No government has any right or business raising or fixing yearly property taxes to a level that is higher than inflation. It is immoral and unkind to do so.
Friday, May 10, 2013
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Langley Development Timelapse
This shows the development of Willoughby, Willowbrook and east Cloverdale since 1984. Note the huge 'compressive housing' development serge that has been allowed to happen by both The City of Surrey and Langley Township over the last decade. Eye opening isn't it?
It looks like some sort of runaway spreading cancer that eats both land and trees...
Now take a look at Brookswood. Contrasting right?
One of the main reasons why we love Brookswood as our community is because of this slow pace - it's because this is the way things should be. It's reasonable, measured, non consuming, non choking, sustainable and traditionally Canadian. It's not all about desperate growth, nor about hordes of people, or about a greater tax base.
The land under Brookswoods is not meant to make money for salivating developers, or to provide extra government revenue or balance government budgets, it is a tranquil place for the present residents to live and rest without fear that the world is going to take it all from you or is going to compress and smother you.
Other countries have filled themselves up with humanity, countries like China, Malaysia and India and even large parts of Europe and South America. This to the tune of, a mind-boggling, 7 Billion people!!
Is this what we are becoming as Canadians? I know it wasn't that way when I was a kid. We didn't have rapid growth, and didn't think about filling our country up with people, and bulldozing it all down to do so.
It's like we have adopted a money-worship-sell-out-your-countrymen type attitude where growth is absolute, and are told that we have to make room for more people to accommodate this way of thinking!
It's like the Canadian way and culture has died and we have adopted the ways and cut-throat methods of some other country.
And for Canadians this is not very polite...
It looks like some sort of runaway spreading cancer that eats both land and trees...
Now take a look at Brookswood. Contrasting right?
One of the main reasons why we love Brookswood as our community is because of this slow pace - it's because this is the way things should be. It's reasonable, measured, non consuming, non choking, sustainable and traditionally Canadian. It's not all about desperate growth, nor about hordes of people, or about a greater tax base.
The land under Brookswoods is not meant to make money for salivating developers, or to provide extra government revenue or balance government budgets, it is a tranquil place for the present residents to live and rest without fear that the world is going to take it all from you or is going to compress and smother you.
Other countries have filled themselves up with humanity, countries like China, Malaysia and India and even large parts of Europe and South America. This to the tune of, a mind-boggling, 7 Billion people!!
Is this what we are becoming as Canadians? I know it wasn't that way when I was a kid. We didn't have rapid growth, and didn't think about filling our country up with people, and bulldozing it all down to do so.
It's like we have adopted a money-worship-sell-out-your-countrymen type attitude where growth is absolute, and are told that we have to make room for more people to accommodate this way of thinking!
It's like the Canadian way and culture has died and we have adopted the ways and cut-throat methods of some other country.
And for Canadians this is not very polite...
Monday, May 6, 2013
Brookswood Plan: No Council Envy. By Brad Richert.
http://www.langleytoday.ca/brookswood-plan-no-council-envy/
I disagree with some of what Mr. Richert has to say in the above article.
Much of the situation in Brookswood (and Langley in general) is caused by mass immigration with many people moving to the area from other countries and from migration from other livable parts of the country which are filling up. Many other areas are considered not as nice to live in due to climate or chocking levels of development, crime or because built-up areas tend to become unkind as they lose their sense of a country-like community - as well as other problems. Brookswood is a desirable area, mainly because of the large trees, the country like atmosphere and and the rural connectivity that the residents share. That will be destroyed as the area comes under pressure from development, as the trees are torn down and the roads widened.
Let's face it. It is all about money. This excellent community will be torn apart so others can make money. A community that has been wonderfully 'stagnating' for decades will be wiped-out to become like any other community. Brookswood is an island in a sea of sprawl, and when the waves of development crash over the spruces and the firs and the hemlocks that grace the area it will become like so much chopped up flotsam that is the rest of the lower mainland. I know, how poetic, but if you come here and look all around, you will feel the same way - this place, the way it is now = harmony. It needs protecting.
Am I a NIMBY as Mr. Richert has stated in his article? Maybe. I own a big house on a large parcel of land and I have worked extremely hard and have given-up much (you can see me driving around in my 94 Honda Civic) in order to buy it, keep it and maintain it so it looks nice just like all of my neighbours around me - there is much pride in our community. My son will probably inherit my house if he can afford it by that point (and the township can control their spending) and I sincerely wish to have the same low population, 'stagnant' and safe community around him by then. Like Mr. Richert I stand to benefit from densification for I will have one of the few houses in the lower-mainland with land if the rampant development is not kept at-bay - and that is becoming rare.
Even if I stand to benefit I still want to fight to keep Brookswood as-is...
Damn right Brookswood residents will lash-out!! And why shouldn't we?? People who do not live here want to destroy what we dearly love and they want to cut us in half with 4 lane commuter highways! They even thought about building a casino here! That is why so many people showed up for the open houses. And that is why we will all be angry if we are sold-out like we feel is happening to us.
Yes this is our back yard and we want to protect it. Wouldn't you do the same thing to protect something you love?
Comments:
I disagree with some of what Mr. Richert has to say in the above article.
Much of the situation in Brookswood (and Langley in general) is caused by mass immigration with many people moving to the area from other countries and from migration from other livable parts of the country which are filling up. Many other areas are considered not as nice to live in due to climate or chocking levels of development, crime or because built-up areas tend to become unkind as they lose their sense of a country-like community - as well as other problems. Brookswood is a desirable area, mainly because of the large trees, the country like atmosphere and and the rural connectivity that the residents share. That will be destroyed as the area comes under pressure from development, as the trees are torn down and the roads widened.
