City of Surreys corporate interests vs. the will and well-being of the people

” Surrey- the future lives here.” – City of Surrey motto.

” In Surrey, cash from developers trumps the safety of the citizens” ~ Death by Diesel website.

Once upon a time, in a land far, far away from the hustle and bustle of big city life, was the community of South Surrey. Bucolic fields of hay surrounded lovely, young neighbourhoods in some parts, older established homes in others. Of course, such an area attracted many young families eager to escape the noise and pollution inherent to big city life, in addition to to the more professional crowd, and a large population of seniors.  

Life was good.

Children played, seniors shopped and visited, moms and dads relaxed in their back yards after a long day at work, enjoying the quiet reverie such neighbourhoods provide. Shops began to spring up, and soon the area was nearly self sustaining, to the delight of many.

That is, until the big trucks started using 32nd avenue as a shortcut from the highway to the City of Surrey’s new industrial development – Phase 1 of the Campbell Heights Business Park : http://www.surrey.ca/files/Campbell_Heights_Brochure_2011.pdf

32nd avenue is currently only two lanes wide and runs right through the heart of several neighbourhoods – Morgan Creek, Rosemary Heights, Grandview Heights and Kensington Prairie – but the city is now planning to widen part of this avenue to a major four lane  artery to “accommodate increased traffic flow.”

No kidding. If you build it, they will come.

Currently an estimated average of 700 large diesel trucks with trailers -often piggybacked – are already rolling down 32nd avenue with alarming frequency, right through densely populated neighbourhoods and right by schools. There have already been accidents and residents worry about the safety of both themselves, as well as children in the area once the avenue widening is completed and even more trucks are using the route. This is in part because of the speed with which these trucks are driving on this road, but also because of the toxic diesel exhaust they are spewing non-stop, on a daily basis.

The business park is  currently only 10% occupied… and it doesn’t take a city planner or traffic analyst to see what’s coming for these neighbourhoods. And believe it or not, with so much high density residential development here, 32nd avenue is still designated a truck route, although for many years previous to 2003, it was not.

Residents of the area began to wonder what was going on, and how this could happen to their community. And so the 32nd Avenue Alliance was born. They investigated, they called, they questioned, and what they found was a can of worms that no one seemed eager to open.

Co-chair of the Alliance, Ross Buchanan says the city is in a conflict of interest when it comes to addressing the issues along 32nd avenue, and the Campbell Heights Business Park, of which 32nd avenue goes directly to.

The Surrey Development Corporation is the anchor developer of the business park. The corporation is wholly owned by the city of Surrey, and mayor Dianne Watts, city manager Murray Dinwoodie and councillor Linda Hepner sit on the board of directors. ( yes that is the same Murray Dinwoodie who was a negotiator on the provincial RCMP contract despite the fact that the city of Surrey already was awarded the E division headquarters- but no conflict there, right? ; )

 When the direction of the development corporation diverges from the duty of the mayor and council to act in the best interests of those who elected her, this is perhaps the situation that occurs.

From the Death by Diesel website – a must read that I could not have researched better myself . The concerns and issues raised are truly alarming in context :

Conflict of Interest…To further complicate the matter the City of Surrey is in a conflict of interest. The Surrey Development Corporation is the anchor developer of Campbell Heights Industrial Park. They are wholly owned by the City of Surrey and the Mayor and Councilor Hepner sit on the Board. The City of Surrey bought a large tract of agricultural land at the corner of 192nd street and 32nd avenue from the province for $35,000 per acre. In total the city owns 800 of the 2000 acre industrial site. The city flipped the land they bought from the province from “agricultural” to “industrial” and are now selling the lots for $750,000.00 per acre. In addition the city will benefit directly from hundreds of million of dollars of new tax revenue. There has been no Environmental Assessment of the impact of thousands of diesel trucks a day racing through our communities spewing their toxic cocktail of deadly exhaust and what is clean is that none of the politicians want an Environmental Assessment because of what it will reveal. There has been no Environmental Assessment nor is there a willingness to conduct an Environmental Assessment because they know what the answer will be…and it isn’t what they want to hear.

