Vecchiato's Voice - Your Vote

On Tuesday, October 14, I cast my ballot in the Canadian federal election. On Wednesday, October 15, I smacked an Obama for President bumper sticker on the back of my Ford Escape. An element of gratitude is inherent in the juxtaposition of both acts. I have the best of both worlds, and despite doom and gloom south of the border, and foreboding angst seeping north of the 49th parallel, those of us living in the States or Canada thrive within countries that exceed the greatest dreams of most of the world's population. We have the right to vote.

So besides the U.S. election, an equally important ballot casting will take place in November right here in Langley. The powers delegated to municipalities in BC are mighty, and the representatives we choose can make or break the quality of life in our immediate vicinity. Having participated in candidate forums in the past three elections, I feel that a forum is not a place to bring a personal confrontation to an incumbent. I've seen it done and it does more harm than good. New candidates are denied exposure they desperately need to place them neck to neck with incumbents, who have gained publicity over their years of service.

Case in point is Tuesday evening's SmarthGrowth and South Fraser on Trax candidates' meeting. Questions ranged from freight (or fright) trains running through the core of the Langleys, road reconfiguration from 64th to Glover, preserving the ALR, the now-dead water management plan, to one suggesting a "spine" of trees/trails going from the 49th parallel to the Fraser River (huh?).

But what was noticeable was that new candidates were not privy to the same information as incumbents, and a lack of knowledge can appear as being uninformed, when, in fact, the information is not necessarily public. I'm leading to the issue of "in camera," which is a bureaucratic term for "behind closed doors."

I had to imagine myself up there and how I would respond to many of the questions posed by both the sponsoring organizations and individuals, whose questions were well-handled by Frank Bucholtz. In fact, Bucholtz left no room for personal dialogue between a voter and a candidate, which was a blessing. If you have a bone to pick, talk about it over coffee. Some of the questions were common knowledge to incumbents, but candidates would have had to spend lengthy hours researching every aspect of township business. There is no administrative staff for candidates to investigate issues whose answers might not even be public. I'd compare this to the Iraq War and those who voted for invading, then whined that they were given the incorrect information. It's their job to get the information if they are sitting in the U.S. Senate--a far cry from running for council in a moderately sized town like Langley.

Forum questions need to be posed so that an element of background information is given to each candidate beforehand. Leveling the playing field is the best thing we can do. Several of the new candidates are some of the brightest and most diligent people I know, but it's a lopsided playing field when one half of the candidates know the issue inside out and the other half possess a superficial knowledge of a topic that's make its way around the staff offices and into the "in camera" meetings.

So let's compensate and give some exposure to
Sukhi Dhami
Bev Dornan
Rick Green (mayor)
Murray Jones
Janet Megahy
Sonya Paterson
Dan Sheel
Glen Tomblin

Learning about these candidates is a responsibility to be carried by the media--both virtual and print--because none has a voting record...yet.
Cathleen Vecchiato has been an outspoken environmentalist for many years. She is the recognized champion of the environment and a community activist in Langley and other adjoining communities. View her full bio and read all her LFP postings at this link. Editor-LFP...

Vecchiato's Voice - Is The Township of Langley a Big Fat Liar?

Who can forget Al Franken's book, specifically the chapter titled Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Liar? Franken, known as 12-stepper Stuart Smalley on Saturday Night Live make the easy transition from SNL to politics and is currently running for Minnesota U.S. Senator.

So is the Township of Langley a big fat liar, too?

In the September 17, 2008, edition of The Province, the lead story is about the reprehensible mutilation of 100 turkeys at a farm on 24th and 196th. From what I understand, the owners practice ethical animal husbandry, and the violation exceeds any act that would be socially acceptable. Their land sits right on the border of what used to be Stokes Pit, which is slowly transforming into Campbell Heights.

I happened to be at "The Pit" walking Wally the dog on Tuesday, and emerged to find CTV, City TV and the Province retreating from the desecrated property. We got into a conversation, and I'd thought about who could do such a thing. You think teens, then satanic cults, and then stories I've heard about Fernridge came to mind: Fernridge is being bought up on spec with hopes for fruition increased since Township endorsed sewer to run down 200th Street, thus opening the door for development. Intimidation tactics are nothing new. In the Willoughby area, a landowner who would not sell (for parcel assembly) received an anonymous note in his mail box saying, "He who sells last gets the least." The water wars of Southern California depicted in the film Chinatown realistically recall the dirty fights that go on in the monied world.

