Vecchiato's Voice - On Contentious Issues in Langley - Mufford Overpass & Brown Pit

Winter brings stasis to life. Community events dwindle due to the glorious northern weather. However, the two issues that seem to dominate the pages--not including the issue of a middle school in Aldergrove--are the Brown Pit reopening and the Mufford Crescent overpass.

I avoided the overpass open house. I really am not sure of the motivation behind this, except to get federal funds. As a parent, I'm a Flip City patron, and have no problem getting there via the By Pass and Glover. However, I won't why anyone would dare turn left from Mufford to Glover. Mel Kositsky had a good idea, telling people to go up 208th. What disturbs me is that funds are earmarked for projects they want, not ones that the taxpayers might want. I know I can hear the civil servant whine in chorus about consultation and open houses, but funds should not be prearranged for a specific project. Change is inevitable, and perhaps the best argument against the proposed plan has been Mr. Mufford, whose livelihood this affects. I also would like to applaud Wally Martin to point out the core issue: more trains right through the middle of a growing suburb. The South Fraser Perimeter Road and Deltaport Expansions are disasters in an already damaged ecosystem, despite numerous protests. Rafe Mair referred to Gordon Campbell as an autocrat, and he couldn't be more descriptive. Perhaps if Campbell studied Mussolini, he could also get the trains to run on time so that we'd know when to avoid any rail crossings.

Regarding gravel extraction, one of the residents near Brown Pit, Bob Moats, sent the following letter to speak out against the "done deal" gravel extraction. Perhaps it is in his and other residents' favor that it is an election year. With his permission, his letter is reprinted below.

Dear Editor

The BC Liberal government proposes to “Rape Mother Langley” but promises to study it first.

The proposed mining of Brown Pit in Langley Township for provincial Port Mann and freeway construction gravel is an unconscionable act which cannot occur without every aspect of community, water safety and environmental integrity being devastated. This is in spite of a long standing moratorium on gravel extraction in the Township of Langley.

Our community group has just learned that “the plan” calls for 1 million cubic yards of gravel removal. This makes their claim of no damage to the aquifer, water quality and community and leaving this ALR land in improved agricultural shape when finished an untrue statement. Let me explain:

Let’s put size in context:

My home is a 6.4 acre lot bordering the south 700 feet of Brown Pit (the area that still has gravel). The foot print of 1 million cubic yards is 1/3rd the volume of the Giza Pyramid whose base covers 13 acres (exactly double my lot) and attains a height of 450 ft. So the ground footprint of the excavation of my north border would be 700 feet long and 400 feet wide (the pit itself isn’t that wide so it would have to go deeper than the 50 – 100 ft deep to round out to 1 million cubic yards. This is a frightful image.

The damage to the Hopington aquifer would be stunning. All the oil and other toxic material dripping from machinery would travel for miles in the gravel (any one remember Walkerton). The gravel is God’s water filter and with the extraction the gravel would be gone. The natural filtering process destroyed – the damage incalculable.

I have questions and so should you all.

1. If the provincial government is so incredibly comfortable turning their back on fair play on the Cambie Street corridor and in Delta – would we expect to be treated differently? Should we be comforted by “we’ll do a study” (surveying for the freeway ramp is done as are 4 test wells). Is surveying part of the pre-study process? Do they as we suspect consider this a “done deal”.
2. With a gargantuan hole 700x400x50-100 feet deep does anyone believe that they will “restore it for agricultural use”? That is being economical with the truth – more precisely a lie. Such a fill project would be virtually impossible – whose quality soil would they steal to fulfill this pipedream?
3. We recently (last 2 years) were subjected to the filling of part of the old pit. They hauled for weeks making our roads unsafe and dumping illegal material (hog fuel) into the old pit. They contaminated adjacent wells (hog fuel) and when finished it didn’t make a dent in the old gravel evacuation space. Restore to agricultural use indeed!
4. Is the ALR protecting our bread basket or are they a thinly veiled Liberal rubber stamp? We’re told that this project has preliminary ALR approval – how can that be possible if anybody is doing their job or had a functional conscience.

Our group is methodically gathering facts and information and the more we gather (1 million cubic yards) the more frightened and outraged we become.

Many people are concerned about this issue. Many more facts are still hidden from us but we will find them. Meanwhile I will not stand quietly and idly by while unprincipled people in government without a conscience commit a premeditated Rape of Mother Langley.

Bob Moats
Langley Township

LFP EDITOR NOTE: You can view Bob Moats on our LFP YouTube video on the overpass and Brown Pit.

Cathleen Vecchiato has been an outspoken environmentalist for many years. She is the recognized champion of the environment and a community activist in Langley and other adjoining communities. View her full bio and read all her LFP postings at this link. Editor-LFP......

Vecchiato's Voice - April 24, 2008 - Musings On Homelessness, Bureaucratic Dialogues, Surrey's Campbell Heights Sucks & Nationalism

HOMELESSNESS
An angry letter to the editor about the new Salvation Army facility probably echoed a lot of people's feelings. I'm not particularly keen on their new location and the recommendation of the old Apex site would have been far better.

But I think we get myopic when we view others' situations from afar.

My 50-year-old brother is homeless. When he's not homeless, he is in a correctional facility in Arizona. If he sneezes on a street corner, they pick him up. He looks like the sort of man who would really annoy cops (and his mother). Think it doesn't get cold in the mountains there? It snows. When you see people riding their bikes with bags of cans on their bike, that's my brother.

When he was 21, he rolled his car off a cliff near Baghdad, Arizona, where my dad has procured a job for him at a basalt mine. My brother stayed in a coma for two months, and when he awakened, a halo supporting his neck, he opened his mouth and asked the nurses, "What are you doing in my f***ing room?" Obviously he missed his epiphany. That was 29 years ago.

Substance abuse and brain injuries aren't disabilities people necessary seek. Starting to drink at age 12 is the ultimate case of arrested development. There are people, too, who can't live nor work within a fixed environment. I think it' is something like social claustrophobia.

I just finished a memoir by Jeannette Walls called The Glass Castle, where ultimately, she and her sister and brother end up successful and their parents are squatters in an abandoned building in Manhattan. The parents like it that way. They can't function within the system.

I knew another man who lived in Langley but suffered from mental illness. The guy was brilliant and read the Greek philosophers, but his ability to function within this world would never change. He walked into the river with stones in his pockets on a cold March evening. Why, you might ask? If you knew his story, how the neighborhood kids used to stick firecrackers in his ears and light them, you'd see how people become damaged goods and end up beneath the cold surface of river waters. .

I once went to the Armory in San Mateo, California, which opened as a shelter when a blast of cold gusted in from the Arctic. One young man lived there or in his car, showered at the gym, and went to work every day. He couldn't afford rent because he had to pay child support and alimony.

It happens. Everyone spins a different tale as to how they become the guy on the bike with the cans, the philanthropist, or the customer service rep at Telus. Ninety-nine percent of the people on probation have a substance abuse problem. Instead of condemning, maybe the solutions have to come earlier rather than after the sordid fact.

* * *
A DIALOGUE WITH THE MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT FIELD OFFICE

I was in the midst of drafting a letter in response to the glaring clear cut on 200th and 29th. It's just one of many. The national anthem of Brookswood is the chainsaw, and I've adjusted to it in the fall and winter; however, when nesting season begins, no one seems interested in species protection, which is actually legislated provincially and federally. So I called the provincial hotline and the federal CWS pager to guarantee the numbers were current . A field officer called me back from the regional office Tuesday morning and told me that the five acres in questions was private property and they could do what they wanted. (I'm thinking, This guy's a conservation officer?)

I said, "I was under the impression that nesting birds are protected regardless of where they are."

No, he countered, adding that only eagle and heron nests are protected. He told me that, of course, there would be animals in the trees and that the ministry was dealing with huge logging sites. I mentioned that the combined amount of clearing in Surrey, Langley and Abbotsford equalled a logging site, and also that I believed pileated woodpeckers were blue listed. He didn't know, and said that just because someone sees a woodpecker doesn't mean there's a nest. I told him my report came from upset residents on the adjoining lot (who are going to be royally creamed with wind throw in the winter.

Finally, I said, "Then we must be reading two different pieces of legislation or you've changed the Wildlife Act where it states that you cannot harm a nesting bird or its egg."

