I believe Langford’s site is in significant need of updating. Many things aren’t on the website, including some of the most important information the municipality has to offer residents who want to be involved in their community and in touch with what civic government is doing. Among the more surprising omissions are:

- Key bylaws (such as the “Procedural Bylaw” which details how Langford Council governs itself) are not up on the website.

- Langford produces 5-year financial plans, but they’re not up on the website. Recently, Langford resident Herman Surkis asked at a Council Meeting that past 5-year financial plans be put up on the site as Langford goes through the process of approving its new 5-year plan, and at the meeting they agreed to do so. As of yet they haven’t followed through on this commitment.

- Possibly the strangest example of missing info of all is Read the rest of this entry »

At a recent Planning & Zoning committee meeting, City Hall staff produced some new colour-coding for the document they prepared for the committee members. Sections were highlighted and colour-coded to represent various points to be highlighted.

Unfortunately for members of the community who may have taken the time to view the document themselves through Langford’s website, instead of the document being provided in an electronic form it seems it was printed out, scanned in black-and-white, and added to the agenda as a series of graphics. This turned it from text that is searchable into un-searchable graphics, but more interestingly (and, to some eyes, perhaps more amusingly) it also gave the document that “censored in the interests of national security,” look.

While I expect the “censored” look is not intentional, no matter how you slice it it’s a bad (and unnecessary) thing to turn the text into a graphic making it impossible to search when you post it on the website. The thumbnail at the beginning of this article is just one example page, but the whole document is available here so you can see the results for yourself.

- Steven Hurdle -

March was a busy month for Inside Langford posts. Here is the second-to-last summary of prominent posts from last month. Previous summaries are available at the end of this article.

In late March, a bombshell was dropped when City Hall’s inability to resolve a dispute over a drywall business operating without a business licence led to a resident successfully forcing his and his neighbour’s property values to be devalued.
City Hall unable to resolve dispute over drywall business in residential area

Inside Langford then took a look at Langford’s debt load, in the context of City Hall’s plans (past and present) to borrow money on behalf of developers.
The Debt Wall

The Times Colonist weighed in editorially on what they called “Langford’s Risky Interchange”.
Langford’s Risky Interchange

And, in a dramatic and potentially very significant move, an opponent of Bear Mountain managed to purchase the mineral rights to Bear Mountain and the surrounding area.
Bear Mountain Road Foe Grabs Mineral Rights

- Steven Hurdle -

Previous summaries:
January
February part 1
February part 2
March part 1
March part 2
March part 3
March part 4

OK, so this isn’t exactly hard-hitting news, but it is the most-asked question I’ve had from people in Langford lately. What are the mysterious signs on the highway showing a white fire-hydrant against a red background? They start at the border of Langford and View Royal, and head along the highway into town from there. I went to Andrew Britton, a View Royal Councillor, for the answer.

The signs, I am told, are being placed where there are no fire hydrants and are to indicate that a hydrant is 150 metres down the road from the sign.

- Steven Hurdle -

Monday has another of Langford’s infamous “Special” Council meetings. This one is at 5:15PM this Monday, and should be rather short considering there is a Parks & Recreation Meeting in Council Chambers starting at 5:30PM.

So why hold such a short meeting? It seems to be because Langford Councillors really are having problems keeping track of the details of the motions, including which motions they are actually voting on. All this in spite of Councillor Szpak’s comment to a reporter in January that “The important thing is that we’re paying attention to the details of what we pass.”

So one wonders what details exactly they are so carefully considering? Their confusion may be due to the fast pace of the meetings, it is hard to flip through all those pages and keep up with agenda items as most of the time they whip by and are voted on almost invisibly.

Here is what the Agenda of the Monday April 28th “Special Meetings” has to say about it (and, it is worth noting, that this is the only item on the agenda):

At their regular meeting of March 170, 2007, Council gave 1st Reading to Bylaw (N2 1157) to change the zone of the property at 2710 Peatt Road from R1 (One-Family Residential) to MU1A (Mixed Use Residential Commercial A) to allow for a 6 unit Multi-Family Residential Development, two of which may be live-work. Subsequently, staff noticed the Bylaw required additional modifications thereby necessitating a rescinding of the 1 st Reading. The incorrect Bylaw was on Council’s agenda on April 21st, 2008 and the previous 1st Reading was rescinded and Council gave Ist Reading to the incorrect Bylaw.

“Paying attention to the details of what we pass,” indeed.

- Cheryl McLachlan -

I originally had another post planned for today, but I just had an experience that I found striking that I want to relate, and I wanted to do so while it was fresh in my mind.

I just came from City Hall, where I was reading the message board at the front door (there’s a special meeting that’s been called for this Monday at 5:15, by the way). I was reading the board and a group of three people (John Goudy and two people I didn’t recognise) left City Hall. A moment later I began walking away as well, and Councillor Goudy headed off in a different direction than the two people he’d been with. One of those two began berating me. Here is what he said:

“Look at the nice sidewalks for the residents of Langford to enjoy.

You’ve got a big L on your forehead guy. A big L.”

I didn’t engage him in conversation. I was just returning from my grandmother’s funeral, and though I was stopping to read the City Hall notice board, I really wasn’t in the mood for debating anyone.

What I find striking about the exchange is that he seemed to think that I was against him in some way, some kind of an irritant or an enemy. I don’t know anything about this man, other I overheard him say to John Goudy as they walked past me “This was a cheap visit, I didn’t have to open my wallet,” so it sounded like he has regular business with City Hall.

