If members of the unelected â€œUnelection Campaignâ€ group are willing to misinform the public about a simple variance application, then how can anyone take them seriously on anything else?
Looking for issues and attention, members of the Unelection Campaign group, a political upstart, anti-progress group that hopes to unseat some incumbents with their own candidates in the Township in the November election, decided to oppose a basic setback variance application at the Sept. 8 council meeting.
Even though after months of study staff had recommended approval, this group decided to use its bullying tactics, and came with frivolous and baseless objections.
The simple application asked to build a new home in the corner of the property so that, if future development comes, the house wouldnâ€™t have to be torn down â€“ a difference of 2.25 metres from the front and 1.5m from the side.
The setbacks would be the same as the subdivision across the street, on quarter acre lots with 7.5m front and 1.5m side setbacks.
Since this was not an application to develop or change zones, it would easily fit in the current OCP designation of 7,000-square-foot lots.
Also, the lowest density a new OCP could bring to this residential area is quarter-acre lots.
They went on Facebook where, as everyone knows, opinions become facts which lead to the wrong conclusions.
Their leader defiantly declared â€œâ€¦nobody asked us to be part of any planningâ€¦ That is a mistake.â€
One of their principals, Anna R. (who refuses to give her last name) told her followers, â€œApparently Nirmal Kooner did not hear us wellâ€¦ he was FOR the new OCP.â€
Someone said, â€œI may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death your right to say it.â€ Sadly, Anna R. either doesnâ€™t care or understand this concept in our democratic society.
Does this unelected, uninformed group naively think that we should get their permission before doing business with the Township? Do they think intimidation is their answer to everything?
One spokesperson from across the street didnâ€™t realize she was opposing the same setbacks she had on her own property, until told by staff.
The rest of the group didnâ€™t even live in the area. Their properties wouldnâ€™t be affected. It was not a public hearing. Traditionally, only neighbours are supposed to air their views if their property is adversely affected.
Another spoke at length about not being able to park trucks in the driveway. If you canâ€™t park your vehicle on a 25-foot driveway, most of Langley will be in trouble.
In their world, even a single home is â€œhigh density.â€ Don Quixote would have been proud of them.
I urge their followers to do their own research. Everything on Facebook is not true. I would have been happy to discuss their concerns over a cup of coffee, but that wouldnâ€™t suit their â€œshoot first, ask questions laterâ€ style.
I will still build my home. It just wonâ€™t be an efficient use of land. Hmmmâ€¦ I wonder if I have to ask them what colour I can use?
By the way, I have to cut a couple dying trees for safety reasons, so donâ€™t go crazy.
Nirmal Kooner, Brookswood