Langley's four term Township Councillor Kim Richter has recently been elected by acclamation by the ~ 850 faculty professors at Kwantlen Polytechnic University as one of the 15 member Board of Governors. See the press release here. Other Langley related Governors are local lawyer Rebecca Darnell & Amrik Virk, an inspector with the Langley Royal Canadian Mounted Police detachment. Kwantlen University serves approximately 10,000 students in 4 campuses in Langley, Surrey & Richmond.
Showing posts with label Kim-Richter-Report. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kim-Richter-Report. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Kim Richter Acclaimed To New Kwantlen Polytechnic University Board of Governors
Langley's four term Township Councillor Kim Richter has recently been elected by acclamation by the ~ 850 faculty professors at Kwantlen Polytechnic University as one of the 15 member Board of Governors. See the press release here. Other Langley related Governors are local lawyer Rebecca Darnell & Amrik Virk, an inspector with the Langley Royal Canadian Mounted Police detachment. Kwantlen University serves approximately 10,000 students in 4 campuses in Langley, Surrey & Richmond.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Richter's Request To Respond To Desperate Taxpayer Request Voted Down By Township Council
In the previous recent Township Council meeting a long time Langley resident, taxpayer and local business operator/owner pleaded desperately with the Township Council to look into simply doing some inquiries to ultimately help him with gaining a short visitation access to his court seized property to simply collect some of his personal possessions.
Mr. Paul Houweling provided Township Council a long and detailed list of legal documents in which he claims that he has now exhausted any and all formal avenues of redress. His frustration finally brought him to Township Council as a last resort. In fact when he made his delegation request to council for any and all assistance, he said that he was now at his wit's end and at the point that he was even worried about providing even for his families basic needs due to the legal actions that culminated in his seizure of his property and his personal belongings, still on his previous property.
He said the bureaucratic systems to date had all but literally, financially destroyed him and his family so far and he pleaded with the Township Council to at least look at his case and see if they could as a last resort at least possibly assist him in getting access to his seized property to at least collect some of his personal belongings that he said are critical for him to rebuild his life.
"There for the sake of God go you or I ! " <--- span="" style="font-weight: bold;">LFP EDITORIAL COMMENT
Actual Council videotapes of the motion and debate can be viewed here---> Part 1 video is 5:31 minutes long and Part 2 video is 1:03 minutes long.
All of The Langley Township council except for Councillor's Richter and Kositsky voted down and against Richter's motion to get a report from the Langley RCMP on the matter. In fact Cllr. Bob Long & Steve Ferguson even argued that although the Langley Police are a sub contracted direct service paid for by Langley Taxpayers and are under the Township Council's purveyance (remember Langley policing is the single largest budget portion of the Township's annual operating budget!) that this council should NOT be involved in his request at all. Both Long & Ferguson said that they had not read the complete documentation given to them from Mr. Paul Houweling either.
Councillor Ferguson went so far as to even compare this desperate request from Mr. Paul Houweling with a police issued driving infraction! Neither he said should be interfered with essentially. He also said that Mr. Paul Houweling was well know to him personally and in the Langley community. In this Editor's opinion by default aren't they are basically closing the door on any or all requests by the public when it comes to the Langley Police services? Councillor Ferguson even went so far as to essentially say that getting a simple Langley Police report on his desperate matter was too costly an expense (WOW - WHAT caring? - WHAT Priorities?)
Councillor Richter's motion was a very short simple, reasonable and caring request that even she said may not possibly go anywhere to assist him but that she felt it important to at least inquire about. Her motion specifically said;
"I move that Council refer Mr. Houweling's delegation request to the RCMP to address his concerns as best as they can and report back to council."
She later added that her motion was;
"..in no way shape or form is this motion asking, ordering or intending to order the RCMP to conduct an investigation. It's simply asking the police to look into the delegation request made last week and report back whether or not there is any concerns that are valid and justifiable."
and finally Richter says;
"I think that's our (council's) job, to help the public, and if we are not going to help the public we probably shouldn't be sitting up here ( Langley Council table)."
This Editor was told that Mr. Paul Houweling in his delegation request also told the councillors that he had talked about his issues with Langley's RCMP top cop in charge, Superintendent Janice Armstrong and had asked her to attend the same evening council meeting when he made his delegation request to Township Council. In fact she DID attend that evening meeting and even sat right beside Mr. Paul Houweling in the audience! The superintendent rarely if ever attends the council meetings to be just an observer! Yet this Council in it's once again questionable wisdom chose to not even look at his desperate issue!
Kudos to Councillors Richter & Kositsky. Shame on the rest of Township Council.
In closing all this Editor can say in summary again is "There for the sake of God go you or I ! " and as Richter said, "...if we are not going to help the public we probably shouldn't be sitting up here ( Langley Council table)." ...
Mr. Paul Houweling provided Township Council a long and detailed list of legal documents in which he claims that he has now exhausted any and all formal avenues of redress. His frustration finally brought him to Township Council as a last resort. In fact when he made his delegation request to council for any and all assistance, he said that he was now at his wit's end and at the point that he was even worried about providing even for his families basic needs due to the legal actions that culminated in his seizure of his property and his personal belongings, still on his previous property.
He said the bureaucratic systems to date had all but literally, financially destroyed him and his family so far and he pleaded with the Township Council to at least look at his case and see if they could as a last resort at least possibly assist him in getting access to his seized property to at least collect some of his personal belongings that he said are critical for him to rebuild his life.
"There for the sake of God go you or I ! " <--- span="" style="font-weight: bold;">LFP EDITORIAL COMMENT
Actual Council videotapes of the motion and debate can be viewed here---> Part 1 video is 5:31 minutes long and Part 2 video is 1:03 minutes long.
All of The Langley Township council except for Councillor's Richter and Kositsky voted down and against Richter's motion to get a report from the Langley RCMP on the matter. In fact Cllr. Bob Long & Steve Ferguson even argued that although the Langley Police are a sub contracted direct service paid for by Langley Taxpayers and are under the Township Council's purveyance (remember Langley policing is the single largest budget portion of the Township's annual operating budget!) that this council should NOT be involved in his request at all. Both Long & Ferguson said that they had not read the complete documentation given to them from Mr. Paul Houweling either.
Councillor Ferguson went so far as to even compare this desperate request from Mr. Paul Houweling with a police issued driving infraction! Neither he said should be interfered with essentially. He also said that Mr. Paul Houweling was well know to him personally and in the Langley community. In this Editor's opinion by default aren't they are basically closing the door on any or all requests by the public when it comes to the Langley Police services? Councillor Ferguson even went so far as to essentially say that getting a simple Langley Police report on his desperate matter was too costly an expense (WOW - WHAT caring? - WHAT Priorities?)
Councillor Richter's motion was a very short simple, reasonable and caring request that even she said may not possibly go anywhere to assist him but that she felt it important to at least inquire about. Her motion specifically said;
"I move that Council refer Mr. Houweling's delegation request to the RCMP to address his concerns as best as they can and report back to council."
She later added that her motion was;
"..in no way shape or form is this motion asking, ordering or intending to order the RCMP to conduct an investigation. It's simply asking the police to look into the delegation request made last week and report back whether or not there is any concerns that are valid and justifiable."
and finally Richter says;
"I think that's our (council's) job, to help the public, and if we are not going to help the public we probably shouldn't be sitting up here ( Langley Council table)."
This Editor was told that Mr. Paul Houweling in his delegation request also told the councillors that he had talked about his issues with Langley's RCMP top cop in charge, Superintendent Janice Armstrong and had asked her to attend the same evening council meeting when he made his delegation request to Township Council. In fact she DID attend that evening meeting and even sat right beside Mr. Paul Houweling in the audience! The superintendent rarely if ever attends the council meetings to be just an observer! Yet this Council in it's once again questionable wisdom chose to not even look at his desperate issue!
Kudos to Councillors Richter & Kositsky. Shame on the rest of Township Council.
In closing all this Editor can say in summary again is "There for the sake of God go you or I ! " and as Richter said, "...if we are not going to help the public we probably shouldn't be sitting up here ( Langley Council table)." ...
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
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.
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.
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 ...
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 ...
Saturday, December 06, 2008
2009 Township Budget Orientation Shows Previous Council Left Us $11 to $16 Million Deficit! - With Commentary From Kim Richter
NEWSFLASH
MLA Coleman's Event Center $5 million over budget - Will NEW Council fund this cost overrun once again just like the Grandstand financial fiasco?
Commentary on 2009 Budget Orientation by Councillor Kim Richter
The real issue is the economy and prudent/responsible use of taxpayer's dollars as well as a strong financial oversight on the part of Council. This is, I think, the very definite mandate that the taxpayers sent us in this most recent election by their decision to replace the Mayor.MLA Coleman's Event Center $5 million over budget - Will NEW Council fund this cost overrun once again just like the Grandstand financial fiasco?
Commentary on 2009 Budget Orientation by Councillor Kim Richter
Council had its first budget meeting on Wednesday. At this meeting, Council was informed that the major cost drivers affecting the coming year's budget means that with a 0% tax increase, the Township will be in an $11 Million deficit position - and this is just to maintain the status quo (i.e. no new service additions).
The chickens have finally come home to roost. I'm not surprised. It had to happen. Sooner or later, the free-spending actions of the previous Council had to catch up.
Added to this very dismal financial picture, the federal government has refused to financially support the Langley Events Center. The previous Council was depending on this support and increased the scope of the project. Unfortunately, federal support did not materialize. (So much for photo-ops, Mr. Warawa). Now this project is $5 Million short and guess who will have to pick up the difference if this building is to open on time?
If you guessed the Township, you're right!
An extra $5 Million for this project equals an 8.3% tax increase this year, unless we increase our debt as we have in the past.
So our township financial position will go from an $11 Million deficit to a $16 Million deficit assuming a 0% tax increase this year.
The enemy here is not each other - it's inaction. We need to get on the same page fast or the Township will suffer.
P.S. - LFP Editor comment. Kim Richter's above comments are from the previous postings comments section that she wrote in a comment. It was edited in context with this posting. ...
Friday, October 10, 2008
Kim Richter : "On the Taxpayer's Side...Making Every Dollar Count" Election 2008 Video
Kim Richter, Professor of Business Management at Kwantlen Polytechnic University, and 3 term Councillor in Langley Township, has decided to seek one more term as Councillor for the Township of Langley in the November 15, 2008 Municipal election. Choose this link to see or print out Kim's press release.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Richter Report - Feb 5, 2008 – Response To Langley Advance Feb 1/08 Editorial (Submitted to Langley Advance Feb 2/08)
February 2, 2008
Dear Langley Advance Editor:
After reading your editorial of February 1, 2008 “Pick targets in tax hike fight” and Matthew Claxton’s article “Tax increase likely to pass vote” in the same issue (p.5), it was very apparent that some further clarification is needed.
This Mayor and Council has turned the annual budget into a game called “What Would You Cut?”. (Mark Burnett of TV’s Survivor fame could probably make a killing with this one).
The rules of the game are very simple. Put nine laymen in a room. Give them a 200+ page binder of detailed financial information and 2 hours to decide if they will support a 7+% tax increase. If they don’t like this number, then they have to go through the 200 pages of detailed financial information and identify what specific line items they would cut out.
