139 replies to this topic

[martini]

Langford rezoning bylaw on South Skirt Mountain challenged
By Andrew A. Duffy, Times Colonist March 23, 2010
http://www.timescolo...l#ixzz0j3NGgtsz
The Vancouver Island Community Forest Action Network and one of its directors, Tracie Park, cleared a hurdle in B.C. Supreme Court yesterday in their battle to quash a Langford bylaw.

The court ruled Park, who goes by the name Zoe Blunt, would have standing at the proceedings and that her affidavits would be received into evidence, despite the objections of opposing counsel.

Park and the network had petitioned the court to kill the bylaw on the ground that Langford abused the public process during a public hearing in February 2009, when Mayor Stew Young interrupted and engaged in debate with speakers.[...]

[LJ]

. I personally don't want to live in a massive sprawl of Broadmeads, .

Nobody is asking you to, feel free to live anywhere you want, OTOH, I and thousands of other people want to live in Broadmead style developments.

I don't protest your choice of lifestyle why do you feel it is right for you to protest mine. Nobody is building on parkland or good agricultural land, they are building on private property and they should be able to develop it as they see fit, if it is something that the public at large doesn't want it won't be successful and will come to an end.

[LJ]

do we want more Uplands or Broadmeads?

.

Short answer - yes.

[jklymak]

I don't protest your choice of lifestyle why do you feel it is right for you to protest mine.

If you didn't require highways and roads and interchanges and malls and to drive back and forth everywhere, needlessly using resources to satisfy your own perceived need to have a three-car garage and 3500 sq' house, I'd have no trouble at all with it. Even if you compensated the rest of us for the environmental damage caused by the pollution and deforestation, I'd have no trouble with it. However, what actually happens is folks in the suburbs demand the rest of us pay for more interchanges and widened highways, and get indignant and upset when the gas tax is raised $0.05 to pay for carbon mitigation.

Nobody is building on parkland or good agricultural land, they are building on private property and they should be able to develop it as they see fit, if it is something that the public at large doesn't want it won't be successful and will come to an end.

Private owner x cannot develop as they see fit. I'm pretty sure I can't buy property in Langford and open a sulfur mill. Owners need to develop within the parameters set by the rest of their community, and those parameters are set by a political process. You may not like it, but I am a member of that community. Neither your saying that you want a Broadmead, nor my saying that I don't want one, will make it so. However, we both have a right to express our opinions w/o being shouted down. If you are certain thousands of people want more Broadmeads, then there really is nothing to fear if the occasional environmentalist stands up and argues against it.

[piltdownman]

If you didn't require highways and roads and interchanges and malls and to drive back and forth everywhere, needlessly using resources to satisfy your own perceived need to have a three-car garage and 3500 sq' house, I'd have no trouble at all with it. Even if you compensated the rest of us for the environmental damage caused by the pollution and deforestation, I'd have no trouble with it. However, what actually happens is folks in the suburbs demand the rest of us pay for more interchanges and widened highways, and get indignant and upset when the gas tax is raised $0.05 to pay for carbon mitigation.

So where do you draw the line? I live and work downtown and walk mostly everywhere. But everything I buy is shipped in on those highways, half of it made in China causing massive environmental damage. Is my way of life not green enough and I should not be allowed by society to live this way?

Again, can anyone answer my question? If this location, the South Skirt Mountains, are not a suitable location, where is a better location? I might want to live the langford lifestyle, but thousands do, so if this isn't where these homes should go, where then?

[cam]

If people in this town weren't scared of buildings over 8 stories, developers could go to 20-30 stories, making it more economical for them to build, thus passing on the savings. Untill that changes 900sq/ft is gonna be a bit on the pricey side.

But we digress...

It's a little bit more complex than that. In Langford for example, you build up 30 stories, who is going to pay to have the Langford Fire Department staffed 24/7 with 80 career firefighters? Langford only has one aerial ladder device, so who is going to buy another 2?

Single family homes increase the tax base, allow for raising a family, and do not require major changes to how municipalities operate.

[VicHockeyFan]

It's a little bit more complex than that. In Langford for example, you build up 30 stories, who is going to pay to have the Langford Fire Department staffed 24/7 with 80 career firefighters? Langford only has one aerial ladder device, so who is going to buy another 2?

New buildings will never require an aerial truck to save people or put out fires, if they are 15 stories, or 75.

[jklymak]

So where do you draw the line? I live and work downtown and walk mostly everywhere. But everything I buy is shipped in on those highways, half of it made in China causing massive environmental damage. Is my way of life not green enough and I should not be allowed by society to live this way?

