Letter To LFP From Wally Martin Re: ALC Commisioner Donation to Clr. Bateman's Election Campaign - A Conflict of Interest?

Dear Editor

Do political campaign contributions come with strings attached?

Does John Tomlinson own a condo in Whistler?

The recent disclosure that John Tomlinson of the Agricultural Land Commission provided a large donation to Councillor Jordan Bateman in the last election is very disturbing.

Jordan Bateman has clearly stated his views on the agricultural land in the Milner valley and it would appear that it is going to push the Bateman/Falcon agenda through in spite of fierce opposition from the farmers in the area. Why is it that Tomlinson refuses to stand up for the farmers? It would appear to be a serious conflict.

The timing of the Tomlinson donation, November 23 2007, is when Councillor Jordan Bateman held his fund raising raffle. Was the Tomlinson donation one of the "raffle prizes"?

I did file a written complaint with the Gaming Enforcement Branch in regards to this "raffle prizes" matter and I am still waiting for a written reply. I did receive a phone call from the Gaming Enforcement Branch and I was told that they did not want to embarrass MLA Rich Coleman since Coleman was attending the raffle as a special guest. I will again demand that the Gaming Enforcement Branch deal with this matter in the light of this new disclosure of information.

One would almost assume that if you are closely aligned with Rich Coleman, Jordan Bateman, Gordon Campbell, and the BC Liberals that you can ignore the rules. I recall Bateman describing some of these people as "heavy hitters".

The fact is that John Tomlinson will be instrumental in deciding the fate of Langley farmland by building a road through the middle of the Milner valley, a proposal supported by Councillor Bateman, that is being forced upon the residents and farmers in Langley by the BC government.

Councillor Ferguson and the previous Mayor Alberts also both received Tomlinson donations. Ferguson seems to be arguing that the truckers are more important than the farmers.

All this has generated a great amount opposition in the community. This will be remembered as a dark day in the history of Langley.

Wally Martin ...

Letter To The Editor : Pam Omelaniec's Open Letter To Councillors Ferguson & Ward

I sent the following letter to all of the local media. As yet it has not appeared in print.

" You all know me and I know you. In fact Sam and I have supported you all, in particular you Councillor Ferguson. Steve we were on your Campaign Team when you ran for Mayor so I am more than just a passing acquaintance and Councillor Ward, Sam and I have known and respected you for years.

You all know we were members of Rick Green's Campaign Team but I am not flag-waving for Mayor Green I am saying that I, together with hundreds of Langley Township residents are bitterly disappointed in the way you have been conducting yourselves and representing, we, the Langley Township electorate.

The idea of an in-your-face confrontation with an elected official with the Press primed at your side and armed with a tape recorder is abhorrent. If you try to tape a phone conversation to be used later it is not legal to do so unless you have informed the speaker of your intent and received permission to do so.

Did you tape conversations when you were planning to spend millions of our tax dollars behind closed doors. I think not.

You cannot change the November election result. In fact you are insulting everyone who voted for change in Langley by acting like we don't count. If it is your intention to carry on political sniping and causing a furor at every opportunity to score personal brownie points, I suggest you think again.

Langley needs strong united leadership with constructive criticism not a pack mentality of hyenas. How can we believe in your good judgment on issues like the one you are making on the Mufford overpass?

I urge you to have a good look at your behaviors. You may not like what you see because we the Electorate sure don't. I thought we were all pretty good judges of character but you have really let Langley taxpayers down."

Pam Omelaniec

Edited By LFP EDITOR...

Letter To The Editor From Susan Semonick Re: School Board Aldergrove Decision Right

The motions approved at the last Board of Education meeting are warranted on the financial end of things. I know from the last consultations in the Aldergrove area that a majority of parents felt they were being forced down a road that they knew little about, but had no choice. Trustee Joan Bech was in attendance at these forums.

A small group of parents who are involved in the PACs have been sold a bill of goods.

Anyone with a bit of brain knew this motion would be at the top of the agenda; that is, if we were to believe anything from the election propaganda. Even though personalities are in play here, look beyond that. You will see this is an attempt to correct how the past board has conducted business.

This was the first official public meeting of the new board since taking the oath of office. It appears that Trustee Wendy Johnson is trying to follow through on her promises. I know that that is a shock for many; however, she did top the polls with those promises.

The cost for fruitless forums, if the format stays the same, I believe is more than $10,000 an event.

I hope the best for Betty Gilbert and Aldergrove Secondary students. All we are hearing lately is about the gangs, killing, and organized crime in your area. It seems this community may be in crisis in more ways than one.

With the low mortgage rates, maybe it is an opportune time for the families to move to areas that meet the needs of their children. Or for the majority to become more visible and state what they feel would be best for the children overall.

The enrollment figures suggest there are more people against the middle school concept than there are for it. Betty Gilbert is down 81 students this year.

The trustees, when asked to attend the PAC meetings, at that point should have realized that maybe a community forum was required. It looks like Johnson is the only one that has realized this. This would have enabled everyone directly involved to be in the same room to exchange information, and to move forward positively.

Trustees Steve Burton, Alison McVeigh and Rod Ross have to realize that business practices will be more open than before, much as the Township council is now adjusting to. Financial accountability will be at the forefront of the discussions, instead of being discussed in some back room with only the clique in attendance.

Good on you Wendy, for taking the first step to improving decision-making practices in this school district. Hopefully the follow-up motions will be done with more process, and no malice towards each other.

Parents in Aldergrove, take a breath. They will not cancel your French immersion program overnight — it will still be there.

Getting an additional year to have staff trained and prepared for what may be implemented to improve the education of your children could be a godsend. It may be time to extend your listening ear to ones other than those you have been already been listening to.

The old board did practice “divide and conquer” tactics. Hopefully, the new board will practice transparency and communication as a whole before decisions are made that will affect your children. The forum format must change, to improve anything this district has attempted in the past. Hopefully, DPAC is on top of this.

Susan Semonick,

Langley

Editor’s note — A poll on The Times website, as of Friday morning, had 28 people supporting the board decision to delay the middle school, and 27 opposed. You can vote at langleytimes.com.
Editor's note: See Advance story on original Aldergrove School Board vote at this link. ...

Politico's Snow Removal Email Broadcast Messages Infuriating (Snows Die-Hard Part 3of4)

From: Maureen French
To: Mayor and Council
Cc: news@langleyadvance.com ; Aldergrove Star; Langley Times
Sent: Sun Jan 11 23:33:33 2009
Subject: LACK OF 'Snow Removal'
Just a few points that I may not have sent to all of you.

If it's decided that property taxes need to be increased to cover the increase in snow removal, that's fine, as long as snow removal covers EVERYONE who's paying taxes for it. I've paid my snow removal taxes for 2008. The excess snow removal costs for 2008 should have been taken from an emergency/unplanned expense fund for the current year. Then determine if taxes need to be increased for future years.

A further, and most important, point: I think you guys are forgetting how many essential service workers live in these un-cleared subdivisions. People such as police, firefighters, air traffic controllers, doctors, paramedics, etc. If these workers can't get out to work, who will be there to do their jobs? I am one of these workers, so don't ever complain about any airport, or aircraft delays if you aren't clearing the street for us to get out.
Does the township of Langley not have any regard for the provincial emergency standard of 72 hours? Many Langley residents were left on their own for a lot longer than that! (Only Kim Richter has addressed this. The rest of you haven't even responded to it. Why?)

If people can't get out of their driveways or streets then it doesn't matter how much snow removal is done on the main roads. WE CAN'T GET OFF OUR OWN STREET'S TO GET TO THE MAIN ONES. If I can make it out of my subdivision without any snow removal done, then I can make it around Langley without the main streets done.

It is so frustrating to see the Mayor, and some of the councilors, sending mass reply emails that don't address the problem properly. I have heard so many different reasons and excuses from the Township for the lack of snow removal; all of which are pretty lame.

Reason 1 - Not in the budget. The situation this year was an extreme circumstance that should have received some emergency or special last minute funding. If my furnace breaks unexpectedly, replacing it probably isn't in my budget either, but it still has to get fixed ASAP.

Reason 2 - Not enough equipment or manpower. There are LOTS of private contractors that would have been delighted to be paid by the township to clear the side streets.

Reason 3 - The current policy doesn't cover the side streets. When it was apparent over the holidays that residents were upset about snow removal the mayor and council should have had an unscheduled meeting to address the problem, rather than continue with their holidays and deal with it a couple weeks later. The policy could, and should have been amended. It's pretty sad how mayor and council have been blaming the engineering department, and the engineering department has been blaming mayor and council. TAKE RESPONSIBILITY. We shouldn't have to be sitting here writing emails about it after the fact, and fighting over how and who needs to fix the problem. It should have been dealt with 2 weeks ago, not now.

Maureen Pottinger
Snows Die-Hard Part 1of4
Snows Die-Hard Part 2of4
Snows Die-Hard Part 4of4 ...

Langley Councillor Kim Richter Tables Motion For Improved Snow Clearing Safety (Snows Die-Hard Part 3of4)

While other Langley Township Councillors continue to focus on defending the Langley Events Centre P3 fiasco, Councillor Kim Richter on the other hand responds with action to the single current biggest issue that Langley residents are fuming about. Unsafe snow clearing conditions in Langley Township. On December 31st, Councillor Kim Richter submitted a notice of motion that will be considered at the January 12th afternoon Langley Township council meeting. Richter is calling on Langley Taxpayers to write in and email Langley Township Mayor & Council to at least demand the seconding of her motion for discussion and ultimately to do something about the unsafe situation when many Township Taxpayers are unable to get out of their homes onto their neighbourhood side streets after 72 hours. She references the fact that many residents have been unsupported by their local government when the provincial emergency standard is 72 hours for ALL emergency response needs.

Snow clearing in the past few weeks has far exceeded this 72 hour standard for many Township residents. Fortunately extensive and long duration power failures were not a large complicating issue as well for these unfortunate taxpaying Township residents. Many, most especially seniors, were literally stranded for in excess of 72 hours unable to leave their homes or expect any reasonable support, help or even timely emergency services if needed because their immediate tertiary roads were completely impassable in many cases because there was absolutely no snow plowing whatsoever. Not even a quick and simple single plowed lane was provided even weeks after the first major snow dump!

As a long time Township resident, I remember when Township many years ago would at least plow a quick single lane up my previous rural tertiary road when we had major snow dumps. It has never been done again in the past 10 years , EVER! How hard is it for the Township to identify these especially hardship cases and plan or even respond to their pleas for support. Obviously there is no proper process in place for these people even apparently in at least exceptional cases. Surely to goodness after two weeks any Township truck with a simple front end mounted plow or at least a private local community contractor for larger or smaller Township neighbourhoods could have been provided after 2 weeks , never mind 72 hours!

This council should make sure that those taxpayers in Langley that would, were or could be stranded in excess of 72 hours should be identified and given reasonable safe access & egress after this time at minimum. So Richter is correct to say that it is unacceptable to have residents endure this hardship when we do find it a Township priority to fund another $5 million for the Events Centre, also find an extra $3 to $5 million for the Grandstand fiasco and also find literally millions for acquiring golf courses and restaurants, not to mention selling off Township park land at bargain basement prices! See Richter’s Letter to the Editor and her notice of motion sent to the local newspapers here as published in Tuesday’s Langley Advance and Wednesday's Langley Times.

Councillor Kim Richter's Letter To The Editors

December 31, 2008

Dear Editor:

Re: Township Snow Removal Policy

The white Christmas we experienced in the Township last week raised an important public safety issue that Council needs to address immediately. It is clear that the Township’s existing snow removal policy is ineffective and insufficient on all tertiary roads in Langley Township where the majority of residents and taxpayers live.

Over the past few years, the Township has experienced more frequent and longer-lasting snow periods where residents have been snow-bound in their homes for longer than 72 hours. This is unacceptable.

Both the Province and the Country have an emergency preparedness standard of 72 hours. They have consistently told people about the need to be able to survive for 72 hours without outside help.

However, what is difficult to understand and accept is the Township’s unwillingness to plow any tertiary road - period. As we have experienced in the past week, the Township’s failure to plow tertiary roads during and following snowfalls far exceeds the provincial 72 hour emergency standard.

It has placed many Township residents at risk because they cannot easily be reached by emergency vehicles such as police and ambulance, if necessary. Furthermore, it has substantially slowed down the ability of fire trucks to access properties on tertiary roads.

This is not an acceptable or safe level of service. At minimum, all tertiary roads should be plowed to at least a single lane and sanded/salted 72 hours following a snow fall, and every 72 hours thereafter, provided tertiary roads remain impassable due to continued snow fall.

Furthermore, an emergency snow response phone line should be established so that snow-bound residents, especially those needing access to secondary and primary roads for health and employment reasons, can call in and request snow removal on their tertiary roads prior to the 72 hour parameter.

The Township’s existing snow removal policy must change. This should be considered a public safety and budget priority in 2009 and all subsequent years.

I have put forward a notice of motion requesting such policy revision. I ask all Township residents who agree with me on this to send an email to mayorandcouncil@tol.bc.ca encouraging Council’s support of the motion.

If the Township has enough money in annual budget surpluses to finance a $5 million shortfall on the Events Center, then the Township certainly has enough money to put into improved snow removal for better public safety of all residents.

Yours truly,

Kim Richter.

Councillor Kim Richter's Notice of Motion

RICHTER NOTICE OF MOTION – For January 12, 2009

Whereas the Township’s existing snow removal policy is ineffective and insufficient on all tertiary roads in the Township where the majority of Township residents and taxpayers live;

Whereas over the past few years, the Township has experienced more frequent and longer-lasting snow periods where residents have been snow-bound in their homes for longer than 72 hours;

Whereas the Province and the Country have an emergency preparedness standard of 72 hours and the Township’s failure to plow tertiary roads during and following snowfalls far exceeds this72 hour emergency standard;

Whereas failure to open tertiary roads after 72 hours places many township residents at risk because they cannot be reached by emergency vehicles such as police and ambulance, and substantially slows down the ability of fire trucks to access properties on tertiary roads;

Therefore be it resolved that the Township’s Snow Removal policy be revised and amended to include the following:

1. All tertiary roads in the Township will be plowed to at least a single lane and sanded/salted 72 hours following a snow fall; and every 72 hours thereafter provided tertiary roads remain impassable due to continued snow fall;

2. An emergency snow response phone line will be established so that snow bound residents needing access to secondary and primary roads for health and employment reasons can call in and request snow removal on their tertiary roads prior to the 72 hour parameter; and

3. Provision for this enhanced snow removal service in the Township will be considered a public safety and budget priority in 2009 and all subsequent years.

Snows Die-Hard Part 1of4
Snows Die-Hard Part 3of4
Snows Die-Hard Part 4of4 ...

Letter To The LFP Editor From Gloria Stelting - Re: We Need Better Snow Clearing for Safety (Snows Die-Hard Part 1of4)

------ Original Message Follows -------
From: Gloria Stelting
To: mayorandcouncil@tol.bc.ca
Subject: Langley Emergency Response Vehicles deal with unplowed residential road
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 09:54:34 -0800

Dear Honourable Members of Langley Council,

Langley Emergency Response Team resources are hampered and their precious time wasted by extremely bad driving conditions on residential roads. This RCMP officer was fortunate that he only had to walk down the block to get 2 firefighters to push his vehicle free from where it was stuck in the snowy intersection at 50th Ave and 246th St. There are a large number of senior citizens on 50th Ave. Many of the residence have lived here and paid taxes for over 30 years. Any of these could easily be in need of emergency services at anytime. This RCMP cruiser was not the only vehicle to be stuck at this corner in the last several snowy days.

Please have a look at these photos. I took them on Saturday Dec 27, 2008 from my front yard. The location is visible with the street sign marker in the photo showing the On Call Firefighters pushing the RCMP vehicle.
Would not the cost of these 3 members of the Langley Emergency Response Team be better spent otherwise? One driver of a snow plow to clear the road for everyone would seem like better financial management. This maybe possible if the Langley Snowplowing Policy was review.

I would not have been able to get in & out of my residence during this recent snow accumulation without my 4 wheel drive pickup. Not everyone has these. Our traffic is single lane. We really need a flag person. Even 4 wheel drive vehicles are getting stuck in the deep snow when attempting to go off the one set of tracks. The only way to pass oncoming traffic is to locate a cleared driveway. I would ask that you direct staff to please do not send garbage and recycling trucks down our road to jam it up evn more until vehicles can safely pass each other.