This is where the backgrounds of the players make the game so much fun. A retired principal, an ex-journalist, an ex-city planner, a bus driver, a high school counsellor (to name a few) are so much more skilled at deciding which line items to take out of a 200+ page budget binder than are the senior managers who put the budget together and work with it on a fulltime basis. (Note: Based on 2006 actual Township expenditure numbers, the 9 laymen collectively made $268,000 per year while the 9 senior managers who put the budget together made $1,125,000).
In reading your editorial and article, I’m not quite sure what part of my argument you missed. If you have a financial advisor and you are paying them a premium to manage your money, do you go to a meeting with them and tell them what to do line by line? Likewise, does a jury tell the lawyers what the law is? If this were the case, why would we need financial managers or lawyers?
Council, like any government, is there to provide oversight. It’s not their job to say cut this line item or that one – that’s why they pay an Administrator $191,000 per year. It’s Council’s job to say: “a 7% tax increase is too high. Cost of Living or 2% is reasonable. Now you go figure out how you’re going to do it.”
Every introductory business course I’m aware of teaches that the Board of any organization sets policy and the Board hires a CEO to implement that policy. How the policy is implemented is the CEO’s jurisdiction, not the Board’s.
Council is a Board. They need to set a policy of tax restraint. It is not their job to tell the CEO/Administrator how to achieve that restraint but it is their job to ensure that the Administrator does achieve restraint.
Playing the “What Would You Cut?” game is a political and financial cop-out that works to the bureaucracy’s benefit not the taxpayers’. And if you don’t believe this, witness the escalating tax increases that Langley Township has suffered over the past nine years (0%, 3.5%, 0%, 1%, 3.75%, 3.2%, 4.95%, 4.92% and now 5.95%) while this mayor has been in office and allowed his councils to play this silly and expensive game.
You asked what items I would cut from the budget. My answer is that I have made many suggestions (none of which were seconded or passed) starting with getting an efficiency expert in to look over the budget. The Township has a $100 million per year budget. Even a 5% savings on this budget would be $5 Million per year or an 8.3% tax increase.
We could stop buying land high (Bedford House) and selling land low (Dickson Pit).
We could stop construction overruns (like the Grandstand) by putting tight construction controls in place or by waiting to build major projects after 2010.
We could start asking the Township’s front line staff where we could save money because they live this budget on a daily basis, and we could give them some sort of incentive for being innovative in saving money while best meeting customer needs. We could start this by asking the line staff: “What’s required, what’s efficient, what’s overkill, and what’s best practice?”.
I think assuming that everything the Township currently does is necessary and therefore should continue being funded is a wrong assumption, and it’s that assumption that has put us in the financial situation we’re currently in.
Yours truly,
Kim Richter
(604) 856-9788.
Kim Richter is a 3 term Langley Township Councillor was a management consultant and presently is a Professor of Business Management at Kwantlen Polytechnic University. Kim also hosts Langley Free Press and is the LFP Publisher. View her full bio and read all her LFP postings at this link. Editor-LFP...
Dear Langley Advance Editor:
After reading your editorial of February 1, 2008 “Pick targets in tax hike fight” and Matthew Claxton’s article “Tax increase likely to pass vote” in the same issue (p.5), it was very apparent that some further clarification is needed.
This Mayor and Council has turned the annual budget into a game called “What Would You Cut?”. (Mark Burnett of TV’s Survivor fame could probably make a killing with this one).
The rules of the game are very simple. Put nine laymen in a room. Give them a 200+ page binder of detailed financial information and 2 hours to decide if they will support a 7+% tax increase. If they don’t like this number, then they have to go through the 200 pages of detailed financial information and identify what specific line items they would cut out.
This is where the backgrounds of the players make the game so much fun. A retired principal, an ex-journalist, an ex-city planner, a bus driver, a high school counsellor (to name a few) are so much more skilled at deciding which line items to take out of a 200+ page budget binder than are the senior managers who put the budget together and work with it on a fulltime basis. (Note: Based on 2006 actual Township expenditure numbers, the 9 laymen collectively made $268,000 per year while the 9 senior managers who put the budget together made $1,125,000).
In reading your editorial and article, I’m not quite sure what part of my argument you missed. If you have a financial advisor and you are paying them a premium to manage your money, do you go to a meeting with them and tell them what to do line by line? Likewise, does a jury tell the lawyers what the law is? If this were the case, why would we need financial managers or lawyers?
Council, like any government, is there to provide oversight. It’s not their job to say cut this line item or that one – that’s why they pay an Administrator $191,000 per year. It’s Council’s job to say: “a 7% tax increase is too high. Cost of Living or 2% is reasonable. Now you go figure out how you’re going to do it.”
Every introductory business course I’m aware of teaches that the Board of any organization sets policy and the Board hires a CEO to implement that policy. How the policy is implemented is the CEO’s jurisdiction, not the Board’s.
Council is a Board. They need to set a policy of tax restraint. It is not their job to tell the CEO/Administrator how to achieve that restraint but it is their job to ensure that the Administrator does achieve restraint.
Playing the “What Would You Cut?” game is a political and financial cop-out that works to the bureaucracy’s benefit not the taxpayers’. And if you don’t believe this, witness the escalating tax increases that Langley Township has suffered over the past nine years (0%, 3.5%, 0%, 1%, 3.75%, 3.2%, 4.95%, 4.92% and now 5.95%) while this mayor has been in office and allowed his councils to play this silly and expensive game.
You asked what items I would cut from the budget. My answer is that I have made many suggestions (none of which were seconded or passed) starting with getting an efficiency expert in to look over the budget. The Township has a $100 million per year budget. Even a 5% savings on this budget would be $5 Million per year or an 8.3% tax increase.
We could stop buying land high (Bedford House) and selling land low (Dickson Pit).
We could stop construction overruns (like the Grandstand) by putting tight construction controls in place or by waiting to build major projects after 2010.
We could start asking the Township’s front line staff where we could save money because they live this budget on a daily basis, and we could give them some sort of incentive for being innovative in saving money while best meeting customer needs. We could start this by asking the line staff: “What’s required, what’s efficient, what’s overkill, and what’s best practice?”.
I think assuming that everything the Township currently does is necessary and therefore should continue being funded is a wrong assumption, and it’s that assumption that has put us in the financial situation we’re currently in.
Yours truly,
Kim Richter
(604) 856-9788.
Kim Richter is a 3 term Langley Township Councillor was a management consultant and presently is a Professor of Business Management at Kwantlen Polytechnic University. Kim also hosts Langley Free Press and is the LFP Publisher. View her full bio and read all her LFP postings at this link. Editor-LFP...
Friday, February 01, 2008
Richter Report - Feb 1, 2008 – Another Historic Tax Increase - A NEW RECORD
Another Historic Tax Increase Gets Ready to Slide In – Even higher than last year – A NEW RECORD is set: a 15.82% general tax increase in 3 years
Langley Township taxpayers should brace themselves for another historic tax increase.
On January 14, 2008, Mayor Alberts and his majority on Council gave preliminary approval for a 5.95% general tax increase. In the same omnibus motion, they also supported a standard 5% tax increase in each of the next 5 years (a unique Council precedent not previously seen). In addition, this motion gave staff permission to change the budgeting process so that each year’s “acceptable” (or basic 5%) property tax increase will be now be set in June of each year for the following year – the implication being that Council can increase the “acceptable” tax rate after June but cannot decrease it.
This is a very interesting maneuver because it means that Council will now be setting a basic property tax increase for the next year before it even collects our taxes for the current year, or before it even has the next year’s BC Property Assessment values. As usual on financial matters, I was the only one who voted against it.
I think this budgeting maneuver will handicap future councils, like the one we will be electing in November of this year, because they will be locked into an “acceptable” basic 5% tax increase rate that they did not discuss or approve.
Why was this change in budgeting process really necessary? (Never mind the fact that it is coming at the same time as a 5.95% property tax increase on top of a 12% increase in average property assessment value in Langley). In my opinion, this whole new budgeting process is not being put in place for the convenience of the taxpaying public who pay the tab. If it was for the public, the public would have been asked and they were not. So who really benefits from this change? This Council never even asked. They just blindly voted “yes”. As they always do.
And that brings us to the crux of the matter.
The current mayor, a former senior employee of the Township, was elected 9 years ago (1999-2002). There were 3 factions on that Council: Slate 1 (LLT-2 members), Slate 2 (LCC-1 member), and independents (4 members). In that Council’s 3 year term, tax increases were 0%, 3.5%, and 0%.
In the next term (2002-2005), there were 2 factions: the mayor’s slate (4 members) and the independents (5 members). The tax increases during that Council’s term were 1%, 3.75% and 3.2%.
In the current term (2005-2008), there are again 2 factions: the mayor’s endorsed slate (7 members) and 2 independents. The tax increases during the current term have been 4.95%, 4.92% and now 5.95% with a commitment to a basic 5% tax increase per year for the next 5 years according to the newly approved budgeting process. This is a new record in tax increases for Langley Township – 15.82% over the last 3 years and an additional 25% over the next 5 years.
Do you see the pattern? When there was some competition on Council, tax rates were held in check. As soon as the mayor got a majority, tax rates went spiraling upward (on top of unusually high increases in assessed property values) and they’re not stopping, nor is there any sign that it will for the next 5 years.
Have you felt the impact of this Council’s decisions on your annual property tax bill? Are you getting more or better service for what you’re paying? Have basic service levels like roads, water, drainage, garbage/recycling removal and snow plowing been improving with the continued increases in taxes?
I believe that government, be it federal, provincial or municipal, is primarily there to provide an oversight function. Bureaucracies can easily get carried away. It is the job of elected officials to balance the real needs of the public with the perceived needs of the bureaucracy – otherwise the taxpaying public would be broke.
In the case of this municipal government, it’s time to say “STOP”. The current tax rates are no longer affordable – especially for the long term Langley residents. 5% per year compounded over the last 3 years and projected for the next 5 years is not realistic – it’s just greedy.
Langley Township Council needs to start doing the real job for which it is paid and that is oversight. They are not there to be ‘buddies’ or ‘quasi-bureaucrats’. They are not there to rubberstamp staff reports and recommendations. They are there to think for themselves. They are there to protect the taxpayers’ interests. They are there to ask tough questions and to make sure they get sensible answers. Endorsing a 5.95% tax increase on top of two consecutive years of 4.95% increases just doesn’t cut it. Sorry.
Isn’t it time for a major change on Council? How much more can we afford?...
Langley Township taxpayers should brace themselves for another historic tax increase.
On January 14, 2008, Mayor Alberts and his majority on Council gave preliminary approval for a 5.95% general tax increase. In the same omnibus motion, they also supported a standard 5% tax increase in each of the next 5 years (a unique Council precedent not previously seen). In addition, this motion gave staff permission to change the budgeting process so that each year’s “acceptable” (or basic 5%) property tax increase will be now be set in June of each year for the following year – the implication being that Council can increase the “acceptable” tax rate after June but cannot decrease it.
This is a very interesting maneuver because it means that Council will now be setting a basic property tax increase for the next year before it even collects our taxes for the current year, or before it even has the next year’s BC Property Assessment values. As usual on financial matters, I was the only one who voted against it.
I think this budgeting maneuver will handicap future councils, like the one we will be electing in November of this year, because they will be locked into an “acceptable” basic 5% tax increase rate that they did not discuss or approve.