He begged to differ, so I said, "OK, then I'll call Barry Penner's office, even though he never calls anyone back."

I was told Penner was really busy.

I got my American gut going. "When I needed assistance and called my U.S Congressman Tom Lantos; he had a staff member call me back right away, and I think a U.S. congressman is far more important than Barry Penner."

Five minutes later he called me back to report that yes, nesting birds are protected. I have to give the guy credit for getting back to me. His inability to know the provincial legislation followed on the heels of the planning staff member at Township Council who did not know when nesting season began.

****
CAMPBELL HEIGHTS SUCKS

If you've ever been to an open house hosted by developer's consultants, think: slick marketing. Such was the case with High Point and most recently Campbell Heights Business Park. The consultants, Binnie & Asssociates, had great displays; you'd think it was a Sierra Club presentation with promises of habitat and streams. People like to say that Stokes Pit and Latimer Lake were man-made, which is true; however, they've had over 60 years to regeneration the ecosystem to the point of it being classed as an Environmentally Sensitive Area #1.

The attendees I liked best were the residents from the local trailer courts and the Semiahmoo Fish and Game Clubbers, who have been fighting this for decades. What is proposed is a mere anorexic strip along 196 that even an overweight raccoon would have to suck in his stomach to traverse. The verdant gullies and hills that lead to the actual site of the Campbell River are particularly small, just enough, in fact, to satisfy fisheries.

The problem I see has numerous edges. One: What Surrey does impacts Langley and vice versa. Industrial and commercial pay for themselves while residential does not (iddn't your taxes just go up?). Surrey gets the industrial, and we'll get East Clayton-style 3500 square foot homes that are not praftical nor affordable. Two: Many people agree that 192 and 24th was a bad spot for an industrial park: no public transit, not near anything resembling pavement, and just reflects the sprawl mentality of development. the City of Surrey erred mightily when it allowed the amount of clearing done, resulting in a virtual wildlife cull. Even the guys from Progessive were sick about it, or so it was reported. They drown trapped all the beavers, diverted the renaturalized channels and put in new ones without any shade so they could take the parking lot run off. River experts say that a lack of shade makes the water too warm for salmon. Surrey also allowed the water table to be lowered by one meeting, this drying up Latimer Lake that looks like a huge cesspool in the summer. And because our aquifer is unconfined, there are water issues at stake.

Unfortunately for the new stakeholders, they are picking up the pieces of a botched job. I'd rather see them build where they've cleared (a huge amount of barren land land with services installed already along 192) and do a land swap at one of the fill sites or gravel pits in the area. It could work, if there is a will.

Oh, and the consultants claimed that it is sustainable. There are two words I want banned from all newspapers: green and sustainable. If you say a word often enough, it loses its power. Try that with four letter words. It works.

*****
NATIONALISM

I talked to a border agent today who used to work the Vancouver Airport. On the day the U.S. invaded Iraq, his 7 year old's teacher had the boy come to the front of the class and was asked to explain why his country was killing people. I am wondering how the teacher ever completed five years of university, especially knowing that the dad worked for the U.S. government.

Perhaps I feel guilty about saying Barry Penner is less important than recently deceased Tom Lantos, who represented part of San Francisco and the Peninsula. Maybe I'm older and less self absorbed, but I notice things more, and what I feel is an absolute contempt by government for the public. Of course, it's often not different in the States, but here it seems so blatant that they must think we are all stupid.

I love people who write letters to the editor, like the woman today who said the anti Gateway to Hope people were called assholes by city Council. Isn't expressing yourself great?

Regarding stupidity, a recent report in The Vancouver Sun's business section read, "Energy companies expect to announce windfall profits" and subtitled "Analysts say firms need to figure out best way to use high-than-expected earnings." The report, which was out of Calgary only confirms the fact that not only politicians think we are stupid.

Cathleen

Cathleen Vecchiato has been an outspoken environmentalist for many years. She is a very well recognized champion of the environment and a community activist in Langley as well as in other adjoining communities. Cathleen formed and leads the Langley Conservation Network. Editor-LFP...

Letter To The Editor - Feb 14, 2008 - From Paul Richard - RE: Support Plastic Bag Phase out

Students support plastic bag phase out

Representatives of a group of environmental students from Kwantlen University College spoke in favour of the motion to phase out plastic bags in the City of Vancouver, and presented a petition to that effect.

The petition collected over 700 signatures in support of a tax to discourage the unnecessary use of the bags. While the motion does not refer to a tax, the intent of the petition is the same, said Ashley Bangsund, a spokesperson for the group. "We asked for a tax because we thought it was one of the ways to reduce the excessive use of the bags", said Bangsund, "But we support any measure, including this motion, that produces the same final effect".

The petition was created as part of a class project in the environmental program they were attending at Kwantlen. The student group, called BABE for "Bring A Bag Everywhere", quickly garnered support among the public in Vancouver as well as from SAFE (Students Active For the Environment), the environmental club of Kwantlen student association. The signatures were collected in June and July last summer, but the on-line version of the petition is still active and the public can add their say at http://ipetitions.com/petition/bringabageverywhere/

The students pointed out that billions of bags end up in litter every year worldwide, and that Canadians consume 55 million new bags per week. They added that hundred of thousand of sea turtles, whales and other marine mammals die every year from eating discarded plastic bags mistaken for food.

Paul Richard, the faculty liaison for SAFE, also spoke in favour of the motion. Richard pointed out that, far from being a minor issue in waste management, plastic bags represent a huge problem. "Phasing out the bags has a huge symbolic value as well", added Richard. "People are hungry for leadership on environmental issues; phasing out the bags increases awareness of how wasteful these are, and this motion shows that our politicians can have a positive influence and restore hope in a solution."

For information contact

Ashley Bangsund 604-221-8546

Paul Richard 604-599-2556...

Vecchiato's Voice - High Rises In Langley But No Trade Offs! - How Come?

With the distribution of the Gateway to Global Warming paper, another avenue has opened up that may prove to be a crucial audience--students. A secondary school instructor asked for copies for his class. It is up to them to agree and find refutation, or disagree and find their argument.

The information present in the Gateway paper presents a good case for not expanding Deltaport nor continuing with Gateway, with specific focus on the environmental damage the SFPR would cause and the twinning without putting rapid transit first will only result in further congestion (build it and they will come). Because Gate 11-12 students will be voting in the next few years, arming them to make informed choices may knock them out of potential apathy.
*****
A proposed bylaw was submitted to Langley Township Council to consider mid to high-rises along the 200th Street corridor. I wrote to mayor and council, stating that I support high density as outlined in the bylaw on the condition that bonus density applies as well. Bonus density is a development tool allowed within the parameters of the BC Municipalities Act. Developers are allowed to build higher density subdivisions starting at over 6 houses per acre, and green space is traded for higher density; the more units constructed, the more green space received by the municipality and its taxpayers.

I was informed that bonus density will not apply to the particular by-law. My question is: Why not? A mid to high-rise corridor (with underground parking) fronting onto 200th and backing on to a green belt which would separate traditional development would not only improve the quality of life and absorb auto emissions, but it would also allow a reasonable corridor for the remaining wildlife to travel or burrow in. The iss ue of retention of natural features and incorporating development within such setting seems to be ignored.
*****
Delegations and letters to my municipal representatives have too often resulted in no response. When I emailed my opinion to mayor and council, I did receive 3 replies from council members: Councilor Charlie Fox, Councilor Jordan Bateman, and Councilor Kim Richter.

Cathleen Vecchiato
Fraser Valley Conservation Coalition...

Vecchiato's Voice - Oct 20, 2007 - And So It Goes

So, here's the story. An old Jewish man goes to the Wailing Wall every day to pray. Finally someone asks him, Why do you come here every day? The old man replies, I come to pray for peace in the Middle East. Do you get an answer? The old man shook his head glumly. No, it's like talking to a f***ng wall.

And so it goes.

I can tell you that my non-communicative stack of bricks is purported representational government. Although I may not have voted for each one, they still represent me, or so I assume. That's democracy, isn't it?
Recently, I was observer to a series of events that posed as metaphorical wall. The issue was around the new Willoughby Park spanning from 202A to 200th Street. As Jeffries Brook, Denim, Jericho Ridge and other new developments filled in the once sheltered meadows and forests, I felt hopeful knowing that at least Township would come through with a park. I watched a delegation about saving trees on the property. Not stick ones in the middle of a soggy field, but the rich hedgerows and second growth forest that are home to deer, fox, myriad birds including owls, burrowing rabbits, voles, shrews, and coyotes that hunt.

