Ick.

Most of the commenting authors to this blog are of like mind and form a community. Several other folks who have been reading the posts have commented favorably in person to the authors. Every grouping has an inherent tendency to take all the good for themselves and attribute all the bad to others. The others are made alien and different and the portrayal of their motivations are a best made suspect, at worst malicious. It seems to me that Langley is not one community. Rather it is split, probably in more than two ways, and more than one group is exhibiting some of the weaker parts of group behavior.

Good try, but you’re incorrect by a mile. Last I checked, the democratic party didn’t know a darned thing about TDR’s, form-based code, land use budgeting or neighborhood cells.

According to the State of WA, Langley is just a little over 1100 people. 100 spent time on the Comp Plan, but many of those now say they feel angry that what they participated in wasn’t what we ended up with. In fact, from what I’ve been told, many that signed up initially simply drifted away in sheer disullusionment.

Hate to disillusion ya, but the fact is, the Comp Plan is bad news.

Why don’t you think about what that means, and write about it for your next blog?

Right now the important issue for everyone is not diatribe, fun and games or anything but Property Rights and how you and I and we, each as individuals, want Langley to be. Some of us have spent a lot of time trying to make the case that unless taxpayers and property owners pay attention, a bad situation could get very worse, very soon. Early next year to be exact.

As to having a group hug, and getting on with business of the city — that would be like allowing your children to do whatever they please, and never saying “no”.

Voters are a lot like parents. They have got to be firm, in control, and be prepared to say no, even when it would be easier to let things slide.

There was no attack on Ms. Neff whatsoever, but there was one, in writing, posted on the Langley Electeds city blog, criticizing Ms. Waters from Ms. Neff.

Despite the fact that there was a public City Council meeting several days after Ms. Neff posted her article, there has been no reaction from any City electeds, no apology, nothing.

Is that the style of government you find acceptable?

You are not alone in apparently being unaware of that fact. Langley PAB members repeatedly say things in their official capacity that, as private citizens, would be perfectly legal, but acting as PAB members are obvious violations of the restrictions imposed by their official responsibilities. They seem to have no clue that there is a difference between their public and private “rights”.

Rene! Fred Evander and Larry Cort, both qualified and in one case, a very experienced planner with education and background in PLANNING rebutted Robert’s presentation to Council. For public consumption – again I was there BUT so were you! How convenient for you to omit this fact while calling me, a rational and motivated constituent, a bully!

Rene often forgets previous meetings or even her own voting history.

WHY!?!?!? you ask?

Because the City has had ample opportunity to change it’s ways, ample legal advice on other matters which may result in a lawsuit. And they have ignored it all and done what they pleased.

When Government becomes unlawful(which Langley in my opinion has) it’s time to change, and if the only road open is through bankrupting the city so be it. When the city begins abusing citizens it’s time to say “That’s Enough!”

Seeing as there have been multiple calls to city hall about this blog, and nothing has happened, I support any action and it’s consequences that Kathleen Waters would seek after Dec. 20th.

To date, I see no apology from Ms. Neff to Ms. Waters, nor has she resigned her Council seat. I see no apology from the Mayor from the City to Ms. Waters. If Neff cannot bring herself to apologize, certainly the Mayor can act mayorally and extend an honest and sincere apology to Ms. Waters on behalf of the City itself.

I’m hoping that the Saturday edition of the South Whidbey Record brings the news I am seeking.

Is council’s review of the contract just a formality?

Flaky.

I’d like a report on the Council meeting last night. Any chance of getting that here?

I’d like to ask you, in the name of doing the right thing for Langley, to remove this blog on the Langley Electeds, and to work with the Record to remove it here too. Not to hide anything – the public record stands, but this simply is not the kind of thing that I think most people want to see their elected leaders writing.

I have Neff’s comments in front of me, what evidence can you provide? Please add citations or don’t bring meaningless accusations. Oh and Li`l piglets is an insult also just so you are aware.

Endless mud-slingin’, name-callin’, dirt-dishin’, facts-twistin’ and chest-thumpin’ aimed at Langley and its leadership by a small group of vocal online posters – some transparent redundancies, not-so-cleverly disguised in multiple names – but when the tables are turned and your habitually tiresome negativity, bullyin’, and questionable allegations and assertions are challenged – when YOU’RE held accountable – you squeal like li’l piglets.

Amusin’.

Retailing goods to visitors: The Small Boat Harbor? Nice, but that’s the ONLY idea proposed for enhancing this once profitable sector of Langley’s economy? Lame.

Providing services to local residents – The health-care provides and the travel agents are gone, 2 out of 6, again a third of those businesses listed. Again, there are too few year-round, local residents and too few of those support the local businesses.