For the last year we have been getting the run around from all levels of government. Both politicians and staff. The Mayor and Council in Surrey tell us that the designation of 32nd avenue as a Truck Route is the responsibility of Translink and has nothing to do with the city. The CEO of Translink has provided us with a letter clearly stating that the designation of Truck Routes in Surrey is the responsibility of the Mayor and Council. We find these conflicting statements confusing .

We asked the Chair of the Environment Committee at Metro Vancouver for a mobile air quality monitor to collect the data on diesel exhaust emissions along 32nd avenue. He informed us that MV “has an agreement not to interfere with anything that Dianne has happening in Surrey”. The province tells us that Metro Vancouver has Regulatory Responsibility for Air Quality in the region yet the Chair of the Committee refused to do anything that would be perceived as “interfering” with Surrey even though lives are at risk and the city is killing us. We have asked Joe Transollini, the Chair of The Environment Committee as well as the Chair Lois Jackson and the CAO Johnny Carlyne to clarify this situation but have received no response. It should be noted that the Vice-Chair of this committee Surrey Councilor Linda Heppner also sits on the Board of Directors of Surrey Development Corporation who is the anchor developer for the 3 square mile industrial zone. Terry Lake the Minister of Environment has written us informing us that… “As you are aware, EMA has delegated authority for air quality management and air pollution control to the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) within Metro Vancouver. Therefore, any requests for additional air monitoring are at the GVRD’s discretion.” We have met with the Environment Committee of Metro Van and to say the least they are “confused” with what their roles and responsibilities are and have committed to clarifying what their job is with the ministry.

In addition we have requested a meeting with our MLA Kevin Falcon. His assistant has indicated that Kevin Falcon is not available to meet with us to talk about how he may be able to help his constituents. We are left to wonder if the fact his money guy Ryan Beedie is also a key developer of Campbell Heights has something to do with our MLAs refusal to meet with his constituents?

What is clear?

  1. The conflict of interests that exist between the politicians and the big money from developers that is behind them and which controls them on one side and the citizens of Surrey on the other side has corrupted the planning process in Surrey. The collusion between developers and their political puppets in Surrey is unethical.
  2. The fact that the City is now its own developer and has established the Surrey Development Corporation which is controlled by and reports to the council means that the citizens of Surrey have lost the objectivity of an independent council. The council has become the developer!
  3. The jamming of a five lane thoroughfare through a narrow opening in the heart of these high density neighborhoods without providing for the safety of the public with adequate setbacks is immoral and will result in deaths from both Cancer and Truck Accidents.
  4. There are already highways with setbacks that have been built for the highway trucks and which are readily accessible to the highway trucks. What is it that we don’t know? Why is it that the city is so determined to run thousands of 18 wheelers a day through our neighborhoods within mere meters of pre-schools, community centers, playgrounds and nursing homes when there are other alternatives already available?
  5. In Surrey cash from developers trumps the safety of the citizens.

My, my, my…. all the same names, in yet another location. No wonder council makes noises and laughs when presented with a request for a delegation of residents to present their concerns. Video link: http://www.deathbydiesel.ca/surrey_council.html

 Just to be clear, this is not the first issue with this business park, nor will it likely be the last. The development has been under fire from day 1,  and it continues to be a questionable action on behalf of the mayor, who has supported and pushed for it for years- despite admitting the first phase wasn’t handled well.

How much money was spent running city utilities and services out to this remote location?

Why would anyone place a truck-dependent business park out in the middle of nowhere, on routes lined with residential communities?

How can the mayor and council remain independent of influence when they are sitting on the board of their own corporation whose goals may very well be, in this case, at odds with the sustainability and livability of an entire region?

And what chance do those who are trying to save their homes, their health and their peace of mind have when faced with so many stone walls in opposition?   

Well, we have the truth. And we have Egyptians right here in Surrey.

Numbers of residents in opposition to the City of Surreys plans for 32nd avenue are growing quickly, and if you live in this area and want to lend your support, please check out

http://www.deathbydiesel.ca/contact.html to get in touch.

