NEWS UPDATE: See The Province for article and large picture of Arnason on page A9. Stay tuned for news on legal action.
You heard it here first! Read the Province in the next few days as they will be reporting that legal action will be commenced against the township over their refusal to apply their own bylaws against themselves. "Do as I say not as I do!" Specifically the Province will be further reporting on Township Council's refusal to act upon the delegation by local resident Petrina Arnason who brought the matter to council's attention regarding tree removal planned in our township parkland in contravention of their own township bylaw! Great 'Good Ole Boy's Club Council' bylaw inaction, don't you think?
Langley Township could now also essentially cut down ALL the trees in the newly acquired Redwoods golf course without any recourse just because Township refuses to conform to their own bylaw! Another 'Double Standard' first for the good ole boys!
Oh, by the way Cllr. Kim Richter after hearing Arnason's valid concern about the double standard moved a motion to amend the Township bylaw to rectify this situation. You guessed it, her motion was not even seconded for discussion by the rest of Council, the 'good ole boys'! Maybe they think if you ignore the truth it will just go away....
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Mayor Alberts' Fort Langley Gets Funding Once Again
MLA's Ministers Rich Coleman & Stan Hagan along with Township Mayor Kurt Alberts apparently are making an announcement in Fort Langley on Monday. No surprise, let's see now, Alberts' home base of Fort Langley has gotten street improvements, a fort to fort trail, along with purchasing a local golf course and a restaurant/bar so far. What's next and how much more? What is Fort Langley getting this time? Maybe the bigger question is how much is this going to cost the Township taxpayers this time as well?! What's wrong with Brookswood, Murrayville, Aldergove South Langley, etc. also getting some perks sometime? Their residents have been paying through the nose in ever increasing taxes for these spending sprees. Why don't they ever get something in their backyard? Doesn't the ole boys club slate on council know that the Township is a community of communities? Sure doesn't seem like it to this Editor....
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Letter To The Editor - July 29, 2007 - From Jeannine Cherewick - New Translink Bureaucracy Feeding At The Trough?
Reader Jeannine Cherewick forwarded the below 3 emails to LFP re the new Translink governance model, Light Rapid Transit in the Fraser Valley & fiscal accountability. Reading the bottom one first is her initial email to Minister Kevin Falcon, Falcon's response is second from the bottom and then Jeannine's counter response To Falcon just below. Jeannine please think about running for political office! - >>>EDITOR LFP<<<
From: Jeannine Cherewick
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 3:00 PM
To: 'Transportation, Minister Falcon TRAN:EX'
Subject: RE: 155606 - Changes at TransLink
Your responses to my letter are very slick and political shit. Please pardon my vulgarity but you haven’t given me any real answers. I don’t want slick long winded explanations, I want
some blunt to the point answers.
First of all; who is the independent panel of people choosing which mayors get to spend my money? Depending on whose will this independent panel bows to determines if the mayors council is appointed or not... Not to mention a commissioner? Who chooses him/her?
I express a huge concern over the "resources" translink has access to because I have yet to see a clear year by year total of all their funding. And clear totaling using Generally Accepted Accounting Practices to show how much money translink gets every year for everything; wages salary, perks, expense accounts, maintenance, operations, projects, consulting, and gosh only knows what else... every penny that is spent by Translink... and every penny that goes into Translink. I don’t care about the propaganda; the long winded letters explaining how translink is going to put that money to use with out really fully disclosing how much they’ve gotten; using figures over and omitting some non essential amounts, rounding up or down totals etc. I want to see the balance sheet... the P&L report. Are you going to email them to me or not? I am going to assume that you are not. How can you honestly expect me to accept translink saying that they need more money with out some sort of proof?
It boils down to this: I don’t have a problem paying my taxes and supporting the growth and infrastructure of our province but I’ve been lied to, condescended to, over taxed regularly and been expected to be grateful for all of it! I am sick of being scammed by the fridge repair man, overcharged for fuel, taxed for transit I don’t have access to and I am sick of bureaucratic smooth talking, legalese spouting, politicians telling me I don’t understand the situation. I may not have the fine points down but I understand that translink gets a lot more money than they will add up and admit to all on one piece of paper. I also know that if translink was run like a private company or was a fully transparent crown corporation, I’d probably have better access to the info I want and there would be a bit more real accountability to the public. Not to mention the fact that it would most likely be profitable.
So don’t email me with more condescending fluff talk to enlighten me as to why your non-answers are enough and I should be satisfied with that. Give me a detailed P&L, a balance sheet and list of where all the funding translink gets comes from as well as their complete revenue stream totals that Translink received last fiscal year and for the last ten years and you’ll have made me a very satisfied British Columbian.
Jeannine Cherewick
-----Original Message-----
From: Transportation, Minister Falcon TRAN:EX
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 12:01 PM
To: jeannine
Subject: 155606 - Changes at TransLink
Dear Jeannine:
Thank you for your e-mail of April 8, 2007, about the important changes announced for TransLink. Your e-mail contains a few misunderstandings about these changes, and I'm glad to have this opportunity to clear up matters.
Appointments to TransLink's new board of professionals will be made by the new Council of Mayors from a list of qualified individuals identified by an independent panel. The provincial government will not appoint anyone to the board, as you suggest.
The Council of Mayors, which will be made up entirely of elected local officials, is going to have a crucial role in TransLink's new structure. They will be responsible for setting TransLink's high-level direction by approving a 10-year strategic plan. The council will also authorize the
tax measures and borrowing required to achieve these goals.
The council's 10-year plan will be carried out by TransLink, overseen by a board of professionals -- people who have the appropriate expertise to oversee the planning, construction and operation of the region's transportation system.
To provide checks, balances and transparency, an independent TransLink Commissioner will be established. The commissioner will authorize any transit fare increases and will also provide unbiased assessments of whether TransLink's plans are consistent with the region's growth
management plans, as required by law.
