On April 28, I and others, made a delegation in favour of an â€œinterimâ€ clear-cutting ban to the mayor and council.
The crucial word is â€œinterim,â€ meaning temporary until legislation and compromise can be reached.
I felt the efforts of council voting in favour of this temporary restriction [Clear-cut bylaw gets swift passage, May 1, Langley Advance] contained laudable compromise; enough leeway was given so that the public was not delivered a fatal blow to libertarian ideologies.
My fear is that one councillor who adamantly refused to support the ban had not listened to three nights of public hearings championed by residents not in favour of the archaic Official Community Plan.
Willoughby lingers like a planning mishap in peopleâ€™s minds.
The same felt true of the Brookswood/Fernridge OCP open houses, a catalyst which invoked a sudden onset of massive clearing.
Coincidence does not exist; land owners standing to financially gain from development were primary culprits in this sudden felling of second-growth forest. If landowners had a bona fide reason to remove tees, why did it occur simultaneously with the OCP on hold?
Additionally, the invented â€™hood of â€œGriffithsâ€ was planned by outsiders representing stakeholders. I assume they will pay for servicing components, from schools to sewer.
The Township has not assertively pursued more industrial/commercial, as residential does not pay for itself.
No discussion of fire hazards existed beforehand. We live in a temperate rain forest with trees uninfested by pine beetles. So, why now?
Refutations citing personal property rights are an on-going saga. I have had more calls and seen more damage to neighbours living adjacent to cleared lots. What about their personal property rights?
Thanks to council for the interim legislation. We need to design a community clustering around existing natural features not found outside the Pacific Northwest.
Cathleen Chance Vecchiato, Langley