**note, while I could not find anything in Surrey newspapers about this issue, the Peace Arch news have been covering it for sometime. http://www.bclocalnews.com/surrey_area/peacearchnews/news/125519438.html

There will be more to come on the  interesting ALR land deals in South Surrey- some  also involving numbered companies and potential conflict of interest with officials – shortly.

25 thoughts on “City of Surreys corporate interests vs. the will and well-being of the people

  1. John Sugden

    More and more we are learning that the mayor of Surrey is not as ‘wonderful’ as she was made out to be several months ago. Maybe she should live up to her previous reputation and do something for the good citizens of Surrey.

    Like

  2. Grant D

    We should boycott the Canadian Superstore/Loblaws because the big ugly Atlas warehouse is theirs. The only real busy one down there, with dozen and dozens of loading bays.

    Like

    1. Laila

      hmm, yes indeed, I had completely forgotten about this, Concerned. Takes a lot to make someone like that step down. I wonder if it has anything to do with certain numbered companies that bought some ALR land in that area as well ?

      Grant, while that is a great idea, I don’t know a lot of people can afford to buy groceries elsewhere! But that is an angle to look at with the trucks, perhaps these people could contact Loblaws. There are alternate routes to take, two different highways to take trucks off 32nd. There is no need for it, but the city keeps passing the buck. They asked once before to take 32nd ave off as a truck route in 1999, and it was, until 2002. So, they can ask again. Apparently the metro Van people dont want to deal with this either and no one seems to want to go against Ms. Watts.

      John, this is just the beginning. I think everyone is done with the kind of deals and backpatting of the Campbell era, and we see far too much of that here in Surrey. You can’t sweep everything under the rug and except it to stay there forever. I know this area well, and can confirm there are far too many big trucks going down 32nd as a shortcut, rather than taking other routes. With the setback of only 4.5 metres when the expansion is done, they are asking for a disaster when one of those trucks goes off the road.

      Like

  3. Gary

    No bloody wonder Watts was wanted for the Liberal Party leader. Now we know why she didn’t want to leave Surrey just yet, too busy feathering her nest. She is just another Clark/Campbell clone after all.

    Like

    1. Laila

      Gary, there is a file folder of reasons Watts did not run for the leadership…

      unionwill, never know what happens in a few weeks. Should be interesting but we’ll have to wait and see where the cards fall.

      Like

  4. unionwill

    Diane Watts.A do nothing mayor in the back pockets of developers.Laila there seems to be a lot of stuff going on behind closed doors in your community.SFPR and now this.What’s next?If you guys don’t get a chance at getting Falcon and Polak this fall then at least you’ll be able to have a go at Watts and her gang in november.At least that’s a start.

    Like

    1. Laila

      From that link above:

      The battle for industrial land is heating up in Surrey with the city buying up property and going head-to-head with private developers.

      The city-owned Surrey City Development Corporation is facing a serious clash with major developers after purchasing land in Campbell Heights.

      The corporation, the first of its kind in Metro Vancouver, manages city lands and generates revenue through real estate investments and joint developments with the private sector.

      Its controversial land purchase has led to the resignation of a director on the corporation’s board and angst among developers who warn the city is potentially setting itself up for a fall similar to Vancouver’s Olympic Village fiasco.

      “They’re entering an arena they know nothing about,” said developer Ryan Beedie, who owns about 70 acres in Campbell Heights. “They’re buying land and bringing it to market when there’s already ample supply … they’re going to compete head-to-head with us.

      “There are a lot of developers who don’t make money and go broke. It’s not all sunshine and roses.”

      Beedie said developers took a risk going into Campbell Heights, which “10 years ago was nothing,” to start building it into an industrial park.

      Now they’re facing competition from the city, which is selling land to the market at a time their own properties haven’t taken off.

      Eric Carlson, of Anthem Properties, said Surrey officials aren’t playing on a level field with the private sector.

      Carlson said the corporation will likely see advantages in getting permits, rezonings and setbacks because of its connections with the city, especially if the market softens.

      SCDC’s website states that while the corporation is owned by the city, it must “follow the same project approval process as the private sector.” Projects are underway in both the city centre, including the new city hall, and Campbell Heights.

      Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts, who sits on the corporation’s eight-member board along with Coun. Linda Hepner, said the city is trying to ensure it has the land it needs to attract strong businesses and create jobs.

      To that end, the city has signed a purchase agreement with the provincial government to buy 250 acres over five years in Campbell Heights North, where it wants to develop a clean energy and technology hub. It also owns hundreds of acres in Campbell Heights east.

      “The city owns public assets so we want to capitalize on those assets and develop a revenue stream that comes back to the city,” Watts said. “What we want to do is make sure the end user is a business that brings jobs to the city; we’ll be working with the development industry. I’m sure there may be some competition in there but we’re trying not to do that.”

      She said developers had land-banked property they bought cheaply in Campbell Heights years ago, but “our intent is not to compete with the private sector.”

      But Michael Geller, a planning and development consultant, isn’t so sure Surrey is making the right decision. He stepped down as a director from the corporation last month, saying he didn’t “fully agree with some of the things” the group was doing.

      “I share some of the concerns expressed by developers that the corporation is potentially competing inappropriately with the private sector,” he said.

      “I have the greatest admiration for the mayor [but] the city needs to be very careful when it embarks on development activity as evidenced by the experiences of the City of Vancouver in southeast False Creek.”

      Geller noted it’s not unusual for municipalities to be involved in real estate.

      Vancouver’s Property Endowment Fund is worth more than a billion dollars. And the City of North Vancouver has been active in assembling land for redevelopment in the Lower Lonsdale area.

      The difference, said Geller, is that most municipalities limit themselves to simply assembling land and servicing it with utilities — leaving the job of building things to the private sector.

      “The Surrey City Development Corporation is acting much more like a private developer than any of the other cities and municipalities,” said Geller. “It’s actually trying to build buildings and attract clients and tenants who might otherwise go to another developer.”Besides Watts and Hepner, city manager Murray Dinwoodie is also a director on the corporation’s board, along with four independent directors including Ken Nixon, Allan Davies, Hugh Matthews and Milton Wong.

      Jim Cox, who heads the development corporation, insists his group is kept at arm’s length from City Hall and some projects have already been rejected. He did add, however, that the corporation often gets projects approved because they are compliant with what the city wants and are consistent with neighbourhood plans.

      “I can understand the perception but it’s not the reality,” Cox said. “We’re really in the business to make money.

      “Our view and the city’s view is we want to have land ready and available for businesses that want to come to Surrey. If somebody wants to come over here and set up a factory we want to be able to accommodate them.”

      Cox said the corporation is in talks with one tenant interested in a large parcel in Surrey, and added it is also hoping to reap some more business from the mayor’s business trip next year to India.

      He said the corporation doesn’t want to discourage developers like Beedie and Carlson but it wants to ensure it has the land it needs.

      Cox argued the concept isn’t new, noting Calgary and Toronto also have development corporations.

      Any proposals will still go through the city’s economic development committee, which always lists all the potential developers on site, and all land will be sold at market terms.

      And since Beedie focuses on build-to-suit tenants, he said, the corporation would look at doing something else in Campbell Heights.

      “Surrey has big industrial land holdings and a big objective of creating jobs out here,” he said. “We don’t think it’s going to be another Olympic Villa

      Beedie is a huge Falcon-ite.

      the 32nd Avenue Alliance asked for a meeting with Falcon as well, he was ” far too busy” as per his assistant, to meet with his constituents, as is Cadieux.

      What both Falcon and Watts both are underestimating, is how angry people down there in Morgan Creek are, and how popular the conservatives are there as well, the bleed off of these neighbourhoods from the Liberals to other parties or candidates is going to be a hit to the purses of them all.