I would like to note that I did personally notice the improvement in the condition of Fraser Highway in Langley since TOL has taken over responsibility of plowing it. In the late morning of Wednesday Dec 24, Highway #1 from Sumas to 264th was snow covered with traffic trying to set tracks while Fraser Highway from 264th to 248th Streets that I drove was bare and wet. However, both 264th and 248th Streets were covered in snow like Highway #1.

We need necessities like snow plowing. It is important for our safety. If we can not afford this, then we certainly can not afford luxury items like an "events center", a Township golf course and a Township restaurant. All of which TOL council and staff have spent our precious taxpayer dollars on.

Thank you for your time as you make decisions that balance out our needs for public safety and financial management.
Sincerely,
Gloria Stelting

Snows Die-Hard Part 2of4
Snows Die-Hard Part 3of4
Snows Die-Hard Part 4of4 ...

Wally's Words - Langley Tourism, Taxes, Water Forum & Sidewalk To Nowhere

Langley Tourism
It was recently revealed (report #08-166 presented to Township Council September 29,2008) that Tourism Langley spent $60,000 ( sixty thousand - yes you read it right) to create a web site. The vast majority of businesses spend less than $500 to do the same thing. This is a typical example of out of control government spending which has spiraled out of control in Langley township. We need big change at township hall to reign in spending.

Tourism Taxation
Recently Premier Campbell announced some changes to the provinces taxation for hotels. The change for inn keepers reduces the cost of a nights stay by less than 50 cents. A saving of 50 cents will do nothing to stop the bleeding of the provinces tourism sector that is now on life support. This rate of saving would take our hotel 500 years to pay the cost of the Tourism Langley website recently revealed to cost a mind numbing $60,000 We need a lot more change than 50 cents.

Water Worries
I went to this week's water forum at D.W. Poppy school. What I heard was that the new water management plan was going to cost a lot of money. The spokesperson for the Province said they would need to hire more staff. That would mean they also need more new pickup trucks. That is code for higher TAXES.The amount that will be spent on 'administration' will probably be more than to proceed with a system upgrade to connect the east and west systems and increase capacity from the Fort Langley basin. Start laying pipe now.

Sidewalk to Nowhere
3 photos attached
- This image was taken Oct 23 2008 and shows hidden in the weeds the "sidewalk to nowhere" in the center of the 5 corners roundabout in Murrayville.
- The further below images 0449 and 0508 were taken 2 years ago.

Below is the letter I sent to Mayor and Council 2 years ago. It is obvious that they paid no attention to my concern of saving tax dollars and went ahead with this ridiculous project. This extravagant waste must end now. In addition, every week the township sends a crew equipped with ride on mower, leaf blowers (yes more than one) pick ups (yes more than one) to trim the sidewalks around the 5 corners. These are all private land frontages. Why are tax dollars spent to maintain private frontages?? By the way, the workmen who installed the sidewalk to nowhere told me it cost $17,000! End this waste now.

From: Traveller's Hotel
To: mayorandcouncillors@tol.bc.ca
Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 3:27 PM
Subject: 5 Corners

Mayor and Councillors
Langley Township

Attached are 2 photos. One is the new roundabout at 5 Corners (photo was taken on September 2 2006) and the other is in Surrey at King George and 8th Ave (photo was taken August 15 2006)
It seems that a concrete pathway is being installed across the roundabout at 5 Corners. This is a bad idea. Pedestrians are not to be walking about in the centre of the roundabout. Getting to the centre is dangerous and is sure to cause an accident. Installing any kind of pathway will be an allurement to persons and the Township will be held liable if an accident occurs. The entire centre should be planted with vegetation similar to the Surrey example.
Note the tree planted in the Surrey example. I also want to see a tree that can serve as a Murrayville Christmas tree. I have discussed this with numerous neighbours and they agree with the idea of a tree.

Yours Truly

Wally Martin
Langley...

Injector's Incredulous Inserts! - Letter To The Editor - Langley's Federal Debates So Far

LFP Editor invited Injector loved by one and all (lol) readers of LFP for his read of the recent federal candidates debate. So here it is!

OK, here are Injector's bottom line of the debates thus far by candidate:

MARK WARAWA - Conservative
Part Read from his tab-indexed party binder like a good choir boy would. Nothing new and touting the same old party line and rehash of spending to date. Claimed to have worked on many issues close to Langley, but I think the audience was left scratching to see where. Talked much about sending people to prison and being tough on crime. The funniest comment at Kwantlen last night was made by Mark during a discussion about genetically modified foods. Mark claims that broccoli is a GMF. A 20 year old study laughed out loud and asked if he was serious. Pretty much summed up what everyone was thinking. Mark was able to get his student organizers to nicely line supporters up at the microphones to only ask Mark questions. This lead to more choir practice from Warawa and the party song sheets (yawn).

RON GRAY - Christian Heritage Party
Some good points raise from a practical standpoint, but sometimes uses some hair-brained facts and statements to get his points out there. Ron claims that there is far more abuse in couples outside traditional marriage (including domestic partners and gays). When he furthered this at Kwantlen there were significant booing from the audience. He had no binder to sing from and spoke from his heart I believe. Ron claims that global warming is a myth and that the ice cap is actually expanding. He says that farms actually need the carbon that we are trying to get rid of!

ANDREW CLAXTON - NDP
Andrew is a young ESL teacher that seems like a genuine nice guy and by appearance and the way he speaks, reminds me of Robin Williams. I would say he is the spitting image of a Langley version of Patch Adams. Andrew is strong on the education and transit parts of his platform and managed to not dig into his binder. A nice guy in the wrong party.

PATRICK MEYER - Green Party
Patrick also seems like a nice guy, but as he uses long lead-ins to his answers he never seems able to give a whole response to things. He prefaced many of his answers with, "that's a difficult question" or "that's a real good question". I don't see him standing in parliament and raising a fair argument for something.

JAKE GRAY - Liberal Party
Jake is young and sometimes comes off as a cocky kid. But the more I listen to him, the more I see Jake as someone who could and would represent LANGLEY in Ottawa. He knows the subjects fairly well and doesn't require a party song sheet or adult supervision. He brought forth meaningful ideas and discussion on a host of issues. I'm starting to like this guy.

Tomatoes and other vegetables were handed out by the Kwantlen horticultural program in the lobby before the debate. I think our MP should be thankful that no one decided to create a food fight. I'm certain his arrogance and old party lines would have turned his suit into something that Carmen Miranda would have been proud of....

Stealing The National Anthem? - Letter To The Editor by Wally Martin

Dear Editor
To all Canadians

Melissa and Paul of Port Coquitlam, recent guests at Princess and the Pea B & B, were unanimous in the opinion that no person or entity had the right to attempt to exclude others from using all or part of the national anthem. As a hockey player, Paul went on to say it was disrespectful to hockey players and all Canadians to attempt to 'steal or take' part of the national anthem for exclusive use. I agree 100%. Pride of country belongs to all Canadians. Does this mean we can no longer sing the national anthem?
Wally Martin
Langley

Does Kurt Alberts Private Business Receive Special Treatment at Taxpayers Expense? - Letter To The Editor by Wally Martin

I recently viewed a web site http://www.explorelangley.com/Experience/Heritage-and-Culture/Galleries where I noted that the art gallery 'Birthplace of BC' operated by Mayor Kurt Alberts and his wife received special prominence yet the web site states there are galleries galore in Langley.

The web site is operated by Tourism Langley Association which receives tax payer money from the Township of Langley.

Why does Kurt Alberts private business receive special treatment at taxpayers expense?

Why does the private society Tourism Langley Association receive taxpayer funding when it is not accountable to the taxpayer?

Did Alberts excuse himself when funding to the society was discussed?

Tourism Langley Association meets in secret, does not have audited finances or any kind of public records and yet still receives taxpayer money? Is there something wrong here?

Why does Kurt Alberts get FREE advertising for his private business?

Wally Martin
Langley BC...

Time To Storm The Bastille - Letter To The Editor by Shane Dyson

This fall might have seen some real improvements for people in Langley and the province in general. We might have finally seen a provincial senior's advocate, minimum wages raised to $10 an hour and more protection for farm workers.

Those were some of the issues New Democrats were going to push for in this fall session of the legislature set to open on Oct. 6.

But Liberal government house leader Mike de Jong said there's no need for the sitting because the B.C. Liberals have no legislation to pass. What incompetence!

Recently, three Langley farm workers were killed and another two were critically injured when they tried to save their coworkers. Obviously, there are serious agricultural safety issues to address. De Jong, however, said, Unlike Carole James and the NDP, we as a government don't think the government should be out passing laws for the sake of passing laws. What arrogance!

This session would also have seen the Liberals called to account for their part in forest land giveaways, the carbon tax and double-digit pay-raises for high-level bureaucrats. What cowards!
Shane Dyson
Aldergrove...

How To Kill 2 Mosquitoes With One Swat - Letter To The Editor by Wally Martin

July 14 2008
Mayor and Council
Township of Langley

Re: How to kill 2 mosquitoes with one swat

Last Tuesday July 8 my wife Sharon and I spent the day in Fort Langley producing a Bridal Fair at the Fort Langley Community Hall. It was a very successful event with the participation of 100 business people and over 1,000 young ladies that attended. The day was perfect. Our attendance was up 40% from last year. The only negative thing we had was the mosquitoes. For many of the attendees it was their first visit to Fort Langley. We very rarely see any mosquitoes in Murrayville so it was a bit of a surprise for us.

I got thinking about the letter (copy attached)I wrote to council in the early spring regarding ground water in Langley. Fort Langley has too much ground water too close to the surface while the rest of Langley doesn’t have enough. The area surrounding Fort Langley is an underground lake. Taking this water would no doubt lower the water table slightly and help alleviate the mosquito problem. The Fort Langley basin is the perfect place to drill more wells.

Wally Martin
21628 48 Ave
Langley BC V3A 3M8

(Below letter written in early spring)

Langley’s Non existent Water Problem

There really is no crisis in water supply for Langley. There is a crisis in confidence in the leadership of Langley. The past few months have caused unnecessary anxiety as the population has been lead to believe there is a problem with the water supply.

There are a number of good alternatives to augment the water supply in Langley that have been advanced. These include the north shore lakes, Cultus Lake & Harrison Lake. Also more wells can be drilled in Langley. 2 other options have been overlooked. One is to build a desalination plant. The south west corner of Langley is 4 miles from tidewater. Thousands of cities around the world treat seawater to use it for drinking water. The process is simple and the distance to draw the water is close. Many cities draw seawater from much longer distances. Another alternative and probably the best is to draw water from the Fraser River. The Fraser River flows at a rate of 5,000 cubic meters per second. This is a flow rate that in one day can supply all of Langley’s water needs for 25 years. The good thing about the Fraser is the quality of the water. Fish live in the Fraser River. Living fish are always an indicator of good water quality. Needless to say the Fraser has better water than many of Langley’s wells. The fact is that Langley is already drawing water from the Fraser River. Some might be skeptical about this notion but I will explain.

Presently Langley Township pumps water from 17 wells to supply water to 85% of the Langley Township population. 38% of the Langley Township well water comes from the Salmon River well on 88 Ave at the west side of Fort Langley village. This is the best and largest producing well in the Township and far exceeds any of the other wells. It was drilled in the early 70’s and the press reports of the day were that it was a “gusher”. It also has excellent quality characteristics. The Salmon River well is a mere 60 feet deep. This well is actually drawing water from the Fraser River. A quick glance at the geology of north Langley shows that the water bearing material that supplies the Salmon River well is a one mile wide layer of sand that fills a crescent shaped basin that completely surrounds the village of Fort Langley. This crescent shaped basin is directly connected to the Fraser River like a giant pipeline. The Fraser River is also in a sand filled basin. The water travels thru the sand where it is constantly filtered. It is pumped at the well and we drink it. It is excellent water.

Many of the Townships other 17 producing wells were actually drilled in bad locations. They were drilled too close to areas where many private wells were already in existence. This has caused problems for the private wells. This is not a problem in the area surrounding the Salmon River well because it is a flood plain and no one lives on the flood plain. Langley can simply drill a few more wells in the Fort Langley basin and phase out the other wells. Additionally the east and west water systems need to be connected. It is actually quite simple. The interconnect would need to run from 232 St to 248 St. a total distance of 4 miles and Aldergrove would then enjoy the same water quality that is in the west system.

There is a cost to all of this. Recently the Township of Langley was proposing to install meters on all private wells in Langley. At a cost of $10,000 per well (a conservative estimate) that would have been $50 million dollars. The interesting thing about this bizarre metering idea was that after spending the $50 million it would not have produced one drop of water for Township of Langley residents. The above ideas I am advancing will not cost anywhere close to $50 million and they will increase the water supply.

Another good idea would be to take water directly from the Fraser River and treat it. This would be the same process that is being used to treat the lake water from the north shore. The intake pipes could be installed in such a way as to take advantage of the sand filtration under the river. Not a difficult concept.

Langley does not have a water shortage but rather has numerous viable options to choose from.

Thank you
Wally Martin
21628 48 Ave
Langley BC V3A 3M8
sales@princessbb.com
604 533 5569

NOTE From LFP EDITOR: We will post 99.9% of all Letters to the Editor prominently on LFP. For more info on WHY & HOW TO SEND Letters to LFP to publish go to this link. If you find our sidebar haloscan comments too limiting or if you wish to deliver an important message, Press Release, or Public Info we invite you to send Email letters to us at;
mailto:langleyfreepress@canada.com

...

Township Taxes Result In Decline Of Tourism & Tapping The Gay Tourism Market? - Letter by Wally Martin

(editor's note: This letter also published in today's Langley Times.)

(After reading below letter & posting comments, for the real facts and less fiction see these 3 & related previous LFP postings, ONE - TWO - THREE)

Letter to the Editor from Wally Martin,

The notion that high fuel prices will benefit the local tourism economy is a joke.
Langley residents live 10 minutes from the border and motor fuel in BC is 50% more expensive than in the US.

Every weekend there are huge border lineups as Canadians head south to escape our high taxes.
US visitors are not headed to Canada due to our high taxes.

Tourism from the US to BC is down 70%.

The premier of the province has long been an advocate of holidaying in the US and BC residents are following his lead.

The current marketing blitz that "BC is the best place on earth" is only true if you enjoy being over taxed.

BC has the highest hotel taxes on the continent and if you like that than you do enjoy punishment.

2 years ago councilor Bateman lead the charge to increase local hotel taxes by 25%. He insisted we needed 'a socialist style' of government marketing plan. Free enterprise wasn't smart enough to do their own marketing and the government needed to do it for them. He said at the time we would all thank him for that. This increase in tax has resulted in the decline in tourism in Langley as residents flee to lower tax destinations. I suppose we can thank councilor Bateman for higher taxes.

It was refreshing to know that at least some council members voted against the extra tax (Richter and Ferguson voted against the tax).

Tourism Langley recently launched a new logo. This logo is in rainbow colors. The rainbow has long been the symbol of the gay and lesbian movement. Does Langley really think it can compete with places like Toronto and San Francisco that have large gay pride events and numerous gay bars. It seems to me that Langley would be better off with a pumpkin logo or something to promote the farm. Since Mayor Fassbender and Councilor Bateman are directors of Tourism Langley I ask 'In what direction are they trying to take us?'.

The 10% hotel tax has been in affect for a year now and we are still waiting to see some tourists brought here by Tourism Langley. Where are these tourists? Are there any tourists? Are they being sent to stay with special friends and insiders? Will the experiment in socialism work?...

Letter To The Editor - Mar 6, 2008 - From Mary Hartman - RE: We Need Mental Health Clinics in BC - (Where's MLA Mary Polak?)

LFP Editor's note: Mary Hartman's letter below to us raises great issues of very much needed mental health clinics. If countries like Australia see the previous errors of their ways and now recognise and do something about this, why can not Canada or simply BC add much needed community mental health clinics. This crisis causes our front line police and emergency rooms far too much time and money. MP Mark Warawa and MLA's Rich Coleman & Mary Polak (LOL....the conversation on health advocate!) where are you on this issue? Another great opportunity (lost?) for you Mary to take a stand and be a champion, finally! You need one otherwise reconsider your political career & 'get out of the way' since you have 'not yet led but only choose to follow' & please stop wasting OUR money on basically full page baking sale ads! Read the attached link to see what Australia is now doing on this issue. They even have a poster shown here on the upper right!

