On
Saturday November 15 the people of Langley Township will elect a Mayor
and Council for a four year term. To help members of the public make
their decision as to how to vote Watchers
of Langley Forests (WOLF) asked all the candidates for Mayor and
Council to comment on two topics. Each topic had two or three questions
attached.. The topics were Creekside Forest in Aldergrove and the issue of land sales y the Township of Langley.
The questions were as follows.
Creekside Forest
Where do you stand on the proposed development of Creekside Forest in Aldergrove? Do you think it should be saved in its entirety?
Land Sales by Township
What are you thoughts on the issue of land sales as addressed in the open letter to Mayor and Council by Watchers of Langley Foresets and Salmon River Enhancement Society? Do you think the ToL staff report listing Township-owned properties that could be sold should be made public as soon as it is completed? And do you agree with the principle that our natural heritage should not be sacrificed for modern amenities?
Where do you stand on the proposed development of Creekside Forest in Aldergrove? Do you think it should be saved in its entirety?
Land Sales by Township
What are you thoughts on the issue of land sales as addressed in the open letter to Mayor and Council by Watchers of Langley Foresets and Salmon River Enhancement Society? Do you think the ToL staff report listing Township-owned properties that could be sold should be made public as soon as it is completed? And do you agree with the principle that our natural heritage should not be sacrificed for modern amenities?
Here are the answers we have received as of the early afternoon on November 14. We will update as we receive any additional answers. I have split the answers up with part one appearing first and part 2 second as you scroll down the blog.
Part 1 can be read here.
JACKIE MANDZAK
Creekside Forest
Where do you stand on the proposed development of Creekside Forest in Aldergrove? Do you think it should be saved in its entirety?
My understanding is that Creekside Forest in Aldergrove is the last forest in the area that is owned by the Township. It currently has a keyhole design developed proposed for the site; one that is situated in the middle of the forest. At this time it has been suggested that there will still be forest remaining on either side of the development with a walking path that takes one behind the development to connect both sides of the remaining forest.
I see a few things wrong with this. The first being that it the last forest site in the community that can be protected for current residents and for future generations to enjoy. While I understand the idea behind the sale of the property, I do not believe that it would be in the best interests of the residents of the TOL to see this happen.
Building in the middle of this ecosystem will destroy it. Many of the species that currently reside in the forest will either be displaced or will not survive the development as their habitat will be removed. I realize that we need space for people to live, but the development proposed will be higher end homes that back onto the forest. These will not be affordable for most people. This creates a situation where we put the needs of a few (there are not many homes in the development plan) against the needs of a community to preserve a wildlife area. Already half of the forest has been sold and in my opinion, the remaining half should be preserved.
It shouldn't be about development vs environment. It should be about preserving the quality of life for future generations. The forest has the capability of providing a place for residents to experience a natural park space - both now and in the future. As the Aldergrove community grows, this will be a much needed resource.
Land Sales by Township
and What are you thoughts on the issue of land sales as addressed in the open letter to Mayor and Council by Watchers of Langley Foresets and Salmon River Enhancement Society? Do you think the ToL staff report listing Township-owned properties that could be sold should be made public as soon as it is completed? And do you agree with the principle that our natural heritage should not be sacrificed for modern amenities?
I do think that the list of TOL owned properties should be made public once the list is completed. I have publicly stated that the properties of the TOL belong to the residents of the community as a whole, and as such, the process of their sale should be public. Many properties will not have public concern surrounding their disposition. However, some shall, and it is prudent to ensure that the input from concerned citizens and environmental groups is taken under advisement. This isn't possible if the properties that might be sold are not publicly known until action is taken by the council in their regard.
Section 90 of the community charter states that council may invoke that section to close the meeting in regards to the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the council considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality. The key word here is 'may'. To close the meetings as a matter of course each time TOL lands are involved does not give transparency to the process. I do understand that this may not always be possible, but it should be strived for.
I have also stated before development in an ecologically sensitive area, environmental studies must be done by a party that is neutral in the actual development process. If this was to occur prior to land sales, it would assist in determining what the use of the land might be, and if the parcel was of greater ecological value.
In regards to the open letter that was addressed to the current Mayor and Council, I am in agreement with what you have stated. Having an inventory, with environmental input, would actually allow for greater preservation of sensitive areas, while ensuring that those properties which would be a good fit for sale and development are well noted.
Once the natural spaces are gone, they are gone forever. It is important to preserve some of these spaces for future generations to study and to enjoy.
Thank you for your questions. I hope I have been able to answer them clearly.
KEVIN MITCHELL
Creekside Forest - Having toured the site, I feel the southern portion of the forest should be retained in its entirety while the northern portion be developed with spacious yards accentuating the green space to the south, community pathways and single level homes geared towards 55+.
Land Sales by Township - According to former Mayor Rick Green, there is already a listing of all Township properties. I believe this should be posted on the Township website and updated regularly. Regarding land sales, I would consider sales as part of the normal purchase and sale of certain surplus properties with the proviso that the affected community (e.g. Glen Valley) residents are provided sufficient input to the impact of the sale on their area well prior to the commercial offering. Regarding profits from land sales, I would require that all proceeds are strictly used to finance additional land purchases providing community amenities such as nature parks and green space as the first priority.
SCOTT NICHOLS
1.) I do support the work of Jessica and her Creekside group.