      As well as Watts. She is quickly losing vital support down there among the well -heeled who have supported her with votes and $$ in the past. One can only ignore the people so long before they turn on you. Ask Campbell. Rather ironic all these messy deals stem around the ‘CAMPBELL’ business park.. ; )

      Like

  5. Ken Paisley

    I find it interesting that while it seems most buy the “growing the economy” line, they just don’t want it in their backyard when it happens. I am particularly amused when those who want to make points drag out the popular “what about the children” line, to help plead their point of view. Let us not forget that any vehicle can run anybody over, a large truck is just more intimidating than say a Honda Civic. What about the pollution? Some say. Well again, the movement of goods to support the growing economy is required, but again not in my backyard.
    I’m thinking that citizens are accepting of the graft and corruption that has been prevalent in BC politics and has truly become “business as usual” and I think that we are just mostly envious we are not personally included in these opportunities to become wealthier.
    The ALR has been under assault since it’s inception and many have made it their business to circumvent the regulations and again most don’t notice till it happens in their backyard.
    Some would say that people are not paying attention but I would say that people just don’t give a damn until they think it directly effects them. BC is a great example of “Greed Rules”.

    Like

    1. Laila

      Ken -I hear what you are saying.

      True, no one wants this in their backyard. But in this case there is no reason for that road to be carrying trucks – not while it is a two lane avenue, nor under the expanded version.One might ask the city planners why it was not thought out to expand a road, PRIOR to building so much right around it and leaving little easement or buffer? See the photo on their site, of how close the trucks will be driving to the playground- thats not an excuse that is a reality.

      Highway 10 was widened to bear the burden of trucks travelling on the smaller routes- in fact on 64th, truck traffic is banned for much of it alongside high density housing, schools etc.

      Trucks are using this as a short cut to highway 99 rather than travelling north to highway 10, a designated route with concrete walls and berms to protect residences. The city has declined to build such features along 32nd. Trucks can also use highway 15, again with ministry standard setbacks for protection of residences, again, no such setbacks could ever exist along 32nd avenue.

      These residents tried many times with many different departments, agencies and ministries to work out a solution. None is forthcoming.

      I think it is sad that it takes something like this for many people to get involved, but the upside is that they are now involved and perhaps open even more eyes to what is to going on in the process.

      As for your statement that you think most people are just envious that we are not included in the wealth… perhaps you speak from your point of view, but dont put your words in others mouths. I certainly dont think that way, nor does anyone I know or work with. When you see the same names coming up in contracts and land deals and conflicting situations over and over, the outrage that comes as a result is not from envy , but from true anger that the system is being worked and plied to supplement a chosen few.

      Curt, you are right, this started under McCallum and is finishing under Watts. She has been a full supporter of this the entire time. I really don’t think she cares much for what happens to the ALR in Surrey, or much of what environment is left. See this story of the cities plans to pave over a huge area that is gorgeous, for a new neighbourhood out along… again… 32nd avenue.

      http://www.bclocalnews.com/surrey_area/surreyleader/news/124739349.html

      A huge tract of green space is set to be paved for residential development, causing the city’s environmental watchdog to immediately call for a halt to the plan.

      The city is preparing the Neighbourhood Concept Plan (NCP) for Grandview Heights Area #4, which includes 487 acres of property in South Surrey.

      The neighbourhood abuts Redwood Park to the South, 176 Street to the west, angles to 32 Avenue to the north and to 184 Street to the east.

      The city is planning residential development, along with some multi-family residential, to make room for 8,000 to 9,000 people.

      The reaction from the city’s Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) was strong and swift. The committee indicated the NCP steamrolls highly sensitive ecological areas identified in the city’s new Ecological Management Study (EMS), an overarching plan for Surrey’s environmental assets.

      “If there is any credibility to the EMS then this development should not happen,” the committee said in the minutes of its May 25 meeting. “This NCP is 100 per cent opposite to the EMS.”

      EAC Chair Al Schultze told The Leader Tuesday the NCP being considered for the area will ruin beautiful second-growth trees and wildlife habitat.

      “The biggest concern is there’s a huge area with a second-growth forest that’s about 80 years old,” Schultze said. “Most of that will be gone according to the three plans that they have for it. And we’d like to mitigate that damage to save more forest.”

      That forest, he said, is about the size of Redwood Park.

      The EAC passed a motion to request an audience with council as soon as possible. At the following meeting, council directed the committee to staff and the Citizens Advisory Committee.

