Success! (for the moment)

I say for the moment because politicians being politicians will keep pushing for urbanization as long as there is tons of money at stake.  Stay tuned for the next political manipulation...

IMPORTANT INFO

I just received this from a resident who wants to remain Anonymous.

This is an excerpt from a CKNW interview on March 31st, 2014...

Meanwhile the Township of Langley’s mayor denies any conflict of interest.

Jack Froese says even though the new community development plan was paid for by property owners, the city still gets the final say.

“This group took the chance, and the risk I suppose, to front it, but it’s really up to council to make the decisions.”

http://www.cknw.com/2014/03/30/langleytownship-council-set-to-vote-on-controversial-brookswoodfernridge-community-plan/

See below...

Hi David

Here is a paragraph from the Langley Advance article Controversial Brookswood plan began with landowners-

The GNAC received progress updates. “We also had meetings with them on a regular basis to keep them informed of the progress,” said Seifi.Township staff said the GNAC did not have influence over how the plan was designed, just on it progressing.

The below excerpt is taken from the Township website.http://www.tol.ca/Portals/0/FileShare/ComDev/2012-05-02%20BF%20RFP%20FINAL.pdf PAGE 16

{ A Steering Committee has been formed to:

• define the existing planning context;

• guide the implementation of an appropriate planning process;

• contribute to the completion of a detailed technical background report prepared by Staff;

• identify current planning issues of concern;

• monitor the progress of the project, including financial status;

• facilitate a public consultation process with stakeholder groups, the neighbourhood and

the broader community; and

• identify gaps in information or understanding relating to the planning work and seek to

fill such gaps with appropriate research and information.

Membership on the Committee consists of two Township staff and two representatives of the

Griffith Neighbourhood Advisory Corp. In addition, the Project Manager of the consulting team

will also be a member of the Steering Committee.}

How can these be just progress updates? Clearly, not only was there influence, but they shaped the very structure, foundation, and genesis of the plan. In addition to this document please read

http://www.tol.ca/Portals/0/FileShare/ComDev/2011-05-11%20Brookswood%20Report%20to%20Council.pdf   PAGES 29,30, and 44.

Please note on page 30 it is Mr. Seifis name as the author of the report indicating that a Steering Commitie was to be formed with 2 GNAC members, the same person who is now saying there were just meeting to inform progress. Also, on page 44 that the planning consultant that was to be hired for the plan had to the satisfaction of the GNAC and Township. STEERING COMMITTE is TOO STEER and DRIVE. So not only did they influence but they steered the plan in any direction the choose as that power was given to them in a LEGAL CONTRACT by the COUNCIL and STAFF. This is a conflict of interest, but everything I have sent you is the Townships own documents and statements there is no speculation here unlike that of GNAC land prices.

I would like to stay anonymous due to professional reasons; however, you may use this information for any benefit or gain for the community as you see fit.

Anyomous Brookswood Stakeholder

http://www.tol.ca/Portals/0/FileShare/ComDev/2012-05-02%20BF%20RFP%20FINAL.pdf

TOL.CA

ABORT! ABORT!!

1000 Facebook Members!

https://www.facebook.com/groups/418989468164355/

Why the Residents of Brookswood are so Upset...

1.  $500,000.000 paid to the Township of Langley by Developers and Land Owners creating Conflict of Interest and Bias.

This whole plan has been financed by the people who want to develop the area.  How can the Council truly function with this over their heads?  Because of this the plan should be scrapped...

2.  Lack of Notification.

People were just not notified.  There are still people in the community who don't know this is going on.  Dog license canvassers can go door to door in the area yet the Township can't do the same thing for something this important??

3.  The Planner Contractor Showed Bias.

During the public consultations the Consultant Contractor (AECOM) asked loaded questions, and used 'Bate-and-Switch' techniques.  Even after getting a majority response against larger scale development the contractor ignored that majority.  It was like the contractor was well aware of who was actually paying them and was on their side.  They ignored things like the environment and failed to consult proper authorities.