The Editor,
Langley Free Press,

If the original mentally ill Canadians released from institutionalization had been treated, stabilized, housed & monitored as soon as the flood gates were thrown open, we would probably, not have the degrading situation which exists today. Instead they were left to wander the streets, lonely, sick, unmediated, unstabilized & homeless. Can we wonder why they turned to drugs with the help of dealers pouncing on the confused & helpless, becoming infected with multiple diseases & HIV/AIDS. To have these people now being arrested & jailed is nothing more than shocking. Where has the Mental Health Department been in all of these most critical years ?

To now have to treat these poor sick diseased mentally ill souls will be a very complicated process, which could have been avoided, if the grossly overpaid members of the Mental Health Department had done their work at the time of De-institutionalization, when all mentally ill should have been monitored, treated, kept on record & never allowed to become homeless or unstabilized, - &, as in Australia - given a reasonable disability pension for life, somewhere to live in a clean & healthy atmosphere, with a psychiatric nurse to visit regularly, giving medication or monitoring it's intake.

There are over 60 Mental Health clinics in Western Australia alone (see the Internet), both residential for those who have gone off medication & been collected by the Psychiatric Emergency Teams & returned for stabilization, plus walk-in clinics, where they can see a psychiatrist or psychiatric nurse if worried or need help. The Canadian Mental Health Department should take note of an excellently progressive country like Australia, instead of looking towards the U.K. only for new ideas.
If most people do not agree that the Police Report is such a powerfully written document ever to come out of the Vancouver Police Department & a severe indictment of a mental health system unable to help those who need it, we should all take our blinkers off & stand up & be counted. The report demands our attention & is a vital condemnation of the province & those who are supposedly running the Mental Health Department.

To think that young policemen & women, inexperienced in the psychiatric needs of our mentally ill Canadians, who are roaming, sleeping & in mental pain on the streets of British Columbia, are being cared for with such kindness, compassion, understanding & dedication, is extraordinary. It could make one sit down & cry with shame. We should all thank these young men & women for their tireless & thankless perseverance.

The Mental Health Department of B.C. should be severely castigated & hide their heads in shame, that these young men & women have had to step in & shoulder such difficult & complex responsibilities when psychiatrists, mental health nurses ( both male & female ), psychologists & associated personnel, should be operating mental health clinics - both residential & walk- in -, over the whole of B.C. especially in Vancouver's Downtown East side & suburbs, where so many of the mentally ill have congregated, & are living in such squalor & degradation.

The graphs, showing one year in the life of someone mentally ill going through so many arrests & so little contact with those supposedly responsible for giving mentally ill people treatment, is absolutely shocking. If each arrested mentally ill person had such a graph, there is no reason why the mental health department could not do the same thing for every mentally ill person in B.C. & have them medicated & monitored regularly by psychiatric staff.

A mentally ill Canadian should not have to be arrested. There should be P.E.T. teams available - psychiatric emergency teams - able to respond immediately, pick up any delinquent who has gone off medication, take them to a residential mental health clinic for stabilization, followed by regular monitoring later.

In comparison, Western Australia, which has one of the best Mental Health Departments available today - population approximately 2 million (2006) - has over 60 mental health clinics scattered over the whole state. Perth's population is around 1& 1/2 million & the mentally ill do not sleep in the streets or walk around unmedicated, but are housed by many church groups & the government, receiving excellent disability pensions. Psychiatric nurses visit regularly & the mentally ill are encouraged to visit their Dr's. once a month.

In comparison - Vancouver's population is about 2 million & B. C. around 4 million - HOW MANY MENTAL HEALTH CLINICS ARE AVAILABLE IN B.C. OR VANCOUVER ? RESIDENTIAL OR WALK IN ? HOW OFTEN ARE THE MENTALLY ILL MONITORED & CHECKED FOR STABILIZATION ?

MARY HARTMAN
CHILLIWACK...

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...

Letter To The Editor - Jan 22, 2008 - From Mary Hartman - RE: Transit Too Late For Fraser Valley Lost Generation(s)?

From: Mary & Gus Hartman

The Editor,

The unveiling of the Transit mega-plan will, no doubt horrify those living in the South Fraser Valley, where the services & routes would have ultimately extended east to both Abbotsford & Chilliwack, & now will do so possibly, by 2020 - how about Hope ? The promise includes in total, for all areas,(it is presumed), 600 more buses, which will sadden many when the amount of pollution spews forth into the armosphere & may have been avoided with rail & trolley services. Why should the oldies worry about it anyway, we'll all be underground by then !

What has not been taken into consideration, is the less than far sighted appreciation of the movement of population & businesses, to the South Fraser Valley, as a result of the increasing house & suite prices in & around Vancouver, driving families further & further away. The disturbing, distressing & breaking point of the Transit Plan, is the lack of a rapid rail service to the South Fraser Valley & no hope of ever having something in the near future, even though the taxes collected in & for B.C. are for all the people of British Columbia & not just for Vancouver, the surrounding suburbs & Victoria, which seems to be the opinion of the Premier, as he splashes our money around his domain.

We, in the Fraser Valley are British Columbians & do pay our taxes ! So, how about a decent share of it ! The billions of dollars being spent for 17 days of Olympic Glory. in & around Vancouver & associated areas, won't help the people of the Valley either, what are they getting out of those tax dollars !

It would be interesting to have a sensible estimate of the cost of establishing a rapid rail transit service up the middle of Highway one, from Surrey to join the main line at Cattermole, where the Highway converges without a middle section available & then through Chilliwack to Hope on the established line, with appropriate exchanges etc. As most mayors have already stated, most traffic from the Valley does not go over the Port Mann bridge.

The future arrangements as outlined by the Translink plan for the lack of services to the Fraser Valley allow a Brass Monkey's share of the $14 billion dream. Who are we ? The lost generation ! The many oldies in the Valley who have worked hard all their lives to help make Canada what it is today should be appreciated & have their lives made more enjoyable. The younger generation living in the area & have to travel long distances to earn a living should also be considered, seriously.

Mary Hartman
Chilliwack
January 22 / 2008....

Letter To The Editor - Jan 4, 2008 - From Ed Monteith - RE: MORE PAINFUL TRUTH

----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Monteith
To: Langley Free Press
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 9:56 PM
Subject: Letter to the Editor

MORE PAINFUL TRUTH

It was indeed interesting to read Matthew Claxton's editorial in the Jan 4 edition of the Langley Advance, and to see that he, unlike most members of the township council, does not just repeat the message handed out by the bureaucrats at township hall about the very controversial water management plan.

Mr. Claxton's article shows that he has put some thought into the matter and proves this by adding a few suggestions. While I don't agree entirely with these suggestions, it does reflect the fact that there is an awful lot to discuss yet, before we the residents of this township rush blindly into something that we don't know all the facts about, and which is likely of no benefit.

Since we know and understand that the loudest objection to the plan involves the metering of private wells, I suggest we have a look at the whole well water supply scene in the township. To do this let's start with the facts that are available to us on the Langley Township web site. In 2006 township residents and businesses were sold water from the township wells to the tune of 9.33 million gallons per day! Yes, that is a lot of groundwater! There was a charge for this of $272 per year per residence, while business establishments were charged 53 cents per cubic meter. Now add to this the fact that almost every drop of the above amount of water was flushed into the township sewer system where it was treated and dumped into the Fraser River by the 82,000 or so residents who used it in 2006.

By contrast there are only about 5000 private wells in the township, and nearly every drop of water from these wells is treated by a septic system and returned to earth perhaps 100 or so meters from where it was extracted. Nature then does what it has done for millenniums. When nature does its job properly, that water can be reused. So the question is an easy one. Who's sucking our ground water into extinction?

Given the problem of our diminishing water is probably a fact, I ask everyone to think seriously about whether there is any merit in the pending water management plan, or should it be scrapped, and a new page begun. Think about how you would begin to solve it. As you do so, I hope you will see it as I do, and that is that the township itself is draining our aquifers at an alarming rate, and metering private wells will do little if anything to change that fact. It's even likely that the flow from township wells will grow as well, along with our population growth! I think that we have been led into a blind alley.

There is only one solution for both the short and long term in my opinion. That solution is to reduce our dependency on township wells, and phase in water from the Lower Mainland water sheds as quickly as we can afford to do so. If we don't take this bull by the horns, the situation will only worsen. I urge all township residents to watch this issue very carefully. It is my opinion that poor judgment on the part of some members of council, could easily commit us to something very costly, and give us nothing of value in return.

Ed Monteith...

Letter To The Editor - Dec 18, 2007 - From Dale Hughes - RE: Council Xmas Finger Gift To Fort Langley

------- Original Message Follows -------
To: Kim Richter & Langley FreePress

From: Dale Hughes
Subject: Thank you for writing to my friend Myrna, she deserved that for her courage to speak out.
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 10:08:08 -0800

I was personally very heartened to see you have integrity and did your level best to make some valid points in our favour last night.
Many thanks to you and your two fellow members of council who saw the angst of the community and made an effort to support us.

Personally I was stunned to see the whitewash by other council members on this issue.
If 25 people (unnamed) are found to agree with a plan that is kept under~wraps and then sprung upon the community who responds with a force of 10 times plus that number in letter and email protest and it is ignored, then there is something terribly wrong with the system.

This process is new to me, that is the first council meeting I have attended.
I am just getting involved in community matters beyond what I could accomplish in my few spare hours of volunteer for artistic and community hall pursuits. I became involved in this protest out of disbelief that such an important new feature for our landscape was being slipped into place by a passing of by~law due to lack of knowledge and input from our community.

The Mayor/council handled our concerns poorly with the exception of the three of you who took a stand on our behalf.

The deferral of this program to January would have been possibly a win win situation for them and for us of the community.

Yes, the Mayor is right in his passionate lecture to the converted on council and his attempt to sway/inform those of us in the audience.

It will not be the downfall of the Fort. Other phases of time have made an imprint upon the Fort in the past and still have been integrated into the community. And then there was a general agreement that this sort of erratic behaviour would be halted and we would begin building on our heritage and reflect the gems in our village to draw others of like mind to our doorstep in the future. Is money the only concern of a council? Why do we elect and pay them? It is our concerns and directives that are supposed to be upheld, not the wealthy corporate interests.

Erosion of public support in a tight community such as ours is a very sad misuse of power and will not be easily forgotten.

Such disrespect for our intelligence and our time was not easily swallowed and dismissal of the resulting frustration as rude was unacceptable to me. The apology should not have come from Myrna but rather from the council members using their platform of power given to them, by the public they were now misrepresenting, for our time wasted in airing their opinions instead of devoting their attention to our concerns.

Again, I commend you for your moral stand and valiant efforts to assist us.
I see you recognize it was not easy to garner the level of support and emails and letters that were received by council in this excessively busy time of the year within one week. Perhaps council should take another look at the force of will and number of dedicated persons involved in rallying that amount of support.
I will personally be very aware of the slippery slope of December's use for sliding unfavourable projects under the doorway of our community in the future.

I do hope you and all others in our community will have a restful and happy holiday season.
You three wiser ones well deserve it.

Best regards
Dale Hughes....

Letter To The Editor - Dec 17, 2008 - From Myrna Pfeifer - RE: Council Xmas Finger Gift To Fort Langley

------- Original Message Follows -------
From: Myrna
To: Kim Richter & Langley Free Press
Subject: Bedford Building Development Permit
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:40:21 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)

Thanks for speaking out as you did. It is curious to me how 250 letters received by Mayor and Council, in the busiest week of the year, can be ignored.

It does not give me a lot of hope where the wishes of the people are concerned. 'Bottom Lines' continue to wag the dog!!

Myrna Pfeifer
Concerned Citizen

Subject: Bedford Building Development Permit

The Township Mayor & Council has lost its ears!!

Despite receiving 250 letters from the residents of Fort Langley, Mayor Alberts and his council majority railroaded through Parklane's building approval permit tonight at the regular council meeting.

A large contingency from The Fort sat and endured lectures by Mayor Alberts, Councilors Ward and Vickberg. " history has proven how developments I once lived in were once considered ill-suited to Fort Langley". Mayor Alberts said this to reassure us that whatever he approves must be okay.

Councilor Richter stated that 250 letters were received by Mayor and Council this week, raising serious concerns about the lack of public input into this stage of the development.

No comments were allowed by the gallery at this meeting so when I could no longer sit quietly, I interrupted Mr. Vickberg stating that .."council was not listening to the people it represents."

Sorry, Mayor and Township Council, but when you turn a deaf ear or eye to 250 residents, it is my humble opinion you are not doing your duty and speaking out was my only option.

Merry Christmas.
M.L. Pfeifer...

Letter To The Editor - Nov 28, 2007 - From Ed Monteith - Water Management Plan, Bamboozled by the experts again?

As a resident of Langley Township, I am sitting at my keyboard almost in a state of disbelief as I keep thinking about the township's headlong rush to solve the problem of our diminishing aquifer levels. Compounding this disbelief, is the direction that our council is about to take when they decide that metering our private well water will be front and center when solving this long and predictable downhill slide regarding the state of these aquifers. Then, as if this enormously important decision needs nothing in way of more inteligent input, our council is presently scheduled to ram this through by December 31st of this year. Ladies and gentlemen, you are about to see what you get, when you don't pay attention to who you vote for at municipal elections. If you own a well, be sure to attend last open house on this issue, at the Murrayville Firehall from 4 to 8 PM on november 29th You should then try to filter the bafflegarb from the reality of what's about to happen.

The Sunday Times (Nov.25th) has a quote from Dixon-Warren, the township's engineering department's groundwater specialist. He states that the water management aim is to establish guidelines for preserving both the quality and quantity of groundwater. Let's stop and think for a momment right there. Why? Because the TOWNSHIP itself has failed to do this, and continues to do so on a daily basis. They have done this time and time again, when they have allowed poorly planned development practices to destroy our forest ground cover, which retains our rainfall, which in turn allows clean water to filter into our aquifers. They have turned a blind eye when their development methods have allowed water to go from rooftop to rain gutter, and then to storm sewers and ditches, where it is lost on a fast track to nowhere useful. Flash floods in ditches and streams give us strong evidence of this after every heavy rainfall.. Dixon- Warren then goes on to say: "You can't manage it (water) unless you know who is using it and what is coming in and out" Well exactly my dear Doctor Watson, but let's get to the cause of the illness, and that is the township's poor planning and engineering practices sitting right there front and center. Methods of water RETENTION has never entered their minds I can only assume, yet in the State of Florida it has been a comon practice as far back as I can remember, and that's over 50 years. Such inteligence and foresight was perhaps never considered, and now the township has chosen to treat the symptom of this ailment (diminishing supply) rather than the very blatant cause which is located at the front end of the supply and consume cycle. Open your eyes Mr. Mayor and council et all. Look right across the road from the City Hall behind London Drugs, and you will see enough water wasted with each flash flood, to feed every well in the township for at least a month or more. It can no longer be absorbed and held by the vegetation that you have reclessly allowed to be destroyed by the gung-ho development on the south slope of the willoughby escarpment. Nice going guys !

A township manager involved with the water resources stated very loosely in the same article that the township "Expects" the provincial government to pick up the cost of water meters estimated at between $1000 and $2000 dollars. Hurry up with a firm promise here, because we only have until the 31st of December before this headlong rush to a huge blunder becomes irreversable. Most private well owners already have $20,000 and more tied up in their water systems and also have maintenance costs added as well. Charging for additional hardware for the water delivered from these facilities will be adding insult to injury.

Before I go on any further, let's turn our eyes towards Darth Vader, who lurks manacingly at the source of this messy controversy. Darth is of course is a symbol of none other that the Ministry of Agriculture. Remember them? You should, because they have already brought us misery via their letter of the law enforcement of the Right to Farm Act. Oh yeah, they are very friendly to the environement. NOT ! I'll just remind everyone how they have ignored our envirnment regularly each time they confuse INDUSTRY with REAL FARMING, and readers can assemble their own list. You might begin with with mushroon composters , and how their leash seems to get longer with every passing day as they are excused for the foul air they create in abundance.