      In a letter to council Monday, the EAC expressed its umbrage at being rebuffed by council.

      “On behalf of the members of the city’s Environmental Advisory Committee, we would like to express our surprise, disappointment and frustration with council’s recent decision to not hear a delegation from our committee regarding the EMS and the Grandview (NCP4) developments,” EAC Chair Al Schulze wrote in a letter to council June 23. “We would like to point out that we have not abused the privilege of speaking directly to council, only having made this request three times in the past two years.”

      Mayor Dianne Watts said Tuesday the group has not been declined an audience with council, pointing out the process is in the early stages. Staff are engaging in public consultation, she said, adding it’s premature to hear from the EAC. Typically, the council representative would bring the issues before council, she said.

      Coun. Bob Bose, who sits on the EAC, said the committee has become discouraged.

      “There’s an overwhelming frustration that development always trumps important environmental issues,” Bose said.

      He said the NCP4 is distant from city services, meaning a huge investment in infrastructure, such as sewer and water.

      “The only way they can make it financially viable is to develop every last square foot of the area,” Bose said. “The best and highest use for that area is to leave it alone.”

      What more can be said? I’ve been pointing out for years how the mayors priorities are skewed!! She will not stop developing even when existing schools, services and infrastructure is overloaded. But then again, the company her husband works for is a preferred supplier to the city of Surry for pipes and fittings, so of course it won’t be a problem to run all those sewer and water lines out there.

      Like

  6. Curt

    If my memory serves me correctly, this is exactly what McCallum was doing as he too was in the hands of the developers. People finally booted him out. Watts is NO different. I have watched neighborhoods totally destroyed by the continued building of the ugly rowhouses and townhouses. Houses being built on main arteries feeding on to the highways within 50 feet of said roads. Why anyone would anyone even buy is beyond me? They’re not even cheap. Surrey is getting to be not so nice a place to live. We have, and are considering moving out. To watch the destruction of farmland (ALR – how is it some can get it out and some can’t) turned into mega warehouses is disgusting. And as long as Watts is in and Falcon and the lieberals, this will continue. It’s all about the money and not about the citizens of this city, this province. I look forward to the next election(s).

    Like

  7. Kurtis

    There is the key to a lot of this. What deals does she have going on the side? Is the mayor the director of any of those numbered companies? how much money does her husband or his family make from supplying the city? I was down there just last week around 8am and saw a bunch of trucks flying down 32nd. they take forever to brake, I would worry about so many on a road like this too.

    Like

  8. Julie

    I don’t live in the Vancouver area. However, it’s the same all over BC, money does the talking, and to hell with the residents.

    What does concern me is, the farmland that is vanishing all over BC as well. We are in a, global shortage of food, which is only going to get worse. The stupidity of the site C dam, destroying the most fertile farmland in Canada. For what? The Alberta dirty tar sands and fracking. Will we too, be able to have free home heat, by lighting up our water taps, as they do in the U.S? The threat of losing more and more fertile farmland, in the Vancouver area for urban sprawl. Well, it just makes me boil.

    Then we have Harper, with his plans to be an energy giant. Never mind the, terrible, drastic poison of the tar sands. The dirty tar, has a very long reaching arm, which Harper wants to spread into every country, that can be conned into buying the filthy crud. Campbell is supposed to, peddle the filthy tar sands in England. I’m hoping all the info sent ahead on Campbell, will have the Brits, waiting for him at the airport, with rotten eggs. Harper very badly wants to be a big shot, and bask in the power and glory, of Canadians vast natural resources You had better believe, Harper will pollute the entire globe, to achieve that. He is going to exploit BC’s natural resources, just watch him.

    Harper and Campbell did a lot of dirty work, to steal BC, into a terminal illness. And, watch for the other pollution plans, Harper and Campbell set up for BC. It is totally asinine, our government has allowed Norway to kill off our wild salmon, and all the other marine creatures, that are dying, because of the dirty feces of the fish farms. Campbell has destroyed our salmons runs, by thieving our rivers and selling them. The bears, eagles and many wildlife creatures depend on the salmon. Our First Nations, also need the salmon to feed their family’s.

