A reminder to leave something for the next generation.

Densification has not improved housing affordability

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/barbara+yaffe+densification+improved+housing+affordability/11371801/story.html?__lsa=8c6f-d4de
 

Hey how's that Public Public Engagement Committee Going? Are you Keeping the Public Engagement Public? Or are the Results Not Your Liking so You're Going to Keep the Engagement of the Public Private? After all a Municipal Oligarchy is Much Better than Openness and Due Process to the People Involved...

Btw having the Mayor appoint himself chair of a Standing Committee on Public Engagement just pollutes the process and causes skewed results - especially when the Mayor has proven to be biased.

Brookswood OCP Redux...

They are going to try and resurrect the Brookwood OCP.  I'm sure the developers are pushing hard for this and are more than gently reminding members of our council of the money they gave to their campaigns or discussing their future support in some secret way...

Might I remind council that the 2014 input and findings are what caused such an uproar, a demonstration, a march, signs everywhere, bad provincial press, and multiple night marathon counsel meetings containing angry residents.

People were angry with the bate-and-switch techniques used in the planning process and the general dishonesty by withholding information and attempts at spin...

It is this dishonesty displayed during the planning process and the fact that the GNAC had direct access to the planner and was influencing the outcome that further aggravated residents causing them to act.

The resulting bias made the 2014 report unreliable and suspect.

If there is an attempt to use the 2014 findings I suspect there will be a repeat of the outrage shown a year ago as many on the counsel may remember.

But then again we are destined to make the same mistakes over and over again until we learn our lesson, so why would our local politicians be any different?

Flooding in Langley City

WOW, that's a lot of rain coming down lately!

You know the developers haven't left many trees behind in Willoughby et all to slow the water down that is soaking us all from the sky.  I wonder if this will cause flooding in Langley City and the low lying areas of Langley Township?

If so it could be costly and take much to initiate and manage the extraordinary measures at flood control as a result.

Would that be called negligence on the part of the TOL Planning department and the Developers who were in such a rush to tear up all the trees to slap together their versions of buildings?

There is no wonder why the city of Langley was so interested in the OCP fight a year ago.  They knew they were going to have flood issues if a mass high density development happened in Brookswood.

It's going to be an interesting future in the two Langley's.

There is no greater indication of the goodness of a person's character and moral fiber than the approbation of the community around them.

Good to see some months of discussion hapening.

Remember to act after its conclusion.  Also remember that not all criminals, homeless people or druggies want to be saved, so you have to think about what do do with them.  That is if you dive into this thinking you are going to save them.

Langley City task forces will look at homelessness, crime issues

http://www.langleytimes.com/news/290578401.html

Langley transportation vote debate

http://www.cbc.ca/news/langley-transportation-vote-debate-1.2919578

Does Jack (who lives close to Abbostford) promise that after he helps raise transit taxes he wont go to Abbotsford to by goods and gas?  Will he make use of the scores of buses that 'Link Transportation' service throughout Aldergrove, an area where Jack lives?  I'm sure the business owners and my fellow Langley Citizens would agree that we aren't getting much for the tons of funds that we are throwing down the Translink well.

Personally I think TransLink is a bit of a scam - and a poorly run one at that.

See also a piece by Eric Woodward:  http://www.langleycitizen.com/2015/01/09/120

Some perspective on Brookswood development - Letter to the Editor

 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Some perspective on Brookswood development

posted Jul 21, 2014 at 5:00 PM by Joel Nagtegaal - Langley

http://www.langleytimes.com/opinion/letters/268026121.html

I did write: save Brookswood from becoming "a crowded urban wasteland of row housing and condos” and I'm glad that it's getting some attention and in fact prompted your thoughtful letter.

I thought of writing that line just as I headed south over the bridge at 208th and hwy 1.  As I looked around what came to mind was a wasteland, a sterile, treeless and unimaginative cyst on the Langley landscape, brought about by those who worship a candy-coated international box style chosen for it's ability to shoehorn as many families into as small an area as possible thus maximize the money intake or in other words: 'Profit Enhancement.'  It's obvious the developers are in control there while the planners flop around like so many stunned fish.

Our planning department could have prevented this but they let the developers have their way.  Those developers promptly shunned thoughtful infrastructure in favour of profits - their ill conceived leavings to be mopped up by the taxpayers at a later time.  You may not like my choice of words but they are fully informed from observation.  I chose not to be blind and decided to protect the future of Brookswood.

