Editor,
I am writing in response to David Stenberg’s Sept. 17 letter, “Development proposal ignores city’s needs.”
After reading this and his other letters, two words come to mind: NIMBY and … NIMBY.
In Mr. Stenberg’s case, “not in my backyard” is actual, and not just metaphysical: He backs up onto the Coles Road project, and he very clearly does not want this – or much of anything – on his neighbor’s property.
His letters and his reasoning go from the absurd to the outright dishonest.
For example: Mr. Stenberg claims the wetland study for the development is ‘flawed’ because it was done in the summer. I think he must have gotten his Wetland Identification degree from Trump U; otherwise, he’d know that we can identify wetlands in other ways, such as wetland plants and soil types, which exist regardless of the weather or which way the political winds are blowing.
In one letter he said the project would only be providing low-income but not affordable housing (or was it the other way around?), and therefore, they should “just call the whole thing off.”
In this letter he says that mysterious ‘individuals’ (perhaps named Stenberg?) have questioned the traffic study and the wetland study, so again, the developer and the city should just give up developing anything.
I have over 25 years experience working for cities and counties. My main concern is not just with Mr. Stenberg’s biased opinions. I am more concerned that these many NIMBY voices have gotten the attention of the Langley Mayor and City Council, and that they are listening to these voices instead of to reason or their own staff.
The city already has lots of regs and rules, and lots of tools to assure good, beneficial development on this and other sites. But the Council continues to shoot itself in the foot by stalling, or piling on rules and pre-review of developments, or calling for more rules and more studies ….
I think that they have forgotten the most important “rule” of development and efficient government: If you keep stalling, and piling on rules, and special requirements – even “green” ones – and reviews, and reviews of the reviews, etc., the less likely you are of getting affordable (or low-income) housing of any kind.
David Freed
Clinton