Why was this change in budgeting process really necessary? (Never mind the fact that it is coming at the same time as a 5.95% property tax increase on top of a 12% increase in average property assessment value in Langley). In my opinion, this whole new budgeting process is not being put in place for the convenience of the taxpaying public who pay the tab. If it was for the public, the public would have been asked and they were not. So who really benefits from this change? This Council never even asked. They just blindly voted “yes”. As they always do.
And that brings us to the crux of the matter.
The current mayor, a former senior employee of the Township, was elected 9 years ago (1999-2002). There were 3 factions on that Council: Slate 1 (LLT-2 members), Slate 2 (LCC-1 member), and independents (4 members). In that Council’s 3 year term, tax increases were 0%, 3.5%, and 0%.
In the next term (2002-2005), there were 2 factions: the mayor’s slate (4 members) and the independents (5 members). The tax increases during that Council’s term were 1%, 3.75% and 3.2%.
In the current term (2005-2008), there are again 2 factions: the mayor’s endorsed slate (7 members) and 2 independents. The tax increases during the current term have been 4.95%, 4.92% and now 5.95% with a commitment to a basic 5% tax increase per year for the next 5 years according to the newly approved budgeting process. This is a new record in tax increases for Langley Township – 15.82% over the last 3 years and an additional 25% over the next 5 years.
Do you see the pattern? When there was some competition on Council, tax rates were held in check. As soon as the mayor got a majority, tax rates went spiraling upward (on top of unusually high increases in assessed property values) and they’re not stopping, nor is there any sign that it will for the next 5 years.
Have you felt the impact of this Council’s decisions on your annual property tax bill? Are you getting more or better service for what you’re paying? Have basic service levels like roads, water, drainage, garbage/recycling removal and snow plowing been improving with the continued increases in taxes?
I believe that government, be it federal, provincial or municipal, is primarily there to provide an oversight function. Bureaucracies can easily get carried away. It is the job of elected officials to balance the real needs of the public with the perceived needs of the bureaucracy – otherwise the taxpaying public would be broke.
In the case of this municipal government, it’s time to say “STOP”. The current tax rates are no longer affordable – especially for the long term Langley residents. 5% per year compounded over the last 3 years and projected for the next 5 years is not realistic – it’s just greedy.
Langley Township Council needs to start doing the real job for which it is paid and that is oversight. They are not there to be ‘buddies’ or ‘quasi-bureaucrats’. They are not there to rubberstamp staff reports and recommendations. They are there to think for themselves. They are there to protect the taxpayers’ interests. They are there to ask tough questions and to make sure they get sensible answers. Endorsing a 5.95% tax increase on top of two consecutive years of 4.95% increases just doesn’t cut it. Sorry.
Isn’t it time for a major change on Council? How much more can we afford?...
Friday, November 23, 2007
Richter Report - Nov. 23, 2007 – Additional Clarifications on the Water Management Plan (WMP) - Part 3
I think perhaps some clarifications are in order based on your written comments and phone calls to my earlier posting about the proposed draft water management plan.
First of all, I was not on the planning committee. I was appointed by Council as one of three council observers to meetings of the Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC). As observers, we were not allowed to sit at the SAC meeting table. We were required to sit in the background and to not interfere in the discussions. (Although we could ask questions from time to time).
The SAC met 4 times: March 22, May 1, June 14 and November 14, 2007. I attended 3 of these meetings (March, May and November). Councillors Fox and Ferguson each attended 2. There was a 5 month gap between the last 2 SAC meetings during which time the Interagency Planning Committee wrote the draft report. The SAC did not see this report until a week before their meeting on November 14, 2007. This meeting was from 2 pm to 8 pm with a half hour dinner break. The purpose of the meeting was to go through the 44 recommendations in the draft report. Some members of the SAC were not present at this final meeting so their input on the report recommendations was not obtained. One member of the committee had not even had time to read the report prior to the meeting. Another member showed up half way through the meeting.
The Interagency Planning Team (IPT) consisted of staff members from the Township Water Resources Department, the BC Ministry of the Environment, and the BC Ministry of Agriculture. The IPT met 22 times over the past year. There were no members of the public, the SAC or Council present at their meetings. The IPT, with the assistance of an external consultant, wrote the draft report.
Members of the SAC represented 13 different organizations/groups in the community such as commercial agriculture, hobby farms, environmental stewardship, developers, industrial users, drillers, health authority, DFO, and private well owners. To my knowledge, SAC members were chosen by the Interagency Planning Team (IPT). There was no public call for participants and there was no approval of membership by Council.
On November 5, 2007, a 4 page staff report came to Council (Report #07-194). This report contained a summary of the draft (IPT) Water Management Plan and requested that Council receive the staff report (not the IPT draft report), and authorize a final meeting of the SAC as well as two public open houses. Council was informed in this staff report that "a copy of the Draft Water Management Plan is available for viewing in the Clerk's Office". So Council did not actually read the draft IPT report until after they voted on the motion because Council did not receive a copy of the IPT report to read until the following week.
In addition, the staff report to Council highlighted only 16 of the IPT's 44 recommendations. It did not note that 24 of the 44 recommendations were considered "Core Recommendations" or that the "Core Recommendations are considered central to the plan; removing any one of them will accordingly jeopardize the integrity of the plan and meeting the objectives consistent with the Ministerial Order". (p.2 - IPT draft Water Management Plan [WMP] report)
Furthermore, the staff report to Council said that "The planning team envisions a dedicated governing body overseeing the implementation of the plan...it is envisioned that the body will be non-profit, self-funding, representative...The Province is currently undertaking a study to look at options for water governance bodies across BC" [Editor's italics]. There was no mention of this being a Core Recommendation which in fact it is (p.38 - IPT draft WMP report).
At the November 5, 2007 Council meeting, I asked several questions about the costs incorporated in the report and about this proposed governing body for water. I was informed by the Township's General Manager of Engineering that this was a work in progress and that there were no specific answers to my questions. (Why is that? How can you write a report and not know what the answers are?). At this same meeting, I also raised concerns about pushing this report through to the public just before Christmas.
Secondly, if this is just "a work in progress" and "hardly a firm document with binding resolutions" as some suggest, then why the rush to get public and Council approval on it prior to December 31, 2007? Why does the IPT draft WMP state that this is "currently in Step 3 of a 7-step WMP program which includes legislative and non-legislative steps" (p.10 - IPT draft WMP report).Why is Step 4 a provincial Order in Council? Step 5 an Implementation Regulation? And Step 6 = Compliance and Enforcement? (p.11 - IPT draft WMP report). Why did the public Open House materials show in big cardboard print last night that 2007 was for public input and that 2008 was for implementation, regulation and enforcement?
Thirdly, this process has not been driven by a committee of community stakeholders as has been suggested. Rather, it has been driven by the bureaucrats who even went so far as to choose the volunteer members of this committee of community stakeholders.
However, I do want to make it very clear that the volunteers in question did an excellent job within the scope that they were given. They were informed, committed and passionate about the topic of water. They gave 24 hours of their time and experience and expertise but they did not write the report. They were only asked to comment on it and do so at one meeting (November 14, 2007).
Fourthly and finally, I absolutely remain committed to protecting groundwater. I always have been. I live on the Hopington aquifer. I have for 22 years. I have a private well and a septic system. Like thousands of others in this Township, I pay for the upkeep of these by myself. I do not get municipal assistance for them. I value the water that I have and I take care of it. My husband and I have been Township “Water Wise” participants. We have gone door-to-door in our neighbourhood talking about how to protect private wells and maintain septic systems.
I chaired the 2002 Water Resources Management Strategy public advisory committee that recommended a 20 year/$20 million comprehensive action plan for the management of groundwater resources. Under this plan, $1 million per year would be spent on protecting groundwater. This plan was approved by Council in 2002 and I have assumed that it was implemented as planned. So, I’m sure you can imagine my surprise and disappointment when I read in the draft IPT WMP (p.1) that these efforts have not been enough. Apparently more “provincial regulatory tools” are needed (like a “Conservation Board”?).
I do not oppose protecting groundwater but what I do oppose is the creation of another bureaucracy in order to do so. What I oppose is sitting in a public advisory meeting as an observer and listening to provincial bureaucrats say things like: "There is no legislative mechanism to charge for groundwater use but local government can charge for the provision of service which in this case is the protection of quality and quantity of groundwater. You're not charging for water but charging for service".
We probably do need metering but we do not need a separate, appointed, taxing authority to run it just because this is a way to get around things from the provincial government’s perspective.
Am I passionate about protecting groundwater? You bet! But not at the cost of another bureaucracy.
I hope I've answered some of the questions that people have raised as a result of my initial post. Thank you all for taking the time to write and voice your concerns. This is a very important issue and I appreciate hearing from you. Please go to the last open house on Thursday Nov. 29 (4 to 8pm) at Firehall #6 and voice your concerns there so all of council can hear them.
Editor's Note: This is Part 3 on the WMP. See Kim's initial post at Part 1 and another post at part 2 on the WMP....
First of all, I was not on the planning committee. I was appointed by Council as one of three council observers to meetings of the Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC). As observers, we were not allowed to sit at the SAC meeting table. We were required to sit in the background and to not interfere in the discussions. (Although we could ask questions from time to time).
The SAC met 4 times: March 22, May 1, June 14 and November 14, 2007. I attended 3 of these meetings (March, May and November). Councillors Fox and Ferguson each attended 2. There was a 5 month gap between the last 2 SAC meetings during which time the Interagency Planning Committee wrote the draft report. The SAC did not see this report until a week before their meeting on November 14, 2007. This meeting was from 2 pm to 8 pm with a half hour dinner break. The purpose of the meeting was to go through the 44 recommendations in the draft report. Some members of the SAC were not present at this final meeting so their input on the report recommendations was not obtained. One member of the committee had not even had time to read the report prior to the meeting. Another member showed up half way through the meeting.
The Interagency Planning Team (IPT) consisted of staff members from the Township Water Resources Department, the BC Ministry of the Environment, and the BC Ministry of Agriculture. The IPT met 22 times over the past year. There were no members of the public, the SAC or Council present at their meetings. The IPT, with the assistance of an external consultant, wrote the draft report.
Members of the SAC represented 13 different organizations/groups in the community such as commercial agriculture, hobby farms, environmental stewardship, developers, industrial users, drillers, health authority, DFO, and private well owners. To my knowledge, SAC members were chosen by the Interagency Planning Team (IPT). There was no public call for participants and there was no approval of membership by Council.
On November 5, 2007, a 4 page staff report came to Council (Report #07-194). This report contained a summary of the draft (IPT) Water Management Plan and requested that Council receive the staff report (not the IPT draft report), and authorize a final meeting of the SAC as well as two public open houses. Council was informed in this staff report that "a copy of the Draft Water Management Plan is available for viewing in the Clerk's Office". So Council did not actually read the draft IPT report until after they voted on the motion because Council did not receive a copy of the IPT report to read until the following week.
In addition, the staff report to Council highlighted only 16 of the IPT's 44 recommendations. It did not note that 24 of the 44 recommendations were considered "Core Recommendations" or that the "Core Recommendations are considered central to the plan; removing any one of them will accordingly jeopardize the integrity of the plan and meeting the objectives consistent with the Ministerial Order". (p.2 - IPT draft Water Management Plan [WMP] report)
Furthermore, the staff report to Council said that "The planning team envisions a dedicated governing body overseeing the implementation of the plan...it is envisioned that the body will be non-profit, self-funding, representative...The Province is currently undertaking a study to look at options for water governance bodies across BC" [Editor's italics]. There was no mention of this being a Core Recommendation which in fact it is (p.38 - IPT draft WMP report).