Let's face it. It is all about money. This excellent community will be torn apart so others can make money. A community that has been wonderfully 'stagnating' for decades will be wiped-out to become like any other community. Brookswood is an island in a sea of sprawl, and when the waves of development crash over the spruces and the firs and the hemlocks that grace the area it will become like so much chopped up flotsam that is the rest of the lower mainland. I know, how poetic, but if you come here and look all around, you will feel the same way - this place, the way it is now = harmony. It needs protecting.
Am I a NIMBY as Mr. Richert has stated in his article? Maybe. I own a big house on a large parcel of land and I have worked extremely hard and have given-up much (you can see me driving around in my 94 Honda Civic) in order to buy it, keep it and maintain it so it looks nice just like all of my neighbours around me - there is much pride in our community. My son will probably inherit my house if he can afford it by that point (and the township can control their spending) and I sincerely wish to have the same low population, 'stagnant' and safe community around him by then. Like Mr. Richert I stand to benefit from densification for I will have one of the few houses in the lower-mainland with land if the rampant development is not kept at-bay - and that is becoming rare.
Even if I stand to benefit I still want to fight to keep Brookswood as-is...
Damn right Brookswood residents will lash-out!! And why shouldn't we?? People who do not live here want to destroy what we dearly love and they want to cut us in half with 4 lane commuter highways! They even thought about building a casino here! That is why so many people showed up for the open houses. And that is why we will all be angry if we are sold-out like we feel is happening to us.
Yes this is our back yard and we want to protect it. Wouldn't you do the same thing to protect something you love?
Comments:
AnonymousJuly 11, 2013 at 8:16 PM
Has
there been a petition going around? I live in the brookswood area and
almost all of my neighbours werent even aware of any changes that will
be coming... If i had better resources i would defenitely start a
petition to stop the destruction of brookswood.
As
far as I know I'm the only one who is doing something like this. There
are many people against changing the Community plan (initiated by a
small group of owners in the 'Griffith' neighborhood) but most people
who I talk to have a downtrodden belief that nothing they do will
matter, or that what ever the Township does it will be written in stone
and can't be changed.
It is sad that not many people who we elect to govern us truly care about the people who put them in power, instead they are there for their own motives and agendas - and that mostly to make money for themselves or for their buddies. We seem to be adopting a third world political model I'm afraid.
I can only continue to promote this site, and I hope that people read it and it makes them think. And maybe some will go out and do something about it.
Beyond that we, the masters, are being steam rolled by our in our pay (ha! the employees of the Township who faithfully work for us...) -D
It is sad that not many people who we elect to govern us truly care about the people who put them in power, instead they are there for their own motives and agendas - and that mostly to make money for themselves or for their buddies. We seem to be adopting a third world political model I'm afraid.
I can only continue to promote this site, and I hope that people read it and it makes them think. And maybe some will go out and do something about it.
Beyond that we, the masters, are being steam rolled by our in our pay (ha! the employees of the Township who faithfully work for us...) -D
- AnonymousJuly 15, 2013 at 12:31 PMSo now what , i have quite a few neighbours now concerned with whats going on and i have their support , i have also spoken with numerous businesses along the 208 & 40 ave , and they have also shown support for a petition. Unfortunately im not sure where to begin...im very passionate about keeping this area the way it is. I was born and raised from richmond and now i dont even recognize my old neighbourhood or most of the city , i just hope brookswoods fate doesnt end up the same.
David M Chambers 23, 2013 at 5:36 PM
I would fully promote any petition on this site. Please let people know about it so they can read some of the objections I've written down here. Beyond that it's about what gets the most publicity: Door-to-door written petitions with signatures or on-line petition sites.The biggest thing is to let the township know that this is our community not theirs. They have had their way for most of this process and they have done things the way they see fit - that is they failed to properly and fully notify the residents (using only the minimum methods) and have bent the questions and agenda to what they want by leaving and filling gaps the way they see fit. The sad thing is that we are paying for it out of pocket and eventually through a decline in living conditions due to a large population increase (and attending problems) and the widening of our country streets and roads to 4 lane city standards. - And then there is Willoughby...
Word of mouth works well, so does paper and electronic postings wherever you can post. I was thinking about using my banner as a bumper sticker as well.
The unfortunate thing is that with the info age buzzing around everyone's heads not as many people look up from their iPhones and take notice. Governments (Townships) realize this and take advantage by pushing forward their own agendas without much public consultation or even in private sessions.
It is nice that the Townships has consulted with us this much, but I wonder about their process, their motivations, and their alliances. -D
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Say goodbye to Brookswood as we know it
http://www.langleytimes.com/opinion/letters/205405631.html
I, along with countless other Brookswood residents, share in the trepidation of the planned four-laning of 40 Avenue.
However, this is just one small component of the much larger and more sinister master plan to destroy Brookswood and Fernridge. The draft land use plan conveniently understates, or in some cases camouflages, the true development intent.
Due to the colour shadings used, at first glance it appears that there is provision for some new quarter-acre and larger lots.
As I recall, Goal 1 listed at the planning workshops was to “preserve existing character.” The reality is that the largest new lots included in this plan are 7,000 square feet. These will likely be few and far between.
So, say goodbye to Brookswood as we know and cherish it. Say goodbye to the large lots, and the large stands of trees.
There is an opportunity to develop something different and unique here, something apart from the same, old, tired densification. It could be different from the type of development that has wreaked havoc on other areas of Langley.
I suspect, however, we will see yet another “clear cut” disaster.
B. Cameron,
Langley
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Sooooo, what's up with the questionnaire?
