Editor: On Monday, Township council was reconsidering the fate of rural land, specifically the Wall property.
Clearly this is a tremendous idea for the developers but judging by the number of concerned citizens, the overall benefit to Langley is questionable.
I have watched (and occasionally opposed) Langley Township council endorse growth in the Township for 30 years now. I have also observed it coincides with commute times of two to three times those of 30 years ago. And there are ever-increasing taxes to help pay for more traffic lights. This does not include additional fees and hidden gas taxes.
Recently council approved the high-density Forewest project. I know this will add to my carbon footprint as I try to find a new route to navigate around Langley, in an attempt to minimize my commute.
Several years ago, I toured Yorkson and wondered why all the houses had suites but no additonal parking. Read the letter in The Times (Nov. 20) and you will see the distress this oversight has caused the residents of Yorkson.
Subdivision is always great for the developer, and the rewards easily justify sending representatives to council meetings.
But do not forget the silent majority who are too busy with family and work to attend or even consider the ramifications of poorly-planned development.
I ask that council seriously consider the thoughts of Lauren Kim: “Langley: A good place for a good life.”
We all know rezoning is a very easy and quick way to create wealth for the select few — but is it really good for residents of Langley?
I hope your decision is in harmony with those of Lauren and the residents of Langley Township.
Lorne Danielson,
Langley