As events unraveled, it seemed as if my idea of a park was far different than those who actually plan them. Both models—mine and theirs--serve a purpose in the community, and because there was so much perimeter foliage, several of us thought that surely a tree survey as mandated by the Tree By-law in the Subdivision and Zoning legislation would come galloping to the rescue. Its shining armor would be accompanied by my local government's desire for sustainability, to utilize the research of an in-depth Wildlife Habitat Strategy, by civil servants with the ability to envision the blend of homes and nature.

The vision of rescue was presented to council after finding a fine print clause in the township’s own bylaw that exempted it from any tree survey, thus avoiding identifying and saving significant trees. One councilor made a motion to have the by-law reviewed. If the Township doesn't mandate public input or surveys, then they can cut whatever they want. No one seconded it. Looking at the stone-faced panel was an omen of things to come. It was like talking to that same damn wall.

Someone sought a legal opinion on the by-law, and a respectable attorney thought there was merit. But without the legal aspect, I had hoped that our municipal government would want to set examples of good stewardship, address climate change, realize the inherent value of trees and nature. It seems that stewardship is important if it's in the right place. If it's not, then what ever grows or lives there is just out of luck.

The governing body, the council, could have said, Let's look at this thing, at this parcel, at the big picture as we grow. What precedent do we want to set? Is there perhaps a valid point here? Should we set an example for the development community? Weren't we, in fact, putting brochures on Saving Native Trees into development application packages for a number of years?

But they remained recalcitrant, unwilling to budge, and continued business as usual. The same business we've seen throughout North America. Their stubborn streak seemed to challenge, Try and make us change.

And so more acres are gobbled up by John Deere and Volvo machinery (Didn't know Volvo made construction equipment. I thought it was just a car for white liberals living in New England.) More wildlife is displaced, more habitat consumed by our perceived needs.

The saddest part of the issue is that when citizens address issues that are contrary to the municipality's mandate, the taxpayers get no answers. In the 10 years I have lived here, I have written letters, made delegations, and talked to councilors. They might be nice enough people on an individual basis, but as a collective mindset, they do not pursue dialogue with the very people who pay their salaries and fund their pet projects. It's that wall again.

And so it goes.

We have had so much potential to do things differently. In the BC Municipalities Act, each government is allowed to set bonus density, to establish its own tree protection, to mandate clustering instead of grid-pattern boxes. And they do none of these because repeating patterns created over the past 40 years are easier than thinking outside the subdivision box.

With regard to a legal opinion, I have to commend Zvonko Bezjak for feeling it was worthwhile to challenge our own government, to make it accountable. I also know that in the big picture, it wasn't about his land, his trees, his habitat, although even he may have felt it was. But it wasn't. It was for Karen on 72nd Avenue, Steven on 80th, and the Park family on 208th.

In the end, township lawyers bullied their way into dropping the matter. And they think they won. But it wasn't winning. It was protecting their own inability to embrace change. They are going to do it their way, even if 400 of us stood up and said we don't like what we see.

On an ironic note, the township made a benevolent gesture and had seedlings dug up so that the former tenant and owner could have them. Unfortunately, they weren't clear on the concept. The trees were supposed to be for us, not for one person.

And so it goes.

...

Fraser Valley Conservation Coalition Press Release - Zvonko Bezjak Hopes Township Will Thoughtfully Consider Protocols In The Future

In and around June of this year, Mr. Zvonko Bezjak made a delegation before Council to express his concerns regarding the clear cutting of trees on property forming part of the Willoughby Community Lands. At that time, he presented a petition requesting the protection of some of the trees situated on his former property. That petition was signed by approximately 100 individuals. Mr. Bezjak had no further communication with the Township except for a letter from their solicitors advising that he had until the end of August to remove any trees or other personal effects from the land. In the meantime, work continued on the adjacent property which was being prepared for the new sports multiplex. In an effort to protect more Significant trees on the property than was indicated on the park proposal, Mr. Bezjak sought a legal opinion regarding the Township's ability to disregard its own tree bylaw by failing to create a Tree Retention Plan, a Tree Protection Plan, a Final Landscape Plan, etc. to ensure the protection of trees. Mr. Jonathan Baker, a solicitor, produced an independent legal opinion which was forwarded to Mayor and Council. That letter advised that the scheme of the bylaw seemed to be that where a Development takes place on municipally owned lands the reports set out in Section 15 must be completed but the Township retains the option of removing Significant Trees under some circumstances.

The Township subsequently forwarded this opinion letter to their solicitors who were of a different legal opinion. By letter dated July 23rd, 2007 Ms. Sandra Carter, of Bull, Housser & Tupper advised that in their view, the Bylaw does not apply to any trees situated on lands owned by the Township. As a result, the Township may remove any type of tree on Willoughby Community Park lands. A motion made by Councillor Kim Richter directing staff to prepare these reports was not supported by any other members of Council and therefore Mr. Bezjak was left with a difficult dilemma. As it became apparent that the Township was imminently going to start work on the property Mr. Bezjak reluctantly decided that his only recourse to save some trees would be to launch a judicial review with respect to the Township's ability to opt out of their own bylaw. Such public interest litigation is seldom undertaken by an individual against local government as it is costly and the results are often unfavorable to the applicant. However, without any other recourse Mr. Bezjak felt compelled to continue. However, at all times, Mr. Bezjak was ready to discuss and negotiate with the Township regarding any other possibilities which would mitigate the loss of a number of Significant Trees on his former property without going to Court. One of the possibilities was the cessation of the matter in return for the Township's provision of a similar 5 acres property which would be designated as a passive park to be protected for future generations in the Willoughby area. However, no further communication was forthcoming from the Township and the matter inexorably began to lead to a court date. In the interim, Mr. Bezjak hoped that interest generated in both local and regional media would result in the Township's reviewing its policy but this hope was never realized.

Mr. Bezjak filed his petition on or around August 14, 2007, but the Township's solicitors were slow to respond with a defense although they were insistent that a Court date be set down as soon as possible. Due to legal requirements from pre-trial protocol, Mr. Bezjak could not adequately assess his status in going forward until such time as Township solicitors forwarded their case outline to Mr. Baker. At that time, Mr. Bezjak was advised by Mr. Baker that although he had an arguable case that the matter would likely be found for the Township as Courts generally decide in favour of local government with respect to challenges based on vague or ambiguous language found in legislation. At that point, Mr. Bezjak was still determined to go to Court in order to have the matter reviewed but was further stymied by the withdrawal of his solicitor on October 4th, 2007. Effectively, Mr. Bezjak was given only 6 days to either find a new solicitor to advance the case or to argue the matter himself in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

In light of the preceding, Mr. Bezjak reluctantly contacted Township solicitor Mr. James Goulden on October 9th, 2007 in order to resolve the matter by a negotiated settlement. Mr. Bezjak therefore agreed to have the petition withdrawn in return for the Township's waiving their legal costs. This negotiated settlement was meant to save both Mr. Bezjak and the Township more legal costs than the ones generated to date and to allow Mr. Bezjak to get on with his life and the Township to proceed with the project. In fact, the Township is currently working on the property by preparing the site for the installation of four future playing fields.

Mr. Bezjak still believes that a legal review of the bylaw was an extremely important exercise and his only disappointment beyond the destruction of a number of trees and its surrounding ecosystem is his frustration at the Township's lack of response to his concerns and to the original petition. Although the matter was never reviewed despite his desire to have an official ruling regarding the Township's activities in the Willoughby Community Park he is nonetheless pleased that the issue gained media attention. Overall, Mr. Bezjak hopes that as a result of this exercise that the Township will thoughtfully consider the necessity of undertaking the protocols required in the Development and Control bylaw when any other municipal properties are developed in the future. After all, the Township Council and its bureaucracy are the stewards of our local environment and as such are responsible not only to the current residents but to future generations who will make their homes in Langley Township.

