Amen to that, Fran.

Take some council training classes, please.

For the Council/Mayor ProTem to talk about Langley as a ‘done deal’ regarding very complicated, and frightening zoning code changes is worse than very disturbing. Is it illegal? I wish I knew.

I don’t understand the lack of an apology.

It’s becoming more clear, at least to me, that Ms. Neff needs to resign. True leadership steps forward and does the right thing.

These people have no manners whatsoever.

At minimum, at this point, it would be prudent for the city to disallow Ms. Neff any discussions or input as to any of the council appointments.

-Wednesday, December 15th. (Neff article, Friday, December 3rd).

“There is a built in tension between doing things the new way and doing them as we’ve always done them. The innovation of new ideas versus resistance to change has caused much debate, disagreement and friction throughout history. Langley is in the middle of this debate. In the search for finding “better ways” of “growing”. ”

I want traditional city zoning to remain in place for Langley. The debate about new ideas vs. resistance to change isn’t new, and isn’t really what is happening in Langley.

The dichotomy of Langley is that the new zoning ideas are not being widely embraced by the majority of people, yet the Council seems determined to ignore the wishes of the people.

Creative, and witty. Thanks.

We will have to take a closer look at the planning department in general and decide if they can meet the demands of a changing environment and if they can adapt to a world with depleting natural resources. I’m deeply concerned with our public works department and if they have the intellectual capacity to even participate in the ambitious and lofty goals of our town visionaries.

It goes without saying that Chief Herzberg has over stayed his welcome and the city will be looking to retain leadership in the police department that can embrace a more progressive vision for our future. We want to see the police department embrace rehabilitation as a model for success. Our police should be better educated and more in tuned with the new age vision of policing

We can certainly understand that our staff may have a difficult time adapting to the change that we have brought the city but in time they will learn to embrace our vision of the future.

We need to challenge all of our staff and begin to ask the tough questions.Thank you Fran for your courage and vision and keep up the good work. Someday all of the inhabitants of our village with thank you.

I don’t find all the discussions pointless, and I can tell you my conversations with others indicate a high readership.

With all that the merchants and others have said here to the contrary. . .was this what you truly meant?

As a real estate agent, I think that all communities have to embrace all ages. The condominiums currently built in Langley have mostly a legal, “over 55″ age restriction. There are something like 40 units of low income apartments available, but I do not know if any age can live in those, or if there is an age basis there. The developer of the Langley Passage neighborhood indicated that his marketing for those homes would be towards retired people. Was his focus based on his own goals, or simply in trying so hard to please the City Council and PAB that he chose that focus as a way to be more appealing to them so that he would more likely get the approvals he needed?

Much of the newer construction in Langley has seemed to focus on retirement age people, with small home sizes and small lot sizes. That’s fine if that is a developers decision — but is it fine if it is a citys’ promotion through their regulations, or through city pressure to a develper? Ie, let’s think about HUD, Housing and Urban Developement. This is a federal agency which does not allow discrimination based on many factors, including age. Is a city that focuses on retirement goals for potential citizens following HUD regulations?

I realize that anyone can buy any of the homes or condos in Langley, other than the legal “over 55″ condominiums where 1 owner must be 55 years or older. But realistically, will a family with 3 or 4 kids really buy a home that is 1400 or such square footage?

It’s a general question, but one that I consider to be important. Langley has a legal duty to focus on affordable housing. And there are some units of affordable housing in Langley, I believe managed or co-owned by Island County. In the last decade — has there been any other units of truly affordable housing built in Langley?

The creation of balance is difficult, especially in a geographically limited small city such as Langley. As an agent, I’d like to think that I could as easily find a reasonably priced home suitable for a family of 4 or more in Langley as I can in Clinton or Freeland. Homes in neighborhoods with homeowners fees to maintain open space are usually not in the price range that most buyers will choose. Maintaining neighborhood open space may cost as much as the monthly heating bill for many homeowners, and in this day and age, it’s something we have to consider. Maintaining your own yard can be essentially free if you are willing to do it yourself.

The cost to homeowners of zoning regulations cannot be overstated.

“Gee. How could these “nice” people do this?” Your reminders and constant vigilence are needed.
for a consistent wake-up call about what they do until the next election and beyond.

With all due respect, if the feedback is only positive spin, and valid crtiticism labeled “whining” progress can not only be stymied, but problems allowed to fester unseen until it is too late.