"3. Housing Types
Which of the following statements best represent your interpretation of the types of housing included in the plan? Indicate all that apply.
There should be more emphasis on regular single family lots (4, 6, 8 or 10 upa/10-25 uph, 4-7,000 square foot lots)"
"5. Parks and Schools Size and Distribution
What do you think of the park and school sites included in the plan?
Please note, park and school sites represented on the display board do not reflect exact future sites of schools and parks. These will be determined as development occurs and land acquisition permits (see symbols E, M, and S on the plan). Indicate all that apply."
I predict another mismanagement cluster on this one... It kind of leaves things wide open to swap more school land with developers doesn't it? Or worse...
http://www.langleytimes.com/opinion/138818834.html
By-the-way the survey will be up until April 30th and can be found here...
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/JKQRBYW
Which of the following statements best represent your interpretation of the types of housing included in the plan? Indicate all that apply.
There should be more emphasis on regular single family lots (4, 6, 8 or 10 upa/10-25 uph, 4-7,000 square foot lots)"
...or 20, 22, or 30... That is quite the range for what they consider 'regular single family lots'... This process is like some sort of probe that keeps getting more invasive. Of course if you are in charge of finessing this particular process you can formulate the questions what ever way you want. It's called manipulation.
What do you think of the park and school sites included in the plan?
Please note, park and school sites represented on the display board do not reflect exact future sites of schools and parks. These will be determined as development occurs and land acquisition permits (see symbols E, M, and S on the plan). Indicate all that apply."
I predict another mismanagement cluster on this one... It kind of leaves things wide open to swap more school land with developers doesn't it? Or worse...
Willoughby schools are close to crisis
http://www.langleytimes.com/opinion/138818834.html
By-the-way the survey will be up until April 30th and can be found here...
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/JKQRBYW
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Growth = Money = Planners = Development
Boy! There wouldn't be much work for planners if there wasn't much growth. What happens to many of them when things slow down? Do they still keep their jobs while we continue to support them with our taxes? What about after they fill every square acre up with development? Then what are they going to do?
I guess it's hard to be concerned about the existing people in their community when they are protecting and justifying their jobs right?
Remember the leaky condo issue? Remember all the building envelope consultants that set-up over-night to 'solve the problems' for the stratta councils. They cost many people allot of money too - and many of those people couldn't afford to spend that money.
I guess when there is a perceived need there will always be a crowd of people ready to jump in and capitalize on it. This is the way I look upon planners.
Note: Planners are supposed to be the appointed guardians of the communities they serve, not autonomous destroyers.
I guess it's hard to be concerned about the existing people in their community when they are protecting and justifying their jobs right?
Remember the leaky condo issue? Remember all the building envelope consultants that set-up over-night to 'solve the problems' for the stratta councils. They cost many people allot of money too - and many of those people couldn't afford to spend that money.
I guess when there is a perceived need there will always be a crowd of people ready to jump in and capitalize on it. This is the way I look upon planners.
Note: Planners are supposed to be the appointed guardians of the communities they serve, not autonomous destroyers.
Brookswood is a beautiful place to live - the way it is now.
Joni Mitchell: Big Yellow Taxi
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
With a pink hotel, a boutique
And a swinging hot SPOT
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
'Til it's gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
They took all the trees
And put them in a tree museum
Then they charged the people
A dollar and a half just to see 'em
Don't it always seem to go,
That you don't know what you've got
'Til it's gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot...
Ask yourselves: what kind of legacy are you creating?
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
With a pink hotel, a boutique
And a swinging hot SPOT
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
'Til it's gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
They took all the trees
And put them in a tree museum
Then they charged the people
A dollar and a half just to see 'em
Don't it always seem to go,
That you don't know what you've got
'Til it's gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot...
Ask yourselves: what kind of legacy are you creating?
WHY?
Why do you have to do this at all? Why can't you just leave it be and let it take it's natural course? Is it because people who own large parcels of land are hoping to become millionaires? Is it because developers and land holding companies are hungering to make money off of the area and then move on to devour the next?
Must the entire lower mainland be ravaged this way? Can there not be some sanctuaries?
Must the entire lower mainland be ravaged this way? Can there not be some sanctuaries?
Monday, April 15, 2013
What happened guys?
When I moved to Langley in the early 90s my wife and I thought that Langley was such a nice place. We thought that here was a place that had it together, that this place was not going to be like Surrey, or Richmond with their rapid growth and messed-up sprawl. We thought that with a city like Surrey just next door, with it's developer pay-offs and bad planning Langley had a glaringly obvious example of what not to do.
You changed for the worse, and are becoming another Surrey.
What happened Langley?
You changed for the worse, and are becoming another Surrey.
What happened Langley?
Do all the Township planners live in Langley?
It would be discouraging to see that any one of them may live somewhere else - vested interest and such...
So... how much is this costing again?
Remember, money from public coffers is just free money right? It's not like it's yours or something? Right??
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.
http://www.tol.ca/Portals/0/FileShare/ComDev/2013-04-11_April_open_house_boards_LR.pdf
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.
http://www.tol.ca/Portals/0/FileShare/ComDev/2013-04-11_April_open_house_boards_LR.pdf
Monday, April 8, 2013
Report Suspicious Activity!!
If you see people doing something that is suspicious or doesn't feel right call 911 and report it!
I can't emphasize this more. The only way we can keep the crime (drugs) manageable in Langley is for you to get on your cell phone more and let the police know. They wont be angry at you (if they are you can complain) and they will be directed to the problems - besides it's your taxes that are paying for them right??