In conclusion, as an ameliorative gesture the Township has graciously dug up a number of trees from his former property which Mr. Bezjak will be taking to a local nursery in Chilliwack for protection this afternoon. Our suggestion to replant some of the trees in a local passive park was rejected by Parks and Recreation as they believed that they would not be viable as transplants to a new location. And as to future plans, a number of committed environmentalists are planning on making a delegation to Council sometime in the near future regarding other measures to ensure the protection of trees, especially in the area of Willoughby. We believe that since development will be on-going for the next number of years and in light of the pressing environmental concerns such as global warming that the Township should make every effort to ensure the retention and protection of the valuable resource of trees....

Vecchiato's Voice - Oct 1, 2007 - How Do Politicians Live With Themselves? - Stand Up: Reflections on Gateway

At some critical moment in your life, you will feel absolutely right in what you are doing and in what you believe.

Such is the feeling I gained while standing in the rain in front of the Westin, holding a soaked placard that read "Save Not Pave." On the stage before us was an energetic woman crowned with white hair who had just been released from prison. Her name? Betty Krawczyk, who was welcomed with warmth despite the wind kicking in from beneath the Lion's Gate Bridge.

Beside me stood a costumed devil whose sign read "Highway to Hell." Neither of us knew the lyrics, but we knew we were doing what was right, and what was true.

Further to my understanding of the world as it is, I later watched former Vice President Gore clips from his visit to Vancouver, then another clip of Premier Gordon Campbell trying to issue forth rhetoric that could never match the truth; a man trying to embrace the sight of visionaries, but who lacked any vision as it was blinded by the dollars in contracts. The same clouded vision afflicts many municipalities, groping for immediacy as they sprawl and contribute to our never-ending life of comfort without quality.

A writer once said that you cannot treat your reader is if he were stupid; the only successful model was the "Dummy" series. I believe our politicians relies on our assumed stupidity or tired apathy without creating a dummy series of their own. Or are we stupid?

Is it about roads and highways, bridges and ports, Olympics, and increasing the population at the expense of what we hold dear? Some may say they are doing this for their children and grandchildren. Me? I'm doing it for me. I have to live with myself and look in the mirror.

How, then, Mr. Campbell, or you mute MLAs or you, the control-thirsty municipalities with blue-print ethics, do you look in the mirror each morning? Or do you pay someone to do it for you?

Cathleen Vecchiato, ChairFraser Valley Conservation CoalitionLangley BC...

Vecchiato's Voice - Sep 25, 2007 - How Above Board Are Our Governments? How About Locally?

Expected components of government, I believe, are transparency and accountability. Often, however, plans of immense proportion that reach the public are a "done deal" by that time with little or no public consultation. The image of sturdy handshakes in the back rooms of municipalities, provinces and even in Ottawa come to mind when we realize how many wheels are set in motion without the taxpayers knowing.

A minor example is a recent request for a 2001 site map from Planning for the proposed Willoughby Park. I wanted to know what was in place at the time. However, I was not able to obtain a copy because the schematics were in the "conceptual" phase. Using the Freedom of Information Act--a necessary tool for democracy gone haywire-- I did receive a copy from township outlining what I had requested. During this "conceptual" phase, public consultation should be paramount. I have heard that there is no consultation for Parks, and I ask, Why not?

How above board is government? A quick click to the youtube link below will give you an idea what we, as citizens, are dealing with on all levels of government. As a taxpayer, I ask for openness, honesty, and a disdain for sins of omission, which tend to come back and haunt you.

-- Cathleen Vecchiato, Fraser Valley Conservation Coalition

LFP Editor highly recommends that you watch this linked 5 minute YouTube clip --> Lone Voice Defies TFN Treaty Manipulation

Youtube video of Berth Williams of the Tsawwassen First Nation

...

Letter To The Editor - May 27, 2007 - From Donna Passmore - Re: Another Opposition Letter to Langley Township ALR Applications

Re: Township of Langley By-Laws Contravenes Agricultural Land Commission Act

June 13, 2007
Provincial Agricultural Land Commission
133-4940 Canada Way
Burnaby, BC V5G 4K6

Attention: Erik Karlsen, Chair erik.karlsen@gov.bc.ca

Dear Sir:

On behalf of the Fraser Valley Conservation Coalition (“FVCC”), I write to urge the Agricultural Land Commission to address the contraventions in the Township of Langley’s by-laws and Official Community Plan that contravene the Agricultural Land Commission Act.

Attached for your records and review is a copy of the Minutes of Township Council’s meeting of May 28th, which lists five new applications for subdivision and exclusion of lands within the Agricultural Land Reserve (“ALR”), which will bring to 22 the number of such applications FVCC has had to oppose since January 1, 2007.

As the Commission’s records will show, many of the most recent applications from Langley Township are in the area of the Hopington Aquifer and Salmon River Uplands, an area that I understand is regarded as the best place in Canada for growing strawberries.

Langley balked when the ALR was introduced in 1973 and its Official Community Plan (circa 1978) flagrantly disregarded the objectives and boundaries of the ALR. Two intensive reviews of Langley’s ALR land in the late 70’s/early 80’s (one focused only on the Salmon River Uplands) was Township’s opportunity to tweak the boundaries and exclude land already diminished by development. What remains in Langley’s ALR is good farmland, meriting the full protective forces of the Agricultural Land Reserve.

Rich Wildlife Poor Protection, a report recently jointly issued by the David Suzuki Foundation and Sierra Legal Defence Fund paints a grim picture about the state of BC’s wildlife, and in particular tells us that 17% of BC’s wildfowl population is in peril from lack of protection. Although not the primary objective of the Agricultural Land Reserve, one of its adjunct benefits is that by protecting farmland it has helped protect foodlands for millions of resident and migrating wildfowl.

By allowing Langley Township’s by-laws to contravene the Agricultural land Commission Act, the Commission is:

Undermining the validity of its own legislation;
Creating an expectation – particularly among land speculators – that these lands are open for development;
Failing to live up to its own mission to “Preserve agricultural land and encourage and enable farm businesses throughout British Columbia”;
Failing to live up to spirit of the ALR and the public expectation that the Agricultural Land Reserve protects our foodlands; and
In the case of Hopington Aquifer and Salmon River Uplands, potentially failing to protect areas with high Environmentally Sensitive Area designations from inappropriate development;

Langley Township has had more than twenty-five years to amend its Official Community Plan to conform to the ALR. FVCC is aware that the Commission has asked Langley Township to effect this, and that you held a day-long meeting in Langley last autumn to educate the community about the ALR.

Rather than seeing any serious or prompt move to make its bylaws conform to provincial law, we are seeing a rapid escalation in the number of applications being approved by the Township.

Enough is enough! In light of the indicting conclusions about the state of our food security contained in BC Ministry of Agriculture’s recent BC Food Self Reliance Report, it is incumbent upon the Commission to use all powers available to it under s. 46 of the Agricultural Land Commission Act (and all other legislative tools and policies available to it) to force the Township of Langley to move quickly to conform to the Act and protect our foodlands. In the meantime, we ask the Commission to implement an absolute moratorium on reviewing all non-emergency applications from Langley Township pertaining to lands within the Agricultural Land Reserve.

Sincerely,

Donna Passmore

Agriculture Campaigner...

Letter To The Editor - May 27, 2007 - From Donna Passmore - Re: Opposition to Langley Township ALR Applications

To: ALR & List of Government Reps & Politicians (Township & BC) & Press which includes LFP

Attached please find a third opposition this month to multiple applications from Langley Township to sever and exclude farmland, bringing to 12 the number of individual oppositions we have had to file this month. Thus far in 2007, FVCC has opposed fifteen applications from Langley Township, affecting 358.63 acres of farmland, and most of that in environmentally sensitive areas.

I personally don’t know why Langley has an Agricultural Advisory Committee, since it is not permitted to function in an advisory capacity. Instead, Township Council routinely send along applications to AAC AFTER Council has approved that they be sent to the ALC.

Only by consistently rejecting these attacks on our future food security can we effectively communicate to local governments that agricultural irresponsibility will not be rewarded.

Attachment(s) - 2:
BC Food Self Reliance report.pdf
L- ALC - May 29 2007 - 6 Langley Applications.doc

Thank you for your kind consideration,

Donna Passmore
Agriculture Campaigner
Fraser Valley Conservation Coalition...