Regarding your concerns about financial transparency, TransLink will continue to publish its financial statements and accounting policies in its annual report, which is currently available on its web site at: http://www.translink.bc.ca/Plans_Projects/
As you note, people in the Fraser Valley and other neighbouring regions have asked for a stronger voice in TransLink's decisions for some time now. Local governments from Hope to Pemberton may choose to join TransLink and be represented on the Mayor's Council if they feel this approach is right for their communities. However, no local government will be required to join, and no region will have to help fund TransLink without being represented.
You express some concern that TransLink has too many resources at its disposal already. However, TransLink needs to make significant investments in order to secure the transportation system required for the region's future. Only under the new structure will it have access to the resources to make these investments a reality. The changes we plan will ensure TransLink's funding requirements are met for the next two decades, making possible projects like the Evergreen Line and public transit across the Port Mann Bridge.
The new Council of Mayors will have the authority to increase fuel taxes within TransLink's service area by up to three cents per litre in the coming years, on the condition that additional revenues from any increase in fuel taxes are balanced with increases in property taxes and
other revenues, including fares. The panel chose to recommend this approach, because it fairly balances the demands placed on drivers, transit users and property tax owners in the region. It also provides an incentive to reduce automobile use and encourages transit use. The measure will also provide a substantial and predictable revenue stream, mitigating the need for property tax and fare increases well into the future.
You outline many other transportation investments you'd like to see, such as new transit lines. These are the sorts of decisions that will be made by the elected officials on the Council of Mayors and the skilled professionals on the TransLink board. The provincial government remains committed to the principle that regional transportation decisions should be made at a regional level.
The changes to TransLink we have announced are going to increase its effectiveness, responsiveness and accountability. They will let the people of the Lower Mainland build an outstanding transportation system that serves their needs for decades to come.
Again, thanks for taking the time to write.
Best regards,
Kevin Falcon
Minister
From: Jeannine Cherewick
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 11:45 PM
To: Falcon.MLA, Kevin
Subject: translink...
I have a serious issue with enlarging translink, under funding it and making sure the public have less access, control or say over its actions. So basically you've done the complete opposite of what you should have done with Translink as what you should have done. Translink
costs too much and does too little for every one outside of Vancouver city, Burnaby, Richmond, new west and tricities.
I am sick and tired of politicians saying they are doing what's best for BC when all they are really doing is consolidating power so they can do what they think is best for BC'ers. Translink should be restructured for sure. But there should be accountability to the tax payers of BC built into the new structure. As it stands, Translink has gone from being a unaccountable, non elected
body of bureaucrats who had the power to impose taxes, (which is completely wrong as far as I'm concerned) to a non elected body of bureaucrats, unaccountable to anyone but the minister, so you can have an squad of yes men run after you and applaud your every action. I think it's egotistical.
Translink should be made smaller, with far more checks and balances in place. With a transparent accounting of where the tax money they receive goes, not to mention how much they really get. Not some mishmash of obscure sources either. I'm talking a complete financial reckoning based on generally accepted accounting practices. I hope you are familiar with that terminology. It's a formula I am supposed to follow when doing my taxes. Once Translink gives a complete and fully transparent, honest accounting of its Profit and Loss, Balance sheet and
general ledger I will be more willing to support it if it can show why it deserves my support.
I've done a fair bit of bitching about Translink. In fact I think it's just another bureaucratic pig feeding from the trough that has been intentionally inflated to seem bigger than it needs to be in order to justify taxing the public as much as possible. How many hundreds of millions of dollars does translink suck from the public through its current revenue streams? Hydro Levies, fuel tax, property tax and so on. Now your going to expand translink fee's to the rest of the Fraser
valley... for what? Translink neither serves the outlying areas nor deserves the tax base.
I have said it before and I'll say it again, Translink is only good for those people who have the option of using transit, most of whom live in either Burnaby, central Surrey, New West, tri cities, North Van, Richmond or Vancouver itself. And of course most of those people think its fine for Translink to steal money out of my pocket and the rest the Fraser valley population because it's good for their circumstances.
Let's see some service that is on par with the service Vancouver gets out here in Langley and Chilliwack... build an affordable light rail transit from Hope to Maple Ridge west coast express, add a connecting train to Abbotsford and another rail transit from Abbotsford to Langley, south Surrey, Delta out to Richmond and build the highway and bridges that should have been built 20 years ago to accommodate today's traffic.
Yes I am talking billions and billions of dollars, but the fact of the matter is that I like hundreds of thousands like me resent Vancouver's monopoly on transit dollars. I drive for a living and when I am not working, I don't have the option of walking to the grocery store or hopping on the next bus because there isn't one on a regular basis that would take me anywhere near the places I need to go. Everything focuses on getting into Vancouver, very little concerns getting out of Vancouver or just commuting in my community. I do not see Langley as a suburb.
Langley is my home and I want to commute here, to hell with getting to Vancouver on transit, I'd just like to get around my home town! I live here and stay out of Vancouver as much as possible. I don't shop in Vancouver or take my recreation there. The issue of urban sprawl is
long past... The issue is providing adequate transportation to the people who live in the valley. Right now the only viable transportation is the highways because the province and Translink in their wisdom have not built enough rapid transit infrastructure to service the needs of the bulk of the population of the lower mainland.
And so all the Starbucks drinking, tree hugging yuppies in the downtown core and North/west Vancouver who can afford to actually live there and whose transit is subsidized by the hundreds of thousands, (dare I say millions?) of people who don't get access to the buses and sky train; who instead of using transit, choose to drive their smart cars and Saab's and Prius' the ten or twenty blocks to work; bitch and scream about how much more pollution will be caused by all the cars driving on the new highways that will be built (and how dare we lowly masses not
worthy of residing in the hallowed city of Vancouver (including North V and West V) ask or hope to understand why its bad for us to have better access to the ports, north shore, east of hope, industrial area's of Vancouver and so on.