4.  Surprises

The planning process started out small, then there were surprises.  Sweeping road widening and redirection where introduced near the end.  The projected population steadily increased well beyond original declaration (est 32,000 increased to an est 42,000)even after the contractor wrote that citizens wanted low density.  The numbers were fudged - the definition of low density suddenly wasn't low density any more as they packed more and more people onto a acre of land.  Etc.

5.  They thought we were dupes and they treated us that way.

Manipulation was key during the Contractor's process and we were funneled and directed towards their end not ours.  Emphasis was slanted towards development.

6.  And finally, Brookswood, a nice place with lots of trees, brooks and country roads will be lost forever...

People came here because of those trees, brooks and country roads, and now greedy people not living here want to cut it all down and destroy the home that we love just like they have done with other people's homes in the Lower Mainland.

Jack Serves It Up...

Who owns Griffith Neighbourhood Advisory Corporation?

 http://www.langleytimes.com/opinion/letters/252060791.html

The Langley Times
posted Mar 24, 2014 at 4:00 PM 

Editor:

I have a question. Many people in Brookswood/Fernridge are all up in arms about this new development plan. It has been privately funded by 10 property owners, who are shareholders of the Griffith Neighbourhood Advisory Corporation, to the tune of half a million dollars.

My very simple question is, who are these 10 people? Is it not wrong for these people to lay hidden behind the anonymity of a company, while they as individuals have possibly even funded the campaigns of those in office?

If they  made campaign contributions to the council, what did they get in return? Were Brookswood and Fernridge sold before this bylaw was even proposed?

Unveil yourselves GNAC. Stand up to the community. If you truly believe in this plan, then you should be proud of it and want your actual names on it.

Why all the secrecy?

Ann-Michelle DeReus,
Langley

Making Money as Procceeds of Unbanization is Fine and Dandy for Some, But What About our Aquifer??

Developers Lending Money to the Township IS a Conflict of Interest and the result IS Bias!

Dear Editor:

          After attending the public hearing meetings this week, I wondered how things got to the point of where members of the Brookswood community was literally begging and pleading to a handful of mostly out of town developers masqueraded as the Griffith Neighbourhood Advisory Board (GNA).  So... I did a little research and the deeper I would dig the more worms I found.  First, the head of the GNA is Cameron Gair, who is an active licensed realtor.  I do not understand how the Council could not see this as a conflict of interest for Mr.Gair, his clients, and the community.  How can Mr.Gair objectively look out for the best interest of the community when by law he is required to provided undivided loyalty to his clients? I suppose he could have recused himself from selling any properties in the Brookswood area after he took this position, but he did not.  As a matter of a fact, since 2010 from my count Mr.Gair has sold at least 6 multi-acre, multi-million dollar properties.  Many of them on 32 ave and 202 st where the densities in the original Brookswood plan were large single family lots with 4 units per acre and now have been increased to up to 22 units per acre.  From the time these properties were purchased to now, they have already tripled in value due speculation based on the future increased zoning. 

          But I do not blame Mr. Gair, or the GNA, they are looking out for their own self interests.  As a community we too, need to look out for our self interests and ask how the heck did this come about? In 2011 the GNA approached the council asking it to begin development planning process in Brookswood, to which the Council and Township responded that they do not have enough funds to hire additional planning staff.  So the GNA said will pay for it, that amounted to $500,000.00 split between 10 property owners. This $500,000.00 in reality is a loan as it is stated when development occurs through levies and taxes this money will be paid back to those developers.  REALLY, the Township can raise taxes for many non descript issues, but not for one that has the potential to destruct a community and the very people who have worked so hard to make it was it is or say should I say now what it was.  Maybe the Township could have went back to the residents of 5000 homes and asked them to pay an additional $ 100 each in their property tax which would be eventually refunded down the road and kept this process objective, neutral, and free from outside influence, the way every other community does its planning process. Oh wait, they did not do that because the residents had no idea as  in 2011 when the Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the Township and GNA it was done in relative secrecy as no public notices were mailed out or put in any newspapers.  And frankly, the rest of the planning process has been atrocious.  The final plan ended up with the most density, town homes and apartments, when in AECOMS (Planning Consultants) own previous reports the majority of the public either wanted less density or just single family lots. 