People got upset in Brookswood for the developers, planners and township officials thought they could play us for fools.  That they could just come in unopposed and 'set-up shop' like they have done everywhere else in the lower mainland.   That a population of 42K, and the widening 40th avenue to 4 lanes and shoving it through Brookswood park could just be slid into the plans near the end of the planning process as long as they felt the breeze was blowing their way.  That they could slap each other on their backs and revel in their good luck for they were on their way to more easy cash. 

I agree with you, I would like to improve Brookswood while preserving and actually building upon the character and natural beauty of the area.  But the developers and planners will have to be super careful and do everything properly.  Even then developers have to be watched to ensure they stick to the plan and don't make backroom, under the table deals with the township as is their nature, and the township will have to be watched to make sure they are above board and don't feel that they are their own bosses, as is their nature here in Langley.

For as we have found out with developers and their township 'friends' throughout the lower mainland over the last few decades, trust (or lack of) is a serious issue and screwing the existing residents is part of their game.

The next 4 years will be about People who Destroy against People who Preserve.

Who will win?  What will we have left once the 4 years are over?

Democracy at its finest. Some democratic trampling has happened here. Now how can we expect our local politicians to follow the straight and narrow when higher government policitians act like total idiots?

 http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/gerry-taft/jumbo-vote-election-resort_b_6153874.html

FOI request exposes lack of transparency within Metro Vancouver's 21 city halls

http://www.vancouversun.com/touch/story.html?id=10359919

Name recognition on a voting ballot doesn't mean public approbation...

Question: How do you become a politician without acting like a politician?

Ban special interests from BC election financing: Huntington

Our local politicians are being influenced right now - with money... lot's of it.  How is that going to affect our future?

http://www.vickihuntington.ca/content/ban-special-interests-bc-election-financing-huntington

OCTOBER 15TH 2014

 

Victoria, B.C. – Delta South MLA Vicki Huntington introduced a bill challenging the government to outlaw corporate, union, and out-of-province political donations by restricting contributions to individual British Columbians.

“It’s time to give political influence back to the people of B.C., where it properly belongs” says Huntington, directing her request to Minister of Justice Suzanne Anton.

“Only the government wants to leave the floodgates open for corporate, union, and out-of-province political donations,” says Huntington. “Banning these kinds of donations should be our number one goal if we want to level the playing field and improve voter confidence in decisions made by our elected officials.”

Introducing a campaign finance reform bill last Thursday, Huntington stated: “This bill reasserts the principles of our democratic values by limiting the right to donate to the very people of British Columbia we report to — the individual voter.”

While the B.C. NDP and Green parties support campaign finance reform, the government does not. Huntington says she hopes to draw the attention of B.C.’s Justice Minister, whose Cabinet mandate letter tasks her with reviewing the provincial Election Act. “Minister Anton opposed corporate, union and out-of-province donations in her previous role as a municipal councilor and spoke favorably of the federal campaign finance reforms, which ban corporate and union donations.

“Now, we need Minister Anton to put her words into action for B.C.”

The Election Finance Amendment Act was first introduced by Huntington as part of the independent Democratic Reform Agenda Huntington co-sponsored with then-independent MLAs Bob Simpson and John van Dongen. Last week, Huntington also introduced a democratic reform bill that would have B.C. join the federal government and seven other provinces by moving B.C.’s fixed election date from the spring to the fall, thereby preventing the election from interfering with the provincial budget process.

Do you ever wonder if local campains have become too BIG considering the importance of the positions? Like come on, campain managers for Municipal Elections??

It is sad that this election in Langley will be all about money vs morals - with money mongers attacking moral minders.

Jack Froese on Housing...

 http://www.langleytimes.com/news/278598431.html?mobile=true

Langley Township Mayor Jack Froese said many Fraser Valley communities – including his – need to find ways to get more rental homes on the market.

"Not everybody wants to own a house," he said.

The audience included many major development and home construction firms.

Froese said developers want to build as efficiently and profitably as possible, but noted municipalities must plan carefully with an eye to the future.

Future residential development in Langley's Brookswood area will be controversial, he said, but called it a logical fit with development just to the west in Surrey, where the Campbell Heights industrial park is increasingly a magnet for jobs.

Against his original mandate Froese is pro-development.

In fact just about everyone wants to own a house.  Many can't afford one for this very reason.

Stop the foreign speculative real estate investment and things will become less expensive.  If the property is foreign owned then charge them more property tax for the honour of owning a part of Canadian soil.  Housing and revenue alleviated...

With regards to Brookswood: We will always be prepared Jack to stop you from slashing and hacking up Brookswood like you did with Willoughby.