You see the police are reactive, and the only way that a reactive organization can be effective is to have things pointed out to them. Each call or 'occurrence' creates what is termed a stat or statistic. These stats are tallied and sent to Ottawa ('A' Division Headquarters). The more stats there are the more likely Ottawa will direct resources to that community and the more likely the community will get more officers to augment its (our) inadequately manned police department.
So next time you see something suspicious CALL 911! The police expect it and want it!
I can't emphasize this more. The only way we can keep the crime (drugs) manageable in Langley is for you to get on your cell phone more and let the police know. They wont be angry at you (if they are you can complain) and they will be directed to the problems - besides it's your taxes that are paying for them right??
You see the police are reactive, and the only way that a reactive organization can be effective is to have things pointed out to them. Each call or 'occurrence' creates what is termed a stat or statistic. These stats are tallied and sent to Ottawa ('A' Division Headquarters). The more stats there are the more likely Ottawa will direct resources to that community and the more likely the community will get more officers to augment its (our) inadequately manned police department.
So next time you see something suspicious CALL 911! The police expect it and want it!
Sunday, April 7, 2013
Langley: The next Skid Row...
Look alive guys! Transients are moving in!
Having experience in these things I know you can't have a bleeding heart when it comes to this otherwise they will root themselves. If they reject help you just have to keep pestering them to move on. You also have to keep at the old apartment building owners to improve their buildings.
Most people moved to Langley because it is a nice place to live, that is changing for the worst due to inadequate precautionary measures, aging unkempt apartments and a somewhat tolerant and segmented population. High rises in Langley City aren't going to help either - but they won't find that out until they're built.
If the city and the township don't act assertively much of the shady and transient aspect of lower mainland will move in and harm this community making it no longer safe for families.
These people are being pushed out of Vancouver's Downtown East side and Langley is a wonderfully attractive place for them to 'set-up-shop.' If they are willing to accept help and become productive members of the community then fine they can stay (there are plenty of things they can do to help out) but if not they will have to move on.
Or do nothing and see what happens.
Drive around Langley City and you will see some of what I mean...
Oh, by the way, a little note to the overly sensitive people that bleed for this segment of society. Try this test...
Approach a vagrant and instead of offering them food and/or money offer to assist them to the many services that are out there to help them. See if they will accept the help... If they do good for you, you helped one of them. If not keep trying.
You see it is the hand outs that cause them to congregate in a particular area and perhaps the drugs - something I have been seeing much of lately in Langley.
Having experience in these things I know you can't have a bleeding heart when it comes to this otherwise they will root themselves. If they reject help you just have to keep pestering them to move on. You also have to keep at the old apartment building owners to improve their buildings.
Most people moved to Langley because it is a nice place to live, that is changing for the worst due to inadequate precautionary measures, aging unkempt apartments and a somewhat tolerant and segmented population. High rises in Langley City aren't going to help either - but they won't find that out until they're built.
If the city and the township don't act assertively much of the shady and transient aspect of lower mainland will move in and harm this community making it no longer safe for families.
These people are being pushed out of Vancouver's Downtown East side and Langley is a wonderfully attractive place for them to 'set-up-shop.' If they are willing to accept help and become productive members of the community then fine they can stay (there are plenty of things they can do to help out) but if not they will have to move on.
Or do nothing and see what happens.
Drive around Langley City and you will see some of what I mean...
Oh, by the way, a little note to the overly sensitive people that bleed for this segment of society. Try this test...
Approach a vagrant and instead of offering them food and/or money offer to assist them to the many services that are out there to help them. See if they will accept the help... If they do good for you, you helped one of them. If not keep trying.
You see it is the hand outs that cause them to congregate in a particular area and perhaps the drugs - something I have been seeing much of lately in Langley.
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Money
Further what is a full planning staff doing while they pay a consultant, in all likelihood, a large amount of Langley tax payer money to come up with this new plan?
Lack of Notification
Mr. Tinney wrote the
following statement on page 2 of his recent consultation report...
'The Township of Langley has
actively sought community involvement for this community planning process.
However, it should be noted that public consultation events only generate
feedback from a small cross section of the community as not all community
members are able to attend these events.'
'actively' eh? Fail!
'actively' eh? Fail!
Not
everyone knows that this process is taking place! The township
has successfully pushed hard to get this whole thing going and has successfully massaged and
sculpted a vision that they want by limiting our choices in the matter, but
they failed miserably in a major way - they failed to notify people properly.
What they must understand is that this is a legal process with potential legal
consequences. As such you need to appropriately notify everyone in
the community involved. The Township did not go door-to-door and they did not mail notifications to the residents and
home owners in Brookswood/Fernridge - ads in the not-always-read local newspapers or on
your website aren't enough!
If the Township can get dog license canvassers to go door-to-door then they can do the same to notify
people about a huge impending community plan. It follows reason does it not??
This is a
post that I received from a resident on March 15th...
“Thank
you David. I live in Deer Creek and I
just received a letter from Maureen Spender and now I’m very concerned. I didn’t know about any of this.”
Now how
many people don’t know that the community plan process is taking place?
If you
(the Township of Langley and its planners) don’t fully enlighten residents
about these important and life changing events then don't be surprised if you are
then tarred with an unseemly association with developers and their money - much like
the corrupt developer/city practices that happed in Surrey over the last few decades...
Most want to live in a big house - really, no kidding??
The township planners should take note of this article. Maybe this with create a small chink in their thinking...
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Most+Metro+Vancouver+would+choose+house+suburbs+over+luxury+apartment+survey/8153112/story.html
“We were a bit surprised that, despite all the talk about densification and walkability, despite the fact that condos have taken over from houses in many parts of our region, the overwhelming choice was for a large house on a big suburban property,” said Elizabeth Wilson, content editor for REW.
