Editor:

I couldn’t agree more with Pam Erikson (“Tuscan development not welcome,” letter, Nov. 12).

The Salmon River uplands and nearby North Otter neighbourhoods are beautiful semi-rural areas that define Langley’s motto of “Where City Meets Country.” People are happy living here.

Unfortunately, my gut feeling says that the Township is looking into the future for the next area to redevelop, once the 200 and 208 Street corridors are built out. That’s what the planning department is supposed to do, of course. Therefore, it could be no coincidence that two of the proposed routes for a water line to Aldergrove pass near the uplands.

It also brings to mind a comment from a planner that the Mufford overpass road ends at 64 Avenue and 216 Street for “future planning.”

Look at a map: 64 Avenue ends in the uplands. Now also take a look at the sewer line being built to Aldergrove. It takes a huge detour north to Robertson Crescent, then back south again as it nears Aldergrove. That’s a lot of extra pipe to save a bit of money each year on pumping costs. Of course that route brings the line a lot closer to the southern edge of North Otter.

Only the most naive wouldn’t realize the impact sewer and water lines have on the developability of an area. I fear the Township is using the Hopington aquifer debate to distract area residents from “the plan.”

It goes like this: “Since the water table is dropping so fast, we’ll build you a water line, but of course we’ll need to develop the area to pay for it.” It is sort of selling your soul to the devil.

In a democracy, we deserve to have a say in how our neighbourhoods evolve. All too often the public is only told about a plan after it has been mulled about internally at Township hall for years, and rarely are we told how all the pieces fit together. It’s time for some transparency in local government planning. Tell us what you’re thinking, 10, 20 and 50 years out.

Until then, don’t put the wagon ahead of the horse. Accepting an application for a 65-home subdivision in an area where water is a problem, and where there is already a moratorium on development, is wrong. The applicant should have been told “not at this time.”

We need to sort out the issues first, starting with "do we even want development here?" It makes more sense to densify existing urban areas to maximize the benefits of transit, roads, parks, pools, etc. The planning department needs to think about building up via apartments and townhouses, not horizontally via urban sprawl.

Ross MacIntosh, Aldergrove