And those same hypocritical yuppies that rely on the highways for all their supplies that keep the city alive; honk their horns and give me the finger and road rage at the trucks I pilot because we dare to be on the road at the same time as they.) these hypocritical, trendy, look-down-their-noses, Sam Sullivan ass kissing sycophants who don't know what the hell their talking about because they haven't been out of the city of Vancouver in years; have the gall to demand that anew bridge not be built over the Fraser river to reduce traffic congestion... ?! WTF!
I am not being derogatory towards all Vancouverites. No, just the ones who don't get that with out the proper transit system to bring people into the city, out of the city and around their own communities, there has to be roads. More roads. Because all the people who have to commute don't really have a choice and clog the highway from 176 St west to the second narrows pretty much from 4am to 9 or 10 pm and that is a huge problem... All those idling vehicles, thousands of them an hour, burning fossil fuels and polluting. And yes, it bothers us out in the valley to see such wastage. Why? Because its our money going out the tail pipe. And every time I fuel up my vehicle (It's a ford F350 diesel pickup. And yes, I need it for work, not just because I can afford to burn my money on an overpriced, gas guzzling SUV like so many of those whiney Vancouver hypocrites who are opposed to building more roads) I am pissed off to know that some of my hard earned money is going to be sucked up by the bloated leech called Translink.
Those people living west of Coquitlam who don't know that there are beautiful towns, parks and happy communities just east of them. Those people who don't know anything exists past the city limits of Burnaby... those are the people I have so little respect for. Who think they are the only British Columbians who have a say and think their opinions are correct because they live in Vancouver (!). Give me a break!
What it all boils down to is this: I would like to see some honesty from your ministry. I would like to see a proper and full accounting from Translink, justification for the changes that are going to be made and a cost break down of the changes. Oh yeah, also, think that the province of BC and Translink should reimburse every person in BC who pays the tax on fuel that supports translink. Why? Because they aren't being honest with our tax dollars, I believe, and we pay too much as it is. And I'd like to tell Mr. Sullivan where to stick it along with all the other ding dongs who haven't got a clue.
And a word for you Mr. Falcon, if you really want to do some good for transportation in the lower mainland, a rapid transit, like rail (The west coast express for example) from Hope to Richmond with connectors to the sky train, and stops at Mission, Fort Langley, (To connect with WC express at albion) Surrey, Delta at the industrial park there, (so many people would use rail there!) Ladner and then to Richmond to connect with the new Canada line; that would be beneficial. Also, Some form of mass transit that paralleled the path of the freeway from Chilliwack to Vancouver.... But my idea's might actually work at reducing the need to build more roads which might in turn reduce the fuel tax revenues the gov. could expect, so why take them seriously, right?
Jeannine Cherewick...
From: Jeannine Cherewick
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 3:00 PM
To: 'Transportation, Minister Falcon TRAN:EX'
Subject: RE: 155606 - Changes at TransLink
Your responses to my letter are very slick and political shit. Please pardon my vulgarity but you haven’t given me any real answers. I don’t want slick long winded explanations, I want
some blunt to the point answers.
First of all; who is the independent panel of people choosing which mayors get to spend my money? Depending on whose will this independent panel bows to determines if the mayors council is appointed or not... Not to mention a commissioner? Who chooses him/her?
I express a huge concern over the "resources" translink has access to because I have yet to see a clear year by year total of all their funding. And clear totaling using Generally Accepted Accounting Practices to show how much money translink gets every year for everything; wages salary, perks, expense accounts, maintenance, operations, projects, consulting, and gosh only knows what else... every penny that is spent by Translink... and every penny that goes into Translink. I don’t care about the propaganda; the long winded letters explaining how translink is going to put that money to use with out really fully disclosing how much they’ve gotten; using figures over and omitting some non essential amounts, rounding up or down totals etc. I want to see the balance sheet... the P&L report. Are you going to email them to me or not? I am going to assume that you are not. How can you honestly expect me to accept translink saying that they need more money with out some sort of proof?
It boils down to this: I don’t have a problem paying my taxes and supporting the growth and infrastructure of our province but I’ve been lied to, condescended to, over taxed regularly and been expected to be grateful for all of it! I am sick of being scammed by the fridge repair man, overcharged for fuel, taxed for transit I don’t have access to and I am sick of bureaucratic smooth talking, legalese spouting, politicians telling me I don’t understand the situation. I may not have the fine points down but I understand that translink gets a lot more money than they will add up and admit to all on one piece of paper. I also know that if translink was run like a private company or was a fully transparent crown corporation, I’d probably have better access to the info I want and there would be a bit more real accountability to the public. Not to mention the fact that it would most likely be profitable.
So don’t email me with more condescending fluff talk to enlighten me as to why your non-answers are enough and I should be satisfied with that. Give me a detailed P&L, a balance sheet and list of where all the funding translink gets comes from as well as their complete revenue stream totals that Translink received last fiscal year and for the last ten years and you’ll have made me a very satisfied British Columbian.
Jeannine Cherewick
-----Original Message-----
From: Transportation, Minister Falcon TRAN:EX
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 12:01 PM
To: jeannine
Subject: 155606 - Changes at TransLink
Dear Jeannine:
Thank you for your e-mail of April 8, 2007, about the important changes announced for TransLink. Your e-mail contains a few misunderstandings about these changes, and I'm glad to have this opportunity to clear up matters.
Appointments to TransLink's new board of professionals will be made by the new Council of Mayors from a list of qualified individuals identified by an independent panel. The provincial government will not appoint anyone to the board, as you suggest.
The Council of Mayors, which will be made up entirely of elected local officials, is going to have a crucial role in TransLink's new structure. They will be responsible for setting TransLink's high-level direction by approving a 10-year strategic plan. The council will also authorize the
tax measures and borrowing required to achieve these goals.
The council's 10-year plan will be carried out by TransLink, overseen by a board of professionals -- people who have the appropriate expertise to oversee the planning, construction and operation of the region's transportation system.
To provide checks, balances and transparency, an independent TransLink Commissioner will be established. The commissioner will authorize any transit fare increases and will also provide unbiased assessments of whether TransLink's plans are consistent with the region's growth
management plans, as required by law.
