Issue # 2

Issue # 3

Election 2002 - Kim's Policy and Priorities

Have the issues really changed all that much since 2002?

"Langley is a great place to grow up in and to grow old in. I will continue to work hard to make sure it stays a safe & healthy community.”

• Voted NO for tax and council salary increases

• Produced and approved a landmark 20 year Langley Water Protection plan

• Consistent advocate for a free-flowing 200th St. Interchange, not an intersection

• Approved all child and pedestrian safety initiatives including the 210th Street crosswalk

• Initiated the Township’s new Tree Protection Policy

• Initiated the Township’s new ‘Good Neighbour Mediation Service’

• Initiated the Township’s new Youth Commission

• Opposed cell towers, wet manure duck farming, search lights, Translink’s $75 car levy, mushroom composting, gravel extraction, & removal of the Anti-Smoking Bylaw

• Supported the acquisition of 55 acres of new parkland and playing fields

• Helped restore decorum, democracy & cooperation at Council meetings worked with all sides on all issues

What I will do if Re-Elected

I welcome your comments and questions at: kimrichter@canada

 Legal Disclaimer

Responses to the Local Media Candidate Questionnaires

A) Langley Advance News - Candidate Profile

Name:  Kim Richter

Occupation:  Professor of Business Management (School of Business)- Kwantlen University College

Length of Residence:  16 years resident in the Salmon River Uplands

Running as:  An Independent

3 Chief Issues:

Healthy and Safe Communities including Water Protection & Smart Growth.
Traffic Solutions.
Independent Thought on Council.

How do you think the relationship between the Township and Langley City can be improved?

In the medium to long term, the relationship should be improved by amalgamation. Two mayors, 14 councillors and 2 bureaucracies for a community of 120,000 people is an unnecessary waste of precious tax dollars. In the short term, the relationship can be improved by continuing to jointly sponsor events, services and activities of value to the community as long as these are equitably funded.

Do you support the plans for the 200^th Street Interchange? Why or why not?

My job is to get Langley moving. The 200^th St. “Intersection” design with its planned 9 to 12 traffic lights will not do this. All it will accomplish is idling traffic and increased smog. Therefore I have opposed it and will continue to oppose it. We need a free-flowing interchange. We need to keep Langley moving.

Former Councillor Heather McMullan is again asking for indemnification for a lawsuit arising out of comments made during the 1999 Township election campaign. If elected, how will you handle the request?

I will ask John Scholtens to drop his lawsuit. We need to look to the future not keep dwelling in the past.

B) Langley Advance News - Candidate responses from Kim Richter

1.         I live in Langley Township   -  Yes (for the past 16 years)

2.         I support amalgamation with Langley City -  Yes (in the long term)

3.         I support a study on amalgamation – Yes (in the near term)

4.         The Township’s working relationship with the City is good – Yes (but it could be better)

5.         I have attended All but one (June 10, 2002) Township Council meetings in the past year

6.         I would most like to work with this mayoralty candidate: Either Kurt Alberts or John Scholtens – I will gladly work with whomever the community chooses as their leader. It is their decision not mine.

7.             I support the current plans for the 200^th Street Interchange – No (It’s a glorified intersection not an interchange)

8.         Brookswood development plans should get underway immediately – Don't Know A lot will depend on what Surrey does on their side of the border.

9.         The Township needs more police officers – Don't Know - A reallocation of resources and priorities may be needed more than additional officers.

10.          Raising taxes is an option to increase Township revenues – No (We should live within our means)

11.       All Township fees (utilities, DCC’s, etc) are a form of taxation – Yes

12.       Council was right to indemnify Heather McMullan in the Thomas vs McMullan case – Yes (the decision was verified by the solicitors for the Township auditors)

13.       Heather McMullan should be indemnified for the Scholtens vs McMullan case – No (Her apology violates the conditions of the Indemnification Bylaw)

14.       I support Council’s most recent salary increase – No (It was not necessary)

15.       I support the increase in the number of councillors from 6 to 8 – YES (Our population is 89,000 and we should have had 8 representatives when we reached a population of 50,000. Besides which new faces and new ideas are necessary in any system to keep things moving forward)

16.        The Township should encourage speedier development – Don't Know
 (Depends on the speed, the area and the existing infrastructure)

17.       The Township is adequately protecting its groundwater supply – No (Not yet but the new 20 year Water Resources Management Plan is a good step in the right direction as long as it’s implemented. We need to do more.)

18.       The Township is adequately protecting its streams and watercourses – No (Not yet but the new 20 year Water Resources Management Plan is a good step in the right direction as long as it’s implemented. We need to do more.)

