SPARROW (Independent): I agree. With the Township of Langley having 75% of our lands within the agricultural land reserve it only increases our need to be conscious of how we grow on the remaining lands left for urban development. We must ensure that we provide the housing required to support the needs our community, while also addressing the supply shortage that is only increasing the cost of housing. At the same time ensuring we are following the community planning we have in place which protects what makes Langley so special. The balance of urban and rural; our past and our future. Our urban areas will need to have the right kind of density in order to protect our agricultural lands from the pressure of urban development sprawl. 

*Also see previous question regarding my comments on higher density and our fire service. 

WHITMARSH (Independent): I generally agree that higher density can be used as a way to protect ALR land and provide the homes that we need in our community. Well designed, higher density neighborhoods can create a more walkable community, create better opportunities for affordable housing, and provide some environmental protections.

WOODWARD (Contract with Langley): Given the housing crisis for so many, increasing supply is needed to help with the issue. And the Township of Langley is doing that, year after year, day after day. We are building a lot of housing here relative to our population. We need infrastructure

We 100% stand for protecting our farmland and focusing our growth in our urban areas.

Farmland is only protected from development if a Council stands for that with a firm commitment to do so. We haven’t seen that from the status quo policians that are funded by development.

COLEMAN (Elevate Langley): With Elevate Langley it won’t cost anything to protect the Agricultural Land Reserve. It is not a land bank for development – period.

Agree – there is no question that density can improve housing affordability and create affordable – below-market – housing units. Elevate Langley is proposing a mix of innovative solutions in this area. We will also continue to be aware of and investigate best practices as municipalities around the globe struggle with this complex problem.

Historically the Township has had many families that prefer to live on acreages. Younger families simply can’t afford that. Also, many families now prefer townhomes and condo living where the maintenance and repairs are taken care of by the strata.

The reality is that people moving to Langley have much different expectations than they did 50 years ago. This is also true of the people who were born and raised in Langley and are now starting families of their own here.

It also takes density to sustain walkable communities, and not to mention it takes density to convince Tranlink to provide additional transit services, which we desperately need.

Finally, the Development Cost Charges should pay for the infrastructure upgrades and amenity improvements. Please see question 1 above

GARDNER (Independent): It is a myth that increased density alone creates affordability or protects farmland. It is also not a given that it will pay for the necessary infrastructure or amenities to benefit the public. In reality, it can just as easily make all of these things more of a challenge.

For example, adding density can increase surrounding land values and burden infrastructure to the point where farmland is seen as an attractive area to speculate for future real estate, including industrial or commercial land, rather than to productively farm.

In the case of amenities and infrastructure, if appropriate levels of Development Cost Charges (DCCs) and Community Amenity Contributions (CACs) are not set and collected, then we will in fact overburden our existing infrastructure and lack the necessary amenities to support a liveable community.

Merely increasing density also does not, on its own, increase housing affordability either. The type of housing supply matters, and the growing BC Housing waiting list demonstrates that there is clearly a need for non-market housing options for the growing numbers of people who cannot afford market rents and whose complex needs are not met by the market.

Development provides us with an opportunity, not the answer. It is up to council to insist on affordability, funding, and farmland protection. This is done by improving our public policies to align with best practices for achieving these priorities.

ELEVATE LANGLEY (Group Response): With Elevate Langley it won’t cost anything to protect the Agricultural Land Reserve. It is not a land bank for development – period.

Agree – there is no question that density can improve housing affordability and create affordable – below-market – housing units. Elevate Langley is proposing a mix of innovative solutions in this area. We will also continue to be aware of and investigate best practices as municipalities around the globe struggle with this complex problem.

Historically the Township has had many families that prefer to live on acreages. Younger families simply can’t afford that. Also, many families now prefer townhomes and condo living where the maintenance and repairs are taken care of by the strata.

The reality is that people moving to Langley have much different expectations than they did 50 years ago. This is also true of the people who were born and raised in Langley and are now starting families of their own here.

It also takes density to sustain walkable communities, and not to mention it takes density to convince Tranlink to provide additional transit services, which we desperately need.

Finally, the Development Cost Charges should pay for the infrastructure upgrades and amenity improvements. Please see question 1 above

WARD (Independent): It is my position that we should not increase density as a means to pay for amenities. The amenities come as a result of good community design as a benefit and public good to support the population in any particular area. As mentioned in question number one the township has charges in place for amenities and infrastructure levied on developers to pay for infrastructure to support the needs of their residents and surrounding community adjacent to their project. High density should not be pursued at all costs in Langley, but rather best practices and best design should be at the forefront of our minds with respect to new construction.

ARNASON (Independent): No. I do not believe that increased density is necessarily a panacea for housing affordability as there are a number of external factors which drive escalating costs leading to a lack of affordability. These include land economics, inflationary pressures due to demand, exaggerated internal and external migration to the area, as well as offshore investments which tend to further inflate the housing market. The need for new amenities and infrastructure are also correlated with higher densities as more residents and cars create costly road infrastructure requirements, new facilities, and social infrastructure that would otherwise not be required. And finally, the ALR is protected through the Province, whose jurisdiction supersedes that of any local government to determine the use or exclusion of any agricultural lands. In consideration of all of these conditions, decisions regarding density must be carefully considered and weighed around planning principles which can strike the right balance between the provision of more affordable housing and the overall management of growth. If re-elected, I would support a review of our current development strategies in order to enhance affordable housing options. These could include but would not be limited to, an enhanced focus on the non-market sector, as well as the adoption of an inclusionary zoning policy in order to add more rental housing for both below market and the “missing middle” cohort.