Regarding your concerns about financial transparency, TransLink will continue to publish its financial statements and accounting policies in its annual report, which is currently available on its web site at: http://www.translink.bc.ca/Plans_Projects/
As you note, people in the Fraser Valley and other neighbouring regions have asked for a stronger voice in TransLink's decisions for some time now. Local governments from Hope to Pemberton may choose to join TransLink and be represented on the Mayor's Council if they feel this approach is right for their communities. However, no local government will be required to join, and no region will have to help fund TransLink without being represented.
You express some concern that TransLink has too many resources at its disposal already. However, TransLink needs to make significant investments in order to secure the transportation system required for the region's future. Only under the new structure will it have access to the resources to make these investments a reality. The changes we plan will ensure TransLink's funding requirements are met for the next two decades, making possible projects like the Evergreen Line and public transit across the Port Mann Bridge.
The new Council of Mayors will have the authority to increase fuel taxes within TransLink's service area by up to three cents per litre in the coming years, on the condition that additional revenues from any increase in fuel taxes are balanced with increases in property taxes and
other revenues, including fares. The panel chose to recommend this approach, because it fairly balances the demands placed on drivers, transit users and property tax owners in the region. It also provides an incentive to reduce automobile use and encourages transit use. The measure will also provide a substantial and predictable revenue stream, mitigating the need for property tax and fare increases well into the future.
You outline many other transportation investments you'd like to see, such as new transit lines. These are the sorts of decisions that will be made by the elected officials on the Council of Mayors and the skilled professionals on the TransLink board. The provincial government remains committed to the principle that regional transportation decisions should be made at a regional level.
The changes to TransLink we have announced are going to increase its effectiveness, responsiveness and accountability. They will let the people of the Lower Mainland build an outstanding transportation system that serves their needs for decades to come.
Again, thanks for taking the time to write.
Best regards,
Kevin Falcon
Minister
From: Jeannine Cherewick
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 11:45 PM
To: Falcon.MLA, Kevin
Subject: translink...
I have a serious issue with enlarging translink, under funding it and making sure the public have less access, control or say over its actions. So basically you've done the complete opposite of what you should have done with Translink as what you should have done. Translink
costs too much and does too little for every one outside of Vancouver city, Burnaby, Richmond, new west and tricities.
I am sick and tired of politicians saying they are doing what's best for BC when all they are really doing is consolidating power so they can do what they think is best for BC'ers. Translink should be restructured for sure. But there should be accountability to the tax payers of BC built into the new structure. As it stands, Translink has gone from being a unaccountable, non elected
body of bureaucrats who had the power to impose taxes, (which is completely wrong as far as I'm concerned) to a non elected body of bureaucrats, unaccountable to anyone but the minister, so you can have an squad of yes men run after you and applaud your every action. I think it's egotistical.
Translink should be made smaller, with far more checks and balances in place. With a transparent accounting of where the tax money they receive goes, not to mention how much they really get. Not some mishmash of obscure sources either. I'm talking a complete financial reckoning based on generally accepted accounting practices. I hope you are familiar with that terminology. It's a formula I am supposed to follow when doing my taxes. Once Translink gives a complete and fully transparent, honest accounting of its Profit and Loss, Balance sheet and
general ledger I will be more willing to support it if it can show why it deserves my support.
I've done a fair bit of bitching about Translink. In fact I think it's just another bureaucratic pig feeding from the trough that has been intentionally inflated to seem bigger than it needs to be in order to justify taxing the public as much as possible. How many hundreds of millions of dollars does translink suck from the public through its current revenue streams? Hydro Levies, fuel tax, property tax and so on. Now your going to expand translink fee's to the rest of the Fraser
valley... for what? Translink neither serves the outlying areas nor deserves the tax base.
I have said it before and I'll say it again, Translink is only good for those people who have the option of using transit, most of whom live in either Burnaby, central Surrey, New West, tri cities, North Van, Richmond or Vancouver itself. And of course most of those people think its fine for Translink to steal money out of my pocket and the rest the Fraser valley population because it's good for their circumstances.
Let's see some service that is on par with the service Vancouver gets out here in Langley and Chilliwack... build an affordable light rail transit from Hope to Maple Ridge west coast express, add a connecting train to Abbotsford and another rail transit from Abbotsford to Langley, south Surrey, Delta out to Richmond and build the highway and bridges that should have been built 20 years ago to accommodate today's traffic.
Yes I am talking billions and billions of dollars, but the fact of the matter is that I like hundreds of thousands like me resent Vancouver's monopoly on transit dollars. I drive for a living and when I am not working, I don't have the option of walking to the grocery store or hopping on the next bus because there isn't one on a regular basis that would take me anywhere near the places I need to go. Everything focuses on getting into Vancouver, very little concerns getting out of Vancouver or just commuting in my community. I do not see Langley as a suburb.
Langley is my home and I want to commute here, to hell with getting to Vancouver on transit, I'd just like to get around my home town! I live here and stay out of Vancouver as much as possible. I don't shop in Vancouver or take my recreation there. The issue of urban sprawl is
long past... The issue is providing adequate transportation to the people who live in the valley. Right now the only viable transportation is the highways because the province and Translink in their wisdom have not built enough rapid transit infrastructure to service the needs of the bulk of the population of the lower mainland.
And so all the Starbucks drinking, tree hugging yuppies in the downtown core and North/west Vancouver who can afford to actually live there and whose transit is subsidized by the hundreds of thousands, (dare I say millions?) of people who don't get access to the buses and sky train; who instead of using transit, choose to drive their smart cars and Saab's and Prius' the ten or twenty blocks to work; bitch and scream about how much more pollution will be caused by all the cars driving on the new highways that will be built (and how dare we lowly masses not
worthy of residing in the hallowed city of Vancouver (including North V and West V) ask or hope to understand why its bad for us to have better access to the ports, north shore, east of hope, industrial area's of Vancouver and so on.
