You Be The Judge

From: Kenneth Baker
To: Rick Green; Jordan Bateman; Bev Dornan; Steve Ferguson; Charlie Fox; Mel Kositsky ; Bob Long; Kim Richter;
Grant Ward (Councillor)
Sent: Wed Feb 11 22:35:47 2009
Subject: Mufford Diversion

Dear Mayor Green and Members of Council:

We do not in disagree that an overpass could be used to bridge the ever growing train traffic through Langley. We are, however, absolutely against the current proposal to have the traffic wind around to a termination point at the intersection of 216 and 64th. We see no sense in this design and fail to find any redeeming qualities, other than it offers a grade separation to the train traffic. It is our view that the traffic problems created by dumping this increased traffic volume onto a rural road will do nothing but move the restriction point. Further, it will create dangerous traffic conditions for the local residents and farmers.

At present one can drive on a four lane road from Delta to Costco in Langley. This plan simply moves that termination point to 216th and 64th. Who cares where they are stuck in traffic? Does it matter whether you are stuck behind a train or in an bottle neck created by too much traffic being funneled onto deficient roads. How long will it be before 216th street, 64th avenue and 232nd street are widened to four lanes? There is no way that they are currently capable of handling the increased traffic volume caused by the proposed overpass. The only plan that makes any sense is to take traffic over the tracks and route it onto an expanded (4 lane) Glover Road. With the proposed plan that is where it is ultimately going to end up via 216th street and 232nd street anyway. This highway (Glover Road) presently exists so why would it not be used?

To date, we have not received one answer from staff that would lead us to believe that this is not the best option. The current proposal has not been well thought out. It is a knee jerk reaction to an existing problem and does nothing to address the long term traffic flow problem. In addition it destroys some of the best farm land in the Fraser Valley ( the old Hudson Bay farm). Good farm land is a dwindling resource which should be preserved for future generations.

We understand that our Provincial Minister of Transportation has threatened to withdraw funding for this project if it does not go ahead as planned. We say let him go ahead and pull the funding. A bad plan is a bad plan no matter who is paying for it. Would council support a nuclear power plant in the township if it was being partially funded by the provincial government? We think not. The design of this project has been done as quietly as possible, so as to not attract the attention of the public. As evidenced by the turnouts and opinions expressed at both the open houses and public hearing there is overwhelming opposition to the current proposal. Council should listen to what is being said and go back to the drawing board and develop an alternative plan that will better serve the interests of the citizens of both the city and the township. We would go so far as to suggest that council address the real issue and the root of the problem and that is eliminating heavy rail traffic through Langley.

With the expansion of Roberts Bank the problem is only going to get worse and there are other options to route the heavy rail traffic to Roberts Bank without having trains travel through Langley The current proposed overpass is the first in a series of overpasses that will have to be constructed to keep vehicular traffic flowing. What will the total cost be considering that the budget for this one exceeds $50M? We would like to see a study done on the economics of rerouting heavy rail out of Langley as opposed to constructing multiple overpasses. We are also concerned that the environmental issues have not been properly considered and would like that matter revisited.

In short, we believe the current overpass plan is not in the best interests of the citizens of the Langleys and should be rejected. We believe that the whole issue of having heavy rail traffic routed through Langley should be reconsidered with a few to finding an alternative route. We will be watching with great interest to see how council lines up on this issue and you can be assured that those councilors who support the current proposal will not be receiving our support in the next election.

Yours truly,

Ken & (***edited spouse name***) Baker

LR EDITORIAL BOARD COMMENTS:

We have published this communique that is public and was transmitted over a public network for three primary reasons:

To present the other side of this overpass issue.

1. To provide insight into one of the three civilian members of the mayor's new Finance Committee, who is now a public official
2. For you to see first-hand the threats that council members must deal with from the mayor's insiders and supporters.

While it is perfectly acceptable for residents of the Township to voice their opinions on various issues and discussions in the Township, the province, and the nation, public officials should not make threats to other public officials.

BC Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon issued a letter to the ToL regarding the Mufford/64th Avenue Overpass Project and frankly stated the facts. The facts included a statement that should the Township not proceed with this overpass, the province will earmark those funds to other priorities. This was simply a fact and not a threat. However, the overpass opponents and the mayor have decided that this is a threat and accuse Falcon of being a bully. How is that?

Opinion

Our Editorial Board was very disappointed to see Mr. Baker's letter. Out of the three civilian members of the Finance Committee, we viewed Mr. Baker as the most qualified (despite having little to no municipal accounting expertise) to sit on this committee and had looked forward to his budget recommendations. Now we question whether Mr. Baker has the capacity to make non-partisan commentary and recommendations on the single most important issue in our Township. That paramount issue is today is the Township's budget for 2009-2011.

It appears to us that there are a core group (150 people??) of Green & Richter slate supporters that all have their own private back yard issues and special agendas. These special interests (back yard issues) appear to take precedents over OUR Township and the greater good of a community of 105,000 people. Again, it is OK to respectfully debate and disagree on the issues in our community. BUT, is it OK to ignore the higher good of our greater community, or hijack the whole progressive agenda of our Township?

Here are some other views of the project to balance things off HERE - HERE - HERE and HERE

So readers of the Langley Record, you be the judge. We have presented both sides of this issue, and now give you Mr. Baker's letter to mayor and council. What do you think?