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Most+Metro+Vancouver+would+choose+house+suburbs+over+luxury+apartment+survey/8153112/story.html
“We were a bit surprised that, despite all the talk about densification and walkability, despite the fact that condos have taken over from houses in many parts of our region, the overwhelming choice was for a large house on a big suburban property,” said Elizabeth Wilson, content editor for REW.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Casino in Langley Township?
Q: When did casinos become the must have for communities?
A: When local government started getting a cut of the gambling money.
Have you ever walked through a casino and watched the gambling zombies spend money with glazed eyes and a lost sense of self awareness. It's sad.
It is also sad that governments have so lost their moral sense of awareness that they think it is a good thing to feed off of these people in order to increase revenue instead of using basic accounting practices to run a township. In a tizzy of head-screwiness they even thought of putting one in Brookswood! In a family oriented residential area! This type of thinking shows how desperate the township is to generate more funds so they can then build more things that will then have to be maintained.
Casinos don't add much to the community. Most of the money they generate goes elsewhere. The supporters will say that casinos help pay for charities but they wreck more lives than they help due to individuals losing money to gambling addiction, money they could have used to pay for high taxes and bridge tolls.
Btw, what a marketing deal giving 10% of the yearly proceeds to local government is.
Heroin pushers do something similar to get things started...
A: When local government started getting a cut of the gambling money.
Have you ever walked through a casino and watched the gambling zombies spend money with glazed eyes and a lost sense of self awareness. It's sad.
It is also sad that governments have so lost their moral sense of awareness that they think it is a good thing to feed off of these people in order to increase revenue instead of using basic accounting practices to run a township. In a tizzy of head-screwiness they even thought of putting one in Brookswood! In a family oriented residential area! This type of thinking shows how desperate the township is to generate more funds so they can then build more things that will then have to be maintained.
Casinos don't add much to the community. Most of the money they generate goes elsewhere. The supporters will say that casinos help pay for charities but they wreck more lives than they help due to individuals losing money to gambling addiction, money they could have used to pay for high taxes and bridge tolls.
Btw, what a marketing deal giving 10% of the yearly proceeds to local government is.
Heroin pushers do something similar to get things started...
Friday, January 25, 2013
Cost of policing...
I never understood why municipalities don't make use of mobile staff security guards. They can provide a presence, they become the eyes and ears of police (who are spread thin) and can report incidents without getting directly involved. They are also much less expensive than the police.
There is definitely an undesirable segment of society moving into the Langleys and along with it it's attendant criminal aspect. When the risk is low security can pester vagrants and film drug dealers (no drug dealer likes flash bubs going off in their direction) encouraging them to get-out-of-town.
Let's face it, if we aren't proactive and take a stand parts of the Langleys shamefully will become slums. If you go with the socialist agenda and provide shelters much more of a bedraggled and amoral fringe element will be attracted here and slums will be guaranteed.
The time to act is now, for Langley is an attractive venue for these people and some parts are already becoming seedy with visible (out in the open) drug deals and dumpster-divers. I know, it is heartless of me, but you wont think so when your kids start finding syringes and condoms around your neighborhoods.
Btw, every business should have a lock on their dumpsters unless they want to keep cleaning up the mess a dumpster-diver makes. Further you are responsible to clean-up that mess and you can get a hefty fine for littering if you don't do so and Langley bylaws decide they are going to notice... After all who wants your garbage flying around the town on the wind after some recently entrenched vagrant digs through your dumpster.
http://www.langleyadvance.com/news/Summit+tackles+rising+police+costs/7853325/story.html
There is definitely an undesirable segment of society moving into the Langleys and along with it it's attendant criminal aspect. When the risk is low security can pester vagrants and film drug dealers (no drug dealer likes flash bubs going off in their direction) encouraging them to get-out-of-town.
Let's face it, if we aren't proactive and take a stand parts of the Langleys shamefully will become slums. If you go with the socialist agenda and provide shelters much more of a bedraggled and amoral fringe element will be attracted here and slums will be guaranteed.
The time to act is now, for Langley is an attractive venue for these people and some parts are already becoming seedy with visible (out in the open) drug deals and dumpster-divers. I know, it is heartless of me, but you wont think so when your kids start finding syringes and condoms around your neighborhoods.
Btw, every business should have a lock on their dumpsters unless they want to keep cleaning up the mess a dumpster-diver makes. Further you are responsible to clean-up that mess and you can get a hefty fine for littering if you don't do so and Langley bylaws decide they are going to notice... After all who wants your garbage flying around the town on the wind after some recently entrenched vagrant digs through your dumpster.
http://www.langleyadvance.com/news/Summit+tackles+rising+police+costs/7853325/story.html
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Welcome to Brookswood boys!
Make yourselves at home. Part of the cost of urbanization...
http://www.langleyadvance.com/news/Camera+captures+suspects/7864719/story.html
http://www.langleyadvance.com/news/Camera+captures+suspects/7864719/story.html
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Brookwood's 'Options'
** Take note that in each of these 'options' the population will
be over 30,000 people. The low density Subdivision option has a very similar planned
population level when compared with the other two options. That should indicate the Township's overriding motive - target tax base for the area.
They probably started this whole thing with something like this (think: meeting with the smoking man in X Files)...
(Gruff voice) 'We need 35,000 more tax payers in Langley! (pause as cigar smoke dissipates...)
(Young enthusiastic voice) Well Sir., how about Brookswood, we can put them all there??
(Gruff voice) Great idea ____________! All they have there is trees and they don't vote! (looking appreciatively at his young protégé) ____________ I knew there was a reason why we brought you on board! Now let's talk about your commission...'