At this moment there is every reason for the township council to slow the process, before starting with the metering of private wells. That procedure would be a costly, and a very large and complex program to implement fairly. There are far too many contributing factors to the diminishing levels of our water tables, and a fast track will contribute nothing sensible when prioritizing solutions. Let's start first with the worst offender among the others, and that is without a doubt the entity that holds the reins of this runaway horse. Yes indeed, it's the township itself. I'm sure that Confusious once said: "Check horse's mouth before looking up other end for problem". (LFP Editor's note - see 3 part Richter report for more)

Ed Monteith...

Letter To The Editor - Nov 23, 2007 - From Blair King - Top Down Management Style That Drives Me Batty

Editor's Note: This was a comment, not a letter from Blair King to Cllr. Richter's posting on the water issue. The content was so dead on about process and control that we decided to give it prominence as it hits on very valid points for all of us to mull over. Oh by the way the attached political cartoon is by this Editor, not Blair.

Kim,

The process you describe for input from the public and the Township sounds like a typical Provincial Gov’t, top down management style that drives me batty. They pick the experts and the panel and then put them to work. The public is deemed unqualified to supply useful input and therefore only lip service is paid to the public input stage. I’m surprised that Langley doesn’t have policies that would prevent this being forced down out throat this way. Especially in a situation like this where we will be taking the brunt of any new plan. I do understand, theoretically, where they are coming from in that this will be the model for other communities and so the BC gov’t wants their stamp on it but it is the Township of Langley that will pay if things go wrong and so the taxpayers of this region should be allowed a real say in the planning and implementation stages. To put a plan out there holus-bolus, then have two short open houses and finally expect the plan to be finalized less than 30 days thereafter (with a holiday like X-Mas fit in there) is simply ridiculous. I’ll bet that the comments from the open houses won’t even be collated in less than a couple days. Then the plan’s authors have to have a chance to read the input and consider it. Any changes to the plan, based on the public input, would then have to be considered by the committee as a whole, then run through the review process and finally the lawyers. To expect all this in under a month is beyond inane.

As for the public input set-up that is a farce. There should be open houses in more than one location and at more than one time period. Thursday nights are particularly bad for me and having the same limited hours on the same night in the same location over two weeks seems designed to discourage people who actually work for a living. Heck I seldom get out of work before 6 and then I have to get home for dinner and then it is time to get the little guy to bed. For an issue with these far-reaching consequences at least one open house should be on a weekend when it is easier for people to schedule to get there and the open houses should be in various locations in the Township to allow those who rely on transit or alternative means of transportation a chance to comment. This is a Township-wide plan and people from across the Township should have a chance to be heard.

Mind you this a regular concern of mine. Open houses in the Township seem designed to be convenient to Township Staff and hostile to the public. Does the Township not understand that maybe just some of the tax-paying population in Langley actually works for a living? They always seem to schedule open houses in undesirable locations at lousy times for those of us with employers who expect us to be at work during working hours!!!

Editor's Note: This is Part 2 on the WMP. See Kim's initial post at Part 1 and another post at part 3 on the WMP....

Letter To The Editor - Nov 18, 2007 - From Hildegard R. of Coquitlam - Questionable "Get Moving BC"?

Letter to the Editor,
Jordan Bateman, a councilor of the Township of Langley, published on the Website "Get Moving B.C." a comment, which I find highly questionable and according to my experience as a transit user untrue.

Under Fare Cheats he repeats a statement of Pela Lusa:

"My mom was riding a B-Line bus, a long accordion bus, which was stopped on the Granville Bridge and a fare inspector got on. This inspector told my mom that he had caught 40 people, who had cheated on their bus fare."

Since I have no car I am a frequent transit user. Never in all these years have I seen a fare inspector on a bus. The tickets are validated by the fare box - making checks by inspectors unnecessary. And can anybody familiar with bridge traffic imagine the bus being stopping on Granville bridge?

Only on the Sky Train do fare inspectors check the tickets. Rarely have I seen a person caught without a ticket. This the transit officials, present on the platform of Sky Train stations, confirmed, when I asked.

Mr. Bateman's writings prove that he is not familiar with Public Transit, promotes the B.C. Liberal's agenda - to spend $100 Million on gates at stations - and he does not shrink from using questionable means to say the least. Its time the citizens of Langley wake up.

The whole Lower Mainland is in desperate need of an effective Public Transit System now - not costly gates.

Hildegard R., Coquitlam, B.C.

...

Letter To The Editor - Nov 8, 2007 - From Wally Martin - Bateman Reelection Fundraising Raffle Controversy

(This is Part 2 of the Raffle Waffle Controversy. See Part 5 here. See Part 4 here. Part 3 here. See Part 1 here.)

Dear Editor
It would appear from the attached (see adjacent left) that Jordan Bateman is organizing a "raffle" This item can be seen at langleypolitics.com I am even more shocked to see that Rich Coleman is involved.I have filed a complaint with the Gaming Enforcement Branch as I believe private raffles such as this that appear to be operating without a license are unlawful. The same web site states the following "I worry about the cycle we are creating in our society, with gambling addiction causing broken families that we then fund service for out of the very money they gambled away. In Langley, 6% of people are gambling addicts. That's thousands of people." Gambling of any kind is bad but unlawful gambling is even worse. To have it being done by politicians is beyond belief.
Wally Martin
Langley BC

LFP EDITOR NOTE: Double mouse click picture above to enlarge it. Also this is part 2 of 2 see part 1 of 2 here to see initial LFP posting that initiated this email from Mr. Wally Martin apparently original written Nov 8th.

Letter To The Editor - Nov 9, 2007 - From Bonnie McPherson - Considering Taking My Children out of the Langley School District

Dear Editor:

I'm sending this to you as I believe this problem is going to affect all of us. Some districts are growing and some are shrinking in size. Population is aging. People are waiting longer to have kids, or chosing no kids at all. The education system is feeling the stresses of this demographic shift. We all know that some changes are inevitable. Schools are closing. But here in Langley something is terribly wrong.

Here is my letter:

The changes that are taking place in the Langley School District next September will affect close to 6000 students. There is very little public support. I'm considering taking my children out of the Langley School District
Here's why:

My daughters have very few OPTIONS. Only one of which is an actual school. One can attend an "experimental" school that has no support in this community. This new "Middle School" is going to be in the building that was once H.D. Stafford Secondary. There is too much research showing all the "problems" associated with middle schools for me to seriously consider this option. Too many of us opposed it. The teachers that I've spoken too don't want to teach there. The statistics from our research tells the story. Drop out rates go up. Bullying complaints go up, marks drop. I just know too much to let her go there. There are no swing sets or monkey bars. There are no "little kids" for her to be a mentor to....

There will however, be about 100 grade 12 students there as our Board of Education "forgot" about them when they made these plans. There is no room for them anywhere else. They want to stay, as H.D. Stafford has been their home. I feel like they deserve to have "H.D.Stafford" on their diplomas. But that is not where I want my 11 year old to be.

The only school that has room for my 13 year old daughter is L.S.S. Now I have nothing against L.S.S. My daughter is a soccer player. L.S.S. has the soccer academy. L.S.S. is the next closest school, although it is almost 5 km's away. It is the only highschool with room for my daugher. I have concerns about being FORCED into a school that doesn't really want us. I've been to the meetings. So has my daughter. We have a life outside school, and it is perfectly clear that there are going to be problems. There is bitterness and anger that has yet to be addressed. I have no confidence in the Langley School District to be able to effectively deal with this very real issue.

Brookswood is apparently capping it's cohort size at 250. Chances of getting in there are slim. They are expecting long line-ups come February. Tents and sleeping bags. Hope the weather isn't too bad.... R.E. Mountain - Full. Walnut Grove - Full. Aldergrove Senior Secondary.....lets not even go there.
There is friction here too. On more than one occasion I have heard "those whiney H.D. Stafford people" comments. I wonder how whiney any of you would be if this was happening to you or your children. It is not that we think our school is any better than yours. It's just that it was OUR school. And they are taking it away from us.

Abbotsford and Surrey, on the other hand, are GROWING communities and will welcome our kids with open arms. They have seats available. They put up portables to fit the kids in. There are choices there. There is a feeling of being wanted when you walk in the buildings there. Tweedsmuir has a great football team. Rick Hansen has fine arts. And they both have transportation options for our kids.

They want us.

Langley Board of Education doesn't.

What kind of Board of Education puts kids at risk? What kind of Board of Education chases its own kids out of it's district? What kind of Board of Education makes it uncomforble to be a Stafford parent or student. What kind of Board of Education takes the position of being the "victims" in this scenario. The Board are essentially using "smoke and mirrors" in my opinion. They should not use that on children and their education.
These people are bullies. Shame on you all. Look what you have taught my children.
Something is really wrong in Langley.

BM...

Taxpayer Tax Inquiry Request Ignored & Richter's Motion Not Discussed, Nor Reported

Councillor Kim Richter tabled a motion on August 26th refering to the adjacent posted letter to Township Mayor & Council. The letter writer says that his property taxes increased $2000 in the last year alone! ($4500 to $6700 over just the last year! A 49% increase!) Specifically her motion asked that in keeping with the request from Mr. McTaggart that council refer this matter to staff to ask for an improved and more equitable Township distribution of property taxes. Mr. McTaggart asked for an inquiry to investigate and report back on fixing this property tax inequity. Richter put forward the motion to address his concerns (and that of many other long term and rural township taxpayers who have the same very real concerns on this inequity).
"we pay high taxes for minimal service." - Mr. McTaggart.
Guess what happened? You got it, no seconder to her motion. Not even one of Richter's good ole boys club colleagues on township council wanted to second this issue nor even to obviously discuss it either. Hence there was no discussion on this Township Taxpayer's (Mr. McTaggart) important and very relevant request. No discussion, no action, no review, nothing! Just quiet disdain, brush-off and essentially outright rejection of Cllr. Richter's motion and even more tragic the Township Taxpayer's request.
" we can no longer afford to live in our homes as we are in effect being taxed out of our homes." - Mr. McTaggart
Worse still, the local media did not report on this in the local papers at all despite the fact that many more taxpayers have expressed the very same grave tax increase concerns. Where are the local papers? Is it now perhaps only all about advertising dollars? (Double Click on letter to view it larger & it is a great read!)

Letter To The Editor - July 29, 2007 - From Jeannine Cherewick - New Translink Bureaucracy Feeding At The Trough?

Reader Jeannine Cherewick forwarded the below 3 emails to LFP re the new Translink governance model, Light Rapid Transit in the Fraser Valley & fiscal accountability. Reading the bottom one first is her initial email to Minister Kevin Falcon, Falcon's response is second from the bottom and then Jeannine's counter response To Falcon just below. Jeannine please think about running for political office! - >>>EDITOR LFP<<<

From: Jeannine Cherewick
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 3:00 PM
To: 'Transportation, Minister Falcon TRAN:EX'
Subject: RE: 155606 - Changes at TransLink

Your responses to my letter are very slick and political shit. Please pardon my vulgarity but you haven’t given me any real answers. I don’t want slick long winded explanations, I want
some blunt to the point answers.

First of all; who is the independent panel of people choosing which mayors get to spend my money? Depending on whose will this independent panel bows to determines if the mayors council is appointed or not... Not to mention a commissioner? Who chooses him/her?

I express a huge concern over the "resources" translink has access to because I have yet to see a clear year by year total of all their funding. And clear totaling using Generally Accepted Accounting Practices to show how much money translink gets every year for everything; wages salary, perks, expense accounts, maintenance, operations, projects, consulting, and gosh only knows what else... every penny that is spent by Translink... and every penny that goes into Translink. I don’t care about the propaganda; the long winded letters explaining how translink is going to put that money to use with out really fully disclosing how much they’ve gotten; using figures over and omitting some non essential amounts, rounding up or down totals etc. I want to see the balance sheet... the P&L report. Are you going to email them to me or not? I am going to assume that you are not. How can you honestly expect me to accept translink saying that they need more money with out some sort of proof?

It boils down to this: I don’t have a problem paying my taxes and supporting the growth and infrastructure of our province but I’ve been lied to, condescended to, over taxed regularly and been expected to be grateful for all of it! I am sick of being scammed by the fridge repair man, overcharged for fuel, taxed for transit I don’t have access to and I am sick of bureaucratic smooth talking, legalese spouting, politicians telling me I don’t understand the situation. I may not have the fine points down but I understand that translink gets a lot more money than they will add up and admit to all on one piece of paper. I also know that if translink was run like a private company or was a fully transparent crown corporation, I’d probably have better access to the info I want and there would be a bit more real accountability to the public. Not to mention the fact that it would most likely be profitable.

So don’t email me with more condescending fluff talk to enlighten me as to why your non-answers are enough and I should be satisfied with that. Give me a detailed P&L, a balance sheet and list of where all the funding translink gets comes from as well as their complete revenue stream totals that Translink received last fiscal year and for the last ten years and you’ll have made me a very satisfied British Columbian.

Jeannine Cherewick


-----Original Message-----
From: Transportation, Minister Falcon TRAN:EX
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 12:01 PM
To: jeannine
Subject: 155606 - Changes at TransLink

Dear Jeannine:

Thank you for your e-mail of April 8, 2007, about the important changes announced for TransLink. Your e-mail contains a few misunderstandings about these changes, and I'm glad to have this opportunity to clear up matters.

Appointments to TransLink's new board of professionals will be made by the new Council of Mayors from a list of qualified individuals identified by an independent panel. The provincial government will not appoint anyone to the board, as you suggest.

The Council of Mayors, which will be made up entirely of elected local officials, is going to have a crucial role in TransLink's new structure. They will be responsible for setting TransLink's high-level direction by approving a 10-year strategic plan. The council will also authorize the
tax measures and borrowing required to achieve these goals.

The council's 10-year plan will be carried out by TransLink, overseen by a board of professionals -- people who have the appropriate expertise to oversee the planning, construction and operation of the region's transportation system.

To provide checks, balances and transparency, an independent TransLink Commissioner will be established. The commissioner will authorize any transit fare increases and will also provide unbiased assessments of whether TransLink's plans are consistent with the region's growth
management plans, as required by law.

Regarding your concerns about financial transparency, TransLink will continue to publish its financial statements and accounting policies in its annual report, which is currently available on its web site at: http://www.translink.bc.ca/Plans_Projects/

As you note, people in the Fraser Valley and other neighbouring regions have asked for a stronger voice in TransLink's decisions for some time now. Local governments from Hope to Pemberton may choose to join TransLink and be represented on the Mayor's Council if they feel this approach is right for their communities. However, no local government will be required to join, and no region will have to help fund TransLink without being represented.

You express some concern that TransLink has too many resources at its disposal already. However, TransLink needs to make significant investments in order to secure the transportation system required for the region's future. Only under the new structure will it have access to the resources to make these investments a reality. The changes we plan will ensure TransLink's funding requirements are met for the next two decades, making possible projects like the Evergreen Line and public transit across the Port Mann Bridge.

The new Council of Mayors will have the authority to increase fuel taxes within TransLink's service area by up to three cents per litre in the coming years, on the condition that additional revenues from any increase in fuel taxes are balanced with increases in property taxes and
other revenues, including fares. The panel chose to recommend this approach, because it fairly balances the demands placed on drivers, transit users and property tax owners in the region. It also provides an incentive to reduce automobile use and encourages transit use. The measure will also provide a substantial and predictable revenue stream, mitigating the need for property tax and fare increases well into the future.

You outline many other transportation investments you'd like to see, such as new transit lines. These are the sorts of decisions that will be made by the elected officials on the Council of Mayors and the skilled professionals on the TransLink board. The provincial government remains committed to the principle that regional transportation decisions should be made at a regional level.

The changes to TransLink we have announced are going to increase its effectiveness, responsiveness and accountability. They will let the people of the Lower Mainland build an outstanding transportation system that serves their needs for decades to come.

Again, thanks for taking the time to write.

Best regards,

Kevin Falcon

Minister


From: Jeannine Cherewick
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 11:45 PM
To: Falcon.MLA, Kevin

Subject: translink...

I have a serious issue with enlarging translink, under funding it and making sure the public have less access, control or say over its actions. So basically you've done the complete opposite of what you should have done with Translink as what you should have done. Translink
costs too much and does too little for every one outside of Vancouver city, Burnaby, Richmond, new west and tricities.

