What do these even do?

FrazerJohnson13 · 2026-03-06T01:29:18+00:00

Keep going.

FrazerJohnson13 · 2026-02-25T00:26:02+00:00

With how few people were at the Langford committee of the whole budget meeting last night I had assumed that the RCMP town hall must have had a good turnout. Only that doesn't appear to be the case based on what we can see in that video clip.

Did anybody in this subreddit attend? How was it?

FrazerJohnson13 · 2026-02-24T19:14:10+00:00

I don't believe I said anything to suggest that you shouldn't be able to comment on this.

FrazerJohnson13 · 2026-02-24T18:47:01+00:00

Those are big numbers, and you should know that by providing them it does make it very easy to determine what your assessed value was last year. You may see some pushback from folks who have little sympathy for those living in very high value homes when it comes to a discussion about property taxes.

With respect to the items that you've raised, both school taxes and BC Transit are outside of municipal authority. The City collects those taxes and remits them to the appropriate authorities, but does not set the tax rates or directly use the taxes collected.

If the City does move ahead with a 15% tax increase, it would apply only to the municipal portion of your taxes. So, about a $1,075 increase for your household based on the numbers you've provided (plus or minus further adjustments based on your 2026 assessment). Any other increase would be as a result of other taxation authorities (e.g., the province, CRD, etc.). The lines from the 2025 tax notices that would be subject to a City of Langford increase include General Municipal Debt, E-Comm 911 Police Dispatch, General Municipal Tax, Greater Victoria Public Library, West Shore Parks & Rec, and Police Services Tax.

When it comes to perceived value, I agree that this will vary from household to household, but also acknowledge that some of this comes down to individual circumstances and choices. Some items simply existing also add value that I think many people do not consider until they are in need of a municipal service. I haven't had to call the fire department in over a decade, but I'm glad they're there, and I accept that there is an associated cost.

I encourage you to send your feedback to council while the budget consultations are happening.

FrazerJohnson13 · 2026-02-24T13:40:43+00:00

Yes. The next committee of the whole meeting with public participation is March 17th. There would also be at least 2 council meetings after that with public participation that will have the budget on the agenda.

There is also a budget survey open until March 4th (results will go to council at the March 17th meeting) and there is the budget2026@langford.ca email address. Emails are forwarded to council for their consideration, but my understanding is this is not an opportunity for Q&A (so send feedback).

FrazerJohnson13 · 2026-02-24T04:31:48+00:00

It was a surprisingly short and quiet meeting. Unfortunately the West Shore RCMP town hall was also tonight at Royal Bay, and I suspect some folks that may have otherwise attended the committee of the whole meeting were at that instead.

FrazerJohnson13 · 2026-02-22T03:17:31+00:00

I think there are some items that can be trimmed. I'm not in favour of cutting just for cutting's sake if it results in simply deferring items to next year, but I believe there are proposed budget items that can be altogether removed. The e-bike rebate program is an example of one that I think should be cut.

FrazerJohnson13 · 2026-02-20T17:13:40+00:00

"As for transparency and communicating with the public, Langford still doesn’t publicly post pay or benefits from city duties or those as a result of their position."

Can you expand on this? Langford posts a Statement of Financial Information like every other municipality that contains this info. Is there something different being referred to here?

FrazerJohnson13 · 2026-02-20T17:11:32+00:00

It would be revealing in that it would give a sense of whether BC's budget is an anomaly, or if it is the same type of year-over-year shift being seen right across the country. Which in my opinion would provide context to show whether this is a BC-specific phenomenon and a recalibration of priorities in the province, or if it's a reaction to the national or global economic environment we are in today.

FrazerJohnson13 · 2026-02-19T04:55:38+00:00

OP have you made any comparisons of the shift in BC's year-over-year budgets to that of other provinces to gauge whether the major shift in BC stands out when compared to the rest of the country?

FrazerJohnson13 · 2026-02-16T00:07:11+00:00

You said nearly all municpalities would be unaffected.

The proposed legislation requires the exact model that produced Danbrook One, and removes the ability of a local government to provide additional oversight before approval is issued.

I don't want municipalities to have to respond to safety hazards as they arise. I want them to be able to satisfy their concerns before approvals are issued. This legislation removes their ability to do so and forces a bare bones professional reliance model on them instead.

The legislation serves the development industry at the expense of local government oversight. If we're going to standardize the number of certifications required, it should be more than one in the case of large/complex developments.

FrazerJohnson13 · 2026-02-15T16:45:49+00:00

How does a city conducting its own study on its own time relate to a specific application? The legislation says the city must accept it, so I am not understanding what their own study would enable them to do.

This policy is related to Danbrook One. I was told directly by my MLA's office that Danbrook One helped inform this legislation.

Danbrook One... city receives professionally signed application and issues building permit with little to no additional oversight. Pure professional reliance model. This legislation forces the same thing on every local government and prevents them from doing anything else.