A man in a shadowed corner from the real estate consulting company silently smiles and his nervous fingers twitch...
Oh the nefarious drama of it all.
I also find it interesting that the lowest density (Subdivision) option will end up developing the whole darn area! That is with the exception of that pesky ALR thing. At least the area will then be developed and done with, for you just know that with the other two options they aren't going to stop with just 'nodes' and 'pockets' - interesting choice of words btw, sounds better than 'clots' and 'cavities'. Oh, it's fun to spin.
And as Mr. Tinney indicated at the October info session: "Development can actually be good for the aquifer." So all this impending development IS good news! Yeah!!
Subdivision" would Extend the suburban style of density south, with lots staying roughly around 10,000 square feet. Population would be about 33,650, and parts of southeast-ern Brookswood and Fernridge would retain lower density.
**Note: 10,000 square foot lots are easier to subdivide in the future.
Enhanced Centres" would see pockets of multifamily, including condos and townhouses, at the existing commercial nodes, at 200th Street and 208th Street on 40th Avenue, and at 32nd and 24th Avenues on 200th. This would leave larger areas with low density, with 44 per cent of land with half-acre or larger lots. Population would be about 32,000.
Centres and corridors" would use the same style of nodes, but would add higher density along parts of 200th Street heading north-south, and along smaller stretches of 24th and 32nd Avenues. Population would be about 36,000.
It's like you're buying a car or something. Except in this case the smiling salespeople back at the dealership aren't going to listen when something bad develops....
They probably started this whole thing with something like this (think: meeting with the smoking man in X Files)...
(Gruff voice) 'We need 35,000 more tax payers in Langley! (pause as cigar smoke dissipates...)
(Young enthusiastic voice) Well Sir., how about Brookswood, we can put them all there??
(Gruff voice) Great idea ____________! All they have there is trees and they don't vote! (looking appreciatively at his young protégé) ____________ I knew there was a reason why we brought you on board! Now let's talk about your commission...'
A man in a shadowed corner from the real estate consulting company silently smiles and his nervous fingers twitch...
Oh the nefarious drama of it all.
I also find it interesting that the lowest density (Subdivision) option will end up developing the whole darn area! That is with the exception of that pesky ALR thing. At least the area will then be developed and done with, for you just know that with the other two options they aren't going to stop with just 'nodes' and 'pockets' - interesting choice of words btw, sounds better than 'clots' and 'cavities'. Oh, it's fun to spin.
And as Mr. Tinney indicated at the October info session: "Development can actually be good for the aquifer." So all this impending development IS good news! Yeah!!
Subdivision" would Extend the suburban style of density south, with lots staying roughly around 10,000 square feet. Population would be about 33,650, and parts of southeast-ern Brookswood and Fernridge would retain lower density.
**Note: 10,000 square foot lots are easier to subdivide in the future.
Enhanced Centres" would see pockets of multifamily, including condos and townhouses, at the existing commercial nodes, at 200th Street and 208th Street on 40th Avenue, and at 32nd and 24th Avenues on 200th. This would leave larger areas with low density, with 44 per cent of land with half-acre or larger lots. Population would be about 32,000.
Centres and corridors" would use the same style of nodes, but would add higher density along parts of 200th Street heading north-south, and along smaller stretches of 24th and 32nd Avenues. Population would be about 36,000.
It's like you're buying a car or something. Except in this case the smiling salespeople back at the dealership aren't going to listen when something bad develops....
Sunday, January 20, 2013
City Planners always do what they want to do.
That is the way it has always been and they will not change for this town - I guess I shouldn't be calling it a town any more, they have chosen sprawl so it must unfortunately be called a city. The public consultations are just there for show and as a result Brookswood will never be the same afterwards for there is money to be made and very little land in the region. If people don't sell they will eventually be pushed out by constant (bigger than wage increase) yearly jumps in taxes - for property tax is not based on the ability to pay or on income, it is based on the house value. It is also based on the Township's need to pay for extravagant municipal spending on things we don't really need and the resultant cost of maintenance for what is built, for the purchase of new things instead of maintaining what exists, for air conditioned lawn mowers for a region that rarely needs air conditioning. Eventually the planners and the developers will tear down all the trees and Brookswood will become a place of cement apartment buildings and townhouses. Those of us who bought here before the big real estate boom will have to leave, even if we wanted to live here all our lives, replaced by others arriving on our soil with much more money than we can possibly make who will constantly push up prices.
There is no fairness, no dignity or morals when it comes to development and the back-scratching business of local government, there is just growth and progress, and of course profit...
There is no fairness, no dignity or morals when it comes to development and the back-scratching business of local government, there is just growth and progress, and of course profit...
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Brookswood residents eager for plan input
http://www.langleytimes.com/news/187197081.html
It's not that they are eager, with 300 people showing up I think it has more to do with fear...
What about the fourth question: 'Make no changes to the existing plan'? I guess they wouldn't want to ask that question would they? That is to say that the residents of Brookswood are being corralled and molded towards a goal, the planners are asking limited questions the way they want to ask them. They are not really giving people any choice at all. In the end the Langley Township planners will do things the way they want and they will then point to the public consultation process for justification even though they manipulated the whole process. I think they know that a large amount of people in the community do not want any further development but they can't have it tallied and written down for that wouldn't lend credence to their case - and that is carte blanche on behalf of the developers.
It's not that they are eager, with 300 people showing up I think it has more to do with fear...