Our Director of Community Development is quoted in The Province as saying that there are no development plans for the area. Why, then, are ads like the following being run in the Langley Advance's real estate section (9/10/08)?

2.49 ACRES

FUTURE DEVELOPMENT

20552 24TH AVENUE

… Located in Brookswood/Fernridge NP and designated 4 UPA

Excellent holding property … live here until time to develop and then enjoy the benefits of principle residence tax treatment.

Because I live in the area, I go through Fernridge a lot, and every week, there are more signs posted in front of forests. Development potential! The most joyous moment of the speculators was the approved sewer. Prices have skyrocketed and I'm sure that buyers will be more fortunate than those of us who bought Nortel.

Frank Bucholtz, editor of the Langley Times, wrote an editorial in March 2005, "Brookswood area could become a hotspot." He rightly says that "A sewer line down 200 Street will shape the future of South Langley, and it is hard to see how it won't involve massive urbanization...South Brookswood area (south of 36th) is...even more ready. Properties there are much larger and many have been held by investors for years. They were anxious for Vicwood (the old name for High Point) to go ahead in 1997, and I'm sure they are just as interested in development now."

In 2000, a Langley Times article entitled "South's development dreams return/Residents say perfect opportunity exists to tie services into Surrey's plan. To be fair, I must say that Mayor Alberts stated at the time that there was no time frame for development, and asked, "Why do detailed planning where development isn't going to happen for 10 to 15 years?" Despite has stand (and his stand has been to develop one area at a time), why is there a Brookswood/Fernridge Community Plan on the township website at all? Some of the information includes:

EXISTING.....PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY....WIDTH LANES

24th Avenue.............. Arterial.............................. 4

32nd Avenue............. Arterial.............................. 4

36th Avenue.............. Arterial.............................. 4

40th Avenue.............. Arterial.............................. 4

196th Street.............. Collector............................ 2
In addition, the width of 24th is proposed to increase from 20 to 24 meters, and 196 is proposed to increase from 20 to 22 meters.

The Community Plan begins with the statement:

This Plan details the Township's policies for the development of Brookswood/Fernridge. The Brookswood/Fernridge Community

Plan conforms to the goals and objectives of the Langley Official Community Plan and provides more detailed land use policies.

and continues:

Brookswood/Fernridge is seen, in the long term, as a community of 35,000 people functioning

as a southern satellite of the Langley Regional Town (Langley City and adjacent Township

commercial and industrial areas). The Langley Regional Town because of its substantial

head-start in overall development and with its ultimate hinterland population will be the major

commercial and service area.

According to the file, this particular segment of Fernridge on 196th north of 24th has a proposed zoning of Service Commercial. The complete specifications for the area can be found on the Township of Langley website http://www.tol.bc.ca/files/web_files/planning/CommunityPlans/Bylaw_2475_Brookswood.pdf

Another reason I know the area fairly well (because talking to locals) is the carnage called Campbell Heights. Earlier this year, by default, I ended up leading a tour through what used to be Stokes Pit, with Ramin Seifi (Director, Community Services), Brad Badelt (Engineering), Mark Bakken (Township Administrator), and Councilor Kim Richter. Richter had already seen the poor quality of excavation--lowering the water table, building new canals (the old ones were fish bearing) without a tree in site because they were all dead due to the water table change, a move that has increased the water temperature and becomes useless as salmon habitat--and was concerned about its impact on Langley and the buffer between the two municipalities(according to staff, it is 60 meters). 24th Avenue sits amid the desert-like setting of Campbell Heights, just waiting to be pushed through to Langley. I also noted on the Community Plan that Item 2.6.4 Conservation Areas was deleted by #4485 27.03.06

Land assembly is a precarious venture in which only the big players can participate. Although I merely speculate that land may be the catalyst behind arson (further up the street) and animal desecration, suspecting players getting punks to do their dirty work holds an element of feasibility. Nothing surprises me.

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

Vecchiato's Voice - What To Do With Your $100 Carbon Tax Rebate?

I received the following information about the rebate checks in a forwarded email which is obviously tongue in cheek. It's good food for thought and can really show how patriotic we as Canadians are.
So, how should you spend your carbon tax rebate?
If you spend that money at WalMart, the money will go to the U.S.

If you spend it on gas, it will go to the Middle East or Alberta.

If you purchase a computer, it will go to Taiwan or Mainland China.

If you purchase fruit and vegetables, it will go to California, Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala.

