Monday, April 9, 2012

Council motions in the Township of Langley

I was reading the agenda for the last Township of Langley council meeting and came across the following motion that was proposed by Councillor Richter.

Transit Services in the Township of Langley

Whereas Township of Langley residents are already unfairly taxed for poor and inadequate transit services in the Township; Be it resolved that the Township of Langley Council notify the TransLink Board, Mayors’ Council, and the Provincial Government that the Township of Langley will not support any further transit taxes, including a car levy which is by nature inherently unfair to the Township of Langley residents, until such time as TransLink unequivocally proves that they are delivering a fair and equitable amount of transit services to the Township for the amount of tax paid to TransLink from all sources by Township residents.

While it may be in vogue to blame TransLink for everything related to transportation right now, I should point out that the Township of Langley is getting more service than it is paying for right now. In fact, according to the latest financial information from TransLink the Golden Ears Bridge was subsidized to the tune of $33.5 million in 2011! Now that money could have been used to improve transit service in Langley, but I also know that Township Council were supporters of the bridge. You can't have your cake and eat it too when it comes to transportation, it all costs money. While this motion may score some political points, it will do nothing to improve transportation in the Township of Langley.

Also a few weeks ago, I posted about a motion to look at a secondary suite fee which is basically a tax on legal secondary suite owners. As getting secondary suites legal is already an issue, this proposed tax will do nothing but keep suites illegal. According to council minutes, it appear that this initiative is full steam ahead.

A staff report to Council before the summer break which outlines a framework and options for registering and levying fees on secondary suites including:
a. Legislative requirements/restrictions;
b. Safety standards and building codes;
c. Alternate registration and fee models used in other BC municipalities;
d. Appropriate fees; and
e. Registration and enforcement mechanisms.

If I was a legal secondary suite owner, I'd feel like I was getting the short end of the stick.

No comments: