BY KATHLEEN WATERS

Change in the Langley community? Looming on the near horizon is a proposal that will change the character, image and economic life of the greater Langley community.

The question: Do you want to have a Langley community that further reduces its mix of residents, landowners, businesses and downtown commerce? Reduces its appeal to tourists, as an enticing stop for a traveler wanting choices, a place of opportunity and incentives for new businesses, an inviting place for retirees and young families, a place with choices of restaurants?

Councilman Robert Gilman’s subarea plan and land-use budget is getting very close to a vote by the city council. It could happen early next year.

This plan was imagined, developed and fostered by Gilman, who has spent the past 30 years writing and speaking on a subject he is credited with defining: eco-village.

If passed, the Whole Langley Code changes which involves subarea planning, includes transferable development rights and land-use budgeting.

For example, it might be deemed that there are too many houses, so the land-use budget limits potential plans by property owners.

The proposed Whole Langley Code can be viewed by calling the city planning department for an updated, correct copy.

Many of the proposed changes will alter the way we get around, access our homes and businesses, store cars and belongings, relate to neighbors, maintain residential privacy, develop our property in the city or site our homes to capture views of our choice.

In my opinion, the no-growth direction that is now being exposed is the result of Gilman’s long-range view. This could transition to diminished property values in the Langley area.

Gilman’s policy idea that is the hallmark of his Langley work started with mastery over stakeholder buy-in during his control of the comprehensive plan process. It’s said he reassigned at will those who worked on the plan.

This is still a bitter pill for many in the community. I’ve been told that he wrote the final City of Langley Comprehensive Plan. It’s extraordinarily long and based on the gloom that mimics a kind of worldwide Armageddon. His actions demonstrate that he is comfortable as the arbiter of these principles and able to thrust them on a trusting public.

The role of Gilman and the plight of the future of Langley through rezoning was brought to the attention of the community in late 2009, when the city council was surprised that Gilman, council liaison to the Planning Advisory Board, had not kept the city council appraised of the PAB’s work on his subarea plan.

In fact, it’s been said that he substituted his own plan for much of the work that the PAB had spent two years on. He justified his overreach of the city planner’s traditional role by citing his own role as a city councilman/legislator as akin to a state legislative role. His legislative power in Langley does not include his insertion of a personal agenda. Any successful legislative initiative has to first come from constituents.

The current downturn in Langley’s image and reality reflects a demise in sustenance of shops and merchants. I believe this situation is a result of an unstated and oft denied no-growth policy done behind the scenes, and not due to the national economic downturn.

There is a disproportionate listing of commercial property for sale when the number — 14 currently listed — is compared with the rest of the island.

A parking lot that has had constant scrutiny and unanimous approval by the city council on four occasions is now being targeted just as it is getting ready for an engineering contract. Funded by federal grant money to greatly expand parking in Langley, this project is suddenly being opposed by WEAN and mulled by Gilman, who implies the financial plight of the city legitimizes his reason to pause the forward button on the project.

A proposed neighborhood of 20 homes that was thoroughly vetted by the professional planning staff has been halted.

Three years ago, a development that would’ve given the community at large a huge economic uplift was thwarted. Another proposal was also sidetracked. It offered, among other things, a rare Northwest offering: public, mountain-view waterside dining.

The anti-business/no-growth direction that is now being exposed appears to be the result of one man’s life’s work. It could easily morph the city of Langley into a cultish neighborhood of Island County.

Voters must now ask questions. Do I live in Langley because I knew it was headed in a no-growth direction? How easy will it be to sell my land and move away if the city undergoes more drastic change? Just what future do I want for Langley?

As a voter or landowner, is a new and different Langley what I want or expect for my heirs, my property, my lifestyle, future resale of my property or my investment? I believe many are not familiar with the details of the zoning proposal and don’t even know about the land-use budget. Everyone who has the slightest stake in Langley must muster the time to determine just how we will be affected by proposed change. Stakeholders in Langley must stand up and take some action that will stop the no-growth, eco-village-like cloning proposal that is on the table at city hall.

Kathleen Waters is the proprietor of the seasonal Wharf Street Espresso, retired senior lecturer of the UW School of Public Health and Community Medicine, and a Langley property owner since 1976.