19.       The Township should financially assist preservation of heritage buildings and/or sites – Yes (Heritage & Cultural Tourism is a major economic driver)

20.        Should access to Zero Ave. to closed off to all but local traffic?  No (We need more East/West connectors not less. However, we do need to look at safety options there like a wider shoulder for horses and pedestrians.)

C) The Langley Times - Candidate Question Responses from Kim Richter.

Langley has experienced many serious traffic accidents in the last 12 months, resulting in the death of several young people. What do you think can be done to make our roads safer for all drivers?

I believe we require a 2-prong approach. The first prong is to focus on the short to intermediate term by increasing police visibility on our roads and by advocating and enforcing a “Zero-Tolerance” policy towards aggressive driving. This should include a reallocation of policing resources, a public advertising/awareness campaign, and a phone-in line to report aggressive driving. 

The second, and more important prong, is to implement a long range educational strategy aimed at convincing young people that fast cars and excessive speed is NOT “cool”. This strategy must involve a partnership between the Township, the RCMP, the School Board, ICBC and the province. It has to start educating students in elementary school (Grades 5 to 7) in order to effectively influence their attitudes by the time they are in high school and applying for their drivers license.

We know from research in other areas like smoking and drug use that if we can influence attitudes at ages 8 to 10, we have a much better chance of keeping kids away from these substances as they get older. I believe the same principle applies to driving. The lessons of fast cars and excessive speed are lifetime lessons – they need to be learned young. It is for this reason that I put forward a motion to Council earlier this year that Council work with the School District and the RCMP to develop such a program.

The tragedy in Walkerton, Ontario happened when the municipal water supply became contaminated by manure. A UBC groundwater expert has warned that the same could occur in Langley. Given the Township’s large agricultural community, what do you suggest can be done to protect the water supply?

First, we need to ensure that the Township’s 20-year Water Resources Management Plan continues on schedule. This plan contains a number of very important initiatives concerning all of our aquifers and watersheds such as establishing contaminant inventories, developing vulnerability maps and implementing public outreach and education programs like Water Wise.

Second, we need to establish a “one-stop” enforcement service for concerned residents to access when they see problems and illegal activities concerning water in this community. Right now, residents cannot call one organization and get the problem solved. Instead they must make numerous phone calls. They listen to one party after another “passing the buck” and this has been a major source of frustration for them. I think that the Township should contact the Provincial and Federal Governments and offer to provide “one-stop” enforcement services on their behalf. It is extremely clear from feedback received from residents on more than one occasion that the lack of sufficient and effective enforcement resources is a major contributor to current problems. We can fix this.

Third, I believe the Township should aggressively pursue a partnership with UBC and Kwantlen to establish a major agricultural research centre dedicated to developing better ways to manage animal waste. As the UBC expert pointed out, the most significant problem facing water in the Fraser Valley is the increase in agricultural waste. We treat human waste but not animal waste yet one cow produces 6 times the nitrogen load as one human does. Langley is an agricultural community. 78% of our land mass is in the ALR. Farming is only going to intensify in the future as we must produce more food for the increasing GVRD population. Establishing a research centre dedicated to finding new ways of managing animal waste would be a “win” for everyone.

The Township spent $670,000 in lawyer’s bills for the Thomas vs. McMullan libel case. Legislation currently provides no means for mediation or a cap on indemnification. Do you think mandatory mediation, and/or a limit, should be legislated to avoid taxpayers having to pay hefty legal bills?

The current indemnification policy must change and I have tried several times over the past 3 years to get it changed but to no avail. The problem is that the Township takes a hands-off role in the indemnification proceedings as opposed to an active role.

I think indemnification should be handled the same way as ICBC handles insurance claims. In the case of ICBC, if you are covered by them, then you must accept their lawyers and their call on how the situation is handled. They can specify mediation or a limit or an apology if they so choose. If you don’t like how they do it, too bad. Your choice at that point is to forfeit your insurance with them and go it alone.

In the case of the Township’s indemnification policy, past practice has been that, if you are indemnified you choose the lawyer and you handle the case any way you want, just send the bills to the Township. While the current set-up offers lots of protection for the politician and the lawyers, it offers little protection for the taxpayer. This has to change. We need to protect both those in public office (or only the independently wealthy would run for office) AND those paying for it. I have tried unsuccessfully each year since being elected to get Council to change the indemnification policy and to make it more in line with what ICBC does. So far, it has fallen on deaf ears from all sides of the Council table. Nevertheless, I will keep trying because the way it’s done now is just not right.