And those same hypocritical yuppies that rely on the highways for all their supplies that keep the city alive; honk their horns and give me the finger and road rage at the trucks I pilot because we dare to be on the road at the same time as they.) these hypocritical, trendy, look-down-their-noses, Sam Sullivan ass kissing sycophants who don't know what the hell their talking about because they haven't been out of the city of Vancouver in years; have the gall to demand that anew bridge not be built over the Fraser river to reduce traffic congestion... ?! WTF!
I am not being derogatory towards all Vancouverites. No, just the ones who don't get that with out the proper transit system to bring people into the city, out of the city and around their own communities, there has to be roads. More roads. Because all the people who have to commute don't really have a choice and clog the highway from 176 St west to the second narrows pretty much from 4am to 9 or 10 pm and that is a huge problem... All those idling vehicles, thousands of them an hour, burning fossil fuels and polluting. And yes, it bothers us out in the valley to see such wastage. Why? Because its our money going out the tail pipe. And every time I fuel up my vehicle (It's a ford F350 diesel pickup. And yes, I need it for work, not just because I can afford to burn my money on an overpriced, gas guzzling SUV like so many of those whiney Vancouver hypocrites who are opposed to building more roads) I am pissed off to know that some of my hard earned money is going to be sucked up by the bloated leech called Translink.
Those people living west of Coquitlam who don't know that there are beautiful towns, parks and happy communities just east of them. Those people who don't know anything exists past the city limits of Burnaby... those are the people I have so little respect for. Who think they are the only British Columbians who have a say and think their opinions are correct because they live in Vancouver (!). Give me a break!
What it all boils down to is this: I would like to see some honesty from your ministry. I would like to see a proper and full accounting from Translink, justification for the changes that are going to be made and a cost break down of the changes. Oh yeah, also, think that the province of BC and Translink should reimburse every person in BC who pays the tax on fuel that supports translink. Why? Because they aren't being honest with our tax dollars, I believe, and we pay too much as it is. And I'd like to tell Mr. Sullivan where to stick it along with all the other ding dongs who haven't got a clue.
And a word for you Mr. Falcon, if you really want to do some good for transportation in the lower mainland, a rapid transit, like rail (The west coast express for example) from Hope to Richmond with connectors to the sky train, and stops at Mission, Fort Langley, (To connect with WC express at albion) Surrey, Delta at the industrial park there, (so many people would use rail there!) Ladner and then to Richmond to connect with the new Canada line; that would be beneficial. Also, Some form of mass transit that paralleled the path of the freeway from Chilliwack to Vancouver.... But my idea's might actually work at reducing the need to build more roads which might in turn reduce the fuel tax revenues the gov. could expect, so why take them seriously, right?
Jeannine Cherewick...
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....
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....
Friday, July 27, 2007
Christy Clark Join's CKNW - Is Michael Smyth Toast?
"CKNW NewsTalk 980, is pleased to announce that Christy Clark joins the station’s on-air roster on August 27, 2007 with the launch of The Christy Clark Show, airing Monday to Friday from 12:30 p.m. to 3 p.m."Charles Adler moves to weeknights 7 to 9 pm. No mention of local Province political commenter Michael Smyth who was on from 7 to 9pm.!
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Township Audio Tape Top Picks by LFP - He Said - She Said or "I've Got A Witness"?!
This Editor just loves listening to some of the Langley Township Council discussions. Now you can listen to some choice ones too as selected by this LFP Editor as well. Be patient, depending on your computer it may take a few minutes to download the audio onto your audio player. But it's well worth it!
The following recording is between Councillor Kim Richter & Steve Ferguson at the July 9th 2007 Council meeting. At this meeting Richter asks if all Councillors can at their whim and wish use township tax-payer staff, facilities and resources to hold their own self serving or otherwise meetings. What ensues is an hilarious 'he said- she said' discussion about a meeting where Ferguson arbitrarily got free use of a meeting room at a township firehall, he also got high paid Township staff to attend and make presentations and discuss tabled issues as well by the Chair Steve Ferguson! To top it off, his essentially private taxpayer funded meeting was not advertised publicly nor were any of the other Township councillors apparently invited! So just imagine if all 9 council members had these freebie meetings every week all over the place. Good taxpayer investment? Do you think?
The first audio (click here) is the actual "he said - she said" heated discussion. The second audio (click here) is the complete discussion. Footnote: This Editor understands that the witness in question corroborates Councillor Richter's version. P.S. note that the local press once again reports not a peep on this item at all to obviously not help the taxpayer get an real insight on their elected council choices. Why? Why not?...
The following recording is between Councillor Kim Richter & Steve Ferguson at the July 9th 2007 Council meeting. At this meeting Richter asks if all Councillors can at their whim and wish use township tax-payer staff, facilities and resources to hold their own self serving or otherwise meetings. What ensues is an hilarious 'he said- she said' discussion about a meeting where Ferguson arbitrarily got free use of a meeting room at a township firehall, he also got high paid Township staff to attend and make presentations and discuss tabled issues as well by the Chair Steve Ferguson! To top it off, his essentially private taxpayer funded meeting was not advertised publicly nor were any of the other Township councillors apparently invited! So just imagine if all 9 council members had these freebie meetings every week all over the place. Good taxpayer investment? Do you think?
The first audio (click here) is the actual "he said - she said" heated discussion. The second audio (click here) is the complete discussion. Footnote: This Editor understands that the witness in question corroborates Councillor Richter's version. P.S. note that the local press once again reports not a peep on this item at all to obviously not help the taxpayer get an real insight on their elected council choices. Why? Why not?...
Thursday, July 12, 2007
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....
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....
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?...
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Women In Politics - Double Standard - Change must come at Local Level First
Why are there not more women in politics? Federally, provincially and even municipally right here in Langley women are by far under represented. Langley Township 's Councillor Kim Richter is the only woman seated amongst 8 men. Langley City is better off with three women out of 7 councillors. So, why the inequity at all levels of government especially municipally?