OPEN LETTER TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL

http://mclellanpark.blogspot.ca/2014/10/open-letter-to-mayor-and-council.html

An Open Letter to Mayor and Council

October 7,2014

Dear Mayor and Council,

On March 20, the Langley Times reported that Township staff were preparing a report for Township Council identifying Township-owned properties that could be sold to pay for future infrastructure in Langley Township. We the undersigned, are concerned about the implications  of this article. Six months have passed without this staff report being made public. We write to you with the assumption that it has not yet been presented to Council.

As the article acknowledges, past and present policy with regard to the sale of what the Township has identified as “surplus property” has generated much controversy. The approach that the Township has taken appears to many to be secretive and reactive. There is an obvious need for a process with greater transparency, one grounded in sound planning.

The lands belonging to the Township are the collective property of the community of Langley. Decisions regarding the management of 'surplus properties' greatly impact the public good and will affect the patterns of future development in the neighbourhoods in which they are located. Decisions regarding the sale or retention of these lands  must take a long-term view. We are particularly concerned that the ecological value of  'surplus properties'  be given greater consideration.

Under the current approach, it appears that the Township has proceeded without adequately considering or  informing itself about the ecology of parcels placed on the market. It has therefore been left to individual citizens and community groups to bring these issues to the attention of Council and Staff. In response to protest Township has made ad hoc corrections that have failed to address the larger problem. The danger that significant ecosystems could be lost remains. 

Although heartened by the implication that the above mentioned staff report will be released to the public upon receipt by Council, there are a number of additional steps that we feel Mayor and Council can undertake.

1) Council should direct Staff to undertake consultations with stewardship groups and other environmental and community groups to assist in the preparation of thestaff report. Upon completion of the staff report, it should be presented to Council and released to the public at the same time. We urge Council to authorize this action in a timely manner and to see that the completion of the report is not delayed.

2) Develop a comprehensive inventory of Township lands that would be publicly accessible on the web. In time this could include the results of ecological surveys of individual properties that have been prepared by public or private entities.

3)  Prepare a comprehensive plan for the sale and retention of Township lands that takes into account the ecological value of particular parcels. The impact on Langley aquifers from any resulting destruction of forests and wetlands must be considered.The Township should  commit itself to the principle that our natural heritage should not be sacrificed in the development of modern amenities.

 4) Council has made it a uniform practice to invoke Section 90 of the Community Charter as a way of closing meetings of Council to the public when land sales are under consideration. The resulting lack of transparency compounds the difficulties in the issues already discussed. When a sale is well-advised, this practice hinders maximum advertising to prospective buyers, and when a sale is ill-advised it prevents the public from seeing their elected representatives debate the proposal. The public interest is thus served by greater transparency in both instances.Only exceptional circumstances can justify invoking Section 90 in the circumstance  of land sales. We strongly urge Council to invoke Section 90 sparingly in the case of land sales and on a case by case basis.

5)The comprehensive plan should recognize that although a policy of selling off real estate to generate capital can have merit in some circumstances care must be taken that land worth more monetarily in the future could be lost through poor planning. Holding on to 'surplus properties' may also provide a much needed source of income in the future.

Finally, we urge Council to take these steps in a timely manner so that the ensuing discussion and debate on Council and amongst the public can begin before, and not after, the upcoming municipal election this November. We would encourage Council and staff to begin the  process by meeting with community groups prior to November 1st. We would be pleased to participate in such a meeting.  

Respectfully,

Watchers of Langley Forests

Salmon River Enhancement Society

*Both groups have reviewed this letter and being convinced that the issue  is an important one that should be addressed they have joined together to send this letter.

Money > Logic & Common Sense

The Langley formula...

Danger in the Woods

Who is living in the woods around the Langley Event Center and why are they undressing in front of kids?

Brookswood residents still being hit by thieves.

The guy seems pretty casual about it.  Police are not a concern.

Editorial — Fighting city hall is a tough fight to win

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

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

1 comment:

1. 
   AnonymousJuly 16, 2014 at 1:31 PM

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

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

We are all to blame.

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

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

Canada dead last in ranking for environmental protection

PAUL WALDIE

LONDON — THE GLOBE AND MAIL

Canada has fallen behind in a global ranking on international development initiatives and ranks last when it comes to environmental protection.

The Washington-based Center for Global Development assesses 27 wealthy nations annually on their commitment to seven areas that impact the world’s poor. Canada came 13th in this year’s survey, which will be released Monday. Denmark led the list, followed by Sweden and Norway, with Japan and South Korea at the bottom.

The rankings are based on the center’s “commitment to development index”, or CDI, which tracks each country’s performance in foreign aid, openness to trade, policies that encourage investment, openness to migration, environmental protection, promoting security and supporting technology creation. The countries were chosen because they are all members of an OECD group involved in aid and development measures. Countries such as Russia, China, India and Brazil are not included in the survey because they are not members of the OECD group.

