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!

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.

“Mr. Hurdle: [...] 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.”

I’m not sure what you’re referring to, I don’t recall offering an opinion on the subject.

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!”

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.

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!

- 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:

“The proceeds of the disposal of the lands shall be credited to the City of Langford Parkland Acquisition Reserve Fund for the purpose of acquiring park lands within the City of Langford.”

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.

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 »

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.

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.

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.