Retailing goods elsewhere – Yep, I can retail my goods over the internet, but then why would one bother to pay rent for a commercial downtown storefront location? Another empty shop. I can do internet sales outside of Langley and not pay any excise and B&O taxes generated from those sales to the city of Langley. That’ll sure help the city to prosper. Brilliant.

There will be at least one joint meeting per year between the city council and planning
advisory, design review, library, cemetery and any other advisory bodies. This meeting
will be used to create a yearly work program and should be timed to happen before the
budget process begins. (Ord. 559, 1990)

So far as I can tell, this meeting has not happened at all during 2010, and is not scheduled to happen before the end of the year. Has there been some kind of redraft of that 1990 Ordinance that makes the annual meeting not necessary? If so, why?

It is my opinon that Mr. Gilman was a frequent participant at the PAB meetings. Many meetings I went to had a PAB member or another referring to “Robert’s plan” or “Robert wants us to do this or that”. It is really a shame that those PAB meetings are not tape recorded.

Here is a meeting minute transcription from a January 2010 Parks and Open Space Board meeting, where Mr. Gilman tells the Parks and Open Space Board that the City Council has made some changes to their presentation. Here is a copy of the City Parks and Open Space meeting minutes from 01.11.2011. Perhaps Ms. Neff would like to read this information as well.

Mr. Gilman tells the Parks and Open Space board that the City Council changed some language that the Parks people had written. Not uncommon, but in this case, there was work being done by the Parks and Open Space Board, as well as the Planning Advisory Board on some similar items. However, Mr. Gilmans’ point wasn’t that so much.

He just wanted to let the Parks and Open Space people know that “the Planning Advisory Board (PAB) is in the process of developing zoning and subdivision code that addresses open space allocation. Gilman said that the city is also grappling with ways to preserve open space in other ways including: fee simple purchase, transfer of development rights, subdivision code and a potential county overlay zone in the Langley Urban Growth Area (UGA).”

Note Mr. Gilman states that “the City” is also grappling with … not the PAB. Gilman seems always willing to let the committees work on certain things, but he’s going to stay in charge of any work on the complicated things that only he is expert on … such as all the work he’s been doing on his Phase II stuff. When you hear the words Sub Area Planning, Land Use Budgeting, Transferable Development Rights … know that these are Gilmans ideas for Langley, these were not generated by the Planning Advisory Committee.

I have another bone to pick with the City and City Council. The Langley Muni Code provides that there will be a once a year workshop meeting between the Council and all the City boards and committees, prior to the budget implementation. How can any of the City boards and committees get any work done, without knowing what the other City boards and committees are doing? Gilmans’ meeting with the Parks and Open Space people is a prime example of this.

Here is part of the meeting transcript, and a link to the meeting minutes.
http://langleywa.org/documents…

PROJECT UPDATES
Council Adoption of the Parks, Open Space & Trails Element
Community Planning Director, Larry Cort, and council member, Robert Gilman
attended the meeting to update the Commission on the council adoption on December 21, 2009 of the Parks, Open Space and Trails (POST) Element amendment recommended by the Commission.

Gilman reported that there were some editing and clarification items that were changed by the Council. The substantive change was to the Open Space Level of Service. Kathleen Landel provided a handout to the Commission with the Commission’s recommended language and the language adopted by the Council.

Gilman explained that the primary reason for the language change was to use a more general statement at the Comp Plan level, because the Planning Advisory Board (PAB) is in the process of developing zoning and subdivision code that addresses open space allocation. Gilman said that the city is also grappling with ways to preserve open space in other ways including: fee simple purchase, transfer of development rights, subdivision code and a potential county overlay zone in the Langley Urban Growth Area (UGA).

Totally clear to me.

“The assertion by Ms. Waters that Robert was making decisions or substituting documents is preposterous. Robert has made some presentation to the Council on aspects he would like to include as part of the new codes, but we have not agreed as a Council on any of those ideas.” Rene! Fred Evander and Larry Cort, both qualified and in one case, a,very experienced planner with education and background in PLANNING rebutted Robert’s presentation to Council. For public consumption- again I was there BUT so were you! How convenient for you to omit this fact while calling me, a rational and motivated constituent, a bully!’

To this post from yesterday, please allow me to quote from city council minutes of July 06 2010:
Discussion Items – Draft Zoning & Subdivision Code
Staff/Administration comments & Phase II concepts.
Larry Cort and Fred Evander gave a presentation of staff and administration’s perspective on the draft amendments and the innovative tools explained by Councilman Gilman. Larry and Fred believe this subdivision code can stand on its own and the Land Use Budgeting, TDR’s and subarea planning can be worked on in a later phase. Larry feels the city should get back to the draft subdivision code proposed by the PAB and make the changes needed in it and bring it up for approval. .”..

Again the Doctor calls for resignation of Ms Neff!