If you purchase a good car, it will go to Japan or Korea or Europe.
If you purchase useless junk, it will go to China and none of it will help the B.C. economy.

The only way to keep that money here at home is to spend it on prostitutes and marijuana, since these are the only products still produced here in B.C.

Thank you for your help and support,

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

Tax, Tax, and More Tax - Vecchiato's Voice

Tax, Tax, and More Tax
by Cathleen Chance Vecchiato
Feeling that newly assigned tax stress, the type that brings bruxism to your anxious dreams? Rest assured. You are not alone. The following was forwarded to me by another Township resident who, like others, sees our tax increases as a loonie grab. If you can make the time, join the Property Tax Protest, Wednesday, July 2nd, 1:00 pm to 4:00 pm, Langley Township Hall, 20338 65 Avenue. In fact, save yourself the postage and submit your property tax form.

Property owners in Langley Township have been hit this year with the second highest tax increase in the Lower Mainland.

For the last several years, our mayor and council members have increased spending at three times the rate of inflation, even taking into account the population growth. This has created an unfair burden on homeowners in the Township, who have seen no corresponding increase in services.

Many Township residents have no access to municipal water, sewer, garbage pickup or public transit yet they are being taxed as if they lived in West Vancouver. We are concerned that our municipal government is on a spending spree, buying golf courses and restaurants at our expense.

This friendly demonstration is being held to remind our elected officials that their job is to manage our hard-earned money wisely and responsibly. You're invited to join us on the picket line, to stop by to sign a petition or to just show up to lend your support.

* * *

So where are the increases going, and what amenities or quality of life issues are we receiving? I’d like to do a random comparison, so chose 2000 for the fiscal property tax year. In 2000, a ¼-acre lot in Brookswood (land only) was assessed at $142,000. For 2008, the same was assessed for $350,000. What is relevant, however, is the increases in “services” for individuals applying for the basic home owner grant.

I calculated that my monthly payments show an increase of 13%, which will finance the following projects above and beyond what we already pay for:
·--- $40,400,000 for storm water, water and sewer projects
·--- $19,300,000 for Engineering road works
·--- $8,100,000 for Recreation, Culture, and Parks
·--- $34,500,000 for Langley Events Centre

Having worked in industries aligned with civic structure, I am well aware of Engineering’s clout and the common practice of padding one’s budget, then having to use it all, lest you receive less the following year. From my understanding, our elected officials have no say over staff issues. Muriel Arnason told me before her death that all personnel issues go through Township Hall Administrator. I can see the “Help Wanted” ad right now:
Want benefits? Do you follow directions? Are you a team player but understand all teams have a leader? Apply at the Township of Langley. You’ll be glad you did! ...

Vecchiato's Voice - Jan 4, 2008 - People Pleasing & Planning; A Delicate Balance

Planning is a tricky business, and is rather like being a school principal where your position is to appease parents, teachers and school board all at once. It is the ultimate job for people who can set limits with people. People please and you're burned out in a year.

The will to please all parties is off kilter, however, in the Township of Langley. Most noticeably is the recent approval of high rises that slid in under the last minute wire prior to Christmas holidays. Major decisions in December and in the summer when many people are absent tend to host the most contentious issues with an outcome already decided. Case is point is the preliminary Campbell Heights Open House held in August over 5 years ago (BC almost seems to shut down in August, as Europe is rumoured to do).

Although planning did revise some of the by-law in the past month, the final version did fly through with only two abstentions: Councillors Richter & Bateman. Personally, I am not against high rises as long as they are buffered from single family homes or townhouses and that we as a community get something in return. Undoubtedly, the development community was pleased with the by-law and Smart Growth would applaud. But what about addressing the loss of this temperate rain forest's biodiversity, wildlife habitat, narture pleasure it brings to us each season, and more current and perhaps critical, offsetting carbon emissions to achieve an element of neutrality. However, by placating the development crowd, the local residents and the taxpayers end up scuffing their heels, disgruntled, unheard.

The time to hash out amendments to each neighborhood plan is now, and a mandatory application of bonus density is the solution. Bonus density is a development formula assigned by the Local Government Act. According to the document, the purpose of allowing high density and leaving green space in return is so that 'amenities obtained should benefit the area where the development is located. Increased density can result in higher numbers of people who place higher demands on community amenities, such as day care or open space. The amenity is provided to maintain or improve existing community livability and quality of life in the area that takes the higher density.'