For example, in the case of the downtown we’ve lost two anchors (which supported each other) the town pharmacy and the last vestiges of the town doctor, the feedback appeared to be ignored, let alone pro-actively sought out by public officials before the tipping point was reached in both cases.

My understanding is that Ron Lind (who it seemed seldom if ever stuck his neck out involving anything political) spoke out publicly for a substantial development on the bluff. I know there were other factors in his leaving but perhaps it wouldn’t have been lock, stock, and barrel had that developent gone through. Again, why would he have spoken out publicly about this project if he was leaning toward leaving anyway? If this development had gone through it may have buoyed him with the promise of increased local and tourist business and he would have stuck it out.

If there were efforts to address these two situations, why was the public informed (via the Reord) only after the two principals were on their last legs? In the case of the bluff development, perhaps there would have been a substantial turnout of supporters at meetings and in other ways, and even a change of mind by those in opposition.

If Ms Tiller hadn’t “whined” about the tourism fund being used for “tree trimming” would it have even come to light? It appears that money can now be used for the Main Street Program. . .and only now is this council jumping in to say in effect, “Oh yes. We were with you all along.” According to Ms Tiller, the mayor promised before the election to get involved in the Main street program and once elected, didn’t do a thing.

The council and mayor’s conscious ignoring of some very reasoned direct feedback in this venue, through direct emails, and even at meetings feed into the widely held perception that they aren’t what they should be, “representatives.” Does anyone hold the illusion that Robert Gilman’s unnecessary, unwieldy, and financially disasterous for the city zoning plan experiments came from citizens needs, expressed or unexpressed? Certainly adjustments to the present zoning can be made to address problems. But Gilman needs to be held accountble for foisting his own agenda on the city. No state audit could examine it , but I wonder if someone, either in-house or independently conducted an audit, how much taxpayer money would be found to have been expended on this?

It’s a wonder that in the face of retaliation, intimidation, and accusations of “whining” that the citizenry (who expect their representatives to express and address their concerns) don’t just throw in the towel out of frustration on the abismal performance by these officials and just let them run the town into the ground, which they seem intent on anyway.

If anything, we need to continue to crtiticize (even if it is labeled “whining”) to keep the problems in the forefront here until they are acknowledged and acted upon or better it seems to me, elect officials who aren’t so insulated from their constituents, and will pro-actively address these problems.

It’s a Catch-22. When regulations halt growth because developers do not think they will be able to attract qualified buyers, then stagnation occurs. Please be careful about creating too much “new” in zoning requirements.

In my 27 years experience as a real estate agent, I find that buyers, and sellers, want traditional. By traditional, I don’t necessarily mean a 4 bedroom 2 bath house, or anything like that. What I mean by traditional is that buyers and sellers want to understand, easily, what they can do with their homes and properties. They want typical lot sizes, and they want to be able to create safe play spaces, privacy, garden or use their yards, which means they often want fences. They want garages. They want the commonality of residential experiences that they know are comfortable, and are popular, and that future buyers will want. They want safety for their investment, and a large part of that safety is based on traditional, historical zoning regulations.

There is a large demand from buyers for condominiums or apartments (hopefully with elevators) in the $200,000 to $300,000 price range. As people grow older, or as people graduate from high school or college, they need to live in spaces that are not expensive. Walking is a factor, but with the hills of Langley, walking becomes unrealistic if the densest buildings are not allowed within 1/8 mile of the core shopping area.

Langley has a lot to offer – but as an agent, I can tell you all that my clients want low-risk decisions. They do not want to buy something where stability is in question.

I believe the community is speaking very loudly to the City electeds, all of them. I join those who are concerned enough to specifically ask this City Council to please do not continue with the zoning changes you have been espousing as necessary for Langley.

leannefinlay@gmail.com

Throw in conscious manipulation, subterfuge and mendacity—I guess we have different definitions of “nice”. The problems in the governance of Langley are real and they are not “nice”.

As to the Main Street program, it’s going to take work,and if she’s willing to spearhead that work, congratulations to her for being willing to put her energy into something that helps everyone.

Don’t be part of the history of “old news whining”. Be part of the solution.

Repeating old scars does nothing but cause surface tears. We need more than bandaids around here, we everyone to start being pro-active.

As to criticising the electeds, that is a major constitutional right, but please, let’s not stoop to criticism of private citizens.

