Stew Young’s blog, part 1
Posted by Steven Hurdle on May 24, 2010
Our mayor has recently joined Inside Langford’s contributors, plus others such as Zoe Blunt and Deb Harper (who maintains not only one, but two Langford blogs), in blogging about Langford news and views. Mayor Young’s blog does carry news, but views are limited to his own as no comments from readers appear to be allowed. I know Inside Langford readers are going to be interested in what he has to say, and I know Inside Langford readers like to comment on Langford issues, so both to inform readers and to give them their opportunity to have their say, here is part 1 of what Stew Young has been blogging about.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
HELPING THOSE WHO HELP OTHERS
When I heard that the Goldstream Food Bank’s van was on its last legs, it was easy to find local businesses eager to help out. Everyone recognizes the importance of what the food bank does, helping out people who need a hand during tough times. Many of the Goldstream Food Bank’s volunteers are seniors who recognize the importance of giving back to the community.Thanks to the efforts of the City of Langford, Keycorp Marketing, Totangi Properties, Verity Development, Fairway Markets, TJBS Holdings, South Skirt Mountain, Westbrook Consulting, the Alpine Group, Limona Holdings, Hanington Creek Estates and the West Shore Developers Association, we were able to raise $12,000. Now the dedicated volunteers at the Goldstream Food Bank have a new van and $2,000 worth of groceries to help with the valuable work they do.
Posted by Stew Young at 11:30 AMRABBITS RAISING FUNDS FOR READING
Having the John Goudy Library in the heart of our downtown core is a real benefit for our residents. We need to look and expand our library service as Langford continues to grow. That’s why I like the rabbit sculpture fundraiser because it helps address that need. People who make a donation of $180 receive a limited edition statue from renowned sculptor Derek Rowe.John Goudy deserves a lot of credit for his financial assistance and efforts in making our library a reality, and I think it’s important to build on that legacy for future generations.
Posted by Stew Young at 11:28 AMGIVING KIDS A SPORTING CHANCE
SPORT ASSIST helps local kids whose families can’t afford it get involved in sports. Organized sports teach the importance of teamwork, discipline, and the importance of striving for goals. Another positive is kids involved in sports have a lot of fun and make friends that last a lifetime. It’s been proven over and over again that kids who play sports are more likely to make a positive difference in their community and succeed later on in life, and everyone wins in that scenario.That’s why I made $3,000 from the Mayor’s Annual Charity Golf Tournament available to get the program started. It was great to see Gerry St. Cyr, who operates City Centre Park, get involved by organizing an annual golf tournament that raised $15,000 this summer. That’s going to help a lot of kids play a variety of sports. The success of Canadian athletes in the Vancouver 2010 Olympics show what can happen when you give someone an opportunity they may not have had otherwise.
Posted by Stew Young at 11:26 AMKEEPING TAX INCREASES TO A MINIMUM
Taxes for core municipal services on the average home in Langford have been minimal since 1993. That’s quite an accomplishment on the part of our Council and City staff, especially when you consider that the cost of living on South Vancouver Island has risen significantly during that time frame. The fact that we’ve been able to keep increases to two per cent or less, on average, and continue to make significant improvements in the quality of life for our residents is equally impressive.Although the past two years have been extremely challenging when you consider the state of the global economy, Langford’s average residential property tax was the lowest in the Capital Regional District in 2009, and it’s anticipated that Langford will have one of the lowest taxes in the region again in 2010. Keeping tax increases to a minimum is, and will continue to be, a top priority.
Posted by Stew Young at 11:18 AM
Look for part 2 tomorrow.
Bee said
Just what we need on Inside Langford: more of Stew Young high-fiving himself.
R.J. said
Mayor Young the philanthropist? Mayor Young’s comments regarding the Food Bank don’t really carry any weight.(unless he is the official spokesperson for the Goldstream Foodbank) It appears that he is only bragging and putting a plug in for the developer. If Mayor Young was a real philanthropist he could help bail out Len Barrie with his own money. Anonymously of course.
Magellan said
Mayor Young can brag all he wants about his “accomplishments”, but his past behavior clearly demonstrates that he is a vain and vindictive boor that enjoys bullying council, city employees and citizens.
Greed is his bottom line and his philanthropic gestures are pathetic compared to the magnitude of his dirty development dealings and abuses of power.
The only reason he remains in office is because when money talks democracy walks! When are the people of Langford going to open their eyes?
anonymous said
Didn’t the blog start around the same time that BM filed for creditor protection? I think this is nothing more than Stew trying to manage the message. I would bet that there are a number of councillors questioning the wisdom of the horse they hitched their wagon’s to right about now so Stew needs all of the positive PR he can write!