Vecchiato's Voice - May 1, 2007 - Council Axes Tree Bylaw

The article in the Langley Times ("Council axes tree bylaw," Friday, April 27, 2007), reeked of veneer observations of the entire process.

As stated in the article, the incipient process of drafting a by-law was motivated by delegations from 1/4-lot owners. Their properties shared a large stand of trees, and when a new buyer purchased a lot, he cleared the parcel. Specialists were called in, and homeowners were advised of wind throw, weakening of root systems which know no property lines, and collapsed septic fields for older lines and roots become intertwined. The concerns were realistic and are constant problems when one property owner clears without consulting neighbors. This applies to treed lots that are adjacent to one another only.

The task forced appointed by the Township consisted of 3 1/4-acre lot residents, a Brookswood Secondary student, a Brookswood resident with 5 acres, and a Fernridge resident. Those of us with 1/4 acre lots opted for firmer restrictions; however, knowing the emotional climate of Brookswood, the following items were discussed and agreed upon:
--That a permit system would never work in Brookswood
--That the area subject to discussion was 10' from the property line and in accordance with the building code of 10' buffers
--That if a property owner wanted to clear all the way to the fence, then s/he must grind the stumps. Grinding, we felt, would act as a deterrent as it is more expensive than total removal.

Task Force members received a preliminary draft on March 5, 2007, and the last draft the week of the open house. During this time period, a permit requirement for any tree removal was added, and any protest was too late for Council or the Open House.

My concern is: How did our volunteer task force time get so convoluted by staff? Mr. Houlden and Councillor Vickberg were present at all the meetings, and I feel an issue of sacrificial lamb is lingering behind Township doors. My understanding is that legal opinion from Township said the by-law was only viable if a permit was in place. However, several by-laws in the Lower Mainland and on the Island do not demand permits for a limited amount of tree removal.

Our former planning director had every by-law in his office, so there was no shortage of research information. My feeling is that those whose salary we pay did not want any sort of by-law to pass, knowing the general sentiment of personal property rights, which stirs Canadian emotions as much as hockey games.

Township has wasted taxpayer dollars performing this silly and lengthy draft that did not conform at all to what was proposed. Over five years ago, I had proposed, via delegation, a bylaw that allowed 3 trees per year without a permit. I never received any response.

I think Council and staff should rethink what they have done to the public and to those of us who volunteered our time. If we paid staff members to pull this permit by-law out of it's magic but ever-so-slow hat, it should not be at our expense. Education was also mentioned, and perhaps if educational material was enclosed in tax statements, we can make a start at enlightening everyone about the need for wildlife habitat, the legal aspect of clearing when an active nest is present, carbon dioxide absorption, spiral pruning to prevent wind throw, and how root systems intertwine, thus preventing blow downs. In addition, the constant references to neighbor-against-neighbor can be demonstrated in the fact that the purchaser sold the property after clearing, that residents beside those who overkill clear cannot help but to groom an intense distaste for their inconsiderate neighbors. The animosity exists now; the task force recommendations were fair and based on compromise.

Should my summary of recommendations be off base, I ask that other task force members make clarifications. As for the observation, "it is a classic case of our inability to read the public," I think, instead, it was a classic case of staff's inability to read recommendations.

The favor of a reply is requested and reconsideration of our original recommendations should be made public and put to open house.
Cathleen Vecchiato has been an outspoken environmentalist for the past 6 years. She is a very well recognized champion of the environment and a community activist in Langley as well as in other adjoining communities. Cathleen formed and leads the Langley Conservation Network.
Editor's note: Cathleen was one of the appointees to the Langley Township Brookswood tree bylaw task force....

Vecchiato's Voice - April 25, 2007 - Deltaport Opposition Opinion

I have attempted to avoid the Gateway debate, mostly because I made a decision when I was 26 that I would never commute more than 30 minutes (this was south of San Francisco). However, my husband does renovations, and his tool-laden van must go to Richmond, Vancouver, or Burnaby, depending on the project.

When I first started working in San Francisco, I took BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit), which took me the 30 miles from my hometown of Lafayette in the East Bay; in a flash of an eye, I was passing through Oakland, then under the Bay, and disembarking right in the Financial District. Rapid is the key word here.

Last month, I went to the Gateway and Deltaport Opposition Rally at Delta Community Hall. I did this partially because Pierre Rovtar died in February, and was passionately against Gateway. The arguments against both projects are numerous, and include increased emissions, not only from cars, but from marine vessels. Accordingly to "Gateway to Global Warming," a singer container ship belches more pollution than 2,0000 diesel trucks. Someone asked, "What about the new jobs that will be created by expansion?" However, the truth is, Canada has a trade deficit with China, and the incoming ships will just increase that deficit.

In regard to Gateway, previous promises were given about congestion being alleviated for 7 years with the construction of the Alex Fraser Bridge; in truth, "it was congested within nine months and has remained that way." Ultimately, too, with both projects, there is farmland and green space loss, expropriation of private property, and continued reliance on the automobile that will result from both projects. The concerns about Burns Bog should be taken seriously. Author Bill Burns penned a book "Discover Burns Bog," explaining the vast amount of carbon dioxide a peat bog can absorb. In short, the bog was referred to as "the lungs of Vancouver."

What about solutions? A group of active citizens under the umbrella of VALTAC are pushing for revival of the interurban rail as a transit solution, and I like people offering solutions. Ideally, surveying commuters to see what percentage would use rapid transit would, perhaps, demonstrate a need for transit, not increased highways. The Lower Mainland has been slower in developing than most North American cities and suburbs. As it will be showcased in 2010, progressive decisions such as less sprawl and better public (and rapid) transit should be a futuristic vision. The present plans seem to be a Gateway to the Past.

If you want to hear the other side of the Gateway/Deltaport story, access it on the following link. Riding pubic transit is cool and very urban chic. Different worlds come and go, and the intermingling with the rest of humanity makes our lives richer. Then, of course, there are people who really like to drive. I suppose I'm not one of them....

The Taming Of The Shrew? - Courtesy of Donna Passmore

Subject: Rare New Species Discovered at Burns Bog: News Release

From: "Donna Passmore"
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 18:53:39 -0700

Sorex rohweri was previously thought to be a Masked Shrew

The 85% of Lower Mainland residents who support protection for Burns Bog will find validation in the recent discovery of new – and likely very rare – shrew living in the Bog. Please see attached news release and a copy of the recent edition of Mammalian Biology that trumpets this discovery.

Given that Burns Bog is already known to be home to numerous at-risk species, the discovery of one more rare inhabitant should come as no surprise.

It comes, however, at a very important time, as people throughout the Fraser Valley are asking ourselves what we are willing to sacrifice to the Liberal government’s massive transportation expansion scheme, the Gateway Program.

Burns Bog Facts - Wilderness Committee

Vecchiato's Voice - April 14, 2007 - Dump Sites & Journalism

(Cathleen Vecchiato has been an outspoken environmentalist for the past 6 years. She is a very well recognized champion of the environment and a community activist in Langley as well as in other adjoining communities. Cathleen formed and leads the Langley Conservation Network. Editor-LFP)

Firehall Lake is a gem tucked between Noel Booth School and 32nd Avenue. Some days, not a soul is in sight; on warm spring days, a makeshift beach is host to a handful of sunbathers and swimming dogs. Sometimes, we swim alongside them if it's hot enough.

Then I heard about township's plan to fill in this seasonal lake. Langley has an undercurrent of information--the best information is gathered in casual conversation with other residents. You'll never see them again, but somehow, the encounter made a difference. When I discovered the lake fill project, I was aghast. There is aquatic life in there as a portion of the lake remains year round. The water is a combination of rain, run off, and aquifer fed as the gravel pit was dug deep enough to hit the Brookswood/Fernridge aquifer. However, any toxins that would affect water quality aren't to be found here. Future development and roads will do more damage than a small portion serving wildlife.

I wrote to one of the papers, and unbeknownst to me, my letter was printed on their on-line edition, something where most people probably don't read unless they are avidly involved in Langley politics or have too much time on their hands. Or both. A rebuttal was submitted , and this was put into their print edition. Unfair journalism? Yes. Bias? A rebuttal should not be printed if the original letter was on-line. Pick which medium you want to use, but pick one; otherwise, it looks like skewed editorial opinion.