One of the clear main reasons is that highly qualified and especially very competent and intelligent women are not interested in being publicly driven through the mud by their male peers and the press alike especially about their gender differences. This Editor has observed an on-going litany of the ridicule, embarrassment, discourteousness, shunning and downright vile attitude by the male counterpart politicians and the equally discourteous but more veiled press. Why would any highly educated and qualified woman ever want to be a victim of this ongoing persecution? Hence the lack of quality female candidates and actual elected women is embarrassingly low and will remain so. The glass ceiling is an old boys club steel ceiling in the political world.
This latest world wide circulated photo of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who by the way is Germany's first ever female chancellor, once again shows the difference in which a female politician is treated as opposed to her male counterpart. The picture while an attempt to be satirical shows two polish leaders sucking on each of her exposed breasts (photoshop modified). Could you ever imagine seeing a world wide circulated picture of any male G-8 world leader having him being photoshopped with other leaders sucking on his male appendage? I know you wouldn't because it would be unthinkable to ever do so for any male in power by any other male in power politically or in the press.
Recently former MP Belinda Stronach revealed that she had breast cancer and had a surgical mastectomy. Her treatment by the press & peers on this topic was finally understated and somewhat respectful. Too late though because she, after a few short years in federal politics, decided to exit public life some months ago. One has to wonder if her treatment by her political male peers and the male dominated press on varied topics such as being widely called a bitch, the public hockey player Tomi accusations/innuendos and the constant other public barbs on her looks, attire and not the least on her intelligence had played a part in her decision to leave the public stage. Even one of the local Langley press’ frequent editorial comments and political cartoon representations of Ms. Stronach in the past year were downright despicable and tasteless. There have been no apologies ever or comments on her cancer from that specific local paper Editor to date!
This example of one of Canada's most powerful and wealthy women's public assassination by her political peers and the equally male dominated press certainly does nothing to motivate other capable and intelligent women to ever venture into the male testosterone dominated political gladiator arena. The ancient Romans went to the amphitheaters for their “entertainment” where they could see the imprisoned gladiators killing and being killed. The new entertainment seems to have become women in politics: especially capable, intelligent and prominent women. Strong and passionately opinionated women are especially singled out.
Right here in Langley Township the obvious segregation and similar downright rude & crude treatment of the Township Council's most educated, articulate, hard working and in this Editor's opinion most intelligent councillor, Kim Richter, is another example of this blatant and sexual discrimination in politics. Look to this council's track record of unseconded Richter motions, look to the double standard of lack of procedural respect & decorum as demonstrated often and most recently so in this previous posting when her microphone was arbitrarily cut off while that of her male peer antagonist was not. Her male peers on council essentially also isolated her from all prominent committees including GVRD as well.
In another Township Councillor's website a slur on her 'jiggling breasts' while running to hand out candies to kids in a parade was allowed to be posted and only after complaints by her husband removed with no subsequent apology.
One local newspaper Editor once accused her of essentially lying politically (which was untrue) and compared Richter's political work to her teaching career as a Professor of business. He personally questioned how she could ever dare teach ethics to her students. Have you ever heard any similar damning references made about any male on council with their profession? When another male on Council used completely false and misleading election materials, that same local newspaper editor made nowhere close to any ethical accusations about that Council member or linked his unethical behavior to his own career and business. That Council member got away without even a slap on the wrist and no personal slurs at all.
One has only to watch any Township council meeting to see the obvious male group think and ganging up on the only female councillor at any opportunity.
What benefits do women have to offer their constituents in public life?
Clearly their differences provide more political balance and perspectives that should be appreciated and not ignored and assailed at every opportunity. A small and simple example that comes to mind is a few years back when there were once three women on Township council. These three women Cllrs. Arnason, Kirkpatrick and Richter all voted against a day care facility located within a proposed mini-storage building located within the 200th street & Trans Canada highway cloverleaf. As women & mothers they were obviously concerned with warehousing very young children right within a cloverleaf. Heavy traffic noise, air pollution and obvious physical safety were the concerns they reasonably brought up. The day care centre was ultimately approved with the 6 men on council all voting in favour and the 3 women opposed.
Just this week, the sole woman on township council asked to have all the neighbour’s concerns about a boldly lit 120 foot steeple hi-rise addressed prior to approval. Once again, no-one seconded her motion not even for discussion. It is interesting to note that the majority of neighbours with concerns at the public hearing were women while the overwhelming majority of the proponents for the steeple were male. I guess women’s concerns don’t really count in Langley township council.
How many other municipal councils have the same myopic majority male led councils? Women bring a balanced and sometimes different but much needed point of view that reflects a complete community’s make up, not just the male half.
To get more qualified women into politics will require a change.
Change has to all be started at the local municipal level first which is the springboard to provincial and federal politics.
The public must be educated that these prejudices and inequalities exist and they should no longer tolerate it from their politicians and the press. The next time a local Editor writes or cartoons another sexually discriminatory or patently unfair article about females in politics, the public should respond vigorously and demand an immediate unqualified apology. The press should in fact actively report on this gender issue in politics and not let the sexists in politics get away with it anymore. In fact the press should go out of their way to report on the women in politics and their viewpoints especially where they are so grossly under represented. (Suggested case in point: check the media coverage for Langley MLA Rich Coleman vs that for Langley MLA Mary Polak.)
The same should apply to discourteous and derogatory behaviours displayed by male politicians towards female politicians. The sitting male councillors also have to seriously re-evaluate their attitudes and behaviors and change their methods and styles and become more open to other ideas, especially with the women on council where they are in a minority and even more so if there is only one. A sole aboriginal representative on council would be certainly guaranteed much more due consideration and respect than a woman by both council peers and the local press. Women should be equally treated with political correctness and due respect.
Political women like Richter, Stronach and Merkel, etc. presently in the arena should no longer accept the status quo. They probably worked twice as hard as their male counterparts to get elected in the first place. I’m sure they would agree with my observations yet they all probably remain mute on the double standard issue and are silently stoic because they are all similarly concerned of being labeled screaming antagonistic bitches using discrimination as an easy excuse. Bullshit. It’s time for women presently in politics, especially the articulate, gifted and strong women, to come out of the closet and tell it like it is. There is a double standard sexist treatment of them that must be stopped. Now. It's time for a radical change in attitude towards women in politics....
