Slow it down and consider...

Evi Mustel: West may be best but can cities retain their quality of life?

http://blogs.theprovince.com/2014/06/26/evi-mustel-west-may-be-best-but-can-cities-retain-their-quality-of-life/

Westerners love where they live and think the future of the Canadian economy lies in the West, not the East. But dig deeper into the data and you find there is a caveat to all this optimism. Westerners also think that there are major challenges that lie ahead for the West’s fast-growing cities,

citing a host of issues that will only be solved by major public and private investment.

Mustel Group took this snapshot of the West’s urban residents for CityAge.org, an international network of city builders. Conducted in partnership with AskingCanadians, the poll shows that 86 per cent believe that Canada’s future economic growth will come primarily from the West.

Partly for this reason, 92 per cent of westerners believe that the quality of life is better in their cities than anywhere else. In addition to the economic benefits of living in the West, city dwellers think the size and density of their communities, the pace of life, friendliness of their cities, their access to recreation and nature and, in B.C., the weather (because it allows for more outdoor play) are key reasons for rating their quality of life as high.

But there is a sense all these positives can’t be taken for granted.

All western cities are facing unprecedented growth and the No. 1 concern by residents is how newcomers will be accommodated. The poll found that the top concern for westerners is urban sprawl, loss of agricultural land and the densification of established neighbourhoods.

The urban West is also concerned about whether their communities can provide the needed infrastructure as their communities grow. In addition to the basics — water, sewer, etc. — there is concern that soft infrastructure such as parks, schools, hospitals and other essential foundations of a healthy city will not keep up with growing demand.

Westerners are worried about transportation infrastructure, and are already frustrated with their current systems, particularly in Vancouver and Calgary where congestion is among the worst in North America.

Other top-level concerns about growth are environmental impacts such as air quality and the increased cost of housing, despite planners and developers assuring the public that more housing will help control prices. There is a growing sense that our economies are not sufficiently diversified as the energy sector comes under increasing scrutiny and that neighbourhoods are becoming disconnected because of growing ethnic enclaves from high levels of immigration.

This snapshot — indicating a high level of contentment but a deep concern that we may not be prepared to deal with major challenges — is a good guide for our political leaders in the years ahead.

At the root of many of these concerns is a frustration that city residents are not being engaged, consulted and included in decision-making. Western communities typically do not receive high marks from residents for their community engagement initiatives.

While most really don’t want to see things change, they know change is inevitable and want to have a seat at the table and be included in the planning of their communities. It is time for communities to bring in professional expertise in community engagement, and not solely rely on planners to manage this process. The West can lead this new approach to urban planning.

Evi Mustel is president of
Mustel Group, a Vancouver-based market and opinion research company. Survey partner, AskingCanadians, is an online data-collection firm with access to a research
community of more than 600,000 Canadians.

Political Sponsorship Disclosure - Real Time!

I think it's only fair that politicians provide real time electronic disclosure of all political contributions.  There is no excuse not to do so in today's information age.  It would be easy to do and would help limit bias and corruption...  If you have the integrity you say you have and profess that you are seeking office to serve and help the voters (with every once of your heart), then you should have nothing to worry about for you have nothing to hide?  Right?

Well?  What say you?  You are honest aren't you??

Oh Where Oh Where have all the Traffic Cops gone?

Common Sense in Langley??

Here's a thought.  Infrastructure before development...  What a concept!!  Roads, medical care, utilities, adequate schools.  I know these this are hard to plan but shouldn't they be in place before you go crazy and bulk-out on development??

Or...  are you letting the developers do it all?

If so, I don't think they care.

Remember, we have something grand to work with here, and many examples around us in other municipalities to teach us what not to do.

Let's not have little minds and be foolishly consistent...

The temporary clear cutting prohibition vote passed 7 to 2.

And the same two councilors voted against it.  Hmm, I wonder about them...

What's... the hurry guys?

With a worsening large glut of condos on the market dragging down housing prices one would safely assume that developers are chomping at the bit to develop the area quickly so they can make the most money  they can before prices fall.

This is interesting situation in Langley since the last Brookswood/Ferridge OCP was defeated.  It's also telling...

Watch the counselors to see which ones are pushing too hard to get the new OCP instituted using the old OCP that they found so unpalatable (two counselors are already suspect), that might indicate they are in the service of some developer out there or has been promised something good by a third party.

You never know what sort of deals politicians make behind closed doors but if you observe them closely things might be revealed...

I for one like my counselors working for me, and I don't like it when I discover they are in the employ of someone else.

Is AECOM working for the GNAC?

The thing I want to know is this:

Let's say the Township staff, two representatives of the GNAC and the AECOM consultant Mr. Tinney are all in the same room, at the same table planning how this process is to be conducted.  They're all together talking, planning things, having breaks together, laughing together and possibly setting up play-dates for their kids (you never know.)  How is there not cross-pollination and influence here, espescially if the GNAC after paying their $500K has a mandate to get their way?

If I pay for something I want it done well and I want it done my way, so why would it be any different with the GNAC reps?

This entire process didn’t make sense, first the projected population is increased after the majority of people declared they didn’t want it, then even the definition of what low density is changed and the numbers increased.  There are other things but that should raise red flags.

It seems this points towards the Consultant being influenced by the GNAC or AECOM is playing the Township while accepting further monies from the GNAC.

Is the council being played?

If I was on Council I wouldn't touch this thing with a 10 foot pole.  Something isn't right and if it's not right I wouldn't ever sign my name to any document (even a rehash as is being planned) until I knew it was clean for I may be dragged into an investigation and/or legal action in the future if it's found that there was a breach of contract or a breach of fiduciary duty.

That's me, I'm not them, you never know what they will do...

THE PLAN is TAINTED!

Since the GNAC paid for the Brookswood/Fernridge 2014 OCP to the sum of $500K and had a say on how it was to be administered and directed.  Since the Township counsel didn't use existing Township staff and instead hired a private contractor (AECOM), worse, AECOM is an American company bent on progressive large project development planning with it's roots in oil and gas - any money paid to them is siphoned off to another country instead of staying in the region.  Plus the AECOM Consultant asked the residents loaded questions, manipulated and spun the data and played with the definitions to favour a higher level of urbanization against the overwhelming wishes of the community (one questions why?)  And since the Township of Langley staff didn't adequately notify and inform the residents of Brookswood/Fernridge about the impending and ongoing OCP process.  Since certain members of council have shown, and still show, an unhealthy interest in the OCP alteration and seem to favour the developers and land owners who will benefit most from this plan...

Since all of the above plus bias and conflict of interest has occurred, this plan and the process used to create THE PLAN is TAINTED and the entire document results and data should be scrapped.

 Also this plan HAS JUST BEEN DEFEATED.  There were strong reasons for that. 

I know you want to regurgitate the existing plan and use it, but it should not be attempted.

Stormwater

A wise person pointed something out to me today.  He said:

"Interesting how Creeks and Streams become referred to as "STORMWATER" as soon as the area is to be developed."

 Let's gloss over the fact that there are salmon spawning grounds in those streams...

Why did The Township of Langley choose an American company to develop the OCP in Brookswood/Fernridge?

I found this comment from Kim Richter both amusing and sad...

"As I was touring Brookswood on Saturday afternoon in preparation for Monday's council meeting, I was very surprised to see a deer grazing behind the fence of the Langley Rod and Gun club property at 208th and 40th! How ironic that the only sanctuary in Langley for deer is at the Rod & Gun club! Too much clear cutting perhaps?"  Kim Richter

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.