What about the fourth question: 'Make no changes to the existing plan'? I guess they wouldn't want to ask that question would they? That is to say that the residents of Brookswood are being corralled and molded towards a goal, the planners are asking limited questions the way they want to ask them. They are not really giving people any choice at all. In the end the Langley Township planners will do things the way they want and they will then point to the public consultation process for justification even though they manipulated the whole process. I think they know that a large amount of people in the community do not want any further development but they can't have it tallied and written down for that wouldn't lend credence to their case - and that is carte blanche on behalf of the developers.
Monday, January 14, 2013
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Langley Township Council: Selling our future
I think this shows the way they think. Screw the long term residents, let's build stuff and get our names on a bronze plaque!
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/metro/Save+ecologically+unique+forest+Langley+urged/7636559/story.html
I love this quote:
Jordan urged protection of the site, in part, because Langley’s “unchecked development at the urban/rural interface is creating an increasingly dysfunctional, fragmented ecological patchwork of mixed density residential dwellings interspersed among remaining natural areas.”
Yup, sounds like Surrey all over again...
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/metro/Save+ecologically+unique+forest+Langley+urged/7636559/story.html
I love this quote:
Jordan urged protection of the site, in part, because Langley’s “unchecked development at the urban/rural interface is creating an increasingly dysfunctional, fragmented ecological patchwork of mixed density residential dwellings interspersed among remaining natural areas.”
Yup, sounds like Surrey all over again...
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Not your sandbox.
It's fun to plan and build things, and I'm sure that's why planners chose the career and gained lofty educational levels to do so. It's fun, you feel like you are making a difference, you feel like you are building a better community and you feel like you can help people. You and the plans you make have far reaching effects on the community and that makes you feel important. You will get notoriety and the admiration of your piers for striving for excellence You may even win some awards. But there is one fundamental rule that you must adhere to, and that is if the established community you are affecting with your plans reject them then you must stop making those plans. And no amount of spin or prescribed future benefit will do, after all you have a moral responsibility to the existing community you serve - not to communities that don't live here, not to future communities but to the present tax paying residents (residents being people who own their own homes and who live here). It is our sandbox so stop stepping in it.
Monday, November 19, 2012
Langley Crackhouse
http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=2ececa06-20b9-4bbb-87a1-9f40d2531f78
The above story is similar to what is happening in our back yard and a number of other areas of Brookswood with homes owned by holding companies and developers. The owner of the house by us (on 42nd Ave. just east of 208th) doesn't seem to care who lives there or about the community his house sits in - it is confirmed that the owner lives in India. This place is an epicenter for problems, and the police and other officials have been there frequently. Just last week we had a screaming and bloody druggie overdosing outside our homes on 43a Ave. at 1 am. - he was carrying break-in implements and stolen items in his back-pack. :) There has been a sudden influx of property crime in the Fern Ridge area after 20+ years of relative quiet so it is cringe-worthy to think that impending development plans are bringing a dangerous and morally compromised under-society to Brookswood. It's important to remember that there are many kids walking to and from school along 42nd so there is a serious concern. The police had a hard time with the druggie who was violent and felt no pain other than his direct personal hell, so it is scary to think about what he could have done to a lone child walking along the street. Is this the new Brookswood or the new Langley? Is Whalley moving here? Are these the type of people who are being encouraged to move to Langley? What are the two Langleys doing to discourage them from setting-up here?
Comments:
I
know this house and I think it just a block or so EAST of 208th, not
West. I agree that ownership is important, however, we do need more
density near existing infrastructure.
Oops,
fixed. But what kind of density? I grew up in a welfare town in rural
Ontario. They were jealous of the people who had work but would scream
up a cloud if they had to do so as well. Most of the people in
Brookswood are hard working Canadians or Canadians who have retired
after a life of hard work and they love their Country and their
community. If we could only have people here that feel the same then
yes, but not people who are going to live off the rest of us, or destroy
the nice community we have built. It seems that we are not doing
enough to prevent community destroyers like some individuals in the
house above from coming here.
AnonymousFebruary 8, 2013 at 8:25 AM
My
freinds live down the road from that house, they stalk the properties
on that street getting ready to strike, they already have jumped people
walking past at night and pepper sprayed them, punched and kicked them,
looking for cigarettes. They are constantly "tweaking" looking for their
next high. That house IS frequented by trhe police, but nothing ever
comes of it. Get out Crackheads!
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Important to pay attention to what's going on in your back yard
http://www.langleytimes.com/opinion/175678471.html
By Jim McGregor - Langley Times
Published: October 24, 2012 2:00 PM
Updated: October 24, 2012 2:27 PM
I don’t always pay attention to what is going on in the community, if it’s not in my back yard. But now something is happening in my back yard up in Brookswood. Maybe I should take a look. It is somewhat reminiscent of 15 years ago in Willoughby, when residents there expressed concern over proposed development.
Back then, while delegations were appearing at council, chainsaws were revving. While public hearings were being organized, bulldozers were being hired and while petitions were being carried door to door, the water and sewer pipe was being stock piled. You see, once the development signs go up, it’s pretty much a done deal.
lf you sit in a municipal budget meeting you will see the department heads presenting their wants and wishes. All valid requests, except you’ll never convince me that a new park is more important than a new fire hall. The requests are totalled up and added to the operating costs, wage increases etc., and that becomes the money they need.
On the other side of the document is the money coming in from taxpayers, grants and funds in reserve. It is never enough to pay for all the stuff they need. If you cut items from the wish lists, staff is unhappy. If you raise taxes, the public is unhappy. The only choice left is to entice more development and increase the tax base. More people, more money.
The next step is the Joni Mitchell plan where ‘You take all the trees, put ’em in a tree museum, and charge the people a dollar and a half just to see ’em.’