          Personally, I am in favour of single family development that maintains the existing character of the neighbourhood, however I realize many people have differing opinions and I respect that their voices should be heard to.  As many of the developers said at the public hearing change is inevitable, and I motion that we change this process.  Hand back the developers their 500,000.00 of YES man money, restart this process so it is neutral, objective and fair, ask tax payers if they would give this money to the Township under the same terms as the GNA where it would be paid back when development occurs.   Under these terms the GNA can still provide input, but as regular citizens and property owners just like the rest of us.  In a democracy, I still believe it is one vote per person, so someone please tell the Mayor and Council that.

James Macdonald

Brookswood Resident

Brookswood Rally! Come and show your support for your community!

Developer Divide and Conquer.

The teeth are sinking in!

Now that the smell of blood is in the air developers will pressure land owners into selling.  One prime tactic they use is block purchases.

They will approach all the neighbours on the block and get them to apply pressure to each other.  The developers do so by stating that they will give all the owners a wonderful price just AS LONG as everyone on the block sells to them at the same time.  If there is one or two hold-outs the other neighbours will get angry and pressure them.

All they need is at least two properties and they can pit neighbour against neighbour.

I'm sure other people have stories to tell about the dirty tactics of developers.

A message to the land owners: if you like living where you want to be on your land no one can make you sell.  If they pester you unreasonably call the police for this is criminal harassment.

You can share this with the rest of the community as well and we will come to your aid, or you can write the newspapers.

You can also place a 'NOT SELLING" sign at the end of the driveway or get a 'LEAVE BROOKSWOOD ALONE' sign - that should keep them from stepping on your property.
 

The Cradle of Bias and Corruption...

One of the necessary accompaniments of capitalism in a democracy is political corruption.  Upton Sinclair

As Canadians we are just not as used to it.  Or have we been blind?

http://www.langleytimes.com/news/143831126.html

NEWS

Developers big source of campaign donations in Langley Township

Three deer cross a driveway at the edge of the Wall property on 72 Avenue in January. Township council has given third reading to a bylaw which would allow 67 homes to be built on the property.

— Image Credit: Frank BUCHOLTZ/Langley Times File Photo

• 3
•  
•  

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
•                             

• by  Frank Bucholtz - Langley Times
• posted Mar 22, 2012 at 9:00 AM

The Wall family, owners of a Milner farm property where a 67-unit residential subdivision has been proposed, backed numerous candidates for Township council last fall.

The proposal received third reading from Langley Township council on Feb. 13, by a 6-3 margin. In favour were Mayor Jack Froese and Councillors Grant Ward, Charlie Fox, Steve Ferguson, Bev Dornan and Bob Long.

All but Froese and Ferguson received financial backing from the Walls in their 2011 campaigns.

Fox received $500 from 2300 Kingsway Residences, a limited partnership operated by Peter and Bruno Wall. Dornan received $500 from Wall Financial, as did Long. Ward received $500 from 2300 Kingsway Residences.

The Wall limited partnership also gave $500 to unsuccessful candidates Dan Sheel, Misty vanPopta and Rebecca Darnell, as well as $1,000 to unsuccessful mayoral candidate Mel Kositsky, who was a councillor last fall.

The Wall family have owned the property on 72 Avenue, once owned by Vancouver businessman Austin Taylor and operated as a thoroughbred farm, since 1966.

It is within the Agricultural Land Reserve. They have put several development proposals forward over the years, including a golf course.

The successful developers of Vancouver’s Wall Centre and many other properties aren’t the only developers to donate to Township campaigns, nor were their donations, which totalled $4,500, the largest.

Kositsky, who received $70,254 in donations, received $1,000 from John Redekop Construction, which also gave $500 to the Froese campaign. It also donated $250 to Ferguson, $250 to Kim Richter’s campaign. $500 to Fox, $250 to Long and $1,250 to former mayor Rick Green’s Vote Langley Now (VLN) slate.

