Editor: I have been a resident of South Langley for more than 30 years and have opposed numerous development plans for the old Border Sand and Gravel property over those years, until I was finally swayed, along with a majority of my neighbours and previous Township council, by the High Point residential development plan which allowed people to move into my neighbourhood without damaging the surrounding rural area and supposedly fitting in with the “equestrian themed” area that we live in.
One major contribution of this proposal over previous attempts was improved traffic access and flow in our neighbourhood by finally connecting 200 Street with Zero Avenue. Now, as reported in The Times (Wednesday, March 9) it appears that 48 of the new residents in the subdivision are opposed to the conditions of development being fulfilled.
They apparently would like their “equestrian themed” neighbourhood to be excluded from the larger south Langley neighbourhood or perhaps more correctly they would like us to be excluded from their neighbourhood.
This development is actually “equestrian” in name only, as only a couple of the properties are actually large enough to legally allow animals other than cats and dogs.
However, we welcomed them to our neighbourhood as just plain rural life enjoyers.
We tolerated the added traffic of construction vehicles on our streets for the last few years because we were sure that once the development was well underway the developers’ obligation to complete the connection of Zero Avenue and 200 Street would be fulfilled and any added traffic from there on would be shared with the new residents.
Now they would like to change the rules?
I hope that council will consider carefully before allowing this to happen and to realize that this will surely be a slippery slope that they may not wish to travel down.
If a majority of people in a neighbourhood is all that is required to have streets closed to all but emergency vehicles, residents and bicycles, then my street will be the next one before council looking for that privilege, with many more lined up behind us.
If traffic calming is the reason being promoted for this — in effect, traffic exclusion — then perhaps council should consider traffic humps throughout the High Point development as a better solution.
As for Mr. Bakken’s assertion that once the road was closed the residents would not be supportive of it being opened, I hadn’t realized that 48 residents could overrule a development requirement on a public road for their own convenience.
Councillor Bateman’s insightful comment about the residents’ “pretty smart traffic calming” idea leads me to believe that he should not be put in charge of any other bike paths in the Township that may suffer from his progressive and practical solutions to traffic.
All in all, the handling of this situation reveals Township Council as ineffective community leaders who can be led astray from their commitment to the whole of our Langley Township by small self-interest groups and allow their own rules and policies to be trampled in their rush to appease the developers and well-heeled special interest groups ahead of the people who elected them.
Shawneen Hartmann
Langley