I am sick and tired of politicians saying they are doing what's best for BC when all they are really doing is consolidating power so they can do what they think is best for BC'ers. Translink should be restructured for sure. But there should be accountability to the tax payers of BC built into the new structure. As it stands, Translink has gone from being a unaccountable, non elected
body of bureaucrats who had the power to impose taxes, (which is completely wrong as far as I'm concerned) to a non elected body of bureaucrats, unaccountable to anyone but the minister, so you can have an squad of yes men run after you and applaud your every action. I think it's egotistical.

Translink should be made smaller, with far more checks and balances in place. With a transparent accounting of where the tax money they receive goes, not to mention how much they really get. Not some mishmash of obscure sources either. I'm talking a complete financial reckoning based on generally accepted accounting practices. I hope you are familiar with that terminology. It's a formula I am supposed to follow when doing my taxes. Once Translink gives a complete and fully transparent, honest accounting of its Profit and Loss, Balance sheet and
general ledger I will be more willing to support it if it can show why it deserves my support.

I've done a fair bit of bitching about Translink. In fact I think it's just another bureaucratic pig feeding from the trough that has been intentionally inflated to seem bigger than it needs to be in order to justify taxing the public as much as possible. How many hundreds of millions of dollars does translink suck from the public through its current revenue streams? Hydro Levies, fuel tax, property tax and so on. Now your going to expand translink fee's to the rest of the Fraser
valley... for what? Translink neither serves the outlying areas nor deserves the tax base.

I have said it before and I'll say it again, Translink is only good for those people who have the option of using transit, most of whom live in either Burnaby, central Surrey, New West, tri cities, North Van, Richmond or Vancouver itself. And of course most of those people think its fine for Translink to steal money out of my pocket and the rest the Fraser valley population because it's good for their circumstances.

Let's see some service that is on par with the service Vancouver gets out here in Langley and Chilliwack... build an affordable light rail transit from Hope to Maple Ridge west coast express, add a connecting train to Abbotsford and another rail transit from Abbotsford to Langley, south Surrey, Delta out to Richmond and build the highway and bridges that should have been built 20 years ago to accommodate today's traffic.

Yes I am talking billions and billions of dollars, but the fact of the matter is that I like hundreds of thousands like me resent Vancouver's monopoly on transit dollars. I drive for a living and when I am not working, I don't have the option of walking to the grocery store or hopping on the next bus because there isn't one on a regular basis that would take me anywhere near the places I need to go. Everything focuses on getting into Vancouver, very little concerns getting out of Vancouver or just commuting in my community. I do not see Langley as a suburb.

Langley is my home and I want to commute here, to hell with getting to Vancouver on transit, I'd just like to get around my home town! I live here and stay out of Vancouver as much as possible. I don't shop in Vancouver or take my recreation there. The issue of urban sprawl is
long past... The issue is providing adequate transportation to the people who live in the valley. Right now the only viable transportation is the highways because the province and Translink in their wisdom have not built enough rapid transit infrastructure to service the needs of the bulk of the population of the lower mainland.

And so all the Starbucks drinking, tree hugging yuppies in the downtown core and North/west Vancouver who can afford to actually live there and whose transit is subsidized by the hundreds of thousands, (dare I say millions?) of people who don't get access to the buses and sky train; who instead of using transit, choose to drive their smart cars and Saab's and Prius' the ten or twenty blocks to work; bitch and scream about how much more pollution will be caused by all the cars driving on the new highways that will be built (and how dare we lowly masses not
worthy of residing in the hallowed city of Vancouver (including North V and West V) ask or hope to understand why its bad for us to have better access to the ports, north shore, east of hope, industrial area's of Vancouver and so on.

And those same hypocritical yuppies that rely on the highways for all their supplies that keep the city alive; honk their horns and give me the finger and road rage at the trucks I pilot because we dare to be on the road at the same time as they.) these hypocritical, trendy, look-down-their-noses, Sam Sullivan ass kissing sycophants who don't know what the hell their talking about because they haven't been out of the city of Vancouver in years; have the gall to demand that anew bridge not be built over the Fraser river to reduce traffic congestion... ?! WTF!

I am not being derogatory towards all Vancouverites. No, just the ones who don't get that with out the proper transit system to bring people into the city, out of the city and around their own communities, there has to be roads. More roads. Because all the people who have to commute don't really have a choice and clog the highway from 176 St west to the second narrows pretty much from 4am to 9 or 10 pm and that is a huge problem... All those idling vehicles, thousands of them an hour, burning fossil fuels and polluting. And yes, it bothers us out in the valley to see such wastage. Why? Because its our money going out the tail pipe. And every time I fuel up my vehicle (It's a ford F350 diesel pickup. And yes, I need it for work, not just because I can afford to burn my money on an overpriced, gas guzzling SUV like so many of those whiney Vancouver hypocrites who are opposed to building more roads) I am pissed off to know that some of my hard earned money is going to be sucked up by the bloated leech called Translink.

Those people living west of Coquitlam who don't know that there are beautiful towns, parks and happy communities just east of them. Those people who don't know anything exists past the city limits of Burnaby... those are the people I have so little respect for. Who think they are the only British Columbians who have a say and think their opinions are correct because they live in Vancouver (!). Give me a break!

What it all boils down to is this: I would like to see some honesty from your ministry. I would like to see a proper and full accounting from Translink, justification for the changes that are going to be made and a cost break down of the changes. Oh yeah, also, think that the province of BC and Translink should reimburse every person in BC who pays the tax on fuel that supports translink. Why? Because they aren't being honest with our tax dollars, I believe, and we pay too much as it is. And I'd like to tell Mr. Sullivan where to stick it along with all the other ding dongs who haven't got a clue.

And a word for you Mr. Falcon, if you really want to do some good for transportation in the lower mainland, a rapid transit, like rail (The west coast express for example) from Hope to Richmond with connectors to the sky train, and stops at Mission, Fort Langley, (To connect with WC express at albion) Surrey, Delta at the industrial park there, (so many people would use rail there!) Ladner and then to Richmond to connect with the new Canada line; that would be beneficial. Also, Some form of mass transit that paralleled the path of the freeway from Chilliwack to Vancouver.... But my idea's might actually work at reducing the need to build more roads which might in turn reduce the fuel tax revenues the gov. could expect, so why take them seriously, right?

Jeannine Cherewick...

Letter To The Editor - June 11, 2007 - From Rick Kaselj - Re: The Unbundling Energy Scam Offers

SCAM Alert

The Unbundling Energy Scam Offers!

Do not sign up for any services offered by any gas marketer that have popped up because of the commodity unbundling of services relating to natural gas.

A representative from a new gas marketer came to my home on May 15, 2007 and scammed me for $579. This representative knocked on my door and informed me that Terasen was not going to be delivering natural gas to my home and that they would be providing that service. He let me know that in order for me to be transferred over to them and have my natural gas service continued, I would have to provide him with my Terasen gas statement. I was resistant at first but he convinced me to provide it. He filled out a form and got me to sign it. He said a letter from Terasen would come in the mail informing me that they would now be delivering natural gas to my home instead of Terasen.

I received a letter dated May 16, 2007 on May 28, 2007 from Terasen gas. After reviewing the letter, and realizing that I was not interested in having this new gas marketer provide me with gas, I explored my cancellation options. I noticed that that I had 10 days with which to cancel however; I received the letter past my 10 day cooling off period. According to the gas marketer weekends and holidays are calculated in the 10 day cooling off period. I contacted them and was informed that I could only cancel my contract if I paid a $310 service charge. In addition the rate I was originally quoted on my contract was $9.14 per GJ and the letter stated the rate was $9.74. When outlining this mistake to them they said I was wrong and refused to make the change.

I have tried to communicate diplomatically with them but they have refused to be understanding. What I have decided is to inform my friends, family, city, politicians and media of the tactics of this situation.

Do not make the same mistake as me. Be cautious and do not sign up for questionable this gas marketers Scam to replace Terasen Gas!

What You Need to Know about this Scam:

• If you sign up with them, you are locked into a contract for 5 years.
• Your gas fee will go from $7.663 per GJ to $9.74 per GJ. This is 27% increase or $116 a year.
• Signing up will cost you almost $579 (over 5 years) compared to today’s rate from Terasen
• Experts expect natural gas to stay at between $7 - $8 per GJ
• You have 10 calendar days to cancel the contract, not business days. Holidays and weekends are included in the count.

Educate Yourself:

• Visit Terasen Gas website (www.bcgas.com) for more information.
• Visit British Columbia Utilities Commission which regulates British Columbia's natural gas and electricity utilities (www.bcuc.com )
• Read the Code of Conduct for Gas Marketers at http://www.bcuc.com/Documents/GasMarketers/CodeofConduct-04-24-07.pdf
• How to file a Complaint - http://www.bcuc.com/Complaint.aspx

If these new scammers do end up scamming you, feel free to call Rick at (604) 530-0103 or e-mail at rkaselj@hotmail.com and he can share his experience and let you know what actions he has taken.

Rick Kaselj - Victim of the new unbundled Energy Scam...

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 29, 2007 - From Win Bromley - Out of Control Property Taxes

From: Win
To: Langley Times, Langley Advance, Aldergrove Star
Cc: mayorandcouncil@tol.bc.ca
Subject: Out of Control Property Taxes
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 15:29:31 -0600

Just received our 2007 property tax bill...we live in the Salmon River Uplands area with no sewers, water or fire hydrants - our 2007 net amount payable is up 17.4 % from 2006 and 29.3 !!!! % from 2005.
We will remember this come election time!!
Not a "jolly taxpayer",
Win Bromley

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...

Letter To The Editor - May 27, 2007 - From Mike & Pam Maneval - Re: School Trustees Closing Stafford Sec.

We are strong supporters of Keeping Stafford Secondary. This has been our kids school of choice, regardless of the fact that it is our catchments school. The school has great, involved and caring teachers. The students are nice to each other and individualism is respected. The learning that students receive there is top notch. So why is it, the school being considered for reconfiguration.

First, the board does not believe in standing true to its word. Three years ago, Stafford was told to get its numbers up, or suffer the consequences. Stafford acted by starting a football program that brought in cross boundary and cross district students. A fine arts program was started, and no other school has productions like this school does. The AVID program is proving a success, and is truly helping students. Stafford enrollment numbers have come up. So why is the board not being true to their word, the numbers came up the school should be safe. Why should our students have to pay the price of the boards failure to produce a long term plan?

This brings me to point number two. Peer pressure. We teach our kids to not give in to peer pressure. We have watched teachers, DARE programs, counselors and ourselves teach them to think for themselves. Don't listen to someone else, we tell them. But Allyson McVeigh has given in to peer pressure. She promised her student constituents that if Stafford were ever in risk of being closed or reconfigured she would support them. She gave in to the School Board's peer pressure. Shame on her for not sticking to her promise. Shame on us for believing in her at election time.

This problem is real, something has to be done, but not without more thought and planning. If middle schools are such a great idea as the School District likes to tell us, then why not change the entire district? Let's have some continuity. The board has also talked about Aldergrove becoming a grade 6 to 12 school. How does this make any sense when you put it in the same district as a K-5, 6-8 and 9-12? We need long term planning, not quick fix mess ups....

Letter To The Editor - May 26, 2007 - From Kelly Begg - Re: School Trustees Closing Stafford Sec.

I am just sick with the thought of my children having to walk in the dark to LSS, spending approx. 2 hours everyday walking to and from school. Unless of course they want to take transit, its only 2 buses, 2 overcrowded buses, oh and whats another $60.00 per student a month to pay for the bus, and such a nice area of Langley to have to transfer buses in the dark along with hundreds of others trying to get to school on time.

What incentive to go from a school that has offered so much, and been such a close knit community to a school that doesn't offer the Fine Arts Program, doesn't offer the AVID program, doesn't offer the football program.

A route to LSS will take the majority of the HD Stafford students thru vacant land (by the airport), bush area, no sidewalks, crossing over Fraser Highway, crossing over the By-Pass. A route with very few houses, a route where anything can happen to our kids. As a single mom, am I going to have to take time off work everyday to get my kids to and from school? Work a shorter day, hence a drop in pay - explain that to my boss! Are my kids going to have to give up after school activities because it will be dark by the time they are over? Because they need that extra 1 hr or 1.5 hr of commuting to do homework?

Is there going to be room for these kids from Stafford to participate on school teams at LSS, the grade 8 girls soccer team at LSS, had enough girls to field 2 teams? how much playing time will each girl get to play? Has LSS been seismically upgraded? will my kids be safe at this school? Stafford's enrollment is on a steady increase, next year my understanding is we will have a full football program. Have you looked in the local papers to see what these kids from Stafford are achieving academically and in sports???? Do you really think that by taking away our high school these kids are all going to automatically go to LSS? there are other schools. By closing Stafford you aren't necessarily going to solve the declining enrollment at LSS.

To save a few bucks you are risking these kids safety and their futures. Perhaps smaller salaries to the board would compensate for what we are supposedly short financially. Perhaps not wasting money on reports that were so inaccurate they weren't worth the paper they were written on would help save money.

Have you even listened to the options put out by the students and parents of HD Stafford? Have you heard anything that the students have said? Is your hope that if you have enough meetings, parents will start not attending and you can take that to mean we accept what you're trying to force upon us? You are so wrong and should be ashamed of yourselves. I thought education was about our kids. How can you even consider destroying a school, a community to save a few bucks. Reports show that a smaller school doesn't cost more than a large school to operate, reports show that there is less bullying in a smaller school, reports also show that Stafford is not lacking in options for our students. Take off your blinders, open your ears and listen! If Langley City doesn't have a high school will our taxes be adjusted accordingly?

Listen to the students, listen to the people of Langley City, remember you were "hired" by the people of Langley City and you can bet that we won't forget all our time you you have taken us away from our families to attend these meetings, the stress and anxiety you have caused our children and the parents of these students. You need to have some compassion for the students and their families of Langley City.

I was once proud to say I lived in Langley City, I'm not so proud these days because of the uncaring, unfeeling people we hired and trusted, what a big mistake!

Mayor Fassbender will obviously have to change his welcoming letter on the Langley City home page, “"The Place To Be” for everyone. The place to live and raise our families, the place to do business and ultimately the place to build our futures!"” that sure won't be the case if you get your way. Even your own home page "Working together for student success through excellence in education. Empowering all to make quality choices today for opportunities tomorrow" Its obvious you don't stand behind your promises if you push thru this horrible plan to turn HD Stafford into a UNWANTED middleschool....

Letter To The Editor - Jan 2, 2007 - From Shane Dyson - Re: Conservative Donation Reporting

Shane Dyson is a community activist who has previously run for Township Councillor and for NDP MLA in Aldergrove/Fort Langley.

In light of the recent revelations of Conservative donation reporting as reported in CdnPress as well as the sudden resignation of J. P. Kingsley as reported in The Star , I offer a few comments below.

From Conservative Leader Stephen Harper's April 21 2005 speech, in reaction to Paul Martin's address to the nation:

"My fellow Canadians.We have all just witnessed a sad spectacle -- a prime minister so burdened with corruption in his own party that he is unable to do his job and lead the country, a party leader playing for time, begging for another chance.This is not how a prime minister should act."

And what would Stephen Harper say now that the Conservative Party of Canada is in a similar position of party corruption? In a recently revised Elections Canada financial report for 2005, the CPC acknowledges that the party did not report delegate fees collected for its national convention as donations, contrary to political financing laws.

More disturbing is their abysmal and near fraudulent accounting of "other revenue" and "other expenses".

In their amended report to Elections Canada, the Conservatives have "reclassified revenue related to the 2005 convention". The report now includes $539,915 in previously unreported donations, an extra $913,710 in "other revenue as well as a further $1.45 million in "other expenses."

In other words, they've just been caught in failing to disclose several of hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions) of donations. Much of this stems from not including delegate fees in their submissions to Elections Canada.

As a result, many Conservative financial donors, including Stephen Harper, have now been placed in the position of exceeding their annual political contributions limit.

The party has been required to send belated 2005 tax receipts to approximately 3,000 convention delegates. This will cause untold joy for those who now have to re-file their 2005 income tax return.