One of the clear main reasons is that highly qualified and especially very competent and intelligent women are not interested in being publicly driven through the mud by their male peers and the press alike especially about their gender differences. This Editor has observed an on-going litany of the ridicule, embarrassment, discourteousness, shunning and downright vile attitude by the male counterpart politicians and the equally discourteous but more veiled press. Why would any highly educated and qualified woman ever want to be a victim of this ongoing persecution? Hence the lack of quality female candidates and actual elected women is embarrassingly low and will remain so. The glass ceiling is an old boys club steel ceiling in the political world.
This latest world wide circulated photo of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who by the way is Germany's first ever female chancellor, once again shows the difference in which a female politician is treated as opposed to her male counterpart. The picture while an attempt to be satirical shows two polish leaders sucking on each of her exposed breasts (photoshop modified). Could you ever imagine seeing a world wide circulated picture of any male G-8 world leader having him being photoshopped with other leaders sucking on his male appendage? I know you wouldn't because it would be unthinkable to ever do so for any male in power by any other male in power politically or in the press.
Recently former MP Belinda Stronach revealed that she had breast cancer and had a surgical mastectomy. Her treatment by the press & peers on this topic was finally understated and somewhat respectful. Too late though because she, after a few short years in federal politics, decided to exit public life some months ago. One has to wonder if her treatment by her political male peers and the male dominated press on varied topics such as being widely called a bitch, the public hockey player Tomi accusations/innuendos and the constant other public barbs on her looks, attire and not the least on her intelligence had played a part in her decision to leave the public stage. Even one of the local Langley press’ frequent editorial comments and political cartoon representations of Ms. Stronach in the past year were downright despicable and tasteless. There have been no apologies ever or comments on her cancer from that specific local paper Editor to date!
This example of one of Canada's most powerful and wealthy women's public assassination by her political peers and the equally male dominated press certainly does nothing to motivate other capable and intelligent women to ever venture into the male testosterone dominated political gladiator arena. The ancient Romans went to the amphitheaters for their “entertainment” where they could see the imprisoned gladiators killing and being killed. The new entertainment seems to have become women in politics: especially capable, intelligent and prominent women. Strong and passionately opinionated women are especially singled out.
Right here in Langley Township the obvious segregation and similar downright rude & crude treatment of the Township Council's most educated, articulate, hard working and in this Editor's opinion most intelligent councillor, Kim Richter, is another example of this blatant and sexual discrimination in politics. Look to this council's track record of unseconded Richter motions, look to the double standard of lack of procedural respect & decorum as demonstrated often and most recently so in this previous posting when her microphone was arbitrarily cut off while that of her male peer antagonist was not. Her male peers on council essentially also isolated her from all prominent committees including GVRD as well.
In another Township Councillor's website a slur on her 'jiggling breasts' while running to hand out candies to kids in a parade was allowed to be posted and only after complaints by her husband removed with no subsequent apology.
One local newspaper Editor once accused her of essentially lying politically (which was untrue) and compared Richter's political work to her teaching career as a Professor of business. He personally questioned how she could ever dare teach ethics to her students. Have you ever heard any similar damning references made about any male on council with their profession? When another male on Council used completely false and misleading election materials, that same local newspaper editor made nowhere close to any ethical accusations about that Council member or linked his unethical behavior to his own career and business. That Council member got away without even a slap on the wrist and no personal slurs at all.
One has only to watch any Township council meeting to see the obvious male group think and ganging up on the only female councillor at any opportunity.
What benefits do women have to offer their constituents in public life?
Clearly their differences provide more political balance and perspectives that should be appreciated and not ignored and assailed at every opportunity. A small and simple example that comes to mind is a few years back when there were once three women on Township council. These three women Cllrs. Arnason, Kirkpatrick and Richter all voted against a day care facility located within a proposed mini-storage building located within the 200th street & Trans Canada highway cloverleaf. As women & mothers they were obviously concerned with warehousing very young children right within a cloverleaf. Heavy traffic noise, air pollution and obvious physical safety were the concerns they reasonably brought up. The day care centre was ultimately approved with the 6 men on council all voting in favour and the 3 women opposed.
Just this week, the sole woman on township council asked to have all the neighbour’s concerns about a boldly lit 120 foot steeple hi-rise addressed prior to approval. Once again, no-one seconded her motion not even for discussion. It is interesting to note that the majority of neighbours with concerns at the public hearing were women while the overwhelming majority of the proponents for the steeple were male. I guess women’s concerns don’t really count in Langley township council.
How many other municipal councils have the same myopic majority male led councils? Women bring a balanced and sometimes different but much needed point of view that reflects a complete community’s make up, not just the male half.
To get more qualified women into politics will require a change.
Change has to all be started at the local municipal level first which is the springboard to provincial and federal politics.
The public must be educated that these prejudices and inequalities exist and they should no longer tolerate it from their politicians and the press. The next time a local Editor writes or cartoons another sexually discriminatory or patently unfair article about females in politics, the public should respond vigorously and demand an immediate unqualified apology. The press should in fact actively report on this gender issue in politics and not let the sexists in politics get away with it anymore. In fact the press should go out of their way to report on the women in politics and their viewpoints especially where they are so grossly under represented. (Suggested case in point: check the media coverage for Langley MLA Rich Coleman vs that for Langley MLA Mary Polak.)
The same should apply to discourteous and derogatory behaviours displayed by male politicians towards female politicians. The sitting male councillors also have to seriously re-evaluate their attitudes and behaviors and change their methods and styles and become more open to other ideas, especially with the women on council where they are in a minority and even more so if there is only one. A sole aboriginal representative on council would be certainly guaranteed much more due consideration and respect than a woman by both council peers and the local press. Women should be equally treated with political correctness and due respect.