Sure you can live this way, but you should pay the externalities. Note also that I didn't say we should not have any highways, just that they need not be widened or interchanged to accommodate heavier traffic caused by sprawl.

Again, can anyone answer my question? If this location, the South Skirt Mountains, are not a suitable location, where is a better location? I might want to live the langford lifestyle, but thousands do, so if this isn't where these homes should go, where then?

Just because thousands of people want something doesn't mean they must get it. Thats the problem with living near thousands of other people.

[Mike K.]

The discussion in this thread veered in several directions since it was first started. This is a request to return to discussing ONLY the South Skirt Mountain project. Any side discussions from this point forward, including discussions about environmental organizations, Langford politics or development regulations/practices in Langford will be deleted.

We have dedicated threads elsewhere on this forum that deal with these issues and comments in keeping with those subjects should be left there.

Thank you.

[G-Man]

The idea is to discuss the project itself or move the the discussion elsewhere on the Board.

[PulpVictor]

Does any one know what is happening at 'the interchange'? It looks like work is resuming.

[Mike K.]

Are you referring to the rock walls that have recently appeared? I believe this to be a beautification project.

And there is a dedicated thread for the interchange project here.

[Zoe]

One of the South Skirt properties is up for sale again - the Kramer property next to the Shell station. I'm guessing she's not interested in waiting for market conditions to improve.

[renthefinn]

Sad when people get old, no time to wait.

[Zoe]

Hi folks, the verdict is in and we did not win the case. (But the other side didn't exactly win either.)

In her reasons, the judge concluded the second public hearing fixed the first one, and that neither side was right about the archeological report. Langford argued it had no reason to release the report because the mayor and council never read it themselves. That argument was rejected, but the judge decided it wouldn't have made much difference anyway because the land was already zoned for smaller-scale development.

Langford also contended that the interchange isn't part of the development, and the judge agreed that it wasn't necessarily relevant to the bylaw. But according to the restrictive covenant, the interchange needs to be completed before building permits are issued. So we'll be watching for any funny business with the building permits.

You may remember that Langford's lawyers spent three days attacking my credibility and my right to bring the case, arguing that I was a troublemaker and a busybody and didn't even live in Langford. The judge rejected those attempts completely.

I'm glad we brought the petition - it needed to be done and it shone a spotlight on Langford's bad behaviour. I'm not delighted with the result and perhaps we could have done a better job of clarifying the issues. Those of us who live on Vancouver Island, for example, understand the connection between the interchange and the development better than the judge - and we have to live with the consequences: unpaid bills by developers and no improvement to traffic. And the door is still open for First Nations to start their own legal action over the destruction of dozens of heritage sites and to protect dozens more.

It's a hollow victory for the developers, because they still have to come up with $30 million to build the interchange before they can start doing business. Their partner Bear Mountain is in bankruptcy and there's no way the federal and provincial government are going to bail out the Bridge to Nowhere. They won on paper, but winning in real life may not be so easy.

[LJ]

Hi folks, the verdict is in and we did not win the case.

Hallelujah!~!

[Mike K.]

Maverick, let's drop the negative commentary.

Whatever any of our personal convictions may be, Zoe's group was involved in a legal case and the verdict was reported. That's the news and it's relevant to this thread. So let's keep the discussion professional and focus on the issue at hand.

[bicycles]

Hallelujah!~!

why?

[Sparky]

Zoe's group was successful in bringing the environmental, heritage, and civic process topics to a lot of people's attention.... that may have perhaps otherwise, not have given it much thought. I include myself in that statement.

I would much rather see this discussion take place in a court room as opposed to the streets... like the Black Bloc does.

Whether some like it or not, the discussion needs to take place. I am sure that everyone involved and and a lot that were not involved, learned something during this legal debate. For me, it was as much about the process as it was about the outcome.

It is an ill wind that does not blow some good.

[Maverick]

The problem with groups like Zoe`s is that this issue is the flavor of the day for them,when this is over they move on to the next little project that can gain them center stage in the media,groups like Vic Fan have no place on South Van Island.You will find that first nations issues and high profile areas like BM that garner world wide attention are the lifeblood for these groups,donations pour in for these groups as the attention for them grows,just look at the wasted money that Vic Fan was given from membership dues from Mountain Equipment Co-op[please don`t shop there anymore] to do up a cheap little report,slamming a project in langford.
And who pays the bill for the supreme court costs of this latest challenge you and I?