But worse than trying to skirt around on whether convention fees are donations or not, is the failure to disclose some $2,364710 in "other revenue" and "other expenses". That's a huge pile of cash to try and hide, especially when politicians place transparency in government on such a high pedestal.

It is remarkably ironic that this political financing chicanery has taken place by a party that proclaims its Federal Accountability Act as an ethical compass.

If only they had followed the rules, in the same manner that they have demanded the Liberals and others adhere to. But alas no.

The Conservatives, to their credit have tried to remedy some of this situation by acknowledging they must adhere to Elections Canada regulations. But it's not enough to send in an amended report and send out a few tax receipts.

We've yet to have an explanation of the "other revenue" and "other expenses". Imagine the outrageous and sanctimonious howls from Conservatives if the Liberals, New Democrats or Bloc Qubeccois had dodged reporting almost $1.5 in donations and other revenue.
In a November 8, 2005 news release, Langley MP Mark Warawa said: "People who work hard, pay their taxes and play by the rules have been let down by the Liberals. Canadians deserve nothing less than accountable government. The Conservative Party has a plan to renew faith in government; to instill a culture of accountability in Ottawa.

Well perhaps I can give one bit of advice to the Conservatives on this issue. It only takes a few Conservatives to come forward and say "Let's hold ourselves up to the same standards that we expect of other parties. Let's ask the Auditor General or maybe John Gomery to sort this mess out. We should deposit $1.5.M in a trust until a complete and independent audit establishes the exact amount that was improperly contributed to CPC bank accounts."

Unfortunately, not one Conservative will take the high road on this issue, even though it's the right thing to do.I guess the Conservatives can no longer throw the first stone when it comes to ethics.
Shane Dyson ...

Letter To The Editor - Dec 21, 2006 - From Wally Martin, Innkeeper

Langley Hotel Tax is coming back in January 2007.

Where have all the American tourists gone?

The number of U.S. visitors to Canada in October was the lowest since 1972
See - Vancouver Sun December 21, 2006 – page C3

Editor :The reason the American tourists are staying away is “Killer Taxes”

Americans have heard about high Canadian taxes and the few that come experience it first hand. 1st at the gas pumps and then at the restaurants (GST on food) and then at the hotels. 10% plus GST = 16% on a room. You would stay away too.

Tourism BC has the perfect answer. Add even more taxes.

See page 21 of the Tourism BC annual report.

Tourism BC is also encouraging all municipalities to add the Municipal additional 2% hotel tax . This is called “Community Foundations (see page 15 of the same report)

We say lower hotel tax to 5% immediately and let all the goofy “Tourism Organizations” find their own dollars by selling quality service. Only with lower taxes will we see the return of the American Tourist.

Wally Martin, Innkeeper

Traveller’s Hotel (BC’s oldest hotel) ...

Letter To The Editor - Dec 14, 2006 - From George Stainton

A very unhappy letter from a Fort Langley taxpayer. Courtesy of Cllr. Kim Richter.

Letter To The Editor - Dec 6, 2006 - From Paper Bag Reporter - Re:“Township Mark-Down Taxes Special"

<- This is the simplest yet most eloquent letter this Editor has yet received! Obviously this contributor compares the Township Council's annual Taxpayers tax hike game with the equally onerous Xmas boxing day sale flyers! Both are equally a rip-off! LFP's suggested caption is; "LOOK, what we on Township Council are saving you in tax increases for 2007 - LIMITED TIME OFFER also includes the same 4.95 % increase for each of 10 more years to come!". Comment on a better caption or forward a better cartoon , to EDITOR-LFP.

Letter To The Editor - Dec 3, 2006 - From Melanie Lynch - Re:“Unsafe In This City"

LFP will post Letters to the Editor prominently. Send Email letters to EDITOR-LFP.

To: langleyfreepress@canada.com
Subject: Unsafe in this City
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:13:53 -0800

Dear Mayor Fassbender:
I am sure you receive a lot of mail. I am hoping you will make time for this letter of mine.

I have met you a couple times. The last time was the Arthritis Society Tea, where I was helping out.

Anyway, I am quite concerned about the lack of safety in Langley. I have been witness to a couple of bad accidents at night, and in broad daylight. Time seems to make no difference.

Three times last week while I was walking my two dogs, I almost got hit. I was in the pedestrian crosswalk, and had the signal to walk. TWICE cars came screeching to a halt,
inches from hitting me. It also happened one evening. I don't wear dark clothing and most people/businesses in the downtown core know me to see me. I am going to get a
flashlight and start using it; yes, even in the daytime.

The arrogance I encounter is incredulous. I have had people gesture to me to get out of the way, (ie. come on, come on,) to being sworn at. It is as if I am the big inconvenience.
I am fairly fit for fifty because of all the walking I do. Rage is all the age lately.

Last night I was walking behind the park just north of the Rogers Video store at Fraser Crossing. Yup; me and my two dogs. I saw a lady get out of her car, (rental) and she
was swarmed by five kids on bicycles. Another couple closer to her saw what happened, and the kids were hurling racial slurs at her. She was terrified. I saw this from the
corner by the dental office and called the RCMP, kept them on the phone, walking towards the woman in the parking lot. Something was obviously wrong. One of the kids had scraped her rental car and she was upset because she thought she would have to pay for the damage.

The other couple who had pulled up by the park were there to walk their dog. They were the only people who helped. I asked them to speak to the Constable I had on my cell phone, since they were witnesses. They were more than co-operative.

How did Langley get to be so indifferent to the safety of its citizens? Too many people want to complain, are in a hurry and will purposely NOT do anything about something
that is so blatantly amiss. And don't get me started on drivers who yak on their cell and steer............or try] to. The brain cannot engage in several tasks at once and stay focused. THAT is why employees who do a lot of overtime start making mistakes after a certain number of hours worked. Their concentration is not as sharp.

I have never encountered anything like the apathy I have found here. I have lived in Fredericton, Moncton, Halifax, Ottawa, Kingston, Kitchener, and Waterloo. We moved here six years ago and it used to be a nice community to live in. If Langley is the Place to Be, etc, etc, etc., I think you will find many people living with fear. Even my neighbours
tell me (I live in a condo) they NEVER go out walking at night anymore.

When we moved here from Waterloo, ONT, many of my friends said, "Oh, you're going to La-la Land." Now I understand what that really means; la-la-la-la-la; we'll just continue along ....... and get out of my way. Oh yeah; funny thing is the most popular phrase here is "No Worries".

And after having said all that, I have met some exceptional people here and have some terrific friends. Some of those dedicated people are the Parks and Recreation crew, who do such a wonderful job of maintaining the Off-Leash Dog Park @ 206 ,merchants in the downtown core who love have us visit and some of my neighbours, and my dog walking buddies. They are congenial, and never complain. And they stop to pat my dogs!

I am still going to walk my dogs when they need to go out. If anyone physically comes after me, I assure you they will be ready to act.

What is the City of Langley going to act on?

Sincerely yours,
A Maritimer out of Water
(Melanie Lynch)...

Letter To The Editor - Dec 3, 2006 - From Pierre Moyen - Re:“Nationhood For Quebec"

To: langleyfreepress@canada.com
Subject: NATIONHOOD FOR QUEBEC
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 19:31:19 -0800

To LFP Editor,
I once lived in Quebec, but I moved away so that my children would not live with the bigotry that was brewing darkly among the separatists in the nineteen seventies. In earlier, days the Montreal area had a good mixture of ethnic groups, and I seldom felt badly treated by French speaking Canadians any more than other Canadians. Unseen by most people though, there was a strong undercurrent working methodically to obtain nationhood status when the time was right. The emotion factor had a strong bearing on the mood change that came over many French speaking Canadians, and a tide of distrust and even violence was the result. A person could write a couple of books on the emotional and political maneuvering that has lead up to the present, but that would best be discussed at another time. The question now is how to rid Canada of this ulcer that will not go away.

The latest suggestion on parliament hill is to give Quebec nation status within Canada.. What good does nation status do anyone other than the blood suckers in Quebec politics who milk the rest of Canada constantly in one way or another? Quebec would then have license to do the same thing legally and methodically, while still scheming towards the next step in total separation. I suppose we would also have a Minister of Quebec Affairs in the next office to the Minister of Indian Affairs, and he would assure us all that the money that his office doled out was for a good cause.

It would be interesting to have readers join in and explain why Canada should not simply say to Quebec: “Go your own way, but settle your debts with Ottawa as you close the door behind you”. What are the pros and cons?
Pierre Moyen...

Letter To The Editor - Nov 19, 2006 - From Pierre Moyen - Re:“Build It And They Will Come"

LFP will post Letters to the Editor prominently. Send Email letters to EDITOR-LFP.

I recall watching a movie on TV one night a long time ago. It was called “BUILD IT AND THEY WILL COME”. Many of you may remember it, especially if you are baseball fans. The theme lingered a bit in my mind, and thoughts of the homeless and other down and outs in the lower mainland began to brew up more thought, because there is a connection.

In the movie, the concept was strong enough to bring back the dead. Now that’s pretty damn strong medicine! What if homeless canadians from all over Canada were to come out here to enjoy our climate and hospitality, in the event that our government(s) put together a near perfect plan for inexpensive housing for the homeless? Why not, if such a plan was done with a reasonable degree of perfection? Yikes!

Given the vast differences in the reasons that individuals and even families are homeless, we know that there is no common cause or solution. We can be certain that the NIMBYS will be out in droves to contest the location of any low cost or high density housing in their neighborhoods, and can we blame them? The possibility of vagrancy, street gangs, littering, drug addiction and prostitution cannot be ignored if history is worth anything. If the same conditions follow when low cost housing is shoved upon the city centers, where working people pay dearly for accommodations, what should we expect from them?

Should the solution take the simpler form of relief work at nominal wages, and the homeless can then afford to find what suits them? The mentally ill would be the exception of course. How would the labor movement react?...

Letter To The Editor - Nov 4, 2006 - From Lorne Danielson - Re: Harper - Income Dis-Trust

LFP will post Letters to the Editor prominently. Send Email letters to EDITOR-LFP.

Another letter attached from Lorne Danielson to this Editor with strong comments on the Harper's Income Dis-Trust to the investors and people of Canada.

Letter To The Editor - Nov 4, 2006 - From Pierre Moyen of Langley - Re: Harper - Betrayal of the People

LFP will post Letters to the Editor prominently. Send Email letters to EDITOR-LFP.
Pierre Moyen of Langley sent us his editorial letter re Harper's Conservative Government "A Betrayal of the People" attached.

He talks to the Conservative government's surprise decision this week to tax income trusts like other, more standard corporate entities in Canada. The Conservative platform explicitly stated that a Conservative government would not do this. Indeed, it stated that "'A Conservative government will: . . . Stop the Liberal attack on retirement savings and preserve income trusts by not imposing any new taxes on them.' Conservative federal election platform Jan. 13, 2006.

This blatant reversal which has overnight cost Canadians $36.4 Billion while saving the Government only $500 million in taxes. Financial columnist Michael Campbell summarizes that Harper's Government, "was willing to see income trust investors lose, on average $72 for each tax dollar the Government gains in return."

Before we forget lets also not forget that this government is now also shoveling patronage appointments out of the back of their truck to it's party faithful as well. Judges, 2010 Olympics Board members and the list goes on. Also with a byelection now in Montreal, Harper's appointed backroom boy Senator Fortier says he will not run in this by-election as he promised he would! These items all smack of betrayal as well to their previous statements and lofty policies and promises made by this Conservative government.

Most tragic of all, this Harper Government income trust action betrayal has hurt tons of those that counted on this government's word on income trusts and could least afford it. The Conservatives essentially gutted the retirement nest eggs of Canada's retired and the elderly.

Pierre Moyen clearly is someone who voted Conservative and feels betrayed and disillusioned. He should be. Pierre is not a unique angry Conservative. Even Sean Ahern reported by the Globe quit the the Conservatives over this issue. The Globe quotes Sean, "I've never voted for a Liberal in my life. But I will vote for them,” said Mr. Ahern, a financial planner in his 60s who has been a Conservative party member since he was 16." Pierre please send an email to your Langley MP Mark Warawa (everybody send him an email!) asking for an explanation and let us know how he defends taking money away from those that can probably least afford it and especially ask how he can fathom going back on their word....

Letter To The Editor - April 29, 2006 - From Peter Adamovich - Re: School Closure Procedures Review

LFP will post Letters to the Editor prominently. Send Email letters to EDITOR-LFP.

Editor
I'm very glad the school district will review their closure procedures. The current process fails to inform all parties of the ultimate goals of closure.

During the South Carvolth review process, district administration informed trustees and parents that the reasons were not financial, which is good because closing the school would have recovered less than 1% of the district's overall budget, even if all the students had stayed in the district. Since more than half of South Carvolth'sstudents are enrolled in Surrey schools, the District is not even saving that 1%.

The administration cited declining enrollment, and prior to the review South Carvolth actually had 3 more students enrolled for September than were graduating and moving on to High School. Under-utilization was also mentioned, but the school that was closed had 77% utilization where other schools in the district are currently around 60% and are projected to have even more empty desks in the future.

The District's policy states they can review any school when there is room in the surrounding schools for the students that would be displaced. Any other considerations are secondary, although there are eight clear points listed. Only one of those 8 is measurable. Any change in the process that would make it clearer to all parties involved what the benefits and drawbacks of closing a school will be an improvement.

I do hope any future process also includes some sort of requirement to adhere to the process itself, however. The current process states that alternatives to closure must be presented, and in the case of the South Carvolth review the total number of alternatives presented was zero. None. The fact that the vote actually took place when the districts own guidelines were not being followed should concern all of us,not just those directly affected.

Peter Adamovich
South Langley....

Letter To The Editor - April 29, 2006 - From Peter Adamovich - South Carvolth Kids going to Surrey School

LFP will post Letters to the Editor prominently. Send Email letters to EDITOR-LFP.

Editor,
As quoted in the Langley Times of April 28, School Trustee Sonya Paterson characterizes the decision by many parents to enroll their children in a small rural school as a threat. It wasn't a threat, and choosing a school that suits our ideals isn't really "jumping ship" as she believes. The parents and students of South Carvolth told the trustees and administration what we value. The board voted 5 to 2 in favour of not providing that sort of service to our community. The trustees were informed of that intention prior to voting, and they essentially voted those students (and the provincial funding that goes with them) out of the district.

In my case, another issue is distance: Halls Prairie Elementary in Surrey is actually the closest school to my home after South Carvolth closes. While not everyone in a rural community can hope that their children can walk to school, my daughters could have. That option is no longer available, but if I have to choose between sending them down the street or 6 km away, I'll choose down the street even if there happens to be a school district border between here and there. I'm free to send my childrento a school (or district) that I believe shares the values I do.

There doesn't happen to be an appropriate private school in the area, otherwise I may have considered that an option. Would that constitute "jumping ship" as well? The district administration and the trustees seem to think that's a good option for the families that will be moving into the Highpoint development, and not having those potential students in the district didn't seem to be a good enough reason for the board to keep South Carvolth open. That includes Trustee Patterson who voted to close the school.

The school district has decided it does not want to be in the business of running a small school. The parents of the children that enrolled at Halls Prairie have made it clear that is the kind of school they want. While Trustee Patterson may think the parents and students have abandoned the school district, it is a two way street, isn't it?

Peter Adamovich
South Langley....

Letter to the Editor - April 26,2006 - From Tom Ouellette - Honour Our Troops - Red Fridays

LFP will post Letters to the Editor prominently. Send Email letters to EDITOR-LFP.
Red Fridays


RED FRIDAYS ----- Very soon, you will see a great many people wearing Red every Friday. The reason? Canadians who support our troops used to be called the "silent majority". We are no longer silent, and are voicing our love for God, country and home in record breaking numbers.

We are not organized, boisterous or over-bearing. We get no liberal media coverage on TV, to reflect our message or our opinions.

Many Canadians, like you, me and all our friends, simply want to recognize that the vast majority of Canadians supporting our troops. Our idea of showing solidarity and support for our troops with dignity and respect starts this Friday -and continues each and every Friday until the troops all come home, sending a deafening message that every red-blooded Canadian who supports our men and women afar will wear
something red.