At the November 5, 2007 Council meeting, I asked several questions about the costs incorporated in the report and about this proposed governing body for water. I was informed by the Township's General Manager of Engineering that this was a work in progress and that there were no specific answers to my questions. (Why is that? How can you write a report and not know what the answers are?). At this same meeting, I also raised concerns about pushing this report through to the public just before Christmas.
Secondly, if this is just "a work in progress" and "hardly a firm document with binding resolutions" as some suggest, then why the rush to get public and Council approval on it prior to December 31, 2007? Why does the IPT draft WMP state that this is "currently in Step 3 of a 7-step WMP program which includes legislative and non-legislative steps" (p.10 - IPT draft WMP report).Why is Step 4 a provincial Order in Council? Step 5 an Implementation Regulation? And Step 6 = Compliance and Enforcement? (p.11 - IPT draft WMP report). Why did the public Open House materials show in big cardboard print last night that 2007 was for public input and that 2008 was for implementation, regulation and enforcement?
Thirdly, this process has not been driven by a committee of community stakeholders as has been suggested. Rather, it has been driven by the bureaucrats who even went so far as to choose the volunteer members of this committee of community stakeholders.
However, I do want to make it very clear that the volunteers in question did an excellent job within the scope that they were given. They were informed, committed and passionate about the topic of water. They gave 24 hours of their time and experience and expertise but they did not write the report. They were only asked to comment on it and do so at one meeting (November 14, 2007).
Fourthly and finally, I absolutely remain committed to protecting groundwater. I always have been. I live on the Hopington aquifer. I have for 22 years. I have a private well and a septic system. Like thousands of others in this Township, I pay for the upkeep of these by myself. I do not get municipal assistance for them. I value the water that I have and I take care of it. My husband and I have been Township “Water Wise” participants. We have gone door-to-door in our neighbourhood talking about how to protect private wells and maintain septic systems.
I chaired the 2002 Water Resources Management Strategy public advisory committee that recommended a 20 year/$20 million comprehensive action plan for the management of groundwater resources. Under this plan, $1 million per year would be spent on protecting groundwater. This plan was approved by Council in 2002 and I have assumed that it was implemented as planned. So, I’m sure you can imagine my surprise and disappointment when I read in the draft IPT WMP (p.1) that these efforts have not been enough. Apparently more “provincial regulatory tools” are needed (like a “Conservation Board”?).
I do not oppose protecting groundwater but what I do oppose is the creation of another bureaucracy in order to do so. What I oppose is sitting in a public advisory meeting as an observer and listening to provincial bureaucrats say things like: "There is no legislative mechanism to charge for groundwater use but local government can charge for the provision of service which in this case is the protection of quality and quantity of groundwater. You're not charging for water but charging for service".
We probably do need metering but we do not need a separate, appointed, taxing authority to run it just because this is a way to get around things from the provincial government’s perspective.
Am I passionate about protecting groundwater? You bet! But not at the cost of another bureaucracy.
I hope I've answered some of the questions that people have raised as a result of my initial post. Thank you all for taking the time to write and voice your concerns. This is a very important issue and I appreciate hearing from you. Please go to the last open house on Thursday Nov. 29 (4 to 8pm) at Firehall #6 and voice your concerns there so all of council can hear them.
Editor's Note: This is Part 3 on the WMP. See Kim's initial post at Part 1 and another post at part 2 on the WMP....
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Richter Report - My Friday Night Out in an RCMP Cruiser: An Eye Opening Experience
"It is quite the story that Township Councillor Kim Richter has written about her night on the beat with a Langley RCMP Corporal. ....... I heartily recommend that you read it in its entirety..." - by Kurt Langmann, [Editorial Nov. 15, 2007] Editor of The Aldergrove Star and a Canadian Community Newspapers Association Silver Quill award recipient."7:45 p.m. – I arrived at the police station. While I was waiting to be admitted, a young woman stormed out of the building in tears and swearing. (I later learned at the briefing that she was a victim of domestic abuse, was addicted to drugs and was pregnant. The RCMP had spent considerable time that day arranging for her..."
The foregoing is the start of a chronology of what I experienced [press here for my full report in PDF format].
It was an extremely educational experience. [Press here to see my final conclusions also in PDF format].
LFP Editor's Note: The Aldergrove Star (Nov. 15, 2007) and the Langley Times (Nov. 21, 2007) also reported on Richter's friday night out in a RCMP cruiser both in print and online. If you cannot open and read the PDF format go to Adobe and download "Adobe Reader" to read it.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Richter Report - Nov. 19, 2007 - Groundwater Users and Municipalities in all of BC - ALERT!
Richter Report: The Draft Water Management Plan (WMP) should ring a lot of “Warning Bells” – Is another Translink in the works?
In the next month, Township Council will be pushing through a draft Water Management Plan (WMP) that will be the first of its kind in the province of BC and which will become legally enforceable through provincial legislation. It will also be the model for the rest of the province. The intent is well-meaning but the financial ramifications are far-reaching.
Given that 80% of the water in the Township comes from municipal and private wells, and that our aquifer water levels have been dropping significantly, the need to protect groundwater is almost universally accepted throughout the Township. I think we all agree that something needs to be done. The question is what.
As a result of a 2006 Ministerial Order under Part 4 (2004) of the Water Act, the ‘what’ has now been defined and is open for public input. This input can be given over the next 2 weeks at Open Houses on Thursday November 22/07 and Thursday November 29/07 from 4 to 8 pm at Firehall #6 in Murrayville.
Public attendance at these open houses is absolutely crucial as it will determine the direction of future water protection in the Township (and the province because Langley is the ‘model’). Should nobody attend or make any comments, the plan will be rubberstamped as is and sent to Victoria by December 31, 2007 for final approval and implementation via an Order-in-Council and subsequent binding provincial Regulations.
The draft WMP can be seen on the Township’s website in PDF format (45 pages). It consists of 44 recommendations: 24 of these are “Core Recommendations (CR)”. According to the interagency bureaucracy planning team which wrote the report, these core recommendations are considered central to the plan. Apparently, removing any one of them will jeopardize the integrity of the plan and the Ministerial Order.
The goal of the WMP is to ensure safe and sustainable groundwater for the community for generations to come. The interim target is to reduce overall groundwater demand by 30% across the Township within 10 years. These are admirable goals but…
From my perspective, the key points in the plan on how the goals will be achieved include:
· CR (Core Recommendation) 2 (p.25) – Install meters on all water supply wells within 8 years: Meters will be installed on both existing and new municipal and private water supply wells. (There are 15 municipal wells and at least 5000 private wells in the Township).
· CR 5 (p.26) – Initiate universal metering on the municipal water system leading to a graduated rate structure
· CR 8 (p.27) – Initiate a fee structure for groundwater use
· CR 11 (p.28) – Limit the amount of water extracted by municipal supply wells
· CR 13 (p.28) – Mandate hydrogeologic assessments for any new water supply wells with a pump capacity greater than 190 litres per minute
· CR 15 (p.30) – Implement a decentralized sewage management plan for the Township which could include mandatory sewer hook-ups, regular cleaning of septic tanks, and tertiary septic systems
· CR 16 (p.30) – Establish a local environmental protection officer to enforce provincial legislation and local bylaws relevant to the plan
· CR 23 (p.38) – Establish a body (or Local Conservation Board) dedicated to implementing and managing key elements of the WMP. “This Board would have the ability to borrow money, apply for funds and collect any needed levies from residents and businesses in order to effectively recoup costs associated with implementing the WMP“ and “as a vehicle to fund aspects of the WMP”. [In other words, this board will be a separate operating and taxing authority similar to Translink].
So there you have it. The real gist of the matter is the creation of another Translink. This provincial government has been adept at sheltering itself from the key issues that matter to the people who live here. They have Translink to protect them from criticism on transportation. They have school boards to protect them from criticism on education. They have health boards to protect them from criticism on health care. Now they will have water/conservation boards to protect them from criticism (and taxation) on groundwater.
Overall the costs for the core recommendations in Langley’s WMP amount to approximately $800,000 per year excluding meters. This works out to about $8/year/person in the Township which will be raised by a conservation levy (just like the stormwater levy which is now paid by all property owners whether or not you get the service). Universal meters are estimated to be between $13 and $18 million depending on the metering technology selected. Private well meters will be in the range of $10 million or $1,000 to $2000 per well.
If you are currently on your own well and septic in this Township, you need to read this report in detail and come to the public open houses to express your opinion because once Council rubberstamps this and sends it to the Ministry, it will be too late for changes – not only for Langley but for the entire province because Langley is the model.
Personally, I think that the rural taxpayers in this community have been shouldering an unfair burden of taxes and this plan, while well-intentioned, will only aggravate that situation. Rural taxpayers already pay a premium for minimum services. If this goes through, they will pay a lot more.
This is no longer about a lifestyle, this is now about a lifetime. Will you be able to afford to retire on your rural property in Langley?
Council needs to hear your thoughts on this plan before they vote to give it final approval. Based on a 4 page staff summary report, they gave it preliminary approval by sending it to public Open House without even reading the whole 45 page report because it was not circulated to Council before this first vote was taken.
Editor's Note: This is Part 1 on the WMP. See Kim's clarification post at Part 3 and another post at part 2 on the WMP. ...
Monday, July 09, 2007
Richter Report - July 9, 2007 - Are the Property taxes Worth It? Where's the "Value for Dollar"?
Like most other residents of Langley, I paid my property taxes last week. I wasn’t impressed with having to pay what I had to pay. (I have a septic system and private well that I maintain at my own cost. I don’t get any snow removal until the sun melts it but I do have a street light and a volunteer fire hall down the road).By accident, I pulled out my 2001 property tax statement from the “House” file before I went to pay my taxes. To say I was amazed would be an understatement especially since I have not supported any of the tax increases that have led us to what I believe is a rapidly escalating and unsustainable taxation position.
On Tuesday July 3, 2001, I paid $1000.00 less property taxes than I paid this year. My property taxes then were $2521.79. On Tuesday July 3, 2007, my property taxes were $3569.10 – a 41.5% increase. Hard to believe it was only 6 years ago. I have made no improvements to my property during that time period and I live in an area of the Township where there is a moratorium on development.
On July 3, 2001 (6 years ago), I paid $59.71 for the Greater Vancouver Transit Authority (Translink). This year I paid $226.75 - a 279.75% increase (Please note this is almost 300% or 50% per year). For what? (There’s no LRT in Langley nor will there be until well after 2031 according to the latest Translink plan for south of the Fraser).
On July 3, 2001 (6 years ago), I paid $31.69 for GVRD. This year I paid $44.40 – a 40.1% increase. For what? (The Mayor and his Alternate now get $200+ for attending each meeting).
On July 3, 2001 (6 years ago), I paid $111.00 for garbage collection. This year, I paid $139.69 – a 25.8% increase. For what? (A landfill that’s exhausted and no alternative in sight).
On July 3, 2001 (6 years ago), I paid $.09 for the Municipal Finance Authority. This year I paid $.18 - a 100% increase. For debt in my community. I did not vote for taking on new debt but this year alone, Council approved $11 Million in new debt and there’s even more new debt forecast for next year. Six years ago, this community was just about debt free.
On July 3, 2001 (6 years ago), I paid $42.34 for the Regional Library. This year, I paid $75.58 – a 75.5% increase. However, we did open 2 new libraries in Langley.
