Guest editorial: Langford’s plans to sell parks
Posted by Steven Hurdle on December 14, 2009
While residents in Victoria gear up for an alternate approval process to oppose the replacement of the Blue Bridge, residents of Florence Lake, a very small area of Langford, are facing the same process to oppose the disposition of two portions of parkland. However the process used by both Councils is markedly different.
Victoria informed its residents via an Open House, and plenty of news coverage, whereas Langford held two In Camera meetings (meaning no public present) in July and August, with Council approving both the sales. At a Parks Master Plan Open House held in October no mention of these approvals was made. The reason given to us at City hall was that the Parks Master Plan is not yet completed. A staff report was received at the Council Meeting on November 16th, without any discussion or debate, and Council proceeded to vote the Alternative Approval Process Bylaws 1252 and 1253 through 1st. 2nd. and 3rd. readings.
The first that residents heard was November 20th. from the a small article in the Goldstream Gazette, which also revealed no reasons for the sales, but stated that 10 per cent of the entire electorate must disagree to stop the process. This means almost 1800 residents would be required to sign petitions asking to halt the parkland dispositions.
A copy of the Staff report obtained from City Hall gave only one reason for the sales, one site is a narrow strip on a steep grade. There was no mention that this strip was promised to residents several years ago, at a Public Hearing, to act as a buffer zone between Bear Mountain development and the existing residents. Is it fair to take this away a couple of years on? How can residents of Langford make informed decisions about signing a petition when they are not told all the facts, and have no knowledge of what is planned for the portions when they are sold off?
We have since found out from discussions at City Hall that the Council was approached by developers, to build a 3 lot subdivision on the Gade Rd. section of the park (Bylaw 1253), and the other portion of park (at present a small children’s playground) would be used to build a single family house (Shaw Rd. Bylaw 1252). We were told that the children could walk to Lakewood School to use the playgound there. This however means young children crossing a very busy Setchfield Ave. which has no crosswalk leading to the school. Incidentally these two pieces of parkland are connecting and form an important wildlife corridor.
The local residents are very upset about the loss of these 2 pieces of parkland, and they also realise that to collect nearly 1800 signatures is a mammoth task at this time of the year. We therefore urge you, if you are eligible to vote in elections, to download the 2 petition forms from cityoflangford.ca website, sign them, and return to City hall by Dec. 30th for the follwing reasons:
- there is already very little parkland in the Florence Lake Area
- Ironwood Park was promised to the residents as a buffer zone (Bylaw 1253)
- Ironwood Park falls under the Provincial Sensitive Ecosystems Inventory (Bylaw 1253)
- The removal of children’s playgound equipment is a reduction of existing community facilities (Bylaw 1252)
- There should be no disposition of any parkland until the Parks Master Plan is completed.
- In this decision, economic reasons are trumping the social benefits of neighbourhood parks.
It would help us further if you could forward this news to some of your friends and ask them to sign both petitions too.
IMPORTANT INFORMATION
Please help us! Remember your area could be next!
A Group of Florence Lake Residents
Doug said
That’s the second time I’ve seen this assumed conclusion of “they also realise that to collect nearly 1800 signatures is a mammoth task at this time of the year”. I’d suggest just the opposite is true. Unlike th enorm when people are at work, most people will be home for the holidays, available to sign if they so wish. Granted, some will travel but even that in a resession is going to be less than normal. And tradionally, those taking petitions around are not escorted by people of the opposite mindset so to be delicate lets say they are, shall we say, less than absolutely forthright, in the data they present. And, if they can’t get a measily 1800 signatures, then shouldn’t the political process and ideals that were confirmed rather strongly during the last election continue without interruption?
Second, who is claiming “The local residents are very upset about the loss of these 2 pieces of parkland”? Who are they, where have they been interviewed? Where are the letters they have written to the Council?
Third, where is the avaluation that “these two pieces of parkland are connecting and form an important wildlife corridor”? Who made that assessment and what criteria did they use to arrive at that conclusion? What were their qualifications to come to that assessment?
Unproven assumptions are just that – sometimes called propaganda – this data calls out for far more and better support than is given here.