In the past, when bonus density has been used, the bonus areas have not been in the general vicinity of the development, but in the far reaches of the township where land is cheap. Earlier in 2007, a developer proposed donating playground equipment instead of land for green space. The tragedy, I believe, is that council even considered this proposition, which makes me wonder if they understand the issue at all. With high density and the ensuing bonus, land cost will not matter. What matters, I believe, is the quality of life for residents. So few amenities for the myriad new townhouses and single family homes on the hill are available. Even the construction of the future Sportsplex is an example of excavation excess and neglect. The amount of land cleared far surpasses the square footage building and parking needs. It seems easier to build if you clear everything first. But decision makers need to see there may be more benefit to retention than demolition.

Surrey estimated that 50,000 trees have been lost to development interests. One resident pointed out that 'little sticks and ornamental shrubs that developers throw in are not adequate replacements for our magnificent urban forest(so).'

Perhaps a better incentive is to consider the three parties with a vested interest in any development: the property owners, the developers, and the community.

Recently, the Langley Times devoted half a page to the issue of battling greenhouse gas emissions. Frankly, I don't care if you are an Al Gore fan or not. Case in point is: cars, trucks, heating, among others, all increase CO2 or CO2 equivalents (a.go. methane). Journalist, Al Irwin mentioned the ability of trees to offset carbon, which could very well provide an incentive rather than punitive measures as suggested in reports in the Vancouver Sun.

Small trees such as streets trees and the numerous species planted in new front yards have little capacity to absorb a vast amount of CO2. One study showed that nine ornamental trees offset 1/3 a tank of gas per year. However, a 147 cm (58”) diameter tree holds 3206 kilograms (7,068 pounds) of CO2. Most of the conifers in Brookswood and the Milner escarpment, for example, are far larger than a mere 147 centimeters. A 231 cm (91”)-diameter western red cedar in our yard has the capacity to store 2,686 kg (5,919 pounds) of carbon and 734 Kg (1,614 pounds) of carbon dioxide. The average car, according to the EPA spews 9 pounds of carbon and 33 pounds of CO2 into the air each day, so the invisible labor of a single tree or an entire forest is worthy of approbation.

Our yard is host to approximately 40 trees of varying species, with western red cedars being the most prominent. In the 10 years we have lived here, our quarter acre is becoming an island amid cleared properties. Although the Brookswood Tree By-law was an excellent example of excluding the public's input (the committee's recommendations were not the foundation of the by-law), the need for a bylaw could become obsolete by giving incentives for preserving second-growth trees, both conifers and deciduous.

You cannot please everyone all the time, and this ushers back the dilemma of people pleasing. A good school principal will take each party's concerns into account and try to compromise. My experience is that little compromise on behalf of residents has occurred, except in cases where taxpayers were notably vocal (the sale of township land to the Baptist Church, for example). I don’t think Township needs to totally abandon some of its modus operandi, but to soften it with the blessing of compromise may provide political longevity, a method to neutralize carbon dioxide, and even more promising, development that doesn't raze the landscape but lets the landscape do the work.

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

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

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

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

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

Cathleen Vecchiato
Fraser Valley Conservation Coalition...

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

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

And so it goes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And so it goes.

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

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

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

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

And so it goes.

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cathleen Vecchiato, ChairFraser Valley Conservation CoalitionLangley BC

...

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

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

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

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

-- Cathleen Vecchiato, Fraser Valley Conservation Coalition

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

Youtube video of Berth Williams of the Tsawwassen First Nation

...

Vecchiato's Voice - July 29, 2007 - Black Kettles and Vocal Pots

Sometimes, a vocal pot calls the kettle black, lending us an image of personification. In this particular case, it appears that the Township is the vocal pot.

In the Langley Times (July 13, 2007), an article "Tree Protection Sought" includes interviews with Township staff in relationship to tree surveys as well as the condition of a property adjacent to Mountain Secondary, which township owns and had leased to a tenant.

The article states that "the site has the appearance and smell of a homeless squat...putrid, stagnant water in a half full basement contributes to a smell of human excrement that might come from a leaking septic tank." Township administrator is quoted as saying, "it is not a healthy situation."

Since when is a tenant responsible for septic maintenance? According to tenants.bc.ca, a landlord "must keep a place healthy, safe and 'suitable for occupation' .... has to make any repairs that are needed for your health and safety. (The) landlord is responsible for repairing: heating, plumbing electricity...Anything included in your rent must also be maintained.... The landlord is responsible for repairing: garages and storage sheds.