Also, I don’t think anyone here has implied or stated that the electeds are not nice people. I think everyone feels they are. The criticism is of the job they are doing.

Does anyone know if the district knows that ‘city limit’ information? Mailing addresses for Langley encompass a very large geographic area, and I’m not certain if the school district would have the separation count.

Or – is that a Census number?

Absolutely spot on with your observations, except one.

No way in H-E-double-toothpick will the current electeds run this town into the ground. I have had it. I’m not the leader of the pack by any means, but I’m a voice that talks to other voices, and there is major dissatisfaction in the airs of Langley. People are becoming more and more involved, and speaking out against the dysfunctional desires of the current elected.

I just hope that city staff can be maintained, even if there needs to be certain job reassignments. The staff is the absolute gem of Langley, and should be respected, supported and listened to, with respect.

Fran, as the newest Council member, I ask you to step aside from your admiration of the Comprehensive Plan, and start listening to your constituents. The Comp Plan is dangerous, destructive, and has goals certain to generate legal actions.

K.I.S.S. comes to mind.

Ms. Abel: Your job is not to act like the director of the chamber of commerce and pretend nothing is wrong. Your job is to solve problems. The first step in solving a problem is to recognize that one exists. Choochokam is “going strong?” What planet are you on? Sunday’s attendance in perfect weather was an embarrassment.

Its fine to point out what you like about the downtown, but to not even recognize that it is in serious trouble at the least. . .and not so slowly dying at this time? Ms Abel: Why is sales tax revenue so low?

Langley is extremely lucky some of these people do business on the internet and/or are financially independent enough to take the losses they must be incurring. Otherwise the appearance of the street and storefronts would even more reflect the business, or better said, the lack of same that goes on behind them.

The emperors truly wear no clothes. There aren’t enough children in Langley who don’t know any better to point it out.

I’m hoping Kim Tiller’s efforts to latch onto the Main Street Program will bear fruit. City officials should have followed her lead on this years ago.

It’s sad to see a small group of religious zealots get in position’s of authority and permanently damage what was once a vibrant community. Last time I checked that Honda that Fran drives around is running on gas. This city is in a world of hurt and they will run off all the qualified people if it’s the last thing they do.

I resent that he was listed in their program as Robert Gilman, Mayor Pro Tem Langley, WA, a listing that pretty much says “this guy represents the City of Langley”. http://www.newpartners.org/2010/program.html

Did the City of Langley ever get a complete tape of his talk for their records? I have combed thru the City Council written meeting minutes and do not see that he even mentioned this talk at a Council meeting, except very briefly, before he went. Did he pay his own expenses, or did the City reimburse him? How was this official city business if not discussed fully at a Council meeting?

Here is how the program presented Mr. Gilman’s talk.
“Langley, Washington (small town): Minimum lot-size single-use zoning replaced with mixed-use neighborhood districts, land-use budgets, form-based code and TDRs.”

REALLY??? Langley, Washington has replaced minimum lot-size single-use zoning with mixed-use neighborhood districts, land-use budgets, form-based code and TDRs??? Exacly when did this happen?? (yes, sarcasm ON)

These are the drastic planning tools he’s come up with that are so creative, no city large or small, anywhere in the entire country, uses them in combination. Zero. The land-use budgets scare the crap out of me. So does the idea of TDR’s, an expensive program to implement and monitor, and difficult to understand. Form-based code came about in the 1980′s out of Florida. Look at Florida today, something to emulate? What part? And replacing single use neighborhoods with mixed use neighborhoods? Not what I want.

Thank you Fran, for reminding all of us that the Gilman vision, shared by the seated Council, is still looming in the background, and should not become the new Whole Langley Code.

New and improved isn’t always Smart.

A healthy community is one where everyone participates. I did not see that in the Comp Plan process, and I don’t see anything “smart” about the “smart growth” trendiness. Smart Growth at it’s core wants people to live more tightly together. There are handicaps to this, especially in a rural area chock full of other, appealing choices.

I just go back to the old fashioned adage: if it’s smart, I don’t need to be told so. And I sure don’t need fancy branding to know smart.

I do support the Main Street idea, and will back it and Ms. Tiller. I also support the new businesses of Langley.

I don’t support this city council and the constant proslytizing of the Langley Bible, The Comprehensive Plan.