Cheryl McLachlan said
Copies of the counter-petitions are available from the City of Langford. If you can go to the office during office hours, Monday – Friday, 8:30 am to 4:30 pm, they must supply you with as many copies of both petition forms on each bylaw as you wish, for you to sign and for you to share with your Langford friends and neighbours. These are also available on City of Langford’s website:
Elector Response Form (single and multiple response format), Bylaw No. 1252 (Shaw Avenue Tot Lot)
Elector Response Form (single and multiple response format), Bylaw No. 1253 (lot adjacent to 918 Gade Road
**Newly availablea is the Mulitple Response Version of the counter-petition!!**
Elector Multi-Response Form, Bylaw No. 1252 (Shaw Avenue Tot Lot)
Elector Multi-Response Form, Bylaw No. 1253 (lot adjacent to 918 Gade Road)
These allow for multiple signatures on one page. You will still need a separate page for each bylaw(park) but at least with multuple signatures on each page there will be less paper used.
Last day to submit signed counter-petitions to the City of Langford, at City Hall, 877 Goldstream Avenue, 2nd floor offices, is Wed., Dec. 30th, 2009 by 4:30 pm.
Steven Hurdle said
Langford Councillor Lanny Seaton approached me after the Special Coucil meeting, indicating that CBC Radio tomorrow morning was going to be discussing the issue of Langford’s attempts to sell parkland in the Florence Lake area. He asked me if I was the one discussing the issue, but I am not. I’ll be listening in tomorrow to find out more. CBC Radio indicates they anticipate it being on the air just after 7AM.
Heather Scott said
Doug, you say it is easy to get signatures this time of year but the weather disagrees with you, we have had weeks of lousy and often sub-zero weather. You refer to a “measly” 1800 signatures despite that being almost half of how many people voted in the last municipal election.
Federal and provincial governments usually call elections in either the spring or the fall because people are taking vacations in the summer and the weather makes any kind of campaign hard in the winter. This situation is not different.
You say “shouldn’t the political process and ideals that were confirmed rather strongly during the last election continue without interruption?” Au contraire, the current council was elected bragging about how many parks they had secured through development and promised more. They certainly did not campaign on selling off some of those parks that they bragged about! If they had plans to do this and had been honest about them, they would likely not have been as successful.
John said
How sadly typical. As taxpayers we should be used to politicians promising one thing and delivering the opposite.
Or better yet hide your real agenda as you know aspects of it will cost you valuable support amoung those you wish to exploit.
This council doesn’t seem to pay much heed to any political process or ideal beyond what is expedient.
Are any of you getting tired of getting hoodwinked, tricked, bamboozled. This council is laughing in the face of everyone or is the developers.
Real debate on these issues would be nice, at least once in a while.
Steven Hurdle said
You may have seen this in the Goldstream Gazette, addressing the issue in the article above. Interestingly, the headline is different here than in the otherwise identical article that appeared in the Dec. 18th Gazette.
Parkland sale raises red flags in Florence Lake
Parkland sale raises red flags in Florence Lake
Goldstream News Gazette
Langford selling small pieces of park
Text By Edward Hill – Goldstream News Gazette
Published: December 15, 2009 9:00 AM
Updated: December 15, 2009 9:24 AM
Residents living near Florence Lake are irked Langford is planning to sell two small parcels of parkland.
Langford has launched an alternative approval process, also known as a counter-petition, to sell 184 square metres at 970 Shaw Ave., which is a portion of Shaw Park. It also wants to sell 815 square metres of steep-slope park between 981 Gade Road and residential properties to the north.
Some Florence Lake residents are unhappy any parkland, even small parcels, could be sold off for development. They also say the public wasn’t adequately notified and that a month is too short a period for the counter petition process.
Maureen Johnston, who is pushing to get signatures on the counter-petition, said the tot lot in Shaw Park is well used by Florence Lake residents.
“I’ve met a number of parents who use the park all the time. A lot of people say their grandchildren use it,” she said. “But there’s been no attempt (by the City) to survey parents.”
Read the rest of this entry »
Anonymous said
I find it ridiculous that the same people always get their noses out of joint about almost everything that the City Council does, another petition for something that makes total sense? The whole idea of selling the Shaw park is a good one, we save on the expensive maintenance associated with small parks and we get more money to invest in better facilities for the community. Lakewood school is already paid for and maintained by tax payers, it is more than adequate to fulfill the park needs of the neighborhood(sorry if you have to walk 100 meters from Shaw to get there). I have never not been able to enjoy the fields or playgrounds around the school because of overcrowding. I also disagree that Setchfield Avenue is unsafe, I have never felt unsafe walking my kid’s to and from school. I wonder if the people who start a petition about the sale of these parks could at the same time start a petition requiring the City to shut down residences that are leaching septic into Florence lake, you know the ones that were totally submerged under water in November, now there is a positive idea for a petition.