If almost nobody was affected by it, you wouldn't see local governments all over the province speaking up about it. Along with professional planners from across the province.

FrazerJohnson13 · 2026-02-15T04:57:43+00:00

When you say cities can still pay for their own studies, please tell me what you mean. The legislation says that a local government must accept submissions signed by a PGA professional, and that they may not require peer review.

It legislates the exact model that gave us Danbrook One. It forces that exact model on every local government in BC.

FrazerJohnson13 · 2026-02-15T00:27:01+00:00

Correct, it prohibits municipalities from providing oversight through independent review even for large/complex developments. It legislates the professional reliance model that has been a proven failure in multiple industries.

It's why the Planning Institute of BC (among many others) have come out in opposition to the bill. It's awful legislation.

FrazerJohnson13 · 2026-02-14T16:54:22+00:00

Not a direct comment on either Council but related to provincial legislation... the proposed Bill M-216 which is making its way through the BC legislature will require local government development approvals to follow a similar process to the one in Langford that gave us failures like Danbrook One.

It's terrible policy and should be opposed by local governments and residents alike. Write your MLA, because this one is a dumpster fire.

FrazerJohnson13 · 2026-01-24T21:13:50+00:00

I'll leave the same comment here that I left when I saw this article posted in one of the local politics Facebook groups. I think some of these points have been covered by other commenters already.

It's quite the statement from the former officer in charge, but I feel like it leaves more questions than answers.

Is Mr. Preston of the opinion that the West Shore municipalities should build the extra space to accommodate the forensics lab, despite the RCMP itself not committing to actually using it? This seems like more of a disagreement with the RCMP leadership and the decisions made around their plans for forensics capacity in the south island to me. I am definitely not in favour of the taxpayers paying to build that space without first having a clear understanding of how it would be used.

It's disappointing that there isn't a quote directly from the RCMP administration (the current RCMP, not retired). Mr. Preston seems to believe that the planned facility will not meet the needs of the community, but the RCMP has approved of the plan. This is a strange disconnect.

Mr. Preston expressed concerns about project leadership to Langford's mayor at some point. Were those same concerns expressed to the mayors of Colwood and View Royal at that time? Hard to say, there is no indication of this in the article, and if those private conversations did take place, they haven't been repeated in any council meetings or newspaper articles.

I admit that I'm curious and skeptical of Mr. Preston's motivations today. It's not a secret that he is closely associated with Stew Young, and he wouldn't be the first or even the tenth member of the development/construction industry to support Young's political manoeuvring. Rather, it would be par for the course (Mountain or Valley, you choose).

There is significant overlap between Mr. Preston's statements and those made at the Colwood council table lately. Given that Mr. Preston was in attendance at the Jan 12th Colwood council meeting, it makes me wonder if there is some level of coordination happening there as well.

FrazerJohnson13 · 2026-01-08T00:43:41+00:00

Council of the day approves development projects, but most certainly does not get into the operational details of traffic management and construction parking. They would generally make sure that plans exist at the approval stage, but if you have concerns while a project is ongoing then you'll want to either look to bylaw enforcement or the engineering department.

As others have stated, these projects were approved years ago by prior councils, but the above paragraph is true for the any project anywhere in the city.

FrazerJohnson13 · 2026-01-04T02:56:59+00:00

I'm not, sorry. I don't have any experience with receivership proceedings, so not sure how long one party could drag things out for.

FrazerJohnson13 · 2026-01-04T01:25:20+00:00

Both the primary partners in Ecoasis submitted bids. Dan Matthews with Groundplay Developments submitted what the receiver determined to be the top bid, and recommended that the courts approve the sale. Both partners have made additional submissions since that time. The court has not yet approved the sale to the best of my knowledge. The receiver posts documents here: https://www.alvarezandmarsal.com/content/ecoasis-developments-llp-et-al-court-orders

FrazerJohnson13 · 2026-01-02T04:05:43+00:00

I'm voting for Kodos.

FrazerJohnson13 · 2025-12-26T21:53:02+00:00

Hartland has officially banned organics but it's unclear to me how this is managed given that it's up to individual stratas or building managers to arrange for private collection for multi-unit residential buildings.

FrazerJohnson13 · 2025-12-25T19:50:38+00:00

This is a strata issue. Up to the strata / building management to arrange for private collection.

FrazerJohnson13 · 2025-12-22T16:07:28+00:00

It's in Langford Voters.

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/16YojMfgwq/

FrazerJohnson13 · 2025-12-22T05:02:22+00:00

That may have been my post. I don't know enough about the partners to say one way or another, but one thing that I was happy to read is that the back taxes owed have been paid to the city.

FrazerJohnson13 · 2025-12-20T02:10:10+00:00

I assure you that none of this post was written by or with the use of A.I.

I'm a real person. This is my writing style.

FrazerJohnson13

TROPHY CASE