Editor: Re: John Allen’s letter (The Times, Dec.5). It seems that the problem that we have in Fort Langley is that it is unique.
The town features aspects of past days which make it appeal to the 200,000-plus tourists who frequent the village annually.
It is “location, location” on the Fraser, with the wonderful river experiences, the First Nations, the TransCanada Trail, the historic and unusual working 1858 fort, the museums, the CN station, art galleries, boutique shops and special restaurants.
All these contribute to everyones enjoyment while providing a lesson in history as well.
This is what tourists and families look for.
Offices and apartments are usual, these experiences are unusual.
The unique situation makes the village appealing in today’s world of subdivisions, box stores, offices and fast food restaurants.
I must reiterate, no one is against development and everyone I know is extremely happy with the new additions to the village.
However, they are without exception, conforming to the well-planned, well-thought-out and visionary OCP and Heritage Guidelines.
The Community Hall is so valuable to the area. Most village groups meet there and classes are held there.
Weddings and events are so numerous some must be turned away. It is still the “heart” of Fort Langley, as the Women’s Institute planned so long ago in 1924.
Any new building twice its size and higher is not only non-conforming to the well-laid plans, but will dwarf this very special building and detract from the meaning and value of the “heritage covenant.”
Added to the above, in my opinion, no one should cast aspersions on a Supreme Court judge who has been selected for this very responsible position.
Bays Blackhall
Langley Community Volunteer