My forte is adjective clauses; my passion, however, is wildlife and ecological preservation. The writer in my opinion did not have the same opinion as myself of the importance of this former gravel pit, essentially questioning it's value, and suggesting that the herons referred to were probably feeding off some endangered species. That should have been a red flag right there. An endangered species in a lake that township wants to demolish with dirt from construction sites?

However, good fortune prevailed. Because of that letter, several naturalists went to the site and inventoried the birds, amphibians and mammals, and plants. They were able to identify twenty-eight species of birds and a long list of native plants. In addition, the presence of Pacific tree frogs were noted as they were astute enough to recognize the distinctive call.

So why fill in a lake that is home to amphibians and birds--both aquatic and non aquatic? Money.

Fill sites get from $45 to $80 per load, and if you get a calculator and fill in an area as large as this seasonal lake, it adds up to a remarkable sum. But one wonders: Why would our municipality need money? Critics may point to reckless spending, or perhaps to poor planning in Willoughby, with too much development that costs the taxpayers money through servicing subsidies and not enough land for park space. Residential development is a drain on any community and needs to be balanced with commercial and industrial. Of course, the new strip malls are apparent, but the problem with commercial is that a few people may make a reasonable salary, but most workers don't make a sustainable income.

But back to the lake. I understand the mandate of restoring gravel or mining sites to their original state. That is great if it is done within a short time period of the original excavation . However, areas such as Stokes Pit, which had not been an active gravel pit since the early '60s, re naturalize themselves. Wildlife moves in and is dependent on the new growth and other
species that take over.

If the mission had been to restore the gravel pit to provincial standards, I am assuming Engineering would have told me when I telephoned. The response, however, was, It (fill) has to go somewhere...and that nobody wants it in their back yard. So the motive was never honourable to begin with.

Now there is talk of putting a playing field there. I think sports are great, but I sure see a lot of empty playing fields at all times of the day. It's not the right place for a playing field, and with the rejuvenated ecosystem, it's not the right place to use as Langley township's new soil
dump site. A little to restore some of the gravel pit? OK. A lot? Not.

Cathleen Vecchiato

P.S.
(The attached picture is from Critter Care's Open House. Photo by Sophia Vecchiato.)
One of the jewels of Langley is Critter Care Wildlife Centre, which I first learned about in my Newcomer's packet. The packet gave information about Campbell Valley Park and made mention of this wildlife welfare organization. This non profit cares for injured or displaced wildlife and works on a fluctuating budget, depending on grants and funding.

One of their big events is their silent auction. Not only does it help Critter Care's work, but there are great buys!

PS: Just below are additional Firehall lake photos submitted by reader Blair King. One is an aerial view and the second is the lake looking north.

If you have not attended in the past, please consider Saturday evening, April 28th at 7 pm. The event will be held at the Semiahmoo Fish & Game Club, 1284 184th Street, Surrey, BC (between 8th Ave and 16th Ave). Tickets: $30.00 each, and $55.00 for a couple.
Price includes a complimentary glass of champagne, Hors D’oeuvres, Dancing and Cash Bar. Call 604-530-2054 for ticket information. Also see LFP sidebar for ad & link as well....

Gateway Opponents Meeting Courtesy of Donna Passmore

Event organisor, Donna Passmore was kind enough to send LFP the video link of her recent meeting against Gateway. LFP Editor however believes that most of the gateway components are desperately needed. Translink has publicly said that no substantial transit improvements are planned for 20 years or so for us in Langley! We have no other options Donna!

Vecchiato's Voice - April 12, 2007 - Brookswood Tree Committee

Last year, five Brookswood and one Fernridge resident agreed to join a task force facilitated by Kurt Houlden and attended by Councillor Vickberg. The task force was based on a delegation by residents who shared a significant stand of trees with neighboring lots where a new owner (absentee) cleared the entire lot. Arboreal assessments were made by a professional and the consensus was that if the stumps were pulled up, it would negatively impact all the adjacent properties.

When the committee met, Mr. Houlden gave us a scale of 1-10, with 1 being no township intervention and 10 being a strict by law. The 6 members, ranged from 2 to 9, with an average of 6.5%. This would require a lenient bylaw without permits and an education program to make residents aware of the impact they had on one another's property.

The conclusion reached by the group was to have a bylaw which echoed building codes and setback, thus disallowing clearing within 10 feet of the fence line. If clearing was done, then the stumps would have to be ground, not pulled, in order to keep roots beneath the ground. Many roots are supporting septic fields as well as other trees.

This committee and Mr. Houlden's facilitation allowed for a wide range of input, but never were permits discussed, and the only property mentioned in the proposal was the 10 foot perimeter. I also suggested that the decimation of our avian population be addressed as frequent clearing of a single parcel in the nesting season has led to noticeable species decline in the area.

Upon receiving the final version which was presented at the Open House, I was surprised to see a proposed by law that would not be suitable for the Brookswood community. The consensus reached was based on safety and the negative impact clearing has on a neighboring lot.

Please note in today Times, the editor says that "a bylaw..will pit neighbors at each other's throats." In truth, those of us who value the nature of habitat and understand the provincial and federal nesting bird legislation have endured countless clearings. The impact has been the disappearance of many species, the dislocation of flying squirrels and owls, and a decline in the songbird and pileanted woodpecker population.

A permit to remove problem trees that have gone into foundations or septic fields should not be in place, and was never approved by the committee. the bylaw submitted to the public has caused unnecessary strife among residents. The need for a permit was mentioned, but please note that in Maple Ridge and Saanich, residents may remove 3 trees per year without a permit. This leniency is on the honour system. Punitive measures would be a result of not following protocol of neighbor consultation or maintaining a 10' set back.

Future development should be a concern and should be considered as 1/4 acre lots are being purchased by development interests. Observers have noted that there is a lack of balance in allowing Willoughby to be cleared with impunity, while Brookswood residents are held accountable. In truth, Township should be looking at the big picture of the Fraser Valley. With the potential advent of Deltaport expansion, according to "Gateway to Global Warming," "the emission from marine vessels .... have already iincreased 205 wsince 2000...A single container ship belches more pollution than l,000 diesel trucks." While lip service may be give to global warming and the airshed of the Fraser Valley, each community has to be accountable to its residents now and in the future. If steps are made to ensure that Brookswood will not be razed as Willoughby, then we can be assured that the form and character echo Brookswood's current ambience and environmnetal integrity, the reason many property owners bought here

Cathleen Vecchiato
Cathleen Vecchiato has been an outspoken environmentalist for the past 6 years. She is a very well recognized champion of the environment and a community activist in Langley as well as in other adjoining communities. Cathleen formed and leads the Langley Conservation Network. Editor-LFP ...

Vecchiato's Voice - Jan 2, 2007 - Urban Planning Cross Dressing?

Fellow Langleyites, I am a bit confused. Perhaps it is a personal condition, but it always seems to rear its whirling dervish head when I read the local papers and contact staff at Township Hall.

First, it was announced that there were insufficient funds for park land purchases in Willoughby. Then a department manager said they could not acquire land until the DCC's came in (in the interim, we agreed to a long-term golf course purchase, and Engineering has dug up 200th near 40th three times, twice at our expense, not to mention having to relandscape due to design oversights.)

Another department head told me that he knew nothing of parkland south of Mountain Secondary on 202A; however, I know the seller, know the land, and what he was told upon the sale of his property.

In the interim, Township has used the legal arm of eminent domain along 202B and 68th, so that a diagonal four-lane road can connect the soon-to-be-busy 202A with the yellow-brick road swooping down to Wal-mart. Now which DCC's did that purchase come from, and why is the land not being asphalted being sold back to the development community with more bonus density given for underground services instead of green space and wildlife corridors?

There are planners and there are developers and I am afraid that they become either deliberate or coerced co-conspirators, each wearing one another's clothes. Urban planning cross dressing, perhaps. It's nothing new; California's metropolitan areas were paved over in the '60s, and an exact replica is being formed in the Lower Mainland. Official Community Plans in Langley, Surrey, and other municipalities need to be re-examined; no OCP should be written in stone ever (this was the point of view of the Planning Director in North Vancouver); and eyes pointed at future developable areas such as Fernridge need to be scrutinized for their long term impact, not only on habitat and water protection, but a measurable appreciation in the quality of life.

The extraordinary recreation facilities Langley has cannot be underappreciated, for their benefits do exist. However, the ability to verbally skirt around an issue, to postpone, to avoid seem like prerequisites for municipal positions.

In the interim, I keep staring at the rendering of the future Willoughby arena, thinking, "God, it looks like Frank Lloyd Wright did some post-mortem design after just one too many cups of coffee."

Cathleen Vecchiato has been an outspoken environmentalist for the past 6 years. She is a very well recognized champion of the environment and a community activist in Langley as well as in other adjoining communities. Cathleen formed and leads the Langley Conservation Network. Editor-LFP ...

Vecchiato's Voice - April 12, 2006 - DUMP THAT DIRT HERE, SIR!

Langley Township is in need of a fill site to have excessive loads of dirt dumped. Engineering put out a bid for tender to various companies to fill a former gravel pit at approximately 32nd and 203. The circumference of the pit has renaturalized, and the middle holds a seasonal lake. One portion in the southwest corner holds water year-round, thus I am thinking that it is spring fed or the aquifer surfaces at this point, as if does at Latimer Lake further southwest of this area.

The engineer in change is Phil LeMay (604-533-6146), who was helpful in giving information. I informed him that the lake portion of the pit was year round and was home to fish and amphibians. Great blue herons can be seen feeding on the creatures who manage to find the water instead of ending up in a dry-up zone. Although heron habitat is not protected, their nests are protected throughout the year by the Provincial Wildlife Act. Because of the fish and amphibians, DFO should be contacted if any changes are made to this portion of the site.

From my understanding, Firehall Number 5 backs onto this parcel, and having dump trucks pass on a constant basis would pose concern to those whose job is to save lives. Having seen the massive increase in truck traffic, I can understand the concern.

Mr. LeMay and I did discuss residential concerns that have arisen due to fill being dumped on properties. Numerous stories have crept up recently, with township giving approval to filling properties, which then puts neighbors at a lower grade. He expressed his opinion that it’s their property and they should do what they want. I didn’t feel it was appropriate for a civil servant to voice such a strong opinion on property rights, when I have heard horror stories from all quadrants of Langley Township. If Engineering is approving grade changes that affect neighboring properties, they should rethink their approval process.

Any suggestions or comments on the issue are welcome.

Cathleen Vecchiato has been an outspoken environmentalist for the past 5-1/2 years. She is a very well recognized champion of the environment and a community activist in Langley as well as in other adjoining communities. Cathleen formed and leads the Langley Conservation Network. Editor-LFP....

Vecchiato's Voice - April 10, 2006 - HIGH POINT OR LOW POINT?

An open house held for the High Point Development Thursday evening brought mostly homeowners in the Brookswood/Fernridge area who are afraid the impact of sewer will allow massive rezoning, and “Willoughby-ize” an area that is unique with its forested lots.

Consultants from Aplin Martin, the consulting firm said that the sewer was inevitable, whether high point is constructed or not. The tie-in with High Point is that the developer must pay for sewer down 200th, and will be reimbursed over 20 years as businesses and home hook up to the sewer. There was a feeling that if staying on septic allows the neighborhood to stay the same, and then septic it is. The pro-sewer people—usually who have bought property on speculation or people whose septic fields are nearing their end—did not appear to be in attendance.

The development itself extends from Zero Avenue to Eighth Avenue and from 196th Street along Surrey’s border to approximately 205th. The lots are large and surrounded by trails for equestrian use. The plans looked like an ideal community, or at least for those who can afford million dollar homes. Personally, the development isn’t one that will allow total clearing as we’ve seen in Willoughby. Sidewalks are not part of the development plan, and with Brookswood’s excellent drainage, re-infiltration is planned for any storm water run-off. Please remember that one of the worst offenders to streams is storm-water sewers that spew road pollutant water into salmon-bearing streams.

A little brake dust on your salmon tonight, sir?

Comment sheets were available for attendees, as were individual petitions for voters to halt the project. These must be signed and hand delivered (no faxes) to township hall by April 20, 2006. They can be obtained through the township. I am not thorough enough to know if the form can be downloaded from the internet if you are adamant about the development not going through.

Several astute followers of local politics were available, and the main argument against the development was that the Planning directive, written in 1995 by our former planner and current mayor, recommends development in one area at a time. This is far more financially prudent than allowing road construction, sewer and water lines, police stations, street lights, and the rest of the servicing that comes in a development package in more than one place. servicing is expensive, and the DCC's from High Point are in place to cover the sewer...for now.

My own personal concern is that $20 million is a lot for a developer to shell out for sewer, so it will encourage hook up along 200th and throughout Brookswood and Fernridge sooner than most residents would like it. I would like a guarantee that any new development is far different than what we are seeing in Willoughby and throughout Surrey.

Cathleen Vecchiato has been an outspoken environmentalist for the past 5-1/2 years. She is a very well recognized champion of the environment and a community activist in Langley as well as in other adjoining communities. Cathleen formed and leads the Langley Conservation Network. Editor-LFP....

Vecchiato's Voice - April 1, 2006 - Personal Property Rights? Township’s Doublespeak

During the election, the majority of candidates stated that they would support a tree by law. The question that was never asked was: What kind of by-law?

I had seen a lot of promise in some candidates, who professed environmentalism, who professed environmental integrity with a religious slant, and who distributed campaign fliers with the candidate cuddling infant wildlife. Yet all the rhetoric suffers a painful death the moment the ballots are counted.

I would name names, but you may be able to guess.

I heard the typical line about supporting personal property rights the same week I received a call from a distraught resident, actually a neighbour, whose own property and that of four others are in peril because one person exercised his personal property rights and cleared every tree from a forested 1/3 acre lot. With the threat of stump removal, the root system would cause neighboring trees to fail; it would collapse septic fields, around which lines the roots had become a part; even foundations are threatened.

What I read is that placating one man’s personal property rights puts neighboring properties in total jeopardy.

My next call was from a long time Willoughby resident, who sold his land under duress to the township. Should he had chosen not to sell, township would have expropriated the land. Any court date had the potential for a judge deciding the case, where the scales of justice could allow township to only pay assessment value for the property. As you stand on his family’s heritage site, you look down the hill at a sea of new rooftops with the only green being an adjacent stream that is planned for possible rerouting. The rooftops themselves are contentious at best. They replace a 216 tree forested parcel that was cleared without a single wildlife survey. The clearing, tragically, took place in the midst of breeding season—it was July 2004.

I had corresponded with the CEO of the development company earlier that year, and received a letter from him, stating that his company did, indeed, provide habitat. Habitat for mammals—the two-legged kind. The sarcasm dripped from the page without a single regret for the type of development he was condoning, money that would alter the face of our town while he could attend gala functions in the city and donate money to the arts and get a philanthropic reputation and a snapshot in the paper.

The majority of the previous council that continue to dominate the decision making process voted in favour of this development. None had ever taken the time to read the tree protection policy, which requested nesting bird surveys when clearing occurred during the March-August window. By the way, the new draft tree by-law, a part of the subdivision by-law, has since deleted any reference to surveys.

But back to personal property rights. I am wondering how an elected official can espouse private property rights, and then expropriate private property, to be used for a four-lane road with the remainder sold by township to developers. How can he be part of the forthcoming rezoning of Brookswood, where many of us don’t want to be rezoned? How can any of them sanction clear cutting on property that is being purchased by an absentee landlord and will be held on speculation until the zoning comes it? If you are selling in Brookswood, watch who you are selling to. What was once your beautiful home will look like the new Willoughby.
So please don’t give me the rhetoric about personal property rights when you represent an administration hell-bent on rezoning and using eminent domain to obtain your property. Don’t tell me about personal property rights when you refuse to enact legislation to protect neighboring properties. Volumes of fill can be placed on a parcel, leaving yours at a lower grade level and doomed to flooding. All the trees can be removed, leaving yours at risk for wind throw and root extraction that will topple landscape and infrastructure of your own private property. Don’t show me pictures of a cute mammal that you cradle in your arms and then vote for every new development proposal, where the same small mammals are crushed under bulldozers.
May citizens realize their taxes on going up annually to subsidize poor development practices, archaic storm water management systems that are financially alleviated by the ever-increasing storm water tax.