He seems to have mistaken me for someone who is opposed to development, or otherwise against his interests. What I have called for, first with the petition and now through Inside Langford, is for more accountability and a greater commitment to public consultation and democratic process. If we get the improved accountability and democracy that I believe this community wants, needs, and *deserves*, then Read the rest of this entry »

The following letter to the editor references an interesting issue. Mayor Young, professing to speak on behalf of the entire Council, says that he’s defending accessibility. Residents note that the proposed ramp is likely too steep for practical wheelchair use, and that City Hall isn’t listening to what the community wants. City Hall indicates they are inclined to listen only to what users of wheelchairs want, without regard to local residents’ concerns, yet the plans have been drawn up without any indication by Council or City Hall staff that people with disabilities (or advocacy groups) have been consulted.

On a related note, Jen Andison (of www.LangfordProtest.org) owns an adjoining patch of lakefront property that City Hall, at a recent Parks and Rec committee, proposed to add to the public beach system. This is despite the fact that Andison reports that City Hall has refused to pay her for the land (asking her to give them the land in exchange for a tax credit). For her part, Andison indicates she has refused to sell the land in any case as the lakefront property is part of why she moved to Langford.

I cannot verify Andison’s account of her exchanges with City Hall, but I was present at the committee meeting where the map showing her land as a planned addition to the beach was presented. I can certainly understand the concern and anger of Andison; if I showed up at a public meeting and a map was being passed around the committee members and members of the public showing City Hall’s plans for my property without first securing my agreement, I imagine I’d be more than a little perturbed. I’d be more perturbed if I’d already given them a flat no.

When I read letters like the following, expressing that City Hall is either not listening, or acting first and listening second, things like the map for Jen Andison’s lakefront property feed the cynicism of residents that the plans are a done deal no matter who is (or is not) consultated.

- Steven Hurdle -

============================================

Wheelchair ramp not the answer for lake

At a public city council meeting Read the rest of this entry »

I understand that the driving range at All-Fun has now closed, too. Similar to the concerns I expressed earlier upon learning about the waterslides closing, it seems a shame to be losing outdoor recreation facilities on the one hand while spending millions upon millions building new ones in what was once Hull’s Field.

Whatever services we gain in newly-renamed City Centre Park, we have lost something in the waterslides that families will now have to travel extremely far afield to enjoy. The nearest outdoor waterslide park is now on the mainland, so Langford has not only lost a service that was valued by Langford residents (it was very popular, but closed because the owners didn’t want to invest in the growing maintenance cost of the 25 year-old facility). Langford has also lost something that was a region-wide draw, bringing people into our community.

While All-Fun Recreation Park is a private venture and not a government service, I nonetheless believe there are opportunities for government to work with them to find ways to keep these services available to the community. I am concerned that we have heard no proposals from City Hall on what could be done to protect some of the outdoor recreation services we already have. I would like the millions we are spending creating new parks and rec. services to be increasing the options available to Langford residents, rather than replacing the ones we are losing and seemingly doing nothing to prevent the loss of.

- Steven Hurdle -

Something Unusual Happened in Langford Yesterday

There was a proposed development for 2731 Jacklin Road (between Goldstream Ave and Brock).

That is not unusual.

We were in attendance at the Planning and Zoning Committee meeting when this development proposal first came up, and we were again in attendance when it was brought by the Planning and Zoning Committee to Council to vote on at this past Monday night’s meeting. At both meetings we witnessed members of the community articulately raising significant concerns. No one from the neighbourhood, at either meeting, spoke in support.

At this past Monday’s Council meeting, Councillor Szpak, chair of the Planning and Zoning Committee, indicated to Council that the concerns of residents had been addressed by the developer. She even went so far as to note that the letters and a petition expressing the concerns of neighbours on record could be disregarded as addressed. However, that interpretation of events does not agree with what we witnessed, which unfortunately is not unusual.

Residents once again spoke to Council in opposition to the proposed development based on the same concerns they had previously raised. They maintained the development would have a dramatic and negative impact on their properties and neighbourhood. The extent of this impact is illustrated by the numerous variances needed, variances to bylaws designed to protect residents from being negatively affected by their neighbours, for the development to proceed as proposed. This is certainly
not the first time that we felt the results of a meeting have not been accurately reported, and it is also not the first time City Hall has seemingly ignored opposition from the citizens they represent. That is not unusual in Langford.

Near the end of Monday night’s meeting, Langford Council voted to allow the development as proposed, variances and all, at 2731 Jacklin Road. That is not unusual.

What was unusual is that the bylaws did not pass unanimously, as Councillor Seaton voted against. The fact that a contrary vote is such a rare and newsworthy thing, however, is a very sad statement about the state of democracy and representation in the City of Langford Council chambers.

Remember November.

- Steven Hurdle, Cheryl McLachlan, and Herman Surkis -

The following story is quite interesting. While it doesn’t reference recent dealings in Langford specifically, some of the land transfers are reminiscent of the forest land dealings detailed in Ben Isitt’s report on Bear Mountain, and therefore the rule changes referenced might have some future relevance to our community.

- Steven Hurdle -

===============================================

Land-use decisions assault democracy, says UVic law clinic

Judith Lavoie, Times Colonist
Published: Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Provincial decisions are undermining democracy and land use decisions on southern Vancouver Island, says a letter sent yesterday by the University of Victoria Environmental Law Clinic to auditor general John Doyle.

“A series of events has been set in play that, in effect, disenfranchises Capital Regional District residents and CRD directors from control over local land use Read the rest of this entry »