By word of mouth, press, TV -- let's make Canada on every Friday a sea of red much like a homecoming football game in the bleachers. If every one of us who loves this country will share this with acquaintances,co-workers, friends, and family. It will not be long before Canada is covered in RED and it will let our troops know the once "silent" majority is on their side more than ever, certainly more than the media
lets on.

The first thing a soldier says when asked "What can we do to make things better for you?" is...We need your support and your prayers. Let's get the word out and lead with class and dignity, by example; and wear some thing red every Friday.

IF YOU AGREE -- THEN SEND THIS ON.

Tom Ouellette
c.c. Aldergrove Star, Langley Times, Langley Advance

Tom Ouellette ran unsuccessfully against the incumbent in the past November 2005 Langley Township Municipal election. While not successful, his showing was impressively close to the incumbent.
....

Letter To The Editor - April 1, 2006 - From Peter Adamovich - Re: South Carvolth Environmental School Closure Decision

LFP will post Letters to the Editor prominently. Send Email letters to EDITOR-LFP.

I thought I was done when the board voted. I suppose I'm not through yet. I wrote this to the Times and the Advance, but when I looked and saw that it was almost 1000 words, I realized they'd never print it. I'll send it to the Free Press as it stands, and send a shorter version to the Times and the Advance. The focus may be slightly different when it's shorter...

Editors,

I've written to your papers throughout the closure review, so you may know what side I'm on already. As a parent, I'm dissapointed with the result, but we each seem to have our opinions on that. As a taxpayer, I'm disappointed in the process, and that should concern all of us.

Part of the district's review policy states that alternatives to closing a school must be presented. None were. Why wasn't this questioned? The criteria for selecting a school for possible closure (a candidate school to be reviewed) aren't objective or measurable, with one exception: 200 or fewer F.T.E. 4 schools in Langley have less than 200 students, so why was South Carvolth the only one to be reviewed? If the board had been presented with more than a single yes or no option by the administration, it would be more likely that the board could have made a decision
that made a difference to the district as a whole.

Trustees, senior staff, and even editorial staff at the Times have said that this difficult decision is in the interests of all the students in the district. Only barely: South Carvolth had 27 empty desks, a little more than one maximum capacity elementary classroom. Closing this school does less to reduce excess capacity in the district than keeping it open, since new registrations for September were already more than the number of students graduating from Grade 7. Supposing for a moment that all the students are going to stay in the district (and they're not), the excess capacity in the district overall goes down by 0.7 percent.

If the district's aim is to reduce the excess capacity overall, they should have considered closing Bradshaw elementary, currently running at 52% capacity with only 166 students and a capacity of 317. Bradshaw students likely could still walk to Belmont, Alice Brown or Noel Booth, and while I recognize that means closing a school for almost twice the number of students, I think the possibility should have at least been considered. Closing South Carvolth would essentially mean that if students stay in the district, they would likely all have to be bussed to school, and even then the other schools would still not be at or near capacity.

What about the resources that go into "keeping an expensive school open for a small number of students". It has been stated that South Carvolth is a small school, and therefore very expensive on a per-student basis. While it's not the most expensive in the district, it is among the top five. But step back a moment, South Carvolth is a small school. So even if the cost per student is high, the total cost is not as much as any other school in the district. Again, closing South Carvolth has a very small effect on the district as a whole. And as I mentioned above, many students will not be attending Langley School District public schools following the closure, so the cost savings will not be fully realized by the other students in the district.

However, as the trustees have heard and many parents, students, and teachers have stated, South Carvolth is a successful learning environment. How much is a good education worth? Businesses talk about return on investment. Surely learning ought to be the measure, more importantly than the price per student. And these are our children we're talking about. Economies of scale should not be more important to us than the quality of the result.

What about the subject of declining enrollment? The district as a whole does have a serious problem on it's hands. However, the district's own figures show that South Carvolth's enrolment has gone up and down in the last 10 years, not steadily declined as claimed in the review report. The school was poised to have more students in 2006/07 than this year. This is without any increase from the High Point development, or the potential increase from sewer and water along 200th street.

All of these points were raised to the trustees, mostly through the Site Committee. The answers to the Site Committee's questions were difficult to obtain, and in many cases the information provided by district administration were non-answers or merely quotes from district policy. My last letter was printed in both the Times and the Advance, and was sent to all the trustees, urging them to be sure to review Glenn Miller's submission which did more to address all the points that should have been part of the review than anything the administration put together. Alison McVeigh responded to my email ensuring me that she had reviewed the information. It did not matter to her that more information was presented from concerned parents than the
district's own staff. It didn't matter to the 5 trustees who voted to close the school that the criteria for review are not measurable. It didn't matter to the administration that their figures on enrollment projections were changed between the original recommendation and the final review report, at least not enough for them to present some justification for the differences. In the final analysis, the district doesn't care enough to put any effort into a "difficult decision."

And how much did this review cost the district, and ultimately the residents and students of Langley? Every dollar spent on this review is a dollar not spent on education. I don't know the answer to that, but whatever the cost in time and research, it's not likely to be of benefit to all students in Langley School District #35.

Peter Adamovich
Langley....

Letter To The Editor - March 16, 2006 - From Jeannine Cherewick - Responses To Translink Board Re: Stupid Parking Tax

Subject RE: parking tax!! a response to Paul Barlow, Project Manager Parking Site Tax Implementation

We will post Letters to the Editor prominently. Send Email letters to EDITOR-LFP.

(Below at bottom is response to Mrs. Cherewick's first letter from Translink and just below is her 2nd response to Translink!)

From: Jeannine Cherewick
Cc: Mayor & Council, MP Mark Warawa, MLA Mary Polak, Langley Times, Councillor Steve Ferguson, MLA Kevin Falcon, Councillor Kim Richter, Langley Free Press

First of all, I am Mrs. Cherewick,
Your reasons sound like bureaucratic legalese… Translink has no right to tax a property that they already get a portion of tax funds from (the property tax). Translink has also used a very broad stroke in determining what is taxable with out thought or diligence. The amount of tax is unreasonable, even after that most gracious 20% reduction.

Business people, the bread winners for real families that are already overburdened with taxes from their home and corporate obligations are the ones truly affected by this obscene tax grab. You know; the small business owner who has a small shop with typically less that 50 employees. They do not get a pay raise every time the cost of living increases. They try to stretch every dollar to make ends meet, pay the employees first, hope to find the time and money for a vacation next year, ignore the Telus bill that month and hope to cover it the next. They save pennies, live on credit and now some well paid Translink employee glibly tells me that there is wide spread support for this tax initiative?

When did you come to my door and ask my opinion? When did anyone from Translink come to any of my peers and ask if this was a good idea? Translink didn’t ask small business owners, they probably conferenced with some very large corporations who have a large public drawing and can afford to absorb the costs and in fact it probably wont affect their costs too much because they sell so much product and it’s all made in China so the cost to the bottom line is only pennies per item to them. Who told you this was a good plan and they supported it? I’d like to talk to those companies.

It’s companies that are just a husband and wife team or less than 50 employees, or specialty shops, artisans and fine crafts; those are the ones you should have spoken to and then you’d get a pretty honest reaction to your lame excuses for bleeding us of more of our hard earned money. This tax will see an increase to everything; clothes, groceries, gas, business supplies and so on. I don’t support this tax.
I work from my home and have a big drive way, are you going to tax me too? Oh, wait, you already did! Its called property tax and since the values of property have risen enormously since 1992 (when this dumb idea was first conceived) that funding source should be more than sufficient for Translink along with the fuel taxes and hydro levies and whatever other way you acquire your funding. If its not then obviously Translink is not a well structured or well run company and should cease being a drain on the economy and be dissolved.

Now I’d like to know how much you make every year and what your expense account allowance is and what all your perks are so I can send you a bill for a percentage of what you make and then I could raise it annually to support my family as the cost of living increases because of tax initiatives like this one.
Sincerely,
Jeannine Cherewick

Response below to Mrs. Cherewick's initial letter also posted here on LFP.

From: Barlow, Paul [Paul_Barlow@translink.bc.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 10:26 AM
To: Jeannine Cherewick
: FW: parking tax!!

Dear Ms. Cherewich;
Thank you for your February 22nd e-mail and your comments on the Parking Site Tax. My apologies for the lateness of this reply.

By way of some history, the tax was proposed as a funding source for BC Transit as early as 1992, and the provincial legislation creating the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority in 1998 included it as a source of funding for TransLink's road and transit services. The legislation defines a 'parking site' as "the part of the land and any improvements on the land that is used, available or designed for the parking of motor vehicles, and for any purpose that is in any way related or ancillary to that parking".

A Parking Site Tax has been implemented for a number of reasons. The first is that demand for road and transit improvements simply outstrips TransLink's revenues. We consulted broadly in 2003 to determine the transportation improvements the region needed us to implement in our 2005 - 2007 Three Year Plan, and to reach some consensus on how to pay for them. While one option was to proceed on the basis of TransLink's existing revenues, the consultation identified a $2 billion list of transit expansion and road projects.

The second reason that this specific tax was created arose out of the widespread support across the region that the users and benefactors of the entire transportation system share the cost of these improvements. Businesses and other organizations rely greatly on the road and transit systems to get goods, services, staff, members and customers to and from their locations. They have a keen interest in alleviating traffic congestion, which serves to drive up business costs and, it follows, the costs of goods and services for all consumers.

As a result of public feedback, TransLink identified three sources of additional revenue to support the transportation plan: transit fares, property tax and parking taxes. Both the transit fare and property tax increases were implemented in 2005.

The Parking Site Tax being implemented in 2006 is the product of consultations with a variety of interest groups. Initially, TransLink proposed an increase to the sales tax charged on off-street paid parking, but stakeholders pointed out its undue impact on limited locations throughout the region (particularly downtown Vancouver and White Rock) and suggested that a region-wide strategy be used instead.

Discussions then took place with a number of organizations, including representatives of commercial property owners, to explore options for a tax based on parking stalls or parking areas, as described in the GVTA Act. In those discussions, representatives expressed strong support for TransLink's transportation plan and an equally strong appreciation that more funding was needed. However, and understandably, they did not like the idea of a tax on parking and wanted us to rely on other sources of funding. The Board did take that view into consideration when they approved the overall financial strategy that drew on transit fares and property taxes as well as the parking site tax.

The discussions then focused on options to structure a parking tax and, based on the input we received, TransLink proceeded with one based on parking area and opted to utilize the existing property tax framework. The key reasons for this were:

a) Fairness and regional equity - stall sizes vary and processes for unmarked parking are not required.
b) Cost of collection and maintenance of the roll - once the roll is established, the collection can be done through existing processes.
c) Objectivity - "area" is definitive and not subject to change.

Further, the framework established enables retail property owners to pass along the cost to all tenants, including anchor tenants.

The property tax framework will exempt some properties from the tax. Generally, any non-residential property that is not subject to municipal property taxes will also not pay the Parking Site Tax.

It is understandable that a number of issues will arise with the introduction of a new tax. In this case, many issues will revolve around the areas that were included in the site measurement. The property tax framework being used creates an appeal process that allows a property owner to appeal to an independent review panel to ensure that the measurement reflects the parameters of the legislation, its regulations and the GVTA bylaws. We anticipate that there will be some adjustments to the total measurements as a result of the appeals that have been filed.
The Board of Directors have listened to the business community and have instructed staff to reduce the rate for 2006 so that revenue generated by this tax be set at $20 million not $25 million as originally planned. They have also requested that staff review the details of implementation of the parking site tax, including those arising from the definition of "parking", exemptions and TDM goals.

As much as anyone, we realize that taxes are not popular and that the introduction of a new tax is even less so.

People in the region have supported increases in transit fares and taxes, knowing the impact on them personally, because they understand the costs involved if we do not improve our transportation network. TransLink's total commitment and focus is on maximizing the benefits from this new revenue in the form of road and transit improvements that people can see and use.
Paul Barlow
Project Manager Parking Site Tax Implementation Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority (TransLink) 1600-4720 Kingsway Burnaby, B.C. V5H 4N2 604-453-4507
....

Letter To The Editor - March 8, 2006 - From Jeannine Cherewick - Parking Tax!! Revised By 20%

(LFP Editor - It looks like Langley Township is using the same ploy, take a little bit off the tax. It is reported that Township is going to increase our taxes 15% over 3 years rather than the initial ~20%. WOW.. Thank You!)

We will post Letters to the Editor prominently. Send Email letters to EDITOR-LFP.

Dear Editor,
So, Translink has so graciously reduced its grasping, unfair and (it should be illegal) unethical tax on parking lots, flowerbeds adjacent to parking lots, driveways, loading zones and elevators by 20%... should that appease the many people who will personally suffer as result of the parking lot tax?

Translink needs to be taken to task for their broken promises to all of the tax payers, not just the ones in Vancouver; to improve lower mainland transit, for the incredibly unfair way in which they intend to line their own pockets, for thinking that all the people living outside the Vancouver city limits are piggy-banks.

And why isn’t the provincial government stepping in here and telling Translink that this is an unethical attempt upon the citizens of BC? Why aren’t there any jobs on the line for the strong arm mob like tactics being pulled by this unelected, unaccountable group of bureaucrats? Where is the government who we elected to honestly and effectively manage this province now when they are needed to police some of their own?

To further comment I’ve made previously, Translink is getting a service for free… all the tax dollars they collect from business and individuals alike; that is a service we the citizenry provide. HMMMMM, we should charge a fee for that too. So on top of the monthly bill every Translink board member is going to receive from me, there will be a small service fee for the work I have done for them, retro active to a date I think is fair. Collecting those taxes and paying them faithfully should be remunerated appropriately.

Please pay attention Translink… REAL PEOPLE WHO WORK FOR A LIVING DONT LIKE YOU! We pay for you, but get so little in return it doesn’t count and even what we do get back costs us extra because we have to drive everywhere because of poor transit planning on your parts. Its really obvious to me that Translink announced the tax rate at 20% higher than ever intended so you could act all gracious and benevolent by reducing it 20% when the inevitable groans came from the actual real live working class people because of another unfair tax.
Jeannine Cherewick
....

Letter To The Editor - March 7, 2006 - From Jeannine Cherewick - Open Letter To Translink Board Re: Stupid Parking Tax

To the Translink board thinking this stupid tax will fly;

I live, shop and work in Langley, I do not use transit because although I am very close to Langley city, (I live a block away from the Langley airport in Murrayville,) there is little to no transit available out here! The schedule sucks and it takes longer to ride the bus from one side of Langley to the other than it would to ride my bicycle.

So being a mom of two young children and a busy self employed person; I drive everywhere and as mentioned; it’s not as though I have much choice in the matter.

And now I read in the newspaper that Translink is taxing parking lots in the GVRD (here in Langley)… for what? We do not get the transit service we pay so dearly for through taxes on our homes and gasoline and hydro bills but subsidize Vancouver city with that burdensome tax load. Now you’re penalizing the suburban business for accommodating the people who live out here and have to drive because you do not adequately service the area?!

There are more crude ways to put it but I’ll maintain my decorum; this is a wrong headed, utterly stupid, unfair, greedy, low down, slimy-used –car-salesman, sneaky, thieving, bottom-feeding-politician, weaseling, dim witted, ill thought out, inexplicably outrageous tax decision!

Most businesses out here in Langley pay a lot of money on mortgages or leases for the land and buildings they use, they pay higher fee’s for telephone, property taxes, hydro, Terasen, corporate taxes and on and on. Now you are saying they owe you more for the land they work so hard to pay for, develop, improve and maintain to attract customers (did you do anything to assist in that? I don’t think so!) so you can build RAV or give your selves a raise? I am angry, and believe that property tax is sufficient for the needs of Translink in the GVRD.

Tax the people who live in Vancouver who have regular, ready access to the transit services and don’t use them because they would rather drive their little SUV’s and BMW’s or smart cars than share a seat with a lower income rider. Penalize the people who make the choice to drive their cars rather than the businesses that rely on people such as myself. Because you know that the cost of your rapacious tax is going to kill small business and drive up the cost of product and therefore the cost of living for people like me and I’m just hanging on as it is. So in effect, you are taxing me yet again! (as if my property taxes weren’t burdensome enough!)

I know; why don’t I just send each Translink board member a bill for the privilege of raping my bank account? It will be an easy to read monthly bill, not too expensive and I’m a fair sort of person; so I’ll only charge a nominal percent of their paycheques. So I’ll be needing a breakdown of all their annual pay, including bonuses, and expense account allowances, travel allowances and clothing allowances and so on SO MY CALCULATIONS DON’T MISS ANYTHING… But don’t worry. My bill to each Translink board member will not exceed their ability to pay.