$10M in interchange loans, $5M+ in unpaid taxes and another $5M in unpaid DCCs, naming rights, amenities, etc add up to a wwhopping big bill for the taxpayer and people are going to start asking questions.
Doug said
In actual fact, I think that’s precisely what we DO need!- more of Stew Young high-fiving himself. The problem with propaganda, which is pretty much what Inside Langford started up as, is that there is no balance. To his credit, Steven has recognised that to have any credibility, one must also have that balance. I loked at Inside Langford some months back and passed it off as a bunch on malcontent crackpots, convinced they see the “one true way” whining about why everyone else wasn’t as smart as they were. A lot of the comments here still reflect that mindset, so its critical that debate takes palce to demonstrate who the real mouth breathers are, and that too needs both sides of a story. The mindset illustrated my many of the comments here, was soundly thrashed by the public in the last election, its time some grow up and deal with it. That is not to say that I agree with everything the city does. I’m a bit uncomfortable with the rapid growth – but there are a few facts that are inescapable – first, cities grow, especially bedroom cities – If you want to live on the outskirts of one – which I generally do, then you’d best be prepared to move every twenty years or so becuase outskirts grow with the cities. Second, LEEDs and the voting public clearly tend to agree very strongly with what Young and the council are doing – again, deal with it. I don’t have muc of a problem with someone holding them to account, but if it turns out it is just obstructionist bull, then Blunt or whoever else should have the court costs assessed against them. Besides, if something bothers someone that much, they can always vote with their feet…
Ann said
I’m tired of the nasty “if you don’t Langford, you can leave” message. How about, if we don’t like it, we can make it better. And as for the voting, I still believe there was something very irregular about that last election.
no longer shocked said
Perhaps the mayor can use this opportunity to explain why he does not see fit to represent all langford residents. By siding with developers against entire neighbourhoods, he clearly takes sides. Using the “progress” platform is getting old. Change at any cost is not always a good thing. Otherwise why do other jurisdictions and citizens put such emphasize on maiantaining and protecting important areas of their cities!!! Perhaps Langford needs to slow down and really understand the big picture of aesthetics, multi use green space (not stadiums) and allow the city to expand and breathe on its own for a bit. Even Colwood has more neighbourhood parks and greenspace, which enhance neighbourhood values. I would bet they don’t want to amalagamate with Langford and lose that vision.
If Beacon Hill park was in this area, it would have been logged to rock, have a drive through Starbucks and 3000 tiny houses crammed onto its hill.
Doug said
Ann said;
I’m tired of the nasty “if you don’t Langford, you can leave” message. How about, if we don’t like it, we can make it better. And as for the voting, I still believe there was something very irregular about that last election.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
But that’s the whole problem isn’t it, Ann? According to the vast majority of the (Municipal) voting public, Stew Young *IS* making Langford better. The fact that it is not “your” definition of better is eclipsed by the fact that it is most certainly is what the vast majority thinks is better. That’s precisely why he had such broad and deep support. And by the way, let’s not delude ourselves into thinking that Langford is not hugely better off than when Young showed up on the scene. And the suggestion that the voting was “irregular” is so off the map it doesn’t even merit discussion – are you aware of any investigations (or even criticisms) by Elections Canada?
It goes to that old adage “God, grant me the courage to change the things I can; the peace to accept the things I can’t; and the wisdom to know the difference.” I like having some property around my house, Langford is essentially adapting a more European model of growth and development which is far more “green” but not what I prefer and the support for those actions is overwhelming. So I have a choice. I can rant and rave and stew and spew about it, but that doesn’t change that essential fact. If I want property around my house I have to move – and I’ve been here fore 23 years so that’s about right when one factors in growth in North American cities.
Its rather like the overpass issue – 60,000 people use the Malahat every day and want the crawl fixed – 300 people don’t want it fixed. We live in a democracy where majority rules via the vote – Gee, guess what will happen??? I’m always caught between appreciating what the “Green” crowd are doing and marvelling at how obtuse they are. They’re fighting a fait accompli here in Langford which is demanded and supported by about 80-90% of the people, instead of focusing their efforts and laying the groundwork out in Jordan River where they could be getting ahead of the game and having a real impact. Not much “wisdom” there, but knock yourselves out. If nothing else, it gives some a sense of value and the rest of us some entertainment.