Steven Hurdle said
I was interested in your comment, “Anonymous”. You raise some points that I think are fair comment, but I believe you have also made a few factual errors:
- You refer to “the people who start a petition about the sale of these parks,” but residents didn’t start a petition on the issue. The Community Charter only allows a local government to sell parkland with the approval of the electors, and the only two ways to do that is through a referendum or an “alternate approval process”. The latter is like negative option billing, the assumption is that people are in favour unless large numbers acknowledge their dissent. Residents who disagree with the sale of the parks were compelled to sign petitions against it when Langford Council chose the Alternate Approval Process.
- You indicate that selling small parks is good because “we save on the expensive maintenance associated with small parks and we get more money to invest in better facilities for the community.” Yet, Bylaw 1252 which proposes to sell the Shaw park states:
Langford Council will presumably feel bound by its own bylaw, and Council appears to have compelled itself to spend this money on acquiring parkland as there appears to be no provision on spending it on “better facilities” in the bylaw.
If “The whole idea of selling the Shaw park is a good one,” why did Langford Council secure the park as an amenity when development occurred in the area, and why did they put play equipment in it the Shaw tot lot?
- If “Lakewood school [...] is more than adequate to fulfill the park needs of the neighborhood,” why was the Shaw park not deactivated? Perhaps the equipment could have even been moved to Lakewood at a further savings to the taxpayer.
- As to your comment about septic around Florence Lake, Langford Council has already addressed this issue by requiring everyone around the lakes (in fact, ultimately all residences in Langford) to join the sewer system eventually.
Anonymous said
Mr. Hurdle:
Even to me it is obvious that the city takes a parkland donation with almost every development, whether or not it is needed. At the time I assume it was thought to be a good idea, I don’t think that you were haunting city hall back in those days, so I guess will never not know.
The equipment could have been moved before now, and now that the lot is being sold I hope it will, but to move it prior to the disposition of the land might not have made the best sense, additional costs and all that.
You should spend a little time in the area before you question whether or not the school is adequate, I did and it is not.
As for your comment about septic around Florence lake, until the houses are connected to sewer it is still a major problem, if it were Bear Mountain , you would be on Cfax, CBS, and in all the local papers trying to expose it.
Because Mr. Hurdle… you are a hypocrite!
Steven Hurdle said
“Anonymous” said:
I’m not sure what you’re referring to, I don’t recall offering an opinion on the subject.
I respectfully disagree, and I’ll give you an example. When orange sludge started oozing down the hill from Bear Mountain, I didn’t say anything about it. Why not? Because I’m not a biologist, a geologist, nor am I a long-time Florence Lake resident with years of experience of what is normal and what is abnormal in the area.
This discussion is the first I recall hearing about septic leeching into Florence Lake. Just like I didn’t have anything to say about the orange sludge for the above reasons, I’m going to leave it to the experts (both professional and local) on the area. Just as I’ve not waded in to allegations, prominently raised recently, by a Bear Mountain resident about construction quality issues in her Bear Mountain home, or several other recent Bear Mountain issues, I do my best to stick to what I know.
As for the media, I was surprised when they approached me again asking for comment on a few issues. It’s been quiet since then, and I’m fine with that.
ian said
The ink is barely dry on a rezoning and subdivision approval that required the developer to dedicate 2 pieces of land as “park” and now the Mayor and Council in their wisdom????,and for all intense and purposes,unilaterlly, want to eliminate these neighbourhood parks!!!!! What gives????
These parks were created after lengthy consideration and discussion with the municipality,the developer and most importantly the adjacent neighbours at the original rezoning and subdivision stages.
If the Mayor and Council are successful in “hammering” this bylaw through, i hate to think what the citizens in our established residentual neighbourhoods will be faced with when future rezonings/subdivisions are “candycoated” with amenities that may only be temporary!!!!!
When i vote at municipal elections i don’t vote for those that can build the most bridges,approve the most rezonings or subdivions, or ignore the “livability”of the citizens in established neighbourhoods,etc. but for those that i can confidently rely upon to listen to and seriously consider the needs of all as our community grows.
Herman Surkis said
Ian, it is most unfortunate that you are one of the very few who vote that way. Even some of those who happen to think like you do not bother to vote, and then wonder “what the h— happened here”.
Figured out what is going on. The council has the Paris Hilton mentality. Who needs a park, nature, or real green space, when you can have another shopping mall.
It’s all pretty depressing over all.
Nevertheless: Happy Holidays!