On July 3, 2001 (6 years ago), I paid nothing for Storm Water. This year, I am paying $107.75. A 107% increase mainly to fix problems stemming from new development. Don’t believe anyone who says “New development pays for itself”. It doesn’t.
On July 3, 2001 (6 years ago), I paid $1082.97 for school taxes. This year I paid $1324.46 – a 22.3% increase. Compared to Township tax increases, this seems almost reasonable.
On July 3, 2001 (6 years ago), I paid $36.11 for the BC Assessment Authority. This year I paid $41.64 – a 15.3% increase to tell me I can’t afford my property anymore even though I’ve lived here 20+ years. But it’s reassuring to note the compassion expressed in this year’s Township of Langley “Frequently Asked Questions About Municipal Taxes” document which states: “It must also be remembered that taxes are based on wealth, and the perceived ability to pay. It is generally understood that those who own homes with high assessment values would be able to access that wealth by selling their home.”
So here’s the real kicker: On July 3, 2001 (6 years ago), I paid $1157.88 for general purposes Township Taxes. This year I paid $1608.65 – a 38.9% increase or 6.5% per year. I certainly haven’t had a 38.9% increase in wages from either of my jobs but according to the Township, I can always sell my home and leave just like a lot of other long time residents. What choice do we have?
In my area of the Township, there’s definitely been a major property tax increase (40+%) over the last 6 years. For all of this extra property tax, what do we have to show for it? Are we really getting value for dollar?
I don’t think so. Do you?...
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Richter Report - June 17, 2007 - Should Councillors Travel? “There are none who are so blind as those who will not see”.
There’s been a lot of hot air blowing through Langley web space lately about Councillors who travel to conferences and the costs of doing so. Being old enough to understand that I don’t have all the answers (or even all the questions) and being wise enough to appreciate that significant time and money can be saved in the long run by learning from other communities’ examples, I think Councillors who travel for the purpose of learning is a very good thing for Langley. It is money well spent and it has resulted in several notable advances for this community.
Thanks to Councillor Kositsky and his earlier involvement in the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM), the Township of Langley is a partner in Canada’s international development program. We have shared our expertise with a city in the Philippines for the past 6 years and are now actively involved in Tsunami reconstruction efforts. Also thanks to the FCM and its initiatives, Langley Township has a fully functioning Community Safety Commission which is chaired by Councillor Kositsky.
Councillor Long has carried on Councillor Kositsky’s initiatives by being the first elected representative from Langley Township (and the Lower Mainland outside of Surrey, Burnaby and Vancouver City) to the FCM Board of Directors. Councillor Long is also the newly elected President of the Lower Mainland Municipal Government Association which includes municipalities from Hope to Pemberton including Vancouver. When Langley Township representatives attend these activities, Langley Township is well known and well respected.
Langley is the first municipality in Canada to have an environmentally LEED Silver Certified township hall. This is a direct result of the municipal environmental initiatives reinforced by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM). Councillors Ferguson, Kositsky, Long, Ward and myself have been regular attendees at these annual conferences which are held at different cities across Canada.
This year’s conference was in Calgary and one of its major foci was on affordable housing.
We learned at this conference that this is an issue in all major cities in Canada and that according to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) standards, the group most at risk are those in the 40th percentile or lower income bracket. Depending on the area that you live in, this equates to about $50,000 to $60,000 annual income per year. CMHC uses a 4:1 ratio which means that a person/family with a $50,000 per year annual income can afford a $200,000 home. (Good luck finding one of these in Langley).
This Council likes to think it’s providing “affordable housing” with the new developments it is approving but I don’t think it’s even close which I suspect is one of the reasons that most new developments have unregistered secondary suites which in turn is doubling the density and the car/traffic problems in these areas.
At FCM, we were told of the Langford, BC model. In Langford, one in every 10 new single family homes being built is “affordable”. This means that they are integrated into existing developments and the price of these homes is capped at $160,000 for 25 years. To be eligible for these homes, several criteria are used such as age, length of residency in the community, annual income, number of children, disabilities, etc.
The Council and planners at Langford have observed that these homes are integrated into each subdivision. Developers are using a higher standard of building materials than they have to and so these homes are indistinguishable from their $360,000 neighbours. Langford City planners have also observed that the residents in the affordable units have great pride of ownership and are often the first on the block to have flowers planted and landscaping done.
I was so impressed with the Langford model that I have put forward a notice of motion for discussion at tomorrow’s Council meeting (June 18, 2007) asking that Council authorize staff to investigate and incorporate the Langford model here. Hopefully Council will agree as I think this route is much better than building separate affordable “projects” in Langley. They will blend in better with the community and avoid the problems of low-income developments experienced in other cities. Kudos to Langford for thinking this one up and making it a reality!
After FCM, Councillor Ferguson and I attended the 45th International Liveable Cities Conference in Portland, Oregon.
Portland is regularly held up as one of the most sustainable cities in North America and I can now see why. They stopped building major highways into their downtown in the 1970’s and transferred all their highway funding into transit funding. As a result, they now have a light rapid transit system that extends 18 miles to the west and 15 miles to the east. They are currently in the process of extending it north and south. Greater Portland has a 2.2 Million population and a geographic area which is equivalent to the GVRD. Essentially, they have light rapid trains that run from North Van to Chilliwack every 15 minutes! Furthermore, travel in the downtown core is free.
The majority of Portland’s system is paid for by annual payroll taxes equaling $6.52 per $1000 of gross payroll. All employers pay including not-for-profits and charities. This was accomplished through State legislation and makes a lot more sense to me than paying for the system through property taxes like we do here.
Portland also has the highest per capita number of hybrid vehicles and cyclists. Cyclists take priority on their roads including the right to sit in front of cars at all intersections. No one speeds downtown because of the number of cyclists.
Having seen what Portland has accomplished, I am now wavering on my former stance concerning twinning the Port Mann. I have heard it said that the expression “Build it and they will come” applies to cars and roads. I can now see why. Portland (a city of 600,000) appears to have successfully stopped this trend whereas in Everett, Washington (a growing community like Langley with a current population of 91,000), I sat on the I-5 highway (which they are expanding) for 2 hours in bumper-to-bumper traffic for 9 miles for no apparent reason other than volume of single occupant vehicles. There was no construction, no accidents, no emergency vehicles, no reason for bumper-to-bumper traffic at 2:30 pm other than volume and suburbs.
While Portland is clearly a pioneer in sustainability measures, it does have its problems. Homelessness is one of the big ones. Portland does appear to be a very safe city (for the US) but there were many homeless people camped out in every doorway and park in their downtown. This is a major problem in the US. One of the speakers at the conference was a planner from Los Angeles and he indicated that the homeless population in Los Angeles was 90,000 (essentially the size of Langley Township). He said that dealing with this was a very complex issue that they have worked on for many years. Homeless shelters alone do not appear to be the solution for the same reason as mentioned earlier for cars and highways (i.e. “Build them and they will come”). One of the problems with shelters is that people must vacate at 8 am and they have no place to go but the parks.
Councillors from other parts in Canada confirmed this saying that what is really needed is “2nd Stage Housing” where homeless people can stay for longer than one night, where they have access to a telephone and can use this as a stepping stone for employment. Based on what I heard at this conference, I think we should rethink the need for a homeless shelter in Langley and move instead towards providing 2nd Stage Housing.
One of the topics that really captured my imagination concerned agriculture. For the past 6 years, a New York City Professor has challenged his classes to think about how to feed the 2.8 Billion new Earth residents expected over the next 50 years. He defines sustainability as "behaving like a true ecosystem" and that a human being's basic rights include the right to 2.3 litres of safe drinking water and 2000 calories of safe food per day.
He thinks we need to start thinking about “farming up” instead of “farming out”. He says that cities should be able to feed themselves without going beyond city limits. He asks his classes to figure out how to do this and their very interesting results are all posted on a website called www.verticalfarm.com . Fascinating concept!
His classes have determined that that there are 13 acres of roofs in Manhattan which is not enough roof top garden space to feed NY. According to them, one 30 story vertical farm could feed 50,000 people per day. This farm would take up one NY city block (or 5 acres). NY City would need 160 such towers to feed its population and this would save 60 million acres of flat land. At present, they calculate that NY City eats the equivalent land value of the entire state of Virginia.
Prior to this conference, I had never thought of farming up but it seems to make a certain kind of sense and certainly captures the imagination! We would need two such vertical farms to feed our current population in Langley. Perhaps our Langley Agriculture Advisory Committee and the GVRD Agriculture Committee should consider this.
Another concept that I learned about at an earlier “Liveable Cities” Conference in Santa Fe was the idea of designing our communities around children and their need to grow up in safe surroundings. As a result of that conference, Langley Township adopted a Child Friendly Impact Assessment analysis that developers are now required to undertake (June 2005). We have also incorporated a Children’s Bill of Rights into our Township corporate goals and objectives. We were 2 years ahead of Portland in doing this.
The latest advances on this social sustainability front in the US concern “Health Impact Assessments” for new developments. These have been adopted in California and have been pioneered by a UBC Professor. I think we should be adopting his revolutionary development principles a little closer to home than California (like in Canada) and I intend to make a Notice of Motion about this. I think this should be another “first” for the Township.
At this year’s conferences, I met many people including the Mayor of Westmount, Montreal where the average property value is $1.1 Million and the transit system is $32.0 Million in deficit. I met the Mayor of Portland who starts every Council meeting by asking how the children of the city are because these children are the future of a sustainable city. I met a fellow “blogging” Councillor from Windsor, Ontario (www.alanhalberstadt.com) who has family here in Langley. Alan is the first to pioneer blogging in his city and is under scrutiny from his Council colleagues for doing so. In fact, they’re even thinking of employing an “Ethics/Integrity Officer” to screen his postings. I think this is a totally unnecessary and frightening form of censorship and I encourage you to visit his blog to offer your support for his efforts (as well as to learn what’s happening in that part of Canada).
The preceding is just a “relatively” brief summary of the many ideas and concepts that I have been exposed to in the last month while attending these conferences on behalf of the Township. I have brought back file folders of information which I have given to the Township’s Administrator for distribution to the appropriate departments. I know he has passed them on because I have just recently heard from the Director of Finance about a new website concept that I brought back from FCM.
In conclusion, there is such a thing as penny wise and pound foolish. I don’t often agree with Councillors Ferguson, Kositsky, Long and Ward but I think they’re right in trying to expand their horizons. Council members who have not bothered to attend conferences before passing judgment on the advantages to the community from doing so fall into this category: “There are none who are so blind as those who will not see”. How unfortunate that we have such myopic individuals on the current council.
Should Councillors travel? Based on all the ideas that I have heard/seen in different communities across Canada and the US and based on all the ideas we have been able to successfully implement in Langley, I think the answer is a resounding “Yes”. In fact, I think travel to at least one conference per year should be mandatory for every Township Councillor to ensure that they are thinking in the broadest possible terms when they are evaluating new ideas and making development decisions.
Bottomline: You decide if it’s worthwhile. You’re the taxpayers. (However, I do think that expecting Councillors to provide written reports on what they’ve learned at conferences would probably be a very good idea and an excellent accountability measure)....
