From the newspaper - The Cumberlander

by Mary Reynolds

RIP KIP. In a nutshell, when the RD held hearings in Union Bay in March 2006, CEO Bob Long repeatedly assured the residents Langley Lake would not be considered as a water source. Residents supported the project with that specific condition as water was a concern among many.

Then in the fall of 2007 the RD advised the community Langley Lake would in fact be the water source for Kensington. We were told we had no say in the matter. There would be no hearings, votes, etc.

Is this fair? Could anyone involved in this entire process realize something just didn't seem right? What did it take to correct this and ensure all residents are treated equally and fair? Surely, at least one of the numerous elected officials or those claiming to represent our best interests. You would think. Nope. We all knew what happened but those mentioned above when contacted insisted the community supported the project. No one would admit the community wasn't given an opportunity to speak regarding this completely revised version.

What it took was for BSASS, a group of dedicated individuals to spend endless hours and money and endure the wrath of those in Union Bay who feel it is acceptable to personally harrass those they disagree with. The members of the BSASS should be praised for their fight for fairness on behalf of our community - no one else cared. It was obvious to the judge the community had been wronged. It wasn't a legal technicality. It's basic fairness.

Now all of this is bad enough. It gets worse. Here's a comment from Leigh Carter on the judges decision published in Fridays paper. “From our perspective, we felt due diligence had been done,” she said. Could she explain how she knew the new terms were contrary to the promises made to Union Bay residents and absolutely nothing stirred in her brain to give her pause? At what point and who made the decision to use Langley Lake and put it on paper?

Then there is this one from same article, the UBRA spokesperson: "I think there’s been an injustice done,” said Susan Hargreaves, for the group. “(This) has cost us court money, has cost the developer millions, for Union Bay it will mean we will be bearing the full cost of water ... this indecision has cost us.” But it wasn't an injustice when the residents opposing using Langley Lake were cheated out of their right to be heard? This group has been the unofficial mouthpiece for KIP. The UBRA was formed for the sole purpose of promoting and supporting KIP. The following is a quote from the UBRA meeting notes 13 July 2006: "Jack Turner spoke about a report he had prepared based on information gleaned from contacts. This resulted in discussion about water - with agreement that the amount available from West Van Lakes is not as great as has been stated. It was agreed that Langley Lake will have plenty of water if the dam is raised as proposed. The solution to the water problem will be solved by whoever is elected by residents." Not 4 months after the RD hearings, a group of self appointed citizens changed the terms of the project.

Same article: Brian McMahon, vice-president of Kensington Island Properties, said the community has lost a great opportunity. He must be referring to the opportunity to be screwed by a developer. The minute Mr. McMahon and his supporters decided it was okay to deny/ignore fellow residents is when he lost my support and a great many others.

There is also the issue of conflict of interest regarding the personal relationship between Mr. McMahon and a trustee of the UBID for the last couple of years. The UBID board claimed a conflict did not exist and refused to take any action. The trustee refused to step down until this past April Annual General Meeting. I've been told congratualtions are in order as she is the new Mrs. Brian McMahon. Are we to believe no conflicts existed until there was a ring on her finger?

Same article: The Court’s decision is deeply disappointing and casts doubt on the future of the Union Bay project. Kensington Island Properties has faced tremendous and unnecessary adversity in attempting to move forward, investing significant resources over the years without success,” said the KIP release. KIP forged ahead pumping money in developing the golfcourse without approval because they were sure it was a slam dunk. 'Unnecessary adversity' - translation: some residents had the backbone to stand up for the community as a whole and stop this unforgivable treatment.

All of those involved refuse to believe they did anything wrong. Why isn't anyone asking how this happened. Heads should roll over this because it has been ongoing for a number of years. The number of people involved in pushing this forward is large and it wasn't an oversight, it was intentional. Union Bay Improvement District trustees who served during that period, Union Bay Residents Association directors who served during that period, former RD CEO Bob Long who lacked the backbone to come clean with the residents. The entire RD Board at the time who attended the hearings in Union Bay and then those same members who attended Nov. 2007 meeting changing the bylaws allowing the project to proceed and showed no interest in the descrepancy.

All of the above purposely deceived an entire community. They should be facing consequences for their underhanded actions - not still defending them. These people cannot be trusted any longer.

It's pathetic a group of citizens are all we have to stand up for our basic rights because those elected or self appointed have their own agenda. To the BSASS a huge Thank You for taking a stand.

Mary Reynolds
Union Bay

Additional background at: http://allthingsunionbay.blogspot.com/2007_04_27_archive.html