and get another part and another, until before you know it, they have it all. They’re into getting their nose under the tent."
"They have no interest in ideology. They value loyalty over principle — you’re either in the circle or not — and they’re usually generous to loyal friends...."
“...since they identify their projects with the general social welfare, they tend to be a little megalomaniacal. Almost any attention you give them is good. They don’t mind being teased, but pointed criticism is unacceptable.”
“And it’s when a developer encounters political resistance that his sense of victimhood really kicks in. Trump has called himself a “counter-puncher”; once offended, he reacts with little restraint. But Twitter insults are pretty trivial.”

Sunday, April 3, 2016

When are Community 'Improvements' not Improvements...

...when the residents of a community don't want or need them...

'Improvements' such as road widening, intersection upgrades, destruction of parks and Township owned vacant land (that are well used by community kids to play in), and some tax payer funded new and expensive facilities that don't always improve the lives of the community, and have to pay for forever.

In fact road widening (such as proposed for 40th Ave.) for the most part just improve the lives of commuters and residents from other areas while destroying the character of a community that residents love. Also making it harder to get from point A to point B due to new medians, barricades and blockages, and shaving off and fencing off parks and school grounds just so people driving through the area can have a passing lane, when many residents just want some sort of traffic calming through the streets they call home.  You are just destroying communities while you think you're 'improving' them.

Imagine a four lane highway going past YOUR front yard on 52nd with a major intersection at 248th St.  I bet that wouldn't feel good...

I call it Politician 'Bronze Plaque Fever' or 'Surreyfication' - look at what all the sprawling 'Improvements' have done for that city.  You have a good example of what not to do just to the west of us, if only you would stop listening so much to the developers and instead honestly listen to the community residents BEFORE the survey tape goes up.  After all we are people you must respect and not just planning board markers.

You can't call it 'improvement' when you're shoving it down people's throats...

Have too much tax money? Put it towards building sidewalks traffic calming and maintenance, or study what basements do to a community given the probability of illegal suites and the attending stress on utilities, and congestion.  Just a suggestion there.  :)

Better yet, these days while the Township is gorging themselves on property tax, put the windfall into investments so you can actually gives the residents a Tax Break when a recession next kicks in again instead of raising the taxes like you did the last time.

Wednesday, January 27, 2016

A Promise for the Protection of Brookswood/Fernridge

The world overpopulating is bad for all of us.

'Pack em in' like they did in Willoughby IS NOT a good policy for Brookswood/Fernridge.

We will always oppose urbanization and maximum population growth (maximum developer profit) in the area.

The developers cannot have their way like they did with Willoughby.

Yes it seems our mayor has been bought, but it doesn't mean he and his buddies can get their way. They will have to be responsible and moderate in their approach.

The developers and builders must reject their base profit making instinct and use a more European, well planned, lower population approach that leaves most of the trees and land untouched instead of the slash-and-dash, English row housing, condos-and-townhouses-everywhere-blocking-out-the-sun approach that is not in keeping with the natural state of the area.

The residents wont stand for anything else.

I cannot believe that we have to deal with the magnitude of crap that is being built in Langley, especially after the poor example that Surrey provided us over the last several decades.

Come on!  You could have done much, much better.   

Poorly done people, poorly done.

Friday, January 22, 2016

Question: Is changing the boundaries of a community without public referendum or consultation legal?

Pocket Politician - Definition

1. Having a political leader at your disposal to help further your own agenda. Usually involves kickbacks, the promise of present or future perks or peddling of influence due to political donations.

2. Buying politicians.

3. To keep a politician 'in your back pocket.'