But let's add the Township's own legislation, stating, under its Property Maintenance and Repair Bylaw 2003 No. 4231, "where "the Corporation of the Township of Langley deems it necessary for the health, safety and protection of persons and property, to regulate the maintenance and repair of properties within its jurisdiction." It also states in section 3 that "The Owner of a property will maintain the property...concerning the health and safety of the property."

It seems clear that the staff interviewed wished to steer away from the initial issue of the article (Tree preservation) and paint the tenant in a most unfavorable light. Township, however, shoots its own foot because they were, in fact, the landlord, yet never checked on their property.

I've been both landlord and tenant and understand that regular inspections is one way to guarantee the condition of your property. Township has violated its own by-law and not lived up to provincial laws legislating the responsibility of landlords.

But back to the initial issue: "Tree protection sought." With some investigation, I found that the Township was not able to produce a tree survey when requested, although Parks Manager is cited in the article, by saying, "the township has produced a tree survey as part of the topographical survey of the whole Willoughby Community Park site." When asked for the survey, one wonders why our public servants remain so furtive. There are, of course, things the township does very well, and part of this is providing some of the best recreational facilities available to a community. Consideration of heritage properties and the importance of the historic elements of this area are more laudable than other municipalities. However, an antagonism seems to develop between taxpayer as critic and staff contorting into a defensive position.

My feeling is that taxpayer as employer is often forgotten. We should not be forced into using the Freedom of Information Act, but maintain a transparent government that needn't play spin doctor, but instead, serve the people in the community.

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

Vecchiato's Voice - July 12, 2007 - That's Entertainment - Pirates vs Township Council!

Sunday, July 8th. Leave at 7 pm to see Pirates of the Caribbean: World's End. Pay too much $19.90 for myself and a nine year old. Try to figure out during film if screen writers did too many drugs. Assume probably yes. Wonder why people stabbed with epees come back to life. Wonder what 'up is down' means in the context of theme. Squirm at close up of Johnny Depp’'s nose. Large pores and blackheads. Close-ups of sex symbol's facial skin should never be shown unless airbrushed. Get on the Clinque men'’s program, Depp. Leave at 11 pm, bewildered, but stayed for final surprise segment after the credits.

Monday, July 9th. Leave house at 6:50. Go to Presentation Theatre in resplendent township hall and enter during first presentation. Langley will be 150 years old. Special logo with acknowledgement of First Nations added to Langley logo. Still think the flower looks like an edelweiss. Wrong country. Like the added canoe and frogs. Compensating for 150 years of bad behaviour is subtle and tasteful.

Listen to delegation regarding planned park on 202A south of Mountain Secondary. Delegate points out that township has exempted itself from the development tree by-law. Section 5.1 truly ambiguous. Use of double negatives to confuse anyone who bothers to read it. Councilor Richter asks that if they are exempt, then they could cut down the redwoods on park land. Answer is affirmative. No one at the long council table reacts. Delegate is thanked. No further discussion.

Next is a development at Gloucester Estates. Richter points out that original conservation areas not shown. Engineering cannot guarantee if tree removal in conservation area is probable, but guesses it is. Mayor dismisses Richter’'s point. Asks council for a vote to approve the submission. All councilors raise hands in unison except Richter. Smooth as a group of synchronized swimmers. I wonder if they have practiced this routine over dinner. Boys will raise hands when questioned by Mayor; girls not included.

Next subject is environmental design to be added to buildings. Bateman believes it should be mandated, not suggested; Mayor disagrees but allows a vote. Mayor seems to approve of each development submission 'as is.' Done deal. No one else asks questions. Richter seconds Bateman's motion. Something may change.

8:10 pm. I have to leave. I am going to miss the rest of this. I note that Mayor controls microphones. Think that mayor would look better on a throne. Remember seeing him at the Langley parade in a horse-drawn carriage. Makes me think of Dicken's’ England. We are the huddled masses with little chance of changing our station in life. When the carriage passed by, I imagine mud splattering on those afoot. No apologies. We deserve it, don't we?

Summary:
Cost of : Pirates of the Caribbean: $19.90 plus $8 for popcorn and small drink.
Cost of Council meeting: Nothing.
Entertainment value: Pirates was more believable....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cathleen Vecchiato

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any suggestions or comments on the issue are welcome.

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

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

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

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

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

A little brake dust on your salmon tonight, sir?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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