Political women like Richter, Stronach and Merkel, etc. presently in the arena should no longer accept the status quo. They probably worked twice as hard as their male counterparts to get elected in the first place. I’m sure they would agree with my observations yet they all probably remain mute on the double standard issue and are silently stoic because they are all similarly concerned of being labeled screaming antagonistic bitches using discrimination as an easy excuse. Bullshit. It’s time for women presently in politics, especially the articulate, gifted and strong women, to come out of the closet and tell it like it is. There is a double standard sexist treatment of them that must be stopped. Now. It's time for a radical change in attitude towards women in politics....
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Langley School District Special Report by Susan Semonick - How to Select a School for Your Child
Report on the June 19th Presentation by Mr. Hugh Burke
How to Select a School for Your Child
Although there were only a few in attendance, 13 to be exact, I believe that everyone left with some very good information.
The low attendance was unfortunate and in my view, could have been helped if Langley District PAC, a communication tool for parents, had advised their membership about this educational opportunity. My understanding is that the executive chose not to. I personally found the presentation enlightening and wish I had heard it at least 13 years earlier. This year, DPAC was heavily involved with ‘how to do your income tax’, yet when it gets down to ‘what to look for in a good school for your children’, they view it as not within their purview. I’m confused.
Here are a few highlights from the presentation:
Mr. Burke promoted parental involvement and gave his view of what things should be considered to find a good school for your child. Whether your child is about to begin preschool, or their final years of secondary school, the informal dialogue on the range of educational choices open to families was valuable.
This is the second opportunity I have had to hear him speak. The first time was at TWU where he spoke about the Charter of Education and Independent schools at the 2004 Educational Forum of Deans, along with our former Superintendent, Mr. Truscott, who was also on the panel.
He started off his presentation with “ I am not here to promote Meadowridge School,” which has 500 students currently, with a capacity of 520. At the present time they do not need to recruit, and it is not his job to do it. The school is expensive and difficult for Langley students to get to. He does presentations as a community service, to model for his students who are also expected to volunteer.
His key points:
• Parents are the primary educators
• Human Rights Act states that it is a parent’s right to choose the education for their child.
• Do your research – Ask and Observe
• Do not rely on labels or aggregated statistics
• Choose the school that will be the right “fit” for your child
His opinions on what not to consider:
Don’t use Fraser Institute results. It is like comparing a cancer clinic and an obstetrics clinic and stating the one that is ranked the highest is the one with the most discharges and least deaths.
Labels on schools mean nothing. eg. Traditional, Fundamental, Montessori etc… Sometimes, the curriculum being taught is the same as regular schools. Sometimes, schools with the same “label” do not have the exact same program and vary greatly depending upon the director of the school.
What to do and what to ask in order to make an informed decision.
• Drive around the school and observe students, staff and parents at different times of the school day.
• Visit outside the school when parents are around (drop-off in the morning, pick-up after school) and ask them questions. You will learn a lot but speak to more than one or two people to get a diversity of opinion.
• Book a visit with the principal and ask for a tour. Take a day off work and spend the day.
• Ask to visit a classroom and observe. Ask teachers questions.
• Invest time to ensure that you have the right fit for your child.
• Ask more questions
Here are a few questions parents should be finding answers for.
Quality of Care
• What supervision is provided if child must arrive early or stay late?
• What is the feel? - Is it a warehouse for children or a place for learning?
• Are there mats for the children to sit on?
• What types of snacks are served? Is it healthy?
• How many staff are on the playground before during and after school?
• Will their essential needs be met? They need: caring, nutrition, soft place for consoling and hard place when not behaving well.
• Are the able to meet your child’s emotional needs?
• Are teachers happy working there?
School Facilities
• Are the school grounds clean? Litter?
• What do the washrooms look like?
• Are the classroom floors dirty?
• Is the ventilation adequate?
• What is the lighting like bright and cheery or dark and gloomy?
• Would you want your child to spend 6 to 8 hours there a day?
School Climate
• Drive by the school and observe the socializing during recess and lunch break
o Are there a lot of loners, only two large groups, many small groups?
o Are there students intermingling among the groups.
• What is the population diversity? Is there a wide range of Expression?
• How would your child fit in?
Administration
• Do they pay close attention to attendance?
• Do they report attendance more often than just once in the morning and afternoon?
• Do they advise parents of any absenteeism, or only if the do not arrive in the morning?
• Are they allowed off school grounds during spares? (Is it a closed campus?)
Programming and Academics
• Is there a balance arts, athletics, academics, etc?
• Is there a uniqueness of opportunities?
• Is there a great range of achievement between classes? Look for sequence in learning.
• Literacy - Do the teachers know their goals and the strategies?
• What do they use to measure or know they are being successful?
• How much professional development, cooperation and sharing between teachers is there?
• How well do the students achieve on provincial exams?
• How many students take the provincial exams?
Some other comments from Mr. Burke in response to parent questions from the floor.
• Ask questions and find the school program that fits your child. Location should not be the key driver in deciding where to place your child - it should be the school that best fits your child.
• French Immersion – it is not what most think and not good for all children. There is a gender issue - by the senior high school years there are very few males in the class. Late French Immersion starting at grade eight is the best for student success.
• An emerging demographic that has contributed to the decline in enrolment is more families are having only one / fewer children. So parents want a larger involvement into how, where, and what their child learns and is exposed to for their investment is greater.
• It is neither the community nor location of a school, but most critically it is the environment within the walls that is of the most importance.
• Small schools of less than 600 are the best teaching climate. This would override the class size issue. School is small enough that everyone knows everyone.
• K –12 on same campus is the best model. It does not necessarily require one facility.
• Community is an extension of you .
• Middle school model he is familiar with - 20 students per teacher 4 teachers per group (no more than eighty students)
• Middle schools – the concept is not for grade sixes – a 6 to 8 middle school makes no sense. A grades 7 to 9 middle school configuration works better. Gender issues are very important and adversely affect the 6 to 8 configuration. Leadership issue is also of concern – there is no natural ‘king of the hill’
• K-8 configuration is fine....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)