The Brookswood development may eventually bring 30,000 more people into the area. Are they going to make 16 Avenue four lanes and funnel them to work in Vancouver that way? Or are they going to choke and squeeze them onto 200 Street? I guess I have to go to a meeting to find out.
Will they tell me I will get sewer and sidewalks after paying my taxes for 20 years, or will those amenities just be for the new folks who have no investment in the community at all? I guess I’d better go ask someone. We do have good people on our council and they will listen and answer. Unfortunately there is also big money talking. Maybe even in a voice louder than yours and mine.
Our problem in Langley is we plan backwards. Our roads and infrastructure should go in first, then bring in people. We need a moratorium on development. We need to disband TransLink, who have no idea that people live south of the Fraser, and clean up the traffic mess the current taxpayers are in. To add more people to a bad situation makes no sense.
You only have to sit in the embarrassing situations on 208 Street, Crush Crescent, Glover Road and Highway 1 to understand we can’t move the people who live here now. With all due respect to my friend the Minister of Transportation, the new Port Mann and all the proposed overpasses should have been in place 10 years ago.
Watch, listen, go to the meetings, and ask questions, no matter where you live. It might not be in your back yard today but it could be tomorrow. At least that’s what McGregor says.
As such, they are 10 years behind and will do nothing for future development south of the Fraser.
By Jim McGregor - Langley Times
Published: October 24, 2012 2:00 PM
Updated: October 24, 2012 2:27 PM
I don’t always pay attention to what is going on in the community, if it’s not in my back yard. But now something is happening in my back yard up in Brookswood. Maybe I should take a look. It is somewhat reminiscent of 15 years ago in Willoughby, when residents there expressed concern over proposed development.
Back then, while delegations were appearing at council, chainsaws were revving. While public hearings were being organized, bulldozers were being hired and while petitions were being carried door to door, the water and sewer pipe was being stock piled. You see, once the development signs go up, it’s pretty much a done deal.
lf you sit in a municipal budget meeting you will see the department heads presenting their wants and wishes. All valid requests, except you’ll never convince me that a new park is more important than a new fire hall. The requests are totalled up and added to the operating costs, wage increases etc., and that becomes the money they need.
On the other side of the document is the money coming in from taxpayers, grants and funds in reserve. It is never enough to pay for all the stuff they need. If you cut items from the wish lists, staff is unhappy. If you raise taxes, the public is unhappy. The only choice left is to entice more development and increase the tax base. More people, more money.
The next step is the Joni Mitchell plan where ‘You take all the trees, put ’em in a tree museum, and charge the people a dollar and a half just to see ’em.’
The Brookswood development may eventually bring 30,000 more people into the area. Are they going to make 16 Avenue four lanes and funnel them to work in Vancouver that way? Or are they going to choke and squeeze them onto 200 Street? I guess I have to go to a meeting to find out.
Will they tell me I will get sewer and sidewalks after paying my taxes for 20 years, or will those amenities just be for the new folks who have no investment in the community at all? I guess I’d better go ask someone. We do have good people on our council and they will listen and answer. Unfortunately there is also big money talking. Maybe even in a voice louder than yours and mine.
Our problem in Langley is we plan backwards. Our roads and infrastructure should go in first, then bring in people. We need a moratorium on development. We need to disband TransLink, who have no idea that people live south of the Fraser, and clean up the traffic mess the current taxpayers are in. To add more people to a bad situation makes no sense.
You only have to sit in the embarrassing situations on 208 Street, Crush Crescent, Glover Road and Highway 1 to understand we can’t move the people who live here now. With all due respect to my friend the Minister of Transportation, the new Port Mann and all the proposed overpasses should have been in place 10 years ago.
Watch, listen, go to the meetings, and ask questions, no matter where you live. It might not be in your back yard today but it could be tomorrow. At least that’s what McGregor says.
As such, they are 10 years behind and will do nothing for future development south of the Fraser.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Density vs. Policing
The problem with increasing density is that the the police can't keep up. Due to the high cost of policing, cities and townships never seem to provide adequate funds for the police to meet the increased challenges and complexities within a rapidly growing area - part of growing pains. Unfortunately these growing pains allow more organized and more sophisticated crime to take root. You have seen this take place over the past decade within Langley and a number of people have died violently because of these activities. Now people may say that the organized crime and gangs have nothing to do with the rapid influx of development in Langley, then I say: who do you think they feed off of other than the tens of thousands of new people now living here?
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Compressive Housing
def. Compressive housing
n. 1. Planning and constructing as many houses or
living spaces possible on a parcel of land therefore increasing the livable density
of an area. This includes townhouses,
row housing, condominiums, or any type of multifamily dwelling that is built
up or stacked vertically or horizontally with very little or no space between units. This type
of housing is often used to increase the tax base of an area or to maximize a
developer’s profits.
2. Packing as many people as you
can into a living space.
3. Reducing lot sizes to accommodate
many multifamily dwellings.
4. A favela.
4. A favela.
 |
 |
 |
Brazilian Favela... |
Development is a Dirty Word
I think that word development is abhorrent to most of the residents of Brookswood, unfortunately the Township website displays a certain way of thinking (maybe they are thinking about it too much) - so I fixed it. :)
In for a penny in for a pound - maybe?
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".
Friday, October 19, 2012
Let's Compare
On the left is the heart of a well established Brookswood - large lots and the tall trees that the area is named after. On the right is what the Township will let the Developers do to Brookswood and the Griffith Neighbourhood if they get their way. Now the Township and the Developers will try to convince us that they will make a better community. I say they won't - half way through they will change their plans, make deals, and allow variances. We have seen it happen already in North Langley. It is best not to allow major development (or what I call Compressive Housing) to happen in the first place. Now, which area would you rather live in?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)