Editorial Note
This is a copy of an open letter sent to Township of Langley
Council on October 13,2018 by Watchers of Langley Forests(WOLF). the Salmon
River Enhancement Society(SRES), and the Bertrand Creek Enhancement
Society(BCES), You may remember this letter. It was originally sent by WOLF and
SRES on October 7,2014. Since then ToL has sold for development one property in
Aldergrove, rezoned for development a property in Brookswood, and clearcut in
anticipation of development Horne Pit in Brookswood. Since the
issues raised are still outstanding and neglected by Township. WOLF, SRES and a
new participant BCES have joined together to re-issue the letter. The test has
been modified only slightly to reflect the passage of time. The specific
request for a meeting before the November 2014 municipal elections should
be seen as a historical reference only.
An Open Letter to Mayor and Council
Dear Mayor and Council,
On March 20(2014), the Langley Times reported that Township staff were
preparing a report for Township Council identifying Township-owned
properties that could be sold to pay for future infrastructure in Langley
Township. We the undersigned, are concerned about the implications of this
article. Six months(now four years) have passed without this staff
report being made public. We write to you with the assumption that it has
not yet been presented to Council.
As the article acknowledges, past and present policy with regard
to the sale of what the Township has identified as “surplus property” has
generated much controversy. The approach that the Township has taken
appears to many to be secretive and reactive. There is an obvious need for a
process with greater transparency, one grounded in sound planning.
The lands belonging to the Township are the collective property of
the community of Langley. Decisions regarding the management of 'surplus
properties' greatly impact the public good and will affect the patterns of
future development in the neighbourhoods in which they are located. Decisions
regarding the sale or retention of these lands must take a long-term
view. We are particularly concerned that the ecological value of 'surplus properties' be given greater consideration.
Under the current approach, it appears that the Township has
proceeded without adequately considering or informing itself about
the ecology of parcels placed on the market. It has therefore been left
to individual citizens and community groups to bring these issues to the
attention of Council and Staff. In response to protest Township has made
ad hoc corrections that have failed to address the larger problem. The
danger that significant ecosystems could be lost remains.
Although heartened by the implication that the above mentioned
staff report will be released to the public upon receipt by Council, there
are a number of additional steps that we feel Mayor and Council can undertake.
1) Council should direct Staff to undertake consultations with stewardship
groups and other environmental and community groups to assist in the
preparation of the staff report. Upon completion of the staff report, it
should be presented to Council and released to the public at the same time.
We urge Council to authorize this action in a timely manner and to see
that the completion of the report is not delayed.
2) Develop a comprehensive inventory of Township lands that would
be publicly accessible on the web. In time this could include the results
of ecological surveys of individual properties that have been prepared by
public or private entities.
3) Prepare a comprehensive plan for the sale and retention
of Township lands that takes into account the ecological value of
particular parcels. The impact on Langley aquifers from any resulting
destruction of forests and wetlands must be considered. The Township
should commit itself to the principle that our natural heritage
should not be sacrificed in the development of modern amenities.
4) Council has made it a uniform practice to invoke Section 90 of
the Community Charter as a way of closing meetings of Council to the
public when land sales are under consideration. The resulting lack of
transparency compounds the difficulties in the issues already discussed. When a
sale is well-advised, this practice hinders maximum advertising to
prospective buyers, and when a sale is ill-advised it prevents the public
from seeing their elected representatives debate the proposal. The public
interest is thus served by greater transparency in both instances.Only
exceptional circumstances can justify invoking Section 90 in the
circumstance of land sales. We strongly urge Council to invoke Section
90 sparingly in the case of land sales and on a case by case basis.
5)The comprehensive plan should recognize that although a policy
of selling off real estate to generate capital can have merit in some
circumstances care must be taken that land worth more monetarily in the
future could be lost through poor planning. Holding on to 'surplus properties'
may also provide a much needed source of income in the future.
Finally, we urge Council to take these steps in a timely manner so
that the ensuing discussion and debate on Council and amongst the public
can begin before, and not after, the upcoming municipal election this November(2014). We would encourage
Council and staff to begin the process by meeting with community
groups prior to November 1st. We would be pleased to participate in such a
meeting.
Respectfully,
Watchers of Langley Forests
Salmon River Enhancement Society
Bertrand Creek Enhancement Society
*The above groups have reviewed this letter and being convinced
that the issue is an important one that should be addressed they
have joined together to send this letter.