Thanks to Councillor Kositsky and his earlier involvement in the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM), the Township of Langley is a partner in Canada’s international development program. We have shared our expertise with a city in the Philippines for the past 6 years and are now actively involved in Tsunami reconstruction efforts. Also thanks to the FCM and its initiatives, Langley Township has a fully functioning Community Safety Commission which is chaired by Councillor Kositsky.
Councillor Long has carried on Councillor Kositsky’s initiatives by being the first elected representative from Langley Township (and the Lower Mainland outside of Surrey, Burnaby and Vancouver City) to the FCM Board of Directors. Councillor Long is also the newly elected President of the Lower Mainland Municipal Government Association which includes municipalities from Hope to Pemberton including Vancouver. When Langley Township representatives attend these activities, Langley Township is well known and well respected.
Langley is the first municipality in Canada to have an environmentally LEED Silver Certified township hall. This is a direct result of the municipal environmental initiatives reinforced by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM). Councillors Ferguson, Kositsky, Long, Ward and myself have been regular attendees at these annual conferences which are held at different cities across Canada.
This year’s conference was in Calgary and one of its major foci was on affordable housing.
We learned at this conference that this is an issue in all major cities in Canada and that according to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) standards, the group most at risk are those in the 40th percentile or lower income bracket. Depending on the area that you live in, this equates to about $50,000 to $60,000 annual income per year. CMHC uses a 4:1 ratio which means that a person/family with a $50,000 per year annual income can afford a $200,000 home. (Good luck finding one of these in Langley).
This Council likes to think it’s providing “affordable housing” with the new developments it is approving but I don’t think it’s even close which I suspect is one of the reasons that most new developments have unregistered secondary suites which in turn is doubling the density and the car/traffic problems in these areas.
At FCM, we were told of the Langford, BC model. In Langford, one in every 10 new single family homes being built is “affordable”. This means that they are integrated into existing developments and the price of these homes is capped at $160,000 for 25 years. To be eligible for these homes, several criteria are used such as age, length of residency in the community, annual income, number of children, disabilities, etc.
The Council and planners at Langford have observed that these homes are integrated into each subdivision. Developers are using a higher standard of building materials than they have to and so these homes are indistinguishable from their $360,000 neighbours. Langford City planners have also observed that the residents in the affordable units have great pride of ownership and are often the first on the block to have flowers planted and landscaping done.
I was so impressed with the Langford model that I have put forward a notice of motion for discussion at tomorrow’s Council meeting (June 18, 2007) asking that Council authorize staff to investigate and incorporate the Langford model here. Hopefully Council will agree as I think this route is much better than building separate affordable “projects” in Langley. They will blend in better with the community and avoid the problems of low-income developments experienced in other cities. Kudos to Langford for thinking this one up and making it a reality!
After FCM, Councillor Ferguson and I attended the 45th International Liveable Cities Conference in Portland, Oregon.
Portland is regularly held up as one of the most sustainable cities in North America and I can now see why. They stopped building major highways into their downtown in the 1970’s and transferred all their highway funding into transit funding. As a result, they now have a light rapid transit system that extends 18 miles to the west and 15 miles to the east. They are currently in the process of extending it north and south. Greater Portland has a 2.2 Million population and a geographic area which is equivalent to the GVRD. Essentially, they have light rapid trains that run from North Van to Chilliwack every 15 minutes! Furthermore, travel in the downtown core is free.
The majority of Portland’s system is paid for by annual payroll taxes equaling $6.52 per $1000 of gross payroll. All employers pay including not-for-profits and charities. This was accomplished through State legislation and makes a lot more sense to me than paying for the system through property taxes like we do here.
Portland also has the highest per capita number of hybrid vehicles and cyclists. Cyclists take priority on their roads including the right to sit in front of cars at all intersections. No one speeds downtown because of the number of cyclists.
Having seen what Portland has accomplished, I am now wavering on my former stance concerning twinning the Port Mann. I have heard it said that the expression “Build it and they will come” applies to cars and roads. I can now see why. Portland (a city of 600,000) appears to have successfully stopped this trend whereas in Everett, Washington (a growing community like Langley with a current population of 91,000), I sat on the I-5 highway (which they are expanding) for 2 hours in bumper-to-bumper traffic for 9 miles for no apparent reason other than volume of single occupant vehicles. There was no construction, no accidents, no emergency vehicles, no reason for bumper-to-bumper traffic at 2:30 pm other than volume and suburbs.
While Portland is clearly a pioneer in sustainability measures, it does have its problems. Homelessness is one of the big ones. Portland does appear to be a very safe city (for the US) but there were many homeless people camped out in every doorway and park in their downtown. This is a major problem in the US. One of the speakers at the conference was a planner from Los Angeles and he indicated that the homeless population in Los Angeles was 90,000 (essentially the size of Langley Township). He said that dealing with this was a very complex issue that they have worked on for many years. Homeless shelters alone do not appear to be the solution for the same reason as mentioned earlier for cars and highways (i.e. “Build them and they will come”). One of the problems with shelters is that people must vacate at 8 am and they have no place to go but the parks.
Councillors from other parts in Canada confirmed this saying that what is really needed is “2nd Stage Housing” where homeless people can stay for longer than one night, where they have access to a telephone and can use this as a stepping stone for employment. Based on what I heard at this conference, I think we should rethink the need for a homeless shelter in Langley and move instead towards providing 2nd Stage Housing.
One of the topics that really captured my imagination concerned agriculture. For the past 6 years, a New York City Professor has challenged his classes to think about how to feed the 2.8 Billion new Earth residents expected over the next 50 years. He defines sustainability as "behaving like a true ecosystem" and that a human being's basic rights include the right to 2.3 litres of safe drinking water and 2000 calories of safe food per day.
He thinks we need to start thinking about “farming up” instead of “farming out”. He says that cities should be able to feed themselves without going beyond city limits. He asks his classes to figure out how to do this and their very interesting results are all posted on a website called www.verticalfarm.com . Fascinating concept!
His classes have determined that that there are 13 acres of roofs in Manhattan which is not enough roof top garden space to feed NY. According to them, one 30 story vertical farm could feed 50,000 people per day. This farm would take up one NY city block (or 5 acres). NY City would need 160 such towers to feed its population and this would save 60 million acres of flat land. At present, they calculate that NY City eats the equivalent land value of the entire state of Virginia.
Prior to this conference, I had never thought of farming up but it seems to make a certain kind of sense and certainly captures the imagination! We would need two such vertical farms to feed our current population in Langley. Perhaps our Langley Agriculture Advisory Committee and the GVRD Agriculture Committee should consider this.
Another concept that I learned about at an earlier “Liveable Cities” Conference in Santa Fe was the idea of designing our communities around children and their need to grow up in safe surroundings. As a result of that conference, Langley Township adopted a Child Friendly Impact Assessment analysis that developers are now required to undertake (June 2005). We have also incorporated a Children’s Bill of Rights into our Township corporate goals and objectives. We were 2 years ahead of Portland in doing this.
The latest advances on this social sustainability front in the US concern “Health Impact Assessments” for new developments. These have been adopted in California and have been pioneered by a UBC Professor. I think we should be adopting his revolutionary development principles a little closer to home than California (like in Canada) and I intend to make a Notice of Motion about this. I think this should be another “first” for the Township.
At this year’s conferences, I met many people including the Mayor of Westmount, Montreal where the average property value is $1.1 Million and the transit system is $32.0 Million in deficit. I met the Mayor of Portland who starts every Council meeting by asking how the children of the city are because these children are the future of a sustainable city. I met a fellow “blogging” Councillor from Windsor, Ontario (www.alanhalberstadt.com) who has family here in Langley. Alan is the first to pioneer blogging in his city and is under scrutiny from his Council colleagues for doing so. In fact, they’re even thinking of employing an “Ethics/Integrity Officer” to screen his postings. I think this is a totally unnecessary and frightening form of censorship and I encourage you to visit his blog to offer your support for his efforts (as well as to learn what’s happening in that part of Canada).
The preceding is just a “relatively” brief summary of the many ideas and concepts that I have been exposed to in the last month while attending these conferences on behalf of the Township. I have brought back file folders of information which I have given to the Township’s Administrator for distribution to the appropriate departments. I know he has passed them on because I have just recently heard from the Director of Finance about a new website concept that I brought back from FCM.
In conclusion, there is such a thing as penny wise and pound foolish. I don’t often agree with Councillors Ferguson, Kositsky, Long and Ward but I think they’re right in trying to expand their horizons. Council members who have not bothered to attend conferences before passing judgment on the advantages to the community from doing so fall into this category: “There are none who are so blind as those who will not see”. How unfortunate that we have such myopic individuals on the current council.
Should Councillors travel? Based on all the ideas that I have heard/seen in different communities across Canada and the US and based on all the ideas we have been able to successfully implement in Langley, I think the answer is a resounding “Yes”. In fact, I think travel to at least one conference per year should be mandatory for every Township Councillor to ensure that they are thinking in the broadest possible terms when they are evaluating new ideas and making development decisions.
Bottomline: You decide if it’s worthwhile. You’re the taxpayers. (However, I do think that expecting Councillors to provide written reports on what they’ve learned at conferences would probably be a very good idea and an excellent accountability measure)....
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Richter Report - Feb 1, 2007 - Airport Questions, Questions and More Questions
The BC Community Charter is the piece of provincial legislation that defines and determines the powers of municipal government. Just as I did, you can find a complete copy of this Act by googling ‘Community Charter in BC’.
Section 25 of this Act defines a “General prohibition against assistance to business”. This section says that a council must not provide a grant, benefit, advantage or other form of assistance to a business including any form of assistance referred to in section 24 (1) or an exemption from a tax or fee. It goes on to say that assistance may be provided for history or heritage purposes.
Section 24 (1) of the Community Charter says a Council must give notice in accordance with Section 94 of its intention to provide any of the following forms of assistance to a person or an organization:
a) disposing of land or improvements for less than market value
b) lending money
c) guaranteeing repayment of borrowing or providing security for borrowing
d) assistance under a partnering program.
Section 94 of the Charter says public notice must be given in public posting places at least once a week for 2 consecutive weeks.
Section 26(1) of the Charter says that before a council disposes of land or improvements, it must publish notice of the proposed disposition in accordance with section 94.
Section 191 (1) of the Charter says that a council member who votes for a bylaw or resolution authorizing the expenditure, investment or other use of money contrary to this Act is personally liable to the municipality for the amount.
This is what the Act says and based on the Act, I think these are the questions:
I guess I’ll have to ask these questions at the next meeting (and I will). In the interim, I wonder if we’ll see any municipal ads in the local papers about this property – mitigation perhaps?...
Section 25 of this Act defines a “General prohibition against assistance to business”. This section says that a council must not provide a grant, benefit, advantage or other form of assistance to a business including any form of assistance referred to in section 24 (1) or an exemption from a tax or fee. It goes on to say that assistance may be provided for history or heritage purposes.
Section 24 (1) of the Community Charter says a Council must give notice in accordance with Section 94 of its intention to provide any of the following forms of assistance to a person or an organization:
a) disposing of land or improvements for less than market value
b) lending money
c) guaranteeing repayment of borrowing or providing security for borrowing
d) assistance under a partnering program.
Section 94 of the Charter says public notice must be given in public posting places at least once a week for 2 consecutive weeks.
Section 26(1) of the Charter says that before a council disposes of land or improvements, it must publish notice of the proposed disposition in accordance with section 94.
Section 191 (1) of the Charter says that a council member who votes for a bylaw or resolution authorizing the expenditure, investment or other use of money contrary to this Act is personally liable to the municipality for the amount.