Ann said
I guess this is where we disagree. By “better,” I mean not giving away millions in our tax money to private companies. Not ignoring the express wishes of thousands of citizens. Not resorting to bully tactics like telling people to sit down and shut up at public hearings. Not fast-tracking development without infrastructure, parking, etc. Not getting the municipality tied up in court hearings because of its abuse of process. Not pulling shenanigans on election night. Not running roughshod over the city’s own agreements with neighbourhoods.
I, for one, did not write the council a blank cheque to throw ten million dollars in my tax money away. I don’t believe in growth at any price. The price is too high already, and once these developers get their heads in the public trough, they will suck it dry.
Anonymous said
“giving away millions in our tax money to private companies”. Ann, perhaps you could expand on this. It is a pretty serious allegation, given the limitations of the BC Community Charter.
Anonymous said
-As a former employee, I can confirm that these guys are thieving scum.
Anonymous said
Ann said; By “better,” I mean not giving away millions in our tax money to private companies. Not ignoring the express wishes of thousands of citizens. Not resorting to bully tactics like telling people to sit down and shut up at public hearings. Not fast-tracking development without infrastructure, parking, etc. Not getting the municipality tied up in court hearings because of its abuse of process. Not pulling shenanigans on election night. Not running roughshod over the city’s own agreements with neighbourhoods.
I, for one, did not write the council a blank cheque to throw ten million dollars in my tax money away. I don’t believe in growth at any price.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Well Ann, if you think millions of our tax dollars have been given away to Private Companys, then get off your duff and bring charges, we all know that that would be illegal – I suspect you haven’t yet because you know full well that the allegation is both factually wrong, and, if the city truly wanted your hide, libelous. As for insfrastructure, have you seen the new arenas, sports fields, and water main work that has gone on for the last years? How about the street lighting or Bricklock sidewalks? What would you call that? And by the way, Highways are not the purview of municipalities. And while I agree that people should get their say, people who don’t wait their turn or shout nonsence while others are talking should be told to sit down and shut up – and flung from the biulding if they don’t – the rest of us have rights too, you see. And if people like Zoe blunt want to try to take the city to court because of her zealotry, it is your/our tax dollars that will pay for it even though council is/was doing what the were elected to – and a bunch of us don’t like that wastage either. I rather doubt you “wrote a cheque” to anyone who doesn’t agree with your own very narrow viewpoint, but again you touch on the salient point. Who you voted for, or what you believe, given the results of the last election, don’t matter as much as a burp in a hurricane – because overwhelmingly about 80% of the people clearly beleive in precisely what Young is doing and, given his repeated re-elections, obviously like it a lot. Democracy might be messy at times, and very hard on fanatics who believe that they are right and everyone else is wrong. But you might want to pull in some facts; 1. 90% of Canadians live within 150 miles of the US border – almost 80% of this country is wilderness. 2. Over 13% of BC alone is parkland, 3. We just completed a national agreement (not that the Fanatics and Zealots will let it stand) which reserves an area greater than Germany reserved from logging. By those figures alone, a lot of people might not get the idea that the sky is truly falling as fast as the zealots and fanatics claim. I have a good deal of sympathy for you. People who cannot adjust to, or deal with change, or lack the ability to understand that in a democracy, the majority will win, tend to lead very bitter and angry lives. Good luck with that.
maverick said
Ann you really should get over it,how long has this been going on with you?
Think back a few years and remember what Langford was like,lets go back to 1978.My goodness how Langford has come alive,can you imagine if we all sat back thumbed our noses at any new development? Our hats should go off to all the people including the Mayor, Council, developers and everyone else that has made Langford what it is today.
Heather Scott said
Anonymous = “because overwhelmingly about 80% of the people clearly beleive in precisely what Young is doing and, given his repeated re-elections, obviously like it a lot.”
Steven = “With about 60% of votes cast supporting the top status quo candidate, and about 40% of voters supporting the top alternative candidate,”
80/20 versus 60/40. One of you is wrong. =)
Ann said
I think what they have done with the interchange is illegal and the Auditor General should investigate. The rest of the arguments above are just silly exaggeration, not to mention rude and ignorant. I thought this blog was a place for *intelligent* discussion, not throwing mud at other Langfordites.
And yes, Langford could end up in court (again), or in a forensic audit. Not that that would be a good thing, but it would clear the air.
Anonymous said
This site should be a place for intelligent discussion, and not name-calling etc. However, ignorance of the law erodes intelligent discussion as fast as anything. Before throwing around unsubtantiated claims like “what they have done with the interchange is illegal” perhaps people could educate themselves about what has happened, and what the rules that govern municipalities are. If you find illegal activities, the blue pages of your phone book will direct you to the Ministry of Community Development, Crown Counsel and the RCMP. I see a lot of wild accusations here, without a lot of fact to back it up. By my calculations, that = a load of crap.