And don’t bitch about what seems to be negative complaints by people like me. Would you prefer a “living sort of oblivion," commonly known as apathy?

Cathleen Vecchiato has been an outspoken environmentalist for the past 5-1/2 years. She is a very well recognized champion of the environment and a community activist in Langley as well as in other adjoining communities. Cathleen formed and leads the Langley Conservation Network. Editor-LFP....

Vecchiato's Voice - March 26, 2006 - Large Scale Tree removal Affects Neighbour - Who's Liable?

Information follows on the Victim Offender Mediation Program, whereby disputes can be taken here instead of court. The current dilemma is another clearing in Brookswood (reported in Langley Times), whereby an absentee landlord on 202 Street purchased a property and hired Fraser Valley Tree Service to remove every tree on the lot. The number was approximately 40-60 trees. A resident on 201A and 39th had an arborist visit, who said that removal of stumps and roots on the cleared property will affect five neighboring properties. Root removal will collapse one neighbor's septic field; the trees on the other properties will have to come down, not to mention the huge potential for windthrow. We are now getting into legal channels where responsibility must be assigned. The bylaw I had submitted to Council in 2002 had prevented clearcutting, for the mere fact of windthrow; the damage clearing can do on neighboring properties is more serious than that.

So who is liable? The offending property owner? Definitely. Township, for failing enforcement? They can, at some point, be held liable for not showing due diligence in protecting nesting birds, which violates both federal and provincial laws. Consider a case in Richmond, whereby the city was found guilty of passing inspection on leaky condos and not upholding the provincial guidelines for building inspections.

The local office of Victim Offer Reconciliation Program is 20678 Eastleigh Crescent, 534-5515. Township has put all of us in a situations of bad neighbor relationships, not having enforcement, thus living residents in dangerous confrontation, and ultimately, allowing such a loose rein that behaviour severely affects neighbors. Private property is one thing; activities that affect neighbors is a bigger picture.

I ask each councilor, who, as a candidate, said he/she would support a tree by law (it was everyone save three candidates who are in office), thus leaving a majority of elected individuals who said they would support a bylaw. I will send councillors a copy of the draft tree bylaw, which should include not clearing within twelve feet of a fence line.

Thanks.
Cathleen Vecchiato 604-533-0173

See the link here as well. http://www.ag.gov.bc.ca/dro/policy-design/statement.htm
For more information on the Court Mediation Program and/or the mediation process, please contact our office at:
Phone: 604-684-1300; Fax: 604-684-1306;
orE-mail: info@courtmediation.com
Outside the Lower Mainland, call toll-free: 1-877-656-1300
Mailing address:
Court Mediation Program
Suite 177-800 Hornby StreetVancouver,
B.C.V6Z 2C5

Cathleen Vecchiato has been an outspoken environmentalist for the past 5-1/2 years. She is a very well recognized champion of the environment and a community activist in Langley as well as in other adjoining communities. Cathleen formed and leads the Langley Conservation Network. Editor-LFP
....

Vecchiato's Voice - March 6, 2006 - Township Passes The Buck

Township continues to pass the buck
Bylaw 2005 4470 is the formal name for the new Tree Protection Bylaw, which is part of the Subdivision and Development Control Bylaw 1994 No. 3335. That's why one could say it really isn't a by-law but a portion of a greater by-law. But a law is a law, right? This toughens up the unsuccessful "Tree Protection Policy dated October 2003, right?

Not quite. The original policy contained a clause regarding seasonal clearing, stating, "Site clearing, however, is not permitted between March to August as per the Provincial Wildlife Act and International Migratory Bird Convention Act. Clearing is only permitted from September to February Clearing outside of this period will require proof and documentation that no nesting activity is present and will require specific approval from the Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection/Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Often this will require the preparation of a raptor, heron, and passerine (songbird) survey to the acceptance of MOWLAP/DFO.

It was a great clause. Not exactly true, but great. The federal provincial laws don't disallow clearing, but Canadian Wildlife Service does ask that "due diligence" be shown. That means some sort of nesting bird assessment should be done. The tree Protection Policy, despite its lack of legal teeth, at least too habitat into consideration. This has been dropped from the new Bylaw 4470.

Is township passing the buck? I think so. This means that Canadian Wildlife Service or the Provincial Ministry of the Environment should be called by concerned residents when witnessing massive clearing between March and August. CWS can be reached at 604-252-6748 or the Provincial Ministry is 800-663-9453.

In fact, a new clause exists in the by-law stating:

22. In the event that any particular provision or part of a provision of this Bylaw is found to be invalid or unenforceable, it shall be severed and the validity of the remaining provisions shall not be affected.

Township may claim that it cannot enforce provincial and federal requirements, while other municipalities issue permits during this season, once it is proved that no active nests exists. Why can North Vancouver do this, but Langley can't? Is it based on political will?

Planning recently wrote to me outlining the directive" “'Whereas Council adopted a policy in 2002 on tree protection and replacement for development areas; Be it resolved that Council request staff to incorporate the Tree Protection and Replacement Policy as part of the Subdivision and Development Control Bylaw'...This was clearly identified in the staff report that staff had provided to you and others upon request. The existing policy was not modified to any great extent by staff other than to make it best fit within the context and framework of the Subdivision and Development Control Bylaw (i.e. it will be put in effect in a slightly different manner, but the principles remain the same). In other words, the direction of Council to staff was not to draft a “stand alone bylaw”, nor was it to “expand the terms of tree protection”, so it would be inappropriate for staff to make such significant modifications.

What I find disturbing is that all of the candidates for mayor and council said yes to a tree bylaw, except three successful candidates. That leaves six on council who would be in favor of one, and if I am not mistaken, six is greater than three. So what is the avoidance and why does it seem that one person is calling the shots?

Unlike North Van, Township continues to pass the buck, saying that "each of the points you mention ... are covered by other federal or provincial statutes..." So protecting species at such a critical time is not their job. So where is our environmental integrity?

Cathleen Vecchiato

Cathleen Vecchiato has been an outspoken environmentalist for the past 5-1/2 years. She is a very well recognized champion of the environment and a community activist in Langley as well as in other adjoining communities. Cathleen formed and leads the Langley Conservation Network. Editor-LFP

Vecchiato's Voice - March 6, 2006 - My E-Mail Response from Township

The following is the complete text of a message received from Planning. (followup from my Feb 28 post)

----- Original Message -----
From: khoulden@tol.bc.ca Houlden
To: Cathleen Vecchiato
Cc: aneufeld@tol.bc.ca Neufeld ; jgeraghty@tol.bc.ca')";John Geraghty ; ebritton@tol.bc.ca')"&;Eric Britton
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 5:10 PM
Subject: RE: Tree By-law

Dear Ms. Vecchiato

Thank you for your comments and previous email. I will respond on behalf of staff in an attempt to correct one apparent misconception about the tree protection “bylaw”.

The direction of Council to staff is clear and simple as quoted below:

“Whereas Council adopted a policy in 2002 on tree protection and replacement for development areas; Be it resolved that Council request staff to incorporate the Tree Protection and Replacement Policy as part of the Subdivision and Development Control Bylaw.”

This was clearly identified in the staff report that staff had provided to you and others upon request. The existing policy was not modified to any great extent by staff other than to make it best fit within the context and framework of the Subdivision and Development Control Bylaw (i.e. it will be put in effect in a slightly different manner, but the principles remain the same). In other words, the direction of Council to staff was not to draft a “stand alone bylaw”, nor was it to “expand the terms of tree protection”, so it would be inappropriate for staff to make such significant modifications.

Further, each of the points you mention below are covered by other federal or provincial statutes, or in a local context, managed in other documents or processes such as our adopted neighbourhood plans. I suspect others will have their perspective on tree protection and the Township’s role. Certainly staff would respond appropriately should Council determine that the scope of depth of the tree protection be increased (or decreased) in the manner that you or others suggest.

We will soon be getting to the “stakeholder” feedback portion, prior to the bylaw going to Public Hearing. Our staff are currently working on the logistics and documents to ensure that people who wish to respond prior to (or at) the public hearing have as clear as possible understanding of the both the scope of the bylaw and the general “mechanics” of implementation after it is adopted in its final form by Council.

Again we are appreciative of your perspective and early comments.

Regards,

Kurt Houlden
Director of Community Development

cc. Mayor and Council