2.) Yes, the Creekside forest should be saved in its entirety.
3.) Yes, the Township report should be released as soon as it is completed.
4.) Yes, our natural heritage should NOT be sacrificed for modern amenities.
ANGIE QUAALE
No reply
KIM RICHTER
Thank you very much for your email and Election 2014 Candidate questions. I appreciated receiving them.
My responses are as follows.
I hope this answers your questions. If you have more, please let me know.
Thank you again for taking the time to write.
Sincerely, Kim Richter
My responses are as follows.
Creekside Forest
Where do you stand on the proposed development of Creekside Forest in Aldergrove? Do you think it should be saved in its entirety?Yes. It should be saved. That is why I voted against this particular development proposal.
Land Sales by Township
What are you thoughts on the issue of land sales as addressed in the open letter to Mayor and Council by Watchers of Langley Foresets and Salmon River Enhancement Society? Do you think the ToL staff report listing Township-owned properties that could be sold should be made public as soon as it is completed? And do you agree with the principle that our natural heritage should not be sacrificed for modern amenities?I strongly agree that natural heritage should be preserved particularly in Brookswood/Fernridge. Only 3% of all of Langley Township is coniferous forest and 48% of that forest is in Brookswood/Fernridge. When the Township decides to sell its publicly-owned land, the public should be properly consulted before that land is placed on the market.I hope this answers your questions. If you have more, please let me know.
Thank you again for taking the time to write.
Sincerely, Kim Richter
KERRI ROSS(LIVE LANGLEY)
I am expecting a response from Kerri Ross shortly.
MICHELLE SPARROW
No reply
DAVE STARK
Let me first say that I am the only candidate running in the Township who has taken a Zero Tolerance Approach to allowing ANY land to be taken out of the Agricultural Land Reserve. I refer to this here because my justification, and reasoning for making this bold statement are the same reasons for my response to your question about Creekside Forest. Natural heritage should be protected, and I feel that an absolute line should be drawn in the sand to protect it for future generations. Like my stance on the ALR, I believe that many decision-makers, and developers only take a short-term perspective of valuable resources where we need to look well into the future. Natural forests, like farmland, can not be re-created. We should NOT allow the offering up of our natural heritage as a sacrifice to the Gods of development and profit. There are other lands and other ways to develop a community.
Regarding the Open Letter, it is both succinct, and well written. I agree with all points made by WOLF and the Salmon River Enhancement Society. My understanding is that a complete inventory of TOL owned lands was completed in 2009. There has been no "political will" or reason for this council to make it public. This is why we need to change the majority of this group and bring back transparency and trust to our local government. Given that council and staff have shown their complete disregard for ecologically-sensitive properties, a "new" community-based planing process needs to be introduced, not only for this topic, but for many other community issues.
The existing process, or lack thereof, has been costly in terms of loss of valuable lands, and a waste of many stakeholder's time. A new process will be a win-win for everyone involved.
The TOL Property Portfolio is a significant asset for the Township and residents. This 500 million dollar asset needs to be better managed with a goal to asset development. Better management will allow for not only strategic/justified sales, but will provide a greater return for taxpayers over time.
Lastly, we need to seriously look at what the TOL considers "Surplus". This is a scary term when looking at the long term for both natural heritage and farmland. Perhaps we have some "Surplus" staff.
Regarding the Open Letter, it is both succinct, and well written. I agree with all points made by WOLF and the Salmon River Enhancement Society. My understanding is that a complete inventory of TOL owned lands was completed in 2009. There has been no "political will" or reason for this council to make it public. This is why we need to change the majority of this group and bring back transparency and trust to our local government. Given that council and staff have shown their complete disregard for ecologically-sensitive properties, a "new" community-based planing process needs to be introduced, not only for this topic, but for many other community issues.
The existing process, or lack thereof, has been costly in terms of loss of valuable lands, and a waste of many stakeholder's time. A new process will be a win-win for everyone involved.
The TOL Property Portfolio is a significant asset for the Township and residents. This 500 million dollar asset needs to be better managed with a goal to asset development. Better management will allow for not only strategic/justified sales, but will provide a greater return for taxpayers over time.
Lastly, we need to seriously look at what the TOL considers "Surplus". This is a scary term when looking at the long term for both natural heritage and farmland. Perhaps we have some "Surplus" staff.
GRANT WARD
No reply
BLAIR WHITMARSH
Creekside Forest
Where do you stand on the proposed development of Creekside Forest in Aldergrove? Do you think it should be saved in its entirety?
I am supportive of some development in the Creekside Forest. Currently, a minimum of 19 acres has been set aside for preservation and it is possible there could be more. The new council should look at the land very carefully and be sure that development is not have a significant, negative impact on the environment. The Township owns the land so there is still an opportunity to make adjustments to the use of that land.
Land Sales by Township
and What are you thoughts on the issue of land sales as addressed in the open letter to Mayor and Council by Watchers of Langley Foresets and Salmon River Enhancement Society? Do you think the ToL staff report listing Township-owned properties that could be sold should be made public as soon as it is completed? And do you agree with the principle that our natural heritage should not be sacrificed for modern amenities?
The process for the sale of land should be as open and transparent as possible. I am certainly open to the sale of Township land but only after a good process of determining the overall heritage or ecological value of the land.
No comments:
Post a Comment