This is what the Act says and based on the Act, I think these are the questions:
- Was an independent arms-length appraisal of the airport land based on fair market value obtained prior to Council voting to give a 40 year lease to an air industry corporation at 24 cents a square foot? (Section 25)
- Is 24 cents a square foot fair market value for industrial land in Langley? (Section 25)
- Is Langley subsidizing the air industry? (Section 25)
- Why? (Section 25)
- Is there a partnering agreement? Between who? (Section 24)
- If Langley is subsidizing the air industry, did it publicize its intent to do so prior to Council’s decision to approve the 40 year lease? (Section 24 and Section 94)
- Was the publication of Council’s leasing decision in accordance with the Community Charter Act? (Section 24 and Section 94)
- Was the community charter act violated? (Sections 24, 25, 26 & 94)
- Are Councillors who voted for this decision personally liable for the difference in lease rates over the life of the contract? How much is this liability? (Section 191)
- Are these Councillors now disqualified from holding office? (Section 191)
I guess I’ll have to ask these questions at the next meeting (and I will). In the interim, I wonder if we’ll see any municipal ads in the local papers about this property – mitigation perhaps?...
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Richter Report - Dec 14, 2006 - The Mad Hatter's Tax Party
"I guess I’m selfish. I’m here because taxpayers think I’m acting in the best interests of me.” - Old Boy's Club Councillor Quoted!
Council had another “tête-à -tête” on the budget again yesterday. All members were present except for Councillor Kositsky.
After the last budget meeting (December 4, 2006), Council had referred the budget back to staff to come up with ways to reduce the proposed 6.5% tax increase next year to 4.95% (which was the rate that the majority of Council (not me) had agreed to last year).
Staff presented options to Council to consider which would reduce the overall tax rate to 4.99%. They did a masterful job. Their reduction options included cutting $1.4M out of Engineering’s budget for highway pedestrian improvements and road works while leaving in (as Councillor Fox pointed out) such priority items as an $875,000 roof on the Lacrosse Box.
Doom and gloom predictions prevailed about how hard pressed the Township would be to maintain and enhance services if they were forced to live with a 4.99% increase. (Most of us would be ecstatic to have a 4.99% increase in our annual income!).
There was some discussion around the tax burden to the taxpayer and the need to be sensitive to those on fixed incomes. Staff pointed out that there is some relief available for seniors. Apparently, the disabled and widows can defer taxes until they sell their homes. Isn’t that a comforting thought?
It was also clear from the discussion that new growth in the community was only contributing a 4.55% revenue increase when a 9.72% increase was actually needed just to keep up. Obviously, we’re spending more than double what we’re bringing in and that is why we need such a substantial tax increase. So, once again I have to ask: “If new development is not paying for itself, then why are we developing?” (Given the tax burden that development is placing on seniors and long time residents of the Township, I think this is a critical question).
Yesterday’s meeting was an open meeting but no members of the media or the public were present which is too bad. Some of the highlights from the discussion included these gems from my colleagues on council:
Councillor U: “It’s wishful thinking to knock spending back. The papers have already announced a 6.6% increase. Let’s take advantage of it. We’re playing a fools game here (to cut spending).”
Councillor X: “A 6.5% increase is not out of line with surrounding communities. It might not be politically correct but it is correct.”
Councillor Y: “If there was ever a time to look at higher over lower taxes, this is the year because fulltime firefighting is being brought online. Now is the time to get our taxes up so they can compound yearly.”
Councillor Z: “Where I’m coming from, I guess I’m selfish. I’m here because taxpayers think I’m acting in the best interests of me.”
The upshot of the meeting was that the motion (by Mayor Alberts and Councillor Bateman) to limit the tax increase in 2007 to 4.99% was defeated. A second motion (by Councillors Long and Ferguson) to look at a tax increase somewhere between 4.99% and 6.5% (likely at the median of 5.74%) was passed.
I voted against both these motions as I still believe that the tax increase should be no higher than 2% (the cost of a fulltime firehall) and the Township should bring in an efficiency expert to review its programs and spending.
Budget discussions will continue in the New Year.
From my perspective, I’m beginning to feel like Alice in Wonderland at the Mad Hatter’s Tax Party. There is something drastically wrong here. Staff has told us that the cost of living increase in the Lower Mainland is about 1.7%. We know from the last Township survey done (October 2006) that the #1 issue in the Township (by a long shot) is transportation and traffic. We know that new development is providing less than half of the revenues needed just to keep pace. We know that construction costs are ridiculously high because of the Olympics.
So if we know all this, why are we spending the way that we’re spending? Why are we building an $875,000 Lacrosse Box cover when we need more roads? Why are we allowing new development to keep putting us deeper and deeper into the hole? Why are we kidding ourselves that there’s no ‘fat’ in this budget? Why are we supporting tax increases triple what the cost of living increase is?
It’s time to start looking at the equation a lot differently. Maintaining the status quo is just not economically viable anymore. The Township is living way beyond its means – ten more years of annual 6.5% compounded tax increases is neither affordable nor sustainable. We have to find out what the root of the problem is and fix it. Simply throwing more tax money at it is not the answer.
Something has to change – maybe it should be this council.
(Kim Richter is in her 3rd term as Langley Township Councillor and also is a Professor of Business at Kwantlen University College. She holds a masters degree in health administration and was a health care management consultant.) ...
Council had another “tête-à -tête” on the budget again yesterday. All members were present except for Councillor Kositsky.
After the last budget meeting (December 4, 2006), Council had referred the budget back to staff to come up with ways to reduce the proposed 6.5% tax increase next year to 4.95% (which was the rate that the majority of Council (not me) had agreed to last year).
Staff presented options to Council to consider which would reduce the overall tax rate to 4.99%. They did a masterful job. Their reduction options included cutting $1.4M out of Engineering’s budget for highway pedestrian improvements and road works while leaving in (as Councillor Fox pointed out) such priority items as an $875,000 roof on the Lacrosse Box.
Doom and gloom predictions prevailed about how hard pressed the Township would be to maintain and enhance services if they were forced to live with a 4.99% increase. (Most of us would be ecstatic to have a 4.99% increase in our annual income!).
There was some discussion around the tax burden to the taxpayer and the need to be sensitive to those on fixed incomes. Staff pointed out that there is some relief available for seniors. Apparently, the disabled and widows can defer taxes until they sell their homes. Isn’t that a comforting thought?
It was also clear from the discussion that new growth in the community was only contributing a 4.55% revenue increase when a 9.72% increase was actually needed just to keep up. Obviously, we’re spending more than double what we’re bringing in and that is why we need such a substantial tax increase. So, once again I have to ask: “If new development is not paying for itself, then why are we developing?” (Given the tax burden that development is placing on seniors and long time residents of the Township, I think this is a critical question).
Yesterday’s meeting was an open meeting but no members of the media or the public were present which is too bad. Some of the highlights from the discussion included these gems from my colleagues on council:
Councillor U: “It’s wishful thinking to knock spending back. The papers have already announced a 6.6% increase. Let’s take advantage of it. We’re playing a fools game here (to cut spending).”
Councillor X: “A 6.5% increase is not out of line with surrounding communities. It might not be politically correct but it is correct.”
Councillor Y: “If there was ever a time to look at higher over lower taxes, this is the year because fulltime firefighting is being brought online. Now is the time to get our taxes up so they can compound yearly.”
Councillor Z: “Where I’m coming from, I guess I’m selfish. I’m here because taxpayers think I’m acting in the best interests of me.”
The upshot of the meeting was that the motion (by Mayor Alberts and Councillor Bateman) to limit the tax increase in 2007 to 4.99% was defeated. A second motion (by Councillors Long and Ferguson) to look at a tax increase somewhere between 4.99% and 6.5% (likely at the median of 5.74%) was passed.
I voted against both these motions as I still believe that the tax increase should be no higher than 2% (the cost of a fulltime firehall) and the Township should bring in an efficiency expert to review its programs and spending.
Budget discussions will continue in the New Year.
From my perspective, I’m beginning to feel like Alice in Wonderland at the Mad Hatter’s Tax Party. There is something drastically wrong here. Staff has told us that the cost of living increase in the Lower Mainland is about 1.7%. We know from the last Township survey done (October 2006) that the #1 issue in the Township (by a long shot) is transportation and traffic. We know that new development is providing less than half of the revenues needed just to keep pace. We know that construction costs are ridiculously high because of the Olympics.
So if we know all this, why are we spending the way that we’re spending? Why are we building an $875,000 Lacrosse Box cover when we need more roads? Why are we allowing new development to keep putting us deeper and deeper into the hole? Why are we kidding ourselves that there’s no ‘fat’ in this budget? Why are we supporting tax increases triple what the cost of living increase is?
It’s time to start looking at the equation a lot differently. Maintaining the status quo is just not economically viable anymore. The Township is living way beyond its means – ten more years of annual 6.5% compounded tax increases is neither affordable nor sustainable. We have to find out what the root of the problem is and fix it. Simply throwing more tax money at it is not the answer.
Something has to change – maybe it should be this council.
(Kim Richter is in her 3rd term as Langley Township Councillor and also is a Professor of Business at Kwantlen University College. She holds a masters degree in health administration and was a health care management consultant.) ...
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Richter Report - Dec 13, 2006 - Don't Dare Blame Tax Hikes On Firefighters
December 8, 2006Dear Editor
Re: Langley Times Editorial – December 8, 2006
There are always two sides to every story.
As noted in your recent editorial, Langley Township Council is thinking about approving a budget that will increase the municipal portion of property taxes by either 4.95% or 6.5% this year and by 77% over the next 10 years. I think this is very unsettling news for all members of our community and especially for those who are currently on fixed incomes or who are single parents. As a baby boomer (and one of many who will probably be retiring in the next decade), I find this latest municipal budget frightening. It is sad to think that people must now consider their increasing property taxes as a key component of retirement planning if they hope to stay where they currently live once they do retire.
To me, what is even more distressing is that your editorial is laying the blame for these astronomical tax increases at the feet of our firefighting service – a service that we all rely on in this community, especially the elderly and anyone needing emergency services. After reading your editorial, I wonder if your source has given you all of the facts.
So, here’s the other side.
Last year (2005), Council directed the Fire Department to go out into the community and to hold public open houses on the question of full time firefighters. The Township’s Paid Call Fire Department did an exceptional job in carrying out this mandate.
They determined that the cost of full time firefighters in the Township would equal a 2% increase in the Township’s base tax rate for each fire hall that was brought onto full time status. They put together a plan of how many halls should be fulltime and when they should go “online”. They went to malls throughout the Township with complete information on costs, timelines, and budget implications. They had flip charts and questionnaires. They asked Township taxpayers if this was something they wanted and something they could financially support. They spent many hours talking to many people from all walks of life and from all corners in this community.
The answer that came back to Council from this very public process was a resounding “Yes – Do it”. In fact, the independent consultant that assisted the Township’s Fire Department throughout the public consultation process commented in his final written report (which is a matter of public record) that he has never seen stronger or more unified public support for an initiative like this. He said it was abundantly clear that this community supported the proposed graduated move to fulltime fire service.
I think your editorial belittles these efforts because all of the people involved in this process, whether firefighter or taxpayer, genuinely care about their community and are genuinely concerned about this important aspect of public safety. They know it’s not free.
