- About Us
- Local Savings
- Green Editions
- Legal Notices
- Weekly Ads
Connect with Us
LETTER TO THE EDITOR | Sounds like social engineering
To the editor:
Re: “Langley to ask builders for buy-in.”
This story in the Record contains the following: “Beyond the quest to create ‘great new neighborhoods, ’the regulations are also based on other lofty goals, according to the draft document, which include ‘the promotion of socially just opportunities for living, working and recreating’ and ‘the assurance that Langley will do more than its fair share to act responsibly as one village among many.’”
Aside from the fact that the language sounds more like social engineering than good planning, my question is how is such language supported by action, evaluation, compliance, etc.?
I know when somebody builds a house that doesn’t meet zoning restrictions, but how will someone determine that Langley is doing “more than its fair share to act responsibly as one village among many?
What does this even mean? What villages? Where? Who determines “acting responsibly”? Responsible to whom?
What’s happening to individual liberty, taste, diversity and variety?
Rules about building heights and setbacks and parking are sufficient without cracking the sociology books to add more.
If a builder wants to build a “village,” fine. But this language should not be part of the planning and zoning code of a municipality.
It’s one thing to want a great place to live — don’t we all? — but it’s quite another to suggest what feels like a spiritually driven, let’s get in a circle and hug, look how great we are, approach to planning.
It really feels like there’s an agenda to be “better” than those other “villages” and better in the worst kind of way.
It’s not a competition. Langley is just a place where people live, ordinary people.
I fear for the rest of the island if this kind of language is adopted in Langley.
And I see a future of lawsuits ahead if that happens.
In my humble opinion.
Molly Larson Cook