    When in the hell is enough, enough?

    Like

  9. Sarah

    I’m always curious and frustrated when I hear of companies or people (John Les, anyone?) that are able to somehow easily get through all the red tape and change acres and acres of ALR land into real estate. My mom’s family spent a significant amount of money and countless hours following all the steps and filling out all the paperwork needed to try and get ONE ACRE of the family farm subdivided off so a second driveway could be built into the property, but it was rejected because the farm is in the ALR. Yet, 250 acres of fertile land is going to get covered in concrete and warehouses and it’s somehow no big deal? To say nothing of the fact, like Julie mentioned, that we should be treasuring and preserving the land we have available to grow food–we’re lucky to have it, and it WILL be needed in the future.

    Like

  10. driveon32

    There seems to be a lot of hypocrisy here.

    Do these people think the gasoline exhaust from their luxury SUV’s is good for air quality?

    Do they think taking that ALR land they want to keep out of industrial use is better off being turned into a subdivision for their wealthy friends?

    Do they live in some sort of fantasy land where passenger vehicles don’t get into crashes and injure or kill people?

    Yes, I do think that things should be looked into to make sure things are on the level (which I’m sure they are not), but these radical claims and sensationalizing are not fair.

    I drive a truck. I drive it on 32nd ave. I’ve even delivered to the rich hypocrits it seems who live in Morgan Creek.

    Like

  11. i have to reply to the truck driver:
    – hypocrisy: there is none of it from my point of view and in my ever so humble opinion.
    – luxury SUV, you got to be kidding me, what gives you that idea, I bet you drive the newer and mre luxury car than I do… plus you are the lucky one, you have a job and you can work, I am on disability and my luxury is or would be, A DAY WITHOUT PAIN.
    – subdivisions for my wealthy friends, I am in stitches now, you got it all backwards buddy, the Mayor has these friends and is wealthy and has very wealthy friends, not me/us, she wants to turn the Campbell heights into a developers pit, she has interest in that land, not me/us, why do you think they turned to land into industrial lots from agriculture ones? ching ching all the way to the bank for the Mayor and her council involved.
    – fantasy land, you are another one that wears horse patches and can’t see what’s in front of you, of course we know that any car can ill, we should know, we live in Nuvo and we already had 2 accidents, cars are flying into our amenity building which is not even meters away from the playground. we live in REALITY LAND and the Mayor and the Surrey Council lives in La La Land or should I say in the money making Land.
    – lastly, I have nothing against trucks, none of us do, I have trucker friends and this is not a vendetta against truckers, it is against the City of Surrey, Translink and Metro Vancouver, hopefully one of these days somebody will take the actual responsibility and rectify their mistake the clean up the mess they created.
    oh, one more last thing, I am not rich, at least not what money is concerned, I am rich inside as I have a passion for right and wrong and I have common sense, which seems to be rare, so yes, I guess in many ways you rigth about that.
    you don’t even know who we are, the 32nd Ave Alliance group, we are all more or less anyway, townhouse owners and far from filthy rich as you label us..
    .what you are talking about are the people with their huges house and they all have huge setbacks and are not that concerned at least not like we are, they don’t have as much to lose, we do, the ones that live 7 meters or even less from the truck route, we are screwed by the City and City Planners, Surrey builds first and the thinks, it should be the other way around, the roads streets need to be build first and than you can build a community around it, not have a truck route go through residents back yards and bedrooms.
    we don’t have the means to just get up and leave, we sell we lose, and why should be have to move when the City screwed up and forget to think about the people, that is criminal and negligent. The truck route was removed from the network from 1999 until 2004. we already have adequate routes in place, and since you are a truck driver, you are and must be well aware of them and should use them as they are the ones wirth proper setbacks.
    Morgan Creek is not only an area for and with all rich people, we are lots of people with small townhomes and are normal people like you and me, we are not all high paid professionals, lots of us are just getting by like anywhere else in Surrey or BC or in Canada.
    please visit out website and get all the inside scoop, or read Laila’s blog or Jim van Rassel’s.