Council decided to listen to the Fire Department, to the Consultant, and to the public. As a group, they decided to move in a graduated manner towards fulltime fire service. This clearly meant a 2% tax increase in each year that a new fire hall was brought into fulltime service. This is definitely a tax increase that I and the taxpaying public support. I have never disputed that.
What I do dispute and what your editorial fails to elaborate on is how a 2% per year tax increase for each year that a full time fire hall is implemented manages to balloon to a 4.95% increase, then to a 6.5% increase, then to a 7% increase and ultimately to a 77% increase over 10 years?
It is blatantly unfair to lay these astronomical tax increases at the feet of the firefighters. The Township got its first fulltime fire hall in October 2006. The tax year started in January 2006. Taxpayers throughout the township actually paid a 6.6% tax increase in 2006 for a quarter year of fulltime fire service when that service was only supposed to cost 2% for a full year.
In 2007, a second fire hall will come online but again not until October –another ¾’s of the way through the year. So why is it that another 6.5% tax increase is yet again being proposed for a quarter year of service? The third fulltime fire hall is not planned to be online until 2009 but the current budget being considered by Council also includes a 7% increase in taxes in 2008.
I think that fulltime firefighting is a tax smokescreen that the Township is hiding behind. The reality is that spending under the current Mayor is out-of-control. It has gotten progressively worse with each year that he has spent in office and with each Council that he has had more control over.
It is wrong to blame the financial problems currently faced by the Township on the firefighters. They have done nothing to deserve to be the scapegoats. All they ever wanted was to provide a safer community and they took a very reasonable and affordable approach to doing so.
Look instead to 2 mayor-controlled councils that have gone out of their way to say that compact lot development is OK when it’s obviously clear that new development is not paying for itself. Look instead at spending to buy a golf course. Look instead to $2+ Million cost overruns on a grandstand in front of a leaky $1 Million artificial turf field. Look instead to $700,000+ per year in policing subsidies to Langley City. These are just a few of the many Alberts Council spending decisions that should be questioned and investigated.
Yes, fulltime fire fighting is a significant cost driver in the Township’s budget. We all knew that it would be. But, it’s not the main cost driver and it’s not fair to lay the blame for a financially incompetent Council solely at the door of this vital community service.
Yours truly,
Kim Richter.
(Kim Richter is in her 3rd term as Langley Township Councillor and also is a Professor of Business at Kwantlen University College. She holds a masters degree in health administration and was a health care management consultant.
...
Monday, December 04, 2006
Richter Report - Dec 4, 2006 - Township Budget 2007 - The Tax & Spend Games Begin
(Kim Richter is in her 3rd term as Langley Township Councillor and also is a Professor of Business at Kwantlen University College. She holds a masters degree in health administration and was a health care management consultant. EDITOR-LFP)Today we had a Special Meeting of Council to discuss the budget and the information I requested was distributed to all members of Council. See attached sheet.
I have highlighted two key lines in this sheet. The top line gives the total municipal taxes for a typical household (assessed value of $420,000) from 2002 Actual to 2016 Draft Planned. The typical household paid $1565 in municipal taxes in 2002. This covers the General levy, the (new) Transportation levy, the (new) Protective Services levy, and the Water, Sewer, Stormwater and Garbage utilities. It does NOT include School, GVRD or Translink taxes. According to this same chart, by 2016 the typical Township Household will be paying $3,439 in municipal taxes. (Again, this figure does not include School, GVRD or Translink taxes).
From 2007 to 2016, municipal taxes on the average will increase 77.5%. From 2002 to 2016, they will have increased by 119.7% if this proposed budget is approved. I don’t think this is either sustainable or affordable and I said so today in Council. (Those people who are looking forward to retiring in the next 10 years had better include escalating property taxes in their retirement planning if they hope to stay in their current homes.)
The second line I have highlighted in the attached chart shows the combined % tax increase from 2003 to 2016. Note that in 2003, our combined tax increase (for municipal services only) was 3.4%. In 2004, it was 2.6%. In 2005, it was 2.8%. In 2006, it jumped to 6.6%. By 2008, it will be 7.0%. Then it drops back down to 6.5% and will hover around this mark EACH year through to 2016.
I brought these numbers to my fellow councilors attention in today’s meeting. Here are some of the comments I received.
Councillor A: “We’re holding the line. What staff is presenting is really quite reasonable.”
Councillor B: “People proposing Zero or negative tax increases were defeated in the last election. A Council supporting tax increases was elected.”
Councillor C: “We have the lowest taxes in the region plus a 3% growth rate. We’re really only talking about a .1% change from last year. I sympathize with lower tax rates but that’s more for re-election purposes.”
Councillor D: “This is a tremendously political issue: growth and inequity. Things are out of whack and we need to get some semblance of order and structure.” (No kidding)
Can you guess which councilor said what?
I’d like to think that my contribution made a difference today. Because I asked for and discussed these summary numbers, Council made a decision to refer the budget back to staff and to present a view of the budget limiting the total tax increase to 4.95%. (Councillors Kositsky, Vickberg and Ward were opposed). Kudos to Councillor Bateman for being brave enough to break out of the “Boys Club” by putting the motion forward to limit the total increase to 4.95% and kudos as well for putting forward a motion to freeze police costs until the issue with the City is resolved. (I seconded both his motions).
It’s clear to me that development is NOT paying for itself (staff as much as admitted that today). And, if development is not paying for itself, then why are we growing? It’s also clear to me that Council and staff are in dire need of some solid external advice from efficiency experts. What can and should be cut to keep service and tax levels reasonable? I believe that taxes should be limited to cost of living increases (which staff confirmed today is about 2%) and that we should be living within our means. We’re clearly not.
This budget is a long way from being over yet. We still have to wait and see what tax increase is ultimately agreed to. Should be interesting. Stay tuned....
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Richter Report - April 5, 2006 - Warawa Promises "Complete Response"
Regarding my March 30/o6 Richter Report, Langley MP Mark Warawa responded (see below) to my previous email to him regarding my concerns on the Federal Government's new "Boots on the Ground" campaign in Washington D.C. I look forward to his promised "complete response" and I will post it here as soon as I receive it.
From: Mark Warawa, M.P.
Date: Friday, March 31, 2006 9:32 PM
To: 'Kim Richter'
Subject: RE: Canadian Military Advertising in Washington DC
Dear Ms. Richter,
Thank you for your e-mail, outlining your concerns about the possible direction the federal government may take Canadian Forces.
To answer your concerns comprehensively requires a look at our national policy on foreign affairs and national defence. I will write back soon with a more complete response that I trust will reassure you of the Conservative government’s motives regarding Canada’s military.
Sincerely,
Mark Warawa
Member of Parliament, Langley
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kim Richter [mailto:kimrichter@canada.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 2:09 PM
To: markwarawa@shaw.ca
Subject: Canadian Military Advertising in Washington DC
Dear MP Warawa:
I am writing to you as a concerned resident of the federal riding you represent. I recently discovered that the federal government is advertising its military presence in the US. Please follow the attached link http://www.dcist.com/archives/2006/03/23/canada_not_just.php
I am very uncomfortable with the military direction that Canada now seems to be taking. This advertisement is adding to my concerns.
Why are we spending money on this? Do you support the change of Canada's peace-keeping role to what now seems to be an increasingly aggressive military stance? Were you aware of the spending taking place on this ad and related website: http://www.canadianally.com/ . What is the "endpoint" or positioning of our military that this government has in mind?
We used to be respected internationally as peace-keepers. Is this role changing?
I would appreciate a response from you at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your time.
Yours very truly,
Kim Richter.
Kim Richter is in her 3rd term as Langley Township Councillor and also is a Professor of Business at Kwantlen University College. She holds a masters degree in health administration and was a health care management consultant. ....
From: Mark Warawa, M.P.
Date: Friday, March 31, 2006 9:32 PM
To: 'Kim Richter'
Subject: RE: Canadian Military Advertising in Washington DC
Dear Ms. Richter,
Thank you for your e-mail, outlining your concerns about the possible direction the federal government may take Canadian Forces.
To answer your concerns comprehensively requires a look at our national policy on foreign affairs and national defence. I will write back soon with a more complete response that I trust will reassure you of the Conservative government’s motives regarding Canada’s military.
Sincerely,
Mark Warawa
Member of Parliament, Langley
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kim Richter [mailto:kimrichter@canada.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 2:09 PM
To: markwarawa@shaw.ca
Subject: Canadian Military Advertising in Washington DC
Dear MP Warawa:
I am writing to you as a concerned resident of the federal riding you represent. I recently discovered that the federal government is advertising its military presence in the US. Please follow the attached link http://www.dcist.com/archives/2006/03/23/canada_not_just.php
I am very uncomfortable with the military direction that Canada now seems to be taking. This advertisement is adding to my concerns.
Why are we spending money on this? Do you support the change of Canada's peace-keeping role to what now seems to be an increasingly aggressive military stance? Were you aware of the spending taking place on this ad and related website: http://www.canadianally.com/ . What is the "endpoint" or positioning of our military that this government has in mind?
We used to be respected internationally as peace-keepers. Is this role changing?
I would appreciate a response from you at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your time.
Yours very truly,
Kim Richter.
Kim Richter is in her 3rd term as Langley Township Councillor and also is a Professor of Business at Kwantlen University College. She holds a masters degree in health administration and was a health care management consultant. ....
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Richter Report - March 30, 2006 - No Response From MP Warawa Re: “Boots On The Ground”
The Vancouver Sun today on page a16 followed up on the “Boots on the Ground” story I posted here last week. The Sun talks about Canada’s attempt to prove we are once again worthy military allies to the U.S.A. - so much for our "kinder, gentler society" north of the 49th Parallel! Also of interest is the expansion of the poster campaign to an art exhibit in the Canadian Embassy in Washington DC.The Sun implies that this PR campaign is needed to bolster trade relationships with the US. The article actually quotes a military attache at the Canadian Embassy as saying: "There's often criticism down here that Canada is not pulling its weight on security. We beg to differ" and "The events that happened at Khandahar are brutal evidence of our commitment to the war on terror. We are spilling Canadian blood."
I find this absolutely chilling and I ask again: "Where are we going with this? And, why?".
In my last Richter Report, I said that I would ask Langley's MP about this issue and report back to you with his feedback. The following is my e-mail to Langley MP Mark Warawa sent 7 days ago on March 23, 2006. To date, I have received absolutely no response what-so-ever from him or his office. Is he not responding because of Harper's centralist communications clamp down? Or are the concerns of a local constituent of no importance and so not worthy of a reply?Dear MP Warawa:
I am writing to you as a concerned resident of the federal riding you represent. I recently discovered that the federal government is advertising its military presence in the US. Please follow the attached link http://www.dcist.com/archives/2006/03/23/canada_not_just.php
I am very uncomfortable with the military direction that Canada now seems to be taking. This advertisement is adding to my concerns.
Why are we spending money on this? Do you support the change of Canada's peace-keeping role to what now seems to be an increasingly aggressive military stance? Were you aware of the spending taking place on this ad and related website: http://www.canadianally.com/ What is the "endpoint" or positioning of our military that this government has in mind?
We used to be respected internationally as peace-keepers. Is this role changing?
I would appreciate a response from you at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your time.
Yours very truly,
Kim Richter.
Kim Richter is in her 3rd term as Langley Township Councillor and also is a Professor of Business at Kwantlen University College. She holds a masters degree in health administration and was a health care management consultant.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)