Kositsky got $2,500 from Trygg Management of Milner, which also donated $1,500 to the Froese campaign. Eric Trygg also operates Foundation Freehold, which donated $250 each to the Ferguson, Fox and Long campaigns, and also donated to several other campaigns.

Realtor Joel Schacter and his wife Sharon donated $6,000 to Kositsky. Schacter does a large amount of business with the development community.

Infinity Properties, a Langley company operated by Robert and Tim Bontkes, gave $3,000 to the Kositsky campaign and $3,000 to VLN. Ferguson, Fox, Dornan and Ward received  $500 each. Sheel received $300 and vanPopta $500.

Nordel Construction of Surrey donated $1,000 to Kositsky, $500 to vanPopta and $500 to Ferguson.

84th Avenue Joint Venture, operated by Manny Bains, donated $2,000 to Kositsky, $1,000 to Dornan and $1,000 to Long.

Umber Developments of Surrey gave $1,000 to Kositsky, as did 596466 B.C. Ltd. of 20424 64 Avenue in Langley. The numbered company also gave $600 to the Rebecca Darnell campaign.

Platinum Enterprises of Surrey gave Kositsky, Ferguson and Sheel $640 each. Fox, Ward and Richter received $500 each.

Fort Langley commercial property owner Eric Woodward gave a total of $2,000 to the Froese campaign, $750 to Fox and $500 to Ferguson.

Marcon Developments, owned by Marco Paolella, gave Froese $1,000 and Ferguson $500.

K and T Properties of Surrey gave Froese $1,500, VLN $500, and $250 each to Ferguson, Fox, Long and Richter.

N.R.J. Developments of Abbotsford gave $2,500 to Froese and $1,500 to Dornan.

Other donors to Froese from the development community were Benchmark Properties, $1,500; Lanstone Homes (Woodrow Lane) Ltd., $1,000; Peak Construction of Surrey, $2,000 and Dream Castle Homes of Surrey, $1,000.

Juniper Enterprises, operated by the Berezan family, gave Froese $1,000 and Ferguson $600.

ParkLane Homes gave $2,500 to VLN, $750 to Froese and $500 each to Fox and Ward.

Quorum Construction, operated by Roberto Bosa of Aldergrove, gave $2,500 to VLN. Three other companies from the same address,  Hyume Holdings, 0715686 BC Ltd. and Langcorp Developments, also gave $2,500 each to VLN. Ferguson got $500 from Quorum and $2,000 went to Kositsky.

Shato Holdings of Vancouver gave $1,500 to VLN. Other VLN donors were

Bridgeman Construction of Surrey, $1,000; Atlantic Contractors of Surrey, $1,000 and Foxridge Homes of Surrey, $2,000.

Foxridge also donated $500 to the Kositsky campaign and $250 to Fox.

Complete details on all donors to campaigns are available on the Langley Township website.

The Canadian Rule of Law.

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:

1. 
   
   ZachMarch 10, 2014 at 4:54 PM

    

   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.

   
   
2. 
   
   David M ChambersMarch 10, 2014 at 11:26 PM

    

   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.

If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything.

1 comment:

AnonymousMarch 7, 2014 at 8:59 AM

I am a Brookswood resident living on 196th Street. I would urge fellow residents to check out the OCP for Surrey. (I am on the east side of 196th, the west side is Surrey) Their OCP has a land use designation for the west side of 196th as "mixed employment". This designation spans from approx.. 20th Ave. to 44th Ave all along 196th. Mixed Employment by Surrey's definition includes "industrial, commercial, office and business uses, NOT suitable in town centres or commercial centres". (but apparently very suitable across the street from our residential area!!) Hmm, and we were all confused why 196th in the Townships OCP was designated as a four lane hwy...the reasons are becoming clear! It makes me question whose interests the council really has in mind. Surrey is holding their OCP Public Hearing on March 10th. I for one will be there! C. Friedrich

Editorial — Brookswood concerns catch council by surprise

 http://www.langleytimes.com/opinion/248662491.html

It seems all it takes to get Langley Township Council to do some dancing for someone is $500 K... It's an instant conflict of interest and Council doesn't seem to understand that it's wrong (it may even be illegal.)  The plan should be reset due to the bad faith it has caused.

by  Editorial - Langley Times 
posted Mar 5, 2014 at 4:00 PM

Langley Township council was clearly caught by surprise when  400 people showed up Monday for a public hearing on the revised Brookswood-Fernridge community plan.
Yet there were a number of signs of brewing discontent with this plan. An open house at Fernridge Hall attracted a crowd that was too much for the building, and almost had to be postponed. Another open house was then scheduled at Brookswood Secondary, and it attracted more than 500 people, the highest number to ever attend an open house sponsored by the Township.