Steven Hurdle said
As moderator, my role is to keep an acceptable level of decorum. In the same way that an NHL referee will sometimes “let them play” and other times will rigidly enforce the rules, I too will let more things go when there doesn’t seem to be a problem and more rigidly enforce the comment posting guidelines when decorum is really suffering.
Ann’s point is well taken. The comment posting guidelines suggest that name-calling is unacceptable. The comment posting guidelines also suggest that libelous comments not be made and suggests people back up their statements if they state them as fact. Opinion, however, is generally acceptable, if clearly stated as such. I’ve been approving everything lately, but that may change if commenters start expressing concern (or if I become concerned) about decorum.
An interesting point about libel. Another anonymous comment said: “Well Ann, if you think millions of our tax dollars have been given away to Private Companys, then get off your duff and bring charges, we all know that that would be illegal – I suspect you haven’t yet because you know full well that the allegation is both factually wrong, and, if the city truly wanted your hide, libelous.” The above being libelous is unlikely. A municipal council in BC recently recently sued several residents who were being critical of the council and making allegations about them; the council lost, the courts found that residents have a right to criticise and make allegations against their politicians as that is the role of a citizen in a representative democracy, and that generally even if those allegations are ultimately proven not to be true that making the allegation isn’t criminal. Unless and until we have another court case saying otherwise, that’s where case law stands right now. As for her knowing “full well” that it’s not true, well, it reminds me of Michael Mortimore in the 2008 election debate saying that everyone knows that Langford Council’s green actions are all just greenwashing. I think in both cases, not everyone thinks it’s so simple and obvious. :)
As for hyperbole, several people have thrown around their share. It’s been suggested that clearly 80% of Langford supports the status quo when nearly 80% didn’t vote and, of those who did, only 58.9% (according to the Union of BC Municipalities) supported the top vote-getting status quo candidate (2264 votes out of 3844 cast, and out of 16815 that could have been cast). So too many be the suggestion that millions have been given away to private companies or that what was done with the interchange was illegal, but whether it’s hyperbole or fact is hard to know barring an investigation.
Doug said
Steven Hurdle points out “I suspect you haven’t yet because you know full well that the allegation is both factually wrong, and, if the city truly wanted your hide, libelous.” The above being libelous is unlikely. A municipal council in BC recently recently sued several residents who were being critical of the council and making allegations about them; the council lost, the courts found that residents have a right to criticise and make allegations against their politicians as that is the role of a citizen in a representative democracy, and that generally even if those allegations are ultimately proven not to be true that making the allegation isn’t criminal. Unless and until we have another court case saying otherwise, that’s where case law stands right now.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Wow Steven! Far be it for me to point it out, but it appears you have just set aside the Criminal Code of Canada based on your own perception of the the fundamentals of a case, which I daresay, you probably didn’t attend. That takes some chutzpah!
The fact is that there is a large difference between Ann saying she thinks something should have been done better or in a different way, and accusing someone of doing something illegal. Moreover, there is a double danger. Recently I attended a court case in which someone was sueing my wife. It was thrown out, but that’s not important, the fact is that unless a case can be proven, at least to have some merit, there is contingency within Canadian law that awards costs to the winner. So if someone on council were to take exception to Ann’s accusation, and drag her into court, then unless she could come up with a pretty good factual basis for those accusations, she could very easily wind up with a bill for the Crown’s costs. In our case, the guy was handed a bill for $9k adding insult to the fact his case had just been fired out the door.
Years back, there was something called SLAP – Strategic Lawsuits Against Participation – it was basically corporations were suing anyone who disagreed with them in an attempt to stife dissent. It worked for a while and then the courts caught on and the corps paid huge sums in legal fees to get…well nothing. Now the pendulum has swung the other way and activists are deliberately using the courts to drive up the costs and stall movement. The courts are learning about this too. Judges will always have their own idiosyncracies. True, they are charged with upholding the laws but they dodge some depending on personal prejudices or beliefs. In Langford, the population is solidly behind Young and they go to great extents to lay it out in public meetings, the OCP their website, etc. There are undoubtedly some (Zoe Blunt?)who want to stop development and will try to use the courts to do so, but they are putting their heads in a lions mouth unless they are very well heeled. They must be able to prove a case, not just make an allegation, or they may be living on the streets. Seems to me that particularly on this site, that might be a very viable caution.