Scrap this idiotic, business killing, cash-cow-so-you-can-take-a better-vacation tax solution and grow a brain.

I am sending this letter along with a request to the Langley city hall that Langley leaves GVRD. You do so very little for us out here… you don’t deserve our support.

Regards,

Jeannine Cherewick

Letter To The Editor - March 2, 2006 - From Glen Tomblin - "The City Dodged A Bullet"

Dear Editor,
The recent attack on Langley City Mayor Peter Fassbender by letter to the Editor writer Dave Hall was unfair and uncalled for.

For years now Mayor Kurt Alberts his council have repeatly gone over budget on every project they tangled the City of Langley in cost sharing with. Mr. Fassbender is an astute businessman, he has brought this attribute to the mayor’s chair(something the Township is missing). Mr. Fassbender made a smart, analytical business decision, don’t go into business with the Township based on the historic inability of the Alberts council to control costs.

Every citizen in the City of Langley should call, write and thank Mayor Fassbender and his council. Believe me, they dodged a bullet on this one, saving big tax dollars for every taxpayer in the City.

As for us poor bastards in the Township, we will continue to pony up more money to cover our tax bill for the next three years until we get a council that listens to us. Before the election, Kurt Alberts and his council insisted “We are in great financial shape;” now he tells us we have “huge financial challenges”.

As you may know I ran for council because I knew our spending is out of control, I knew we couldn’t afford Redwoods, I predicted unseen taxes (ie. Translink parking lot taxes), I predicted huge overuns at McLeod Park ($2 million plus so far). So to my City cousins, I tip my hat, you elected a great council.

To even entertain a Township councillor’s suggestion to amalgamate would be foolhardy and ridiculous.

Glen Tomblin (Glen Tomblin Website)

Editor - Glen Tomblin most recently unsuccessfully ran for Council on Langley Township and in the previous election ran for Mayor against incumbent Marlene Grinnell in Langley City.

Letter To The Editor - February 27, 2006 - From Sandra Zandbergen - South Carvolth School Public Survival Meeting March 8

On 8 March at 7:00 pm, there will be a public meeting at South Carvolth Environmental Elementary attended by the Langley School Board and Trustees where these questions will be raised by parents, teachers at the school and other committed citizens and the incredible strength of the programs and value of the existence rural schools will be demonstrated. The plight and uncertain future of this school in British Columbia epitomizes the inconsistent messages being sent to parents, teachers and the children in our school system. South Carvolth school offers a wonderful, warm, stimulating atmosphere for learning and an example of the type of school our community and our province needs more of. We invite you to come to this public meeting and listen to this debate and ask these questions of the Langley School board. South Carvolth Environmental Elementary is located at 928-200st in Langley.

On January 20, 2006 educators, employee groups, parent representatives and community representatives participated in a workshop, which is part of the process for developing a 2006-2008 Strategic Plan for Langley School District.
"... to put our children's education in the forefront and give them the future they deserve."

"...to achieve a quality, stable, flexible and accessible early learning and childcare system we must listen to communities about the unique needs of their parents and providers."
"Delivering opportunities for informed choices."

"Providing a safe, healthy and caring learning and working environment in which all feel confident and have a sense of belonging."

South Carvolth Environmental Elementary School is a shining example of the kind of public school put forth in their mandate.
South Carvolth Environmental Elementary School is a unique, cutting edge curriculum from Kindergarten to grade 7 combining the 3 Rs with outdoor education.
South Carvolth Environmental Elementary School has extremely committed and involved parents and teachers children who love to attend school.

WHY, THEN, WHEN THE SCHOOL BOARD IS RUNNING A MILLION DOLLAR SURPLUS, IS THE LANGLEY SCHOOL BOARD CONSIDERING CLOSING THIS SCHOOL? - Sandra Zandbergen
....

Letter To The Editor - February 7, 2006 - From Shane Dyson - Emerson Finds Another Spouse

The Liberal corpse isn't cold yet—Emerson finds another spouse.

(We post letters to the editor prominently sent to our attention. EDITOR-LFP)

Dear LFP,
I sent this letter to the Langley Times in time for the Wednesday edition. Perhaps they'll see fit to publish it. As well, I took up your suggestion to send a similar version to Mr. Emerson.

It’s too bad Stephen Harper couldn’t have waited to bring in his federal Accountability Act before he announced that his cabinet would include recently converted Conservative, David Emerson and newly appointed senator Michael Fortier.

Perhaps the new government will revisit the "Seven Point Ethics Package" as suggested by Ed Broadbent, former Member of Parliament for Ottawa Centre. Broadbent proposes that democratic accountability should mean that no MP can ignore their voters and wheel and deal for personal gain. No MP should be permitted to ignore their voters’ wishes, change parties, cross the floor and become a member of another party without first resigning their seats and running in a by-election.

Broadbent’s initiative may have prevented Emerson’s betrayal of Vancouver-Kingsway voters. There were hundreds of volunteers who gave countless hours to get Emerson elected. There were many that donated their hard-earned dollars to his campaign, only to be victims of a political flimflam just fourteen days after the election. There were hundreds, if not thousands who voted strategically for Emerson, thinking they were keeping out the Conservatives in Vancouver-Kingsway.

During his election night victory speech, Emerson told his campaign supporters "I'm going to be Stephen Harper's worst enemy," He added, "We're going to stir the pot and you better believe we are going to make a heck of a lot of noise."

Since the election, the only noise Emerson has made was while he uttered his cabinet oath of office. Some worst enemy…some noise.

As a side note, last November, Langley MP Mark Warawa voted against Bill C-251, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act to prohibit MP's crossing the floor.

And in a stunning further continuation of the democratic deficit, Fortier has been appointed to the Senate in order to sit in cabinet as the public works minister. It's slim consolation that he promises to resign from the Senate and seek a seat in the House in the next election.

In the one and only time that I've spoken to Warawa, I wished him good luck in the election and asked him to speak out for an elected senate. He assured me that he would.

Perhaps now, he will speak out for an elected cabinet.

Cheers
Shane Dyson

Shane Dyson is a veteran political and community activist having run a few times as a New Democrat in Langley and most recently as a Langley Township Council candidate. Shane works as a communications consultant. - Editor LFP

Letter To the Editor - February 7, 2006 - From Pierre Rovtar - No to Gateway

(We post letters to the editor prominently sent to our attention. EDITOR-LFP)

To the Editor,Not everyone south of the Fraser River supports the twinning project.

Members of the Fraser Valley Conservation Network are concerned with how twinning will impact their quality of life. Although many residents are fed up with the congestion at the Port Mann Bridge, many believe that twinning will merely exacerbate the problem and contribute to more sprawl and congestion within a few years.

Widening Highways 10, Hwy 15 and the construction of the 96th Avenue connector from the Golden Ears bridge to 176 Street will mean our communities will be severed and fragmented into car dependent clusters of homes surrounded by pavement.

This is typical of the type of progress exemplified by 1950's California.

I think the Transportation Ministry is well aware of the failure of road expansion to cure congestion problems, so the question is: “Why does BC Transport Minister Falcon continue to pursue this failed experiment?”

The Fraser Valley Conservation Coalition believes that anything that contributes to urban sprawl puts added pressure on removal of land from the ALR. The City of Abbotsford has just approved the exclusion of 400 acres of Class One farmland for building industrial parks, while the City of Surrey recently approved construction of the Campbell Heights Business Park, ignoring the recommendation of its own Environment Assessment Committee. The committee wanted to protect this second growth forest land (classified as most environmentally sensitive ESA-1) which was home to several blue and red-listed endangered species.

Even Paul Landry, President of the BC Trucking Association, speaking at a recent Transportation summit, said that building business parks many kilometers from population centers and without transit access was not a good idea.

The Fraser Valley Conservation Network believes that better alternatives to twinning and road expansion can be implemented immediately.

Introduction of Rapid Bus service from Abbotsford, Langley and Surrey with queue jumper lanes (already in Translink's plans for 2007) at the Port Mann bridge could bring commuters to Coquitlam and to Millenium line stations within months, for a fraction of the cost of twinning.

Tolls could be implemented immediately with all funds earmarked for a light rail crossing to connect the new North East line with communities south of the River.

And the future could see the reinstatement of Interurban transit along the Southern Railway line (the old BC Electric Railway).

But above all else, we need a Transportation Ministry that can look to the future, and not to the California of decades ago.
Pierre Rovtar

Pierre Rovtar, ran unsuccessfully against BC Minister Falcon in Surrey-Cloverdale as the Green Party candidate. He has become an advocate for healthy long term development. Pierre became involved in local issues by joining conservation groups such as the Fraser Valley Conservation Coalition the Surrey Environmental Partners and the David Suzuki Foundation. Editor- LFP

Letter to The Editor - January 29, 2006 - From Bruce Northway - School District Plan

(We post letters to the editor prominently sent to our attention. EDITOR-LFP)

Here are three ‘Letters to the Editor’. The first is from me (Bruce Northway) and was printed in both the Advance and Times. The second is a response from the School District that was printed in the Advance. The third is my response sent to the Advance today and not yet printed.

Jan 25 2006

Editor:
On Jan. 17, our school trustees voted unanimously in favour of reviewing whether they should close South Carvolth Elementary. The process will be tortuous for everyone involved, and I feel for the students, parents, staff and trustees.

It’s quite possible that when taken in context of what is best for the Langley School District the closure of a school with under 100 students is worth the $300,000 savings envisioned by the district’s brain trust. That said I still have a problem with the announcement of the review.

During the recent campaign, each and every trustee candidate promised an elevated
communication level with the community. As well, this new board has not yet created a strategic plan. In fact, the district’s website has a strategic plan posted on it that is dated 2003-2005.

A few questions come to mind. Where did the idea to close this school come from? Why close a school prior to the board publishing a new long-term strategic plan? Is the community going to be involved in the planning process?

It is obvious that the timing of the review is based on wanting to have it completed in conjunction with this year’s budgetary process. This makes common sense. But I believe it also indicates a less than attractive planning process that is looking more short-term from within than long-term in partnership with the community. I hope I’m proven wrong.

Bruce Northway,Langley City
____________________________________________________

Dear Editor,
Your correspondent suggested Langley School District is operating without a long term strategic plan in place [Community communication lacking, Jan. 24 Letters, Langley Advance]. He noted that the Strategic Plan posted on the Langley School District web site is for the years 2003-2005.

The Strategic Plan of Langley School District is a key document, guiding the efforts of the school district to improve student success.

The 2003-2005 document was updated continuously through the term of the last school board, and many of the items listed in the plan were achieved during its term of office.

Readers can find out more by going to www.sd35.bc.ca/board/strategic_plan.html. A "backgrounder" on that page notes that the Strategic Planning Cycle will result in a 2006-2009 Strategic Plan, as the new board, inaugurated in December of 2005, consults with communities and stakeholders and determines what its planning priorities should be. That document should be available by the spring of this year.

Other planning and consultation processes implemented by the district include: the Accountability Contract, School Planning Councils, and the Budget Planning Process, all of which can be accessed on the district web site or by phoning the School Board Office at 604-534-7891.
Langley School District encourages public involvement in its decision-making processes.

Craig Spence, Communications Manager, Langley School District
published on 01/27/200
_____________________________________________________

Editor:
I was surprised to see the Langley School District Communications Manager responded to my last ‘Letter to the Editor’. I was more surprised to see the District missed the point of my letter.

The District’s response focused on my observation that their Strategic Plan is out of date. It did not address my main concerns. One of these was that the Trustees voted to review closing South Carvolth Elementary prior to publishing the new 2006-2009 Strategic Plan. It seems obvious to me it makes more sense to produce a long term plan prior to closing any facilities.

I also asked if the community is going to be involved in the planning process. In his letter the Communications Manager stated that the Board ‘consults with communities and stakeholders’. To my knowledge past Strategic Plans were produced by the Trustees and the District’s bureaucrats brainstorming over a weekend. There was little if any consultation with the general public.

The Communications Manager also stated that the ‘District encourages public involvement in its decision-making processes’, yet during the last campaign the Trustee candidates heard over and over again the public’s main complaint; a lack of communication.

It is easy to state you encourage public involvement. Our Trustees need to follow up on their promise to do more than past Boards to make sure that involvement takes place.

Bruce Northway
Langley City
1/29/06

Mr. Northway was an unsucsesful first time candidate for School board in the November 2005 municipal elections and is a frequent commentator, critic and community activist focused on helping to improve all aspects of the Langley School District. - Editor LFP

Letter to the Editor - January 24,2006 - From Tom Ouellette - Homeless Housing

We post letters to the editor prominently sent to our attention. EDITOR-LFP

Attention: Editor

January 24, 2006

The Township of Langley is spending $5 million dollars on a covered grandstand, $ 6.5 million on a golf course we can not use for 20 years, and only the mayor and council know how much has been spent buying up land for the arbor ribbon.

Yet I have not heard of one cent being spent to aid or house the homeless roaming around the Langley’s. Granted we have food banks, we have soup kitchens but we do not have housing. How many are going to be camping out on in the doorways of the churches, in the bushes along 56th Avenue near the By-pass before both Langley’s recognize we have a problem. These people do not need charity, they need they need a warm dry place for one or two days before they move on.

What are the Langley’s going to do, a study, a report from staff, or are we going to continue to ignore these individuals until they fade away or die from exposure. If we are doing something why is it a big secret? Let the public know your intentions and maybe, just maybe you will get some strong volunteers to assist in your endeavours. Sitting around saying you know we have a problem with homeless people and doing nothing does not help with a workable solution.

Tom Ouellette
c.c. Aldergrove Star, Langley Times, Langley Advance

Tom Ouellette ran unsuccessfully against the incumbent, Mayor Kurt Alberts, in the past November 2005 Langley Township Municipal election. While not successful, his showing was impressively close to the incumbent especially since he was relatively unknown and had a fraction of the incumbent's campaign funds. He provided a clear wake up call to Mayor Alberts. - Editor LFP

Letter to the Editor - Jan 20,2006 - From Blair King - Parking Lot Taxes

We post letters to the editor prominently sent to our attention. EDITOR-LFP

January 20, 2006

The Honorable Kurt Alberts,
Township of Langley,
Municipal Hall
20338 - 65 Avenue
Langley, BC, V2Y 3J1

Dear Mayor Alberts,

Re: TransLink Parking Site Tax

The purpose of my letter is to take advantage of your new position on the TransLink Board to address an inequity in the new TransLink "Parking Site Tax". While I recognize the need for increased funding for transit, it is clear that the "Parking Site Tax" that has recently been put in place by TransLink is inequitable, specifically in that it charges comparable parking tax rates regardless of access to TransLink services and has the perverse effect of collecting greater taxes from individuals and businesses that are under-served by TransLink (and thus require more parking) than businesses and individuals that are well served by transit. As described on the TransLink information page:

the parking tax will be a implemented as a property tax on parking area. The amount of the tax will not be based on the assessed value of the land, but on a rate per square metre that TransLink will set through a by-law.

Based on the current formula businesses in rural Langley, who are unserved by any transit, are being charged the same rate as businesses at Metrotown Mall, which is served by over 10 bus lines and the SkyTrain, and businesses on Broadway in Vancouver, where a bus passes by every 2-5 minutes. Since these taxes will ultimately be passed on to the consumer this has the effect of placing an unfair burden on the citizens of Langley, Surrey and the other outer municipalities to provide greater services to the citizens of the core municipalities. Consequently, as our new representative to the TransLink Board, I would like to request that you forward a motion at your earliest convenience to amend the current parking tax calculation to prorate the levy dependent on available bus/SkyTrain service in the area. In this way the merchants and shoppers of Langley, that are virtually bereft of transit service and are utterly dependent on automobiles for their customers and shopping, will not be subsidizing parking spaces for shoppers in Vancouver who have other options. I am not requesting that you ask to repeal the tax as it is clear that road and bridge improvements will simplify commuting in our region, merely that the rate be lowered in regions where viable alternatives to the personal automobile do not presently exist.

Sincerely,

Blair King

CC (via email): Editor - Langley Times
Webmaster - LangleyFreePress