CHANG (Independent): Yes, higher density in logical and pre-planned areas in Langley does indeed take the pressure off “urban sprawl” that would encroach upon potential arable farmland. (Maybe say more… but it seems obvious. However, there are people who are just against higher density. They want Langley to be affordable for their kids, but don’t see the connection…)

PRATT (Independent): The housing crisis as we know it will not be solved by only building higher density, but it will certainly be made worse if we continue to build sprawl. Not to mention, this type of development worsens the quality of life for our residents and jeopardizes our farmland and local environment. The issue with the Township is that we have not built density correctly. We have built an enourmous number of homes, which is good, without building any of the requisite aspects of a community that people need if they are to live in a dense area, which is objectively bad. We need to aspire for and work towards much better. So I agree that the ALR will be better protected if we build walkable, complete communities, but if we continue to build these communities in ways that don’t work for people, and they demand more sprawl for more perceived “space”, then we will endanger the ALR.

MORAES (Independent): I agree to growth for more schools and lower property taxes, but disagree if our roads are not done to accommodate that growth. With high demand comes increased cost for families to buy a home. I’m a single mom of 7, buying a home will never be within my reach and rent is becoming ridiculous. Where does this stand for the future of my kids?

CONTRACT WITH LANGLEY (Group Response): Given the housing crisis for so many, increasing supply is needed to help with the issue. And the Township of Langley is doing that, year after year, day after day. We are building a lot of housing here relative to our population. We need infrastructure

We 100% stand for protecting our farmland and focusing our growth in our urban areas.

Farmland is only protected from development if a Council stands for that with a firm commitment to do so. We haven’t seen that from the status quo policians that are funded by development.

RESPONDEK (Independent): High density living will have little effect on housing affordability but it should help pay for the aforementioned amenities/infrastructure as well as protecting ALR Land. Having said that we need a good balance between housing types as areas that are too dense come with a whole host of other issues and problems. Expanding the tax base as well as the business community will help propel Langley Township forward.

RICHTER (Independent): Strongly Disagree – Not livable and will have a major negative effect on what makes Langley special (i.e. loss of green space, trees, and wildlife) as well as Climate Change. In my opinion, we do not need “concrete jungles” in our beautiful community. We need to protect what we already and still have.

TOWNSLEY (Independent): Density makes sense when population is increasing and the desire to economize on land use is present. We can’t develop out so we must go up in elevation and density. Property tax bases rise with density and that would, with proper planning and foresight, build community spaces and fund infrastructure maintenance.

SUARÉZ RUBIO (Independent): I disagree. Housing affordability relies in the interest and ambitious interest that lays in the heart of people. Construction, developers, and owners can set the cost they want or estimate their property at. It is more to say that affordability depends upon the mercy and compassion we apply as people according to the needs and sources of others. We are a free market and as conservative I respect the value of property ; and property rights. But we better move together for the common good on this, because the socialist agenda of social housing of Trudeau can end in another majority government for him; and that scares me more as a leader who opposes ideological agendas.

POITRAS (Independent): I do agree that higher density will be a means to pay for amenities/infrastructure and protect our ALR land from sprawl. However, just building more units is not going to solve housing affordability in our community. Everything from the availability of the raw materials, to the labor, and the population growth versus the number and speculation in the housing market have attributed to unaffordable housing options for home owners and renters alike. As a municipal government, we need to be working to specifically create affordable below-market housing units.

DARNELL (Independent): Certainly not within the ALR, this is clearly not an option. The ALR is important to preserve not just for agricultural purposes but also to ensure the maintenance of one of the most important aquifers in BC.

Density will likely improve affordability but that has to be managed in such a way that affordable housing is mixed with market housing. This will provide economic and social balance.

Density in housing may contribute to walkable communities but that has to go hand in hand with increased professional, retail and industriall space together with Transit Transit Transit so that those who live in beautiful Langley and work in other jurisdictions can be there using Transit.

JOEHL (Independent): Agree. I do not believe we need to deify the Agricultural Land Reserve or canonize those that claim to be “protectors” of the ALR. Having said that, I agree that we can do better with the existing land already approved for residential development. Higher density reduces the physical footprint, which lowers the housing costs because real estate prices are an input cost for the developer. Without urban sprawl our police, fire, and EMS services can serve the residents better, for less cost, and that also would help drive down municipal operating budget. It also has the benefit of having a smaller effect on our environment, but that wasn’t part of the question. Yes, high density is a goal, and while I’m not opposed to a mix of housing that would still include plenty of 0.5-1.0 acre lots, the future of the ToL is heading towards higher-density neighbourhoods.

VAN POPTA (Contract with Langley): Agree. We need to densify to accommodate the influx of people that will move here. Proper densification reduces the pressures to our ALR lands as we move up and not out. In theory, densification should pay for amenities and infrastructure except when they are not reevaluated and readjusted to correlate with real world costs (as has been the past here in the TOL)

KUNST (Independent): Yes, I agree. With 75% of land in the ALR we need to develop smart and sustainably on the land we have which means we need to densify where it makes sense to do so.