One further note – it has been repeated many times that in Canada, governments don’t win votes, they lose them. Some of that speaks to a general satisfaction with our very good life in this country. As Mark Twain said there are three kinds of lies – Lies, damned lies, and statistics. So if 80% don’t vote, what is says is that they are satisfied enough with the status quo, that they see no need for a change. Lazy perhaps, but there you go. So if 80% don’t vote, and 60% of those who do support the status quo candidate, then that is about the most astonishing level of support anywhere in the country in Canadian politics. That figure of 80% support for young should accordingly be revised upward. Have a great day!
maverick said
Thank You Doug!!!
Well said.
I often wonder just what is the true purpose of a site like this one, as well as a few others that have popped up on the internet regarding the wonderful things that Langford is doing.It makes me go HMMMM!!!
Cheryl McLachlan said
I find it ironic the public discussion over the merits and demerits of the content, and even the existence of, Stew Young’s Blog, is being conducted on Inside Langford. Afterall, Inside Langford is purported to be at odds with the mayor, the current councilors, and their supporters, and yet here is the blog that offers them the opportunity to express their support. I think that says a lot. There are places where discourse and diverse opinions are tolerated, and there are places where there is only one opinion and one agenda presented or represented. I truly believe the discourse, the debate and the exchange of ideas allows all of us to find greater understanding and those in positions of power greater wisdom and empathy.
Tick Tock said
I was thinking the same thing MAVERICK. I think it is a trap for those with really” loose lips”. I think Stew is just itching for a fight…in court. Don’t get carried away folks unless you got lots of cash
Heather Scott said
Doug = “Wow Steven! Far be it for me to point it out, but it appears you have just set aside the Criminal Code of Canada based on your own perception of the the fundamentals of a case, which I daresay, you probably didn’t attend. That takes some chutzpah!”
You then go on to not only to analyze law yourself but to dispense legal advice to Ann. I am not sure Steven is the one showing “chutzpah” here. =)
“So if 80% don’t vote, what is says is that they are satisfied enough with the status quo, that they see no need for a change. Lazy perhaps, but there you go. So if 80% don’t vote, and 60% of those who do support the status quo candidate, then that is about the most astonishing level of support anywhere in the country in Canadian politics. That figure of 80% support for young should accordingly be revised upward. Have a great day!”
The council was facing its biggest challenge in the decades I have lived in Langford. If the 80% did not vote because they like the status quo candidates even with a huge and visible challenge against them, with friends like that Stew Young does not need enemies. =)
Doug said
Heather Scott said You then go on to not only to analyze law yourself but to dispense legal advice to Ann. I am not sure Steven is the one showing “chutzpah” here. =)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ahh, not quite Heather. Suggest you read my post again. What I did was point out my personal experience, and the lesson’s learned therein. Believe me, with even my limited amount of time in the court system, I would never try to predict how a case might turn out. Perish the thought – you get a judge on a bad day… And therefore, there is a bit of a difference, . For what its worth, I didn’t like SLAP any more than I like Activists using the court system to drive up costs and try to bankrupt Developers or small cities because the cost eventually ends up on us the taxpayers. But Ann or Zoe Blunt or anyone else is more than free to ignore my warning or the lesson’s I’ve learned. They build the bed they lie on, if its a bed of nails, so be it.
Doug said
Cheryl McLachlan said; I find it ironic the public discussion over the merits and demerits of the content, and even the existence of, Stew Young’s Blog, is being conducted on Inside Langford. Afterall, Inside Langford is purported to be at odds with the mayor, the current councilors, and their supporters, and yet here is the blog that offers them the opportunity to express their support. I think that says a lot. There are places where discourse and diverse opinions are tolerated, and there are places where there is only one opinion and one agenda presented or represented. I truly believe the discourse, the debate and the exchange of ideas allows all of us to find greater understanding and those in positions of power greater wisdom and empathy.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hear, hear! It rather repeats what I said in one of my previous posts, to wit; “The problem with propaganda, which is pretty much what Inside Langford started up as, is that there is no balance. To his credit, Steven has recognised that to have any credibility, one must also have that balance. I looked at Inside Langford some months back and passed it off as a bunch of malcontent crackpots, convinced they see the “one true way” whining about why everyone else wasn’t as smart as they were. A lot of the comments here still reflect that mindset, so its critical that debate takes place to demonstrate who the real mouth breathers are, and that too needs both sides of a story.”
While I certainly wouldn’t ever suggest Inside Langford is supportive of the Mayor, kudos to Inside Langford, or, more specifically the moderators, for coming to that realization and on the path it chose. Not as much as a group hug perhaps, but it serves an infinitely more valuable service. Well done.