    Like

  12. idriveon32

    Maggie, are you saying that morgan creek was not built on agricultural land?

    That is hypocritical. Agricultural land is agricultural land. Why is it ok to build an expensive subdivision there?

    This is most definitely a case of NIMBYISM.

    And like I said, I do think things should be looked into, but there definitely is a vendetta against trucks, the website is called death by diesel for crying out loud. The header is a truck grill. The trucks are rocketing off the roads and going to kill everybody.

    If that isn’t sensationalizing and trashing truckers I don’t know what is.

    How do you think the food gets from the agricultural land to your grocery store?

    And no, I don’t drive some fancy suv, I drive a pos 97 car that gets good mileage and I pretty much only drive it to get to work and back.

    I’m not pro-business vs the little guy or citizen. I like unions and the ndp, and do not like the corrupt bc liberals or the CPC, but truckers are constantly being harassed and basically being called killers for trying to do their job. The only time they get any respect from the public is when they are delivering directly to them. Otherwise we’re all assholes who should be in the slow lane of the highway on the outside of town, like the goods somehow magically get into the trucks while they’re on the highway.

    Like

  13. Curt

    I believe the Watts family are about to make alot of $$, most likely millionsss, when the whole 32nd avenue widening, build up of industrialization, homes, etc. takes place as they live 2 blocks away from all this development, with business already being run out of the property. Conflict? You bet.
    Mayor Watts, should not now, nor should ever have been involved with the development on the south side of 40th Avenue east or west. No politician with vested interests should be allowed to sit on boards, committees, etc. while in office, and when they leave, no participation for a minimum of 5 years.

    Like

  14. Thank you Curt, I full heartedly agree with you about the Mayor and the conflict of interest. her family members should not be given the priority in dealing with the City, tendering should be done and if it is done, everybody should get a chance, but they don’t, it goes directly to the their families and friends, all inside jobs, how is that for being “fair”, crooked and corrupt any way you look at it.
    dear “idriveon32”, I have common sense, so I know how “material” is being delivered, but you are comparing apples and oranges, the odd truck is not in question here, we are talking about a 5 lane truck route roaring through our very high density corridor, that is our issue, there are truck routes in place that have the setbacks and you know it, why should we have to suffer on the City’s profit? the only ones that profit and benefit from this insane and stupid plan, is the Mayor, the Council and the developers, period. we are small fishes that is why they don’t give a crap.

    and absolutely NO, you are not an asshole in my eyes, you are a truck driver and person like me that likes to come home at the end of the day and have a nice and safe home to go to.
    when we say diesel exhaust kills, that is a fact, however, if the setbacks for homes on truck routes are adequate (recommended is 150 meters), our home is 9,45 m now, after the expansion it will be 7 meters only, the playground only 4.5 meters. in order to not get affected by diesel exhaust, the setbacks need to be 750 meters… so you can see how far the fumes travel and how very harmful they are. we are not making this up, these are facts.

    and everything at one point was agricultural land, lets face it, the difference here is that this is being forced on us and it puts us in great danger, healthwise and trafficwise. the City of Surrey ownes 800 acres of the Campbell height park, they turned it from agricultar to industrial and they are selling an acre for 3/4 of a mill. can you see now who profits, certainly not us, we are the ones that get screwed and over-run.

    I used to work with truck driver and like I said some of my best friends are truck drivers. I have great respect for them, always have and always will. I also had several clients that were truck drivers, so please stop putting yourself down, nobody else is, at least nobody with common sense, we know how hard you guys work.

    Thank you 🙂

    Like

  15. idriveon32

    Maggie, thank you, and I agree with you about the conflicts and everything. It just seems from the website that it is using the trucks as a focal point, rather then the conflict of interest. I guess whichever tactic gets the most attention. Corruption in Politics in BC doesn’t seem to upset the majority of people it seems, other wise I can’t explain the BC Liberals re-elections.

    Like

  16. Grant D

    I always thought this development should have been up off 96 towards 200.
    Is that not where the SFPR starts ?
    There is a ton of warehouses there and more are going up.
    Safeway moved their operation ( Summit) to there.( and canned 400 workers.)

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s