Canada dropped from 12th place last year and did far worse in the environmental protection category, where it ranked 27th. Every other country made progress in this area except Canada, the centre said in a report on the rankings.

Canada “has the dubious honor of being the only CDI country with an environment score which has gone down since we first calculated the CDI [in 2003],” the report said. “This reflects rising fossil fuel production and its withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol, the world’s only treaty governing the emissions of heat-trapping gasses. Canada has dropped below the U.S. into bottom place on the environment component.”

Owen Barder, a senior fellow at the centre who prepared the index, said in an interview that the environment category has become one of the bright spots in the survey. “Environment is the one part of our index that has really seen improvement and Canada has been the only country that’s fallen,” he said. “My expectation would have been that Canada is environmentally friendly, Canadians all seem to take the environment seriously.”

The major reasons for Canada’s poor showing, he said, were pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol and having one of the highest levels of greenhouse gas production per capita. Canada also has low gasoline taxes, which don’t encourage conservation, and high subsidies for fishing, which impacts fish stocks. Slovakia and Hungary came first and second in the environment category mainly because both have some of the highest gas taxes among the 27 nations and the lowest greenhouse gas emissions.

Canada scored best in trade and migration, where it finished fourth and third respectively. On trade, the centre cited Canada’s low tariffs on agricultural imports as helping poorer nations. And on migration the centre said Canada is among the leaders in welcoming immigrants and students from developing countries.

Over all, Mr. Barder said this year’s survey demonstrated that not much has changed in the last decade in terms of international development. “We, the rich countries, have been making promises [at Group of 20 meetings] to pursue development-friendly policies and our index doesn’t pick up very much evidence that things have changed,” he said. “And you would expect to see that. So this is a dog that didn’t bark story. This dog should be barking by now and it’s not.”

He added that the environment has been a notable exception mainly because of the extraordinary compliance with the 1987 Montreal protocol on reducing chemicals that damage the ozone. The compliance rate has exceeded 98 per cent and many countries in Europe have gone beyond the protocol’s requirements.

“What we’ve seen is actual follow through and give credit where credit is due,” he said. “It has actually been implemented.”

He added that despite the overall lack of progress on development issues there is room for optimism. “The optimistic part is that within these different policy areas there are some really good countries doing really good things. And that seems to be politically viable for those countries and it doesn’t seem to cause them any economic or social harm,” he said. “It does make you think that there is considerable room for improvement in a politically viable way.”

Follow Paul Waldie on Twitter: @PwaldieGLOBE

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

Letter: Fort Langley open house perplexity closed.

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

Dear Editor,

I recently attended an invitation-only “open house” for a new development at Mavis and McBride in Fort Langley.

I live in Fort Langley, but I was not invited. None of my neighbours around Fort Langley knew anything about it, so only a handful of people were there.

Is this how open houses are conducted in Langley Township?

It appears the developer got a special list of people to contact from Township planning staff. How is that is acceptable?

Why would the developer go to the trouble of hosting an “open house,” if they don’t want anyone to know about it? It doesn’t seem very “open.” How can you get a feel from the community when it is less than a handful of people?

Perhaps this is why: the proposed development would create 21 new townhouses on half an acre. The OCP permits seven. It will require a change to the OCP that will effectively triple the density in Fort Langley going forward.

It seems like a fairly big change in what is permitted for the zoning of the area. Does this mean future developments will be given the same allowance?

It is concerning to me: 21 units there equates to 40 units per acre, double the typical density of Willoughby, and triple the density permitted.

It is more than triple the density of the brand new McBride Station, a wonderful village-like development perfectly appropriate for Fort Langley.

I am hoping that Fort Langley is not going to become the next Clayton.

Is this really how planning is done in the Township of Langley? Do our planners support it? According to the architect, they do.

What is the justification for tripling the density? I couldn’t get an answer to that question, so I am assuming it must be profit.

In truth, I couldn’t get a lot of concrete answers to a great deal of my questions, which was concerning to me. I encourage you to try your luck finding any information online about it, or anyone’s name on the invitation.

It seems like this development and its ability to bypass our existing zoning is being kept as quiet as possible. How is this happening?

If you want to triple the density of someone else’s neighbourhood, you should engage the community properly and sincerely, not with invitation-only “open houses.”

Council should send a clear message right away that this is not acceptable. We need our council to remain accountable.

We need our Township Planning Department to make its intentions clear to our community, so we are at least made aware of how they plan to shape our city.

Dawn Crawford, Fort Langley

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...