It isn’t surprising that many people showed up to speak on the plan at the formal public hearing. Nor is it surprising that many more want to hear what the speakers, and members of council, have to say.
A second session for the public hearing took place Tuesday at George Preston Recreation Centre, and that isn’t the end of it. The hearing was scheduled to continue on Wednesday night. As of Tuesday night, more than 60 people had spoken.

Langley Township council needs to listen carefully to the concerns raised by people about the plan. While there is no question that development will come to the area eventually, perhaps this plan calls for too much density in some areas. And there is no doubt that many current residents of the area want to preserve larger lots and the mature evergreen trees which are a hallmark of that part of South Langley.

The involvement of a private corporation in advancing the plan’s timetable is also questionable, and suggests developers can use money to get the plans they want.

Council must attempt to balance many competing ideas about the future of Brookswood and Fernridge.

Langley Times POLL: Do you support urbanization of Brookswood and Fernridge?

http://www.langleytimes.com/opinion/poll/

2 comments:

1. 
   JohannapwMarch 5, 2014 at 6:27 PM

   NO!

   
   
2. 
   J HunterMarch 6, 2014 at 10:00 PM

   Absolutely Not!!! This scenario is playing out in every municipality in the Fraser Valley, including Vancouver. Developers have democracy in a strangle hold. They buy the councils who feed us all a line about the need to densify. What bull! Densification is not the driving force here. Pure corporate greed is. We are ALL sick of having our neighbourhoods prostituted to foreign and local speculative buyers. My message to realtors and developers: get a real job and quick ripping off the citizens who Are the communities.

Most expensive mayor's race in Langley Township history - We now understand why...

Why spend so much unless it is to derive some personal (financial) benefit?

http://www.langleytimes.com/news/143821376.html?mobile=true

Most expensive mayor's race in Langley Township history

By FRANK BUCHOLTZ
March 22, 2012 · Updated 9:30 AM
0 Comments

The three candidates for mayor of Langley Township collectively spent more than $240,000 during the campaign which was the most expensive in the municipality's history. / FILE PHOTOS

The 2011 three-way race for the mayor’s chair on Langley Township council was the most expensive mayor’s race in Township history.

Among them, the three candidates spent more than $240,000. That total includes the $87,569 spent by the Vote Langley Now slate put together by incumbent Rick Green, which also ran seven candidates for council. Green’s own campaign cost an additional $8,800. He came third with 4,466 votes

Jack Froese, the newcomer who won the election with 7,706 votes, spent $79,533,  while longtime councillor Mel Kositsky, who finished second with 6,522 votes, spent $70,246.

More details about their campaign contributions will be published in Tuesday’s Times, but all three candidates received a large number of donations from developers, realtors, wealthy individuals and businesses. Both Froese, through his business JD Turkey Farms, and Kositsky also spent a substantial amount of their own funds on their campaigns.

The two most expensive mayor’s campaigns in the past were in 1999 and 2002. In 1999, when incumbent John Scholtens was defeated by Kurt Alberts, it was a four-way race.

Also running for mayor were Steve Ferguson and Heather McMullan. Scholtens and his Langley Leadership Team slate also spent a significant amount in 2002, when he attempted to unseat Alberts.

The LLT also spent a great deal in the 1996 campaign when Scholtens was re-elected for his second term as mayor, but much of that money was used to support candidates for council and school board.

More details about campaign contributions and spending for Langley Township council, Langley City council and the Langley Board of Education appears in other stories on this website.