SAVE OUR COMMUNITY FROM UNCARING PEOPLE!



SAVE OUR COMMUNITY FROM UNCARING PEOPLE!
Working hand in hand with developers, Langley Township continue to force a plan that will change the landscape of Brookswood from a community with rural (“Horse capital of BC”) roots to a crowded urban wasteland 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!

Monday, July 14, 2014

Editorial — Fighting city hall is a tough fight to win

http://www.langleytimes.com/opinion/266124131.html?fb_action_ids=804159669616417&fb_action_types=og.comments&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

'Municipalities can spend unlimited funds on lawyers and court proceedings.'  That is the belief isn't it?  We are the waters that the municipality dips from whenever they feel parched.  You know, there are many types of accountability and of course some things should never be trusted to a municipality since they are such easy pickings for influential forces.  It makes me shiver to think that we may be stuck with a potential disaster for 4 years, without true recourse.  Or should I say no recourse...

1 comment:

  1. If we, the people of the Township, do not send a message with our votes this November, it may be too late to save our community from the developmental devastation it will suffer throughout the next 4 years.

When are rules not rules? When it's in Langley.


Sunday, July 13, 2014

We are all to blame.

Come on governments, we are better than this!  Every level of government in Canada are doing their part, not to protect, but to destroy Canada.  Search your souls and then pry out the goodness, we need politicians who will be our moral guardians not ones with a 'Screw You!  I'm going to make some money!' type attitude.  If wealthy special interest groups offer you money you don't have to take it.  You don't have to destroy our environment, and rip our resources out of the ground because countries of dubious fiber and sense of fair play wants it.  Municipal governments may think that this has nothing to do with them, but it does.  Just look around guys.  ALR for instance?

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/canada-dead-last-in-oecd-ranking-for-environmental-protection/article15484134/?service=mobile

Canada dead last in ranking for environmental protection

LONDON — THE GLOBE AND MAIL
Canada has fallen behind in a global ranking on international development initiatives and ranks last when it comes to environmental protection.
The Washington-based Center for Global Development assesses 27 wealthy nations annually on their commitment to seven areas that impact the world’s poor. Canada came 13th in this year’s survey, which will be released Monday. Denmark led the list, followed by Sweden and Norway, with Japan and South Korea at the bottom.
The rankings are based on the center’s “commitment to development index”, or CDI, which tracks each country’s performance in foreign aid, openness to trade, policies that encourage investment, openness to migration, environmental protection, promoting security and supporting technology creation. The countries were chosen because they are all members of an OECD group involved in aid and development measures. Countries such as Russia, China, India and Brazil are not included in the survey because they are not members of the OECD group.
Canada dropped from 12th place last year and did far worse in the environmental protection category, where it ranked 27th. Every other country made progress in this area except Canada, the centre said in a report on the rankings.
Canada “has the dubious honor of being the only CDI country with an environment score which has gone down since we first calculated the CDI [in 2003],” the report said. “This reflects rising fossil fuel production and its withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol, the world’s only treaty governing the emissions of heat-trapping gasses. Canada has dropped below the U.S. into bottom place on the environment component.”

Owen Barder, a senior fellow at the centre who prepared the index, said in an interview that the environment category has become one of the bright spots in the survey. “Environment is the one part of our index that has really seen improvement and Canada has been the only country that’s fallen,” he said. “My expectation would have been that Canada is environmentally friendly, Canadians all seem to take the environment seriously.”
The major reasons for Canada’s poor showing, he said, were pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol and having one of the highest levels of greenhouse gas production per capita. Canada also has low gasoline taxes, which don’t encourage conservation, and high subsidies for fishing, which impacts fish stocks. Slovakia and Hungary came first and second in the environment category mainly because both have some of the highest gas taxes among the 27 nations and the lowest greenhouse gas emissions.
Canada scored best in trade and migration, where it finished fourth and third respectively. On trade, the centre cited Canada’s low tariffs on agricultural imports as helping poorer nations. And on migration the centre said Canada is among the leaders in welcoming immigrants and students from developing countries.
Over all, Mr. Barder said this year’s survey demonstrated that not much has changed in the last decade in terms of international development. “We, the rich countries, have been making promises [at Group of 20 meetings] to pursue development-friendly policies and our index doesn’t pick up very much evidence that things have changed,” he said. “And you would expect to see that. So this is a dog that didn’t bark story. This dog should be barking by now and it’s not.”
He added that the environment has been a notable exception mainly because of the extraordinary compliance with the 1987 Montreal protocol on reducing chemicals that damage the ozone. The compliance rate has exceeded 98 per cent and many countries in Europe have gone beyond the protocol’s requirements.
“What we’ve seen is actual follow through and give credit where credit is due,” he said. “It has actually been implemented.”
He added that despite the overall lack of progress on development issues there is room for optimism. “The optimistic part is that within these different policy areas there are some really good countries doing really good things. And that seems to be politically viable for those countries and it doesn’t seem to cause them any economic or social harm,” he said. “It does make you think that there is considerable room for improvement in a politically viable way.”
Follow  on Twitter: @PwaldieGLOBE

Saturday, July 12, 2014

It does seem to be the way things are done in Langley. In Brookswood we just called them on it.



Letter: Fort Langley open house perplexity closed.

http://www.langleyadvance.com/opinion/letters/letter-fort-langley-open-house-perplexingly-closed-1.1197180


Dear Editor,
I recently attended an invitation-only “open house” for a new development at Mavis and McBride in Fort Langley.
I live in Fort Langley, but I was not invited. None of my neighbours around Fort Langley knew anything about it, so only a handful of people were there.
Is this how open houses are conducted in Langley Township?
It appears the developer got a special list of people to contact from Township planning staff. How is that is acceptable?
Why would the developer go to the trouble of hosting an “open house,” if they don’t want anyone to know about it? It doesn’t seem very “open.” How can you get a feel from the community when it is less than a handful of people?
Perhaps this is why: the proposed development would create 21 new townhouses on half an acre. The OCP permits seven. It will require a change to the OCP that will effectively triple the density in Fort Langley going forward.
It seems like a fairly big change in what is permitted for the zoning of the area. Does this mean future developments will be given the same allowance?
It is concerning to me: 21 units there equates to 40 units per acre, double the typical density of Willoughby, and triple the density permitted.
It is more than triple the density of the brand new McBride Station, a wonderful village-like development perfectly appropriate for Fort Langley.
I am hoping that Fort Langley is not going to become the next Clayton.
Is this really how planning is done in the Township of Langley? Do our planners support it? According to the architect, they do.
What is the justification for tripling the density? I couldn’t get an answer to that question, so I am assuming it must be profit.
In truth, I couldn’t get a lot of concrete answers to a great deal of my questions, which was concerning to me. I encourage you to try your luck finding any information online about it, or anyone’s name on the invitation.
It seems like this development and its ability to bypass our existing zoning is being kept as quiet as possible. How is this happening?
If you want to triple the density of someone else’s neighbourhood, you should engage the community properly and sincerely, not with invitation-only “open houses.”
Council should send a clear message right away that this is not acceptable. We need our council to remain accountable.
We need our Township Planning Department to make its intentions clear to our community, so we are at least made aware of how they plan to shape our city.
Dawn Crawford, Fort Langley