A lot of caution is needed with the forwarding of the numerous messages that purport to be about “urgent“, freak-out issues.

There may be some truth to the content, or the issue might be important, but there is a whole lot more about them that is suspicious, and a lot less that is authentic.

The ‘senders‘ have names but it’s doubtful those are real live people with whom you could have an intelligent discussion.

Speaking the truth is one thing, but embellishing and hiding behind phoney names indicates someone, or some group in the background stirring up controversy, with evil intentions.

The truth liberates people.  Sly, sneaky stories sown and spread by using a smattering of truth cannot produce an open and healthy interaction.

Beware of any message that contains these sorts of pressure tactics to pass this along to your friends.  When you try to trace the original, those messages begin to look really suspicious.    They kind of remind me of the letters that would circulate, many years ago, that urged you to send this to on at least five of your friends.   Failure to do so would surely bring some sad misfortune your way.

Baloney then, and baloney now to mindless trust, and endless regurgitation of “urgent” communication from anonymous sources.


What do you have to say to Muslim women, who want to live like free Canadian women, Prime Minister Trudeau?  Motion 103 is not innocent.  It feeds right into the Islamic drive for world domination.

…………….and another Muslim woman speaks……..Maybe we should listen to people who understand what they are talking about.

……and the articulate Sarah Haider……..

Since the City of Abbotsford refuses to answers my questions, and since the matter of slapping an underlying zoning in my community that threatens the very existence of this last bit of unique affordable housing,…… I will continue to show the obvious bias and the cost to the community, when Mayors and Councillors lack the courage to enforce the by-laws that they have written.

Recently someone who lived on Townline Hill told me that, in his opinion, all the large houses up there contain multiple illegal suites.  And that, I fear, is what the future will be like here.  The mobiles will disappear, along with most of the trees and green space.  Three-story houses will pop up, paying for themselves with under-the-table rents on illegal suites.  Those land-lords can easily pay the higher municipal taxes, that come when large houses drive taxes up for entire neighbourhoods.

All illegal suites represent households that make NO contribution towards communal infrastructure.  People who own apartments or condos do pay taxes that contribute towards roads, police, parks etc. People who live in illegal suites contribute nothing, the dwellings are essentially hidden.  The landlords pay nothing on behalf of those hidden dwellings, and presumably, pay no income tax on their illicit rentals.

Less municipal and federal taxes paid by scofflaws equals more taxes demanded of honest people. This inverse relationship allows cheaters to get richer while the rest of society bears a heavier financial load.

Developers, builders, tradesmen who abide by the rules cannot compete with underground activity like this, so the affordable housing crunch is intensified with swelling numbers of places that have never been approved for structural safety, fire escape,  mould problems,……all those quality controls are by-passed.

The fellow I mention above said one house had nine rental units, and some of the properties pave over their lawns because the streets cannot accommodate all the vehicles from so many illegal suites.  In my years of trying to get our leaders to enforce the rules so that all Abbotsford enjoys a level playing field, I too pointed out houses that contained multiple illegal suites, but the City dilly-dallied, gave anemic noises and basically did nothing.

Cheaters prosper here, but the City actually does enforce by-laws,…….selectively.  That’s another story.

There is a message to the children who grow up seeing parents cheat the system, and it is a harmful role model that teaches children to despise the framework set up to govern our communal lives.  We’re seeing lots of criminal activity from kids who think it’s fine to break the law.  How much of that comes from watching parents’ examples?

Our Mayor and Councillors know about the proliferation of illegal suites in the City they govern.  So does our Police department, and the fire-department.  Neighbours know.   Tradespeople know.  But our leaders lack the conviction or courage, or maybe fear a backlash at the polls at election time.  Whatever the reason, that proliferation of illegal suites is sweeping our City.

Mayor Henry Braun and our Council seem bent on removing our Land Use Contract and replacing it with an RS3 zoning that will allow monster houses to gobble up my community.  Lots of guys were knocking on doors last summer, wanting to buy.  One of them said to my neighbour, upon being offered the door, “Surrey is coming!”    ………(Like,….resistance is futile.)

Why do our elected leaders want to yank the zoning out from under the homes of folk who bought here in faith, eradicate our affordable housing, to accommodate a Surrey landscape of monster houses and illegal suites?

The societal costs are evident on Townline Hill.

Reprint of August, 2016 post of my exchange with Councillor Dave Loewen below: 

August 30, 2016

Hello Dave:


As in the past, you are one of the rare councillors who bothers to answer your emails.  So thank you, and here’s my answer to your critique:


Our Land Use Contract is 44 years old.  All Provincial LUCs trump all municipal zoning.


The Province has set the year 2024 as the end of the line for their LUCs.  That is eight years down the road.


The BC Government’s mandate is indeed inevitable, which we all know, but you are quite wrong when you add the word IMMINENT.


Your move, between July 11th and 25th,  to grant a release from this LUC that has so wonderfully protected us since 1972, was at best thoughtless, maybe mindless.  You attempted to spring something of enormous import to us in the middle of a hot July summer vacation time.  A few cards dropped in your mail box (on the 12th?)  A few ads in a local newspaper that is not well read.  AND NO RE-ZONING SIGN ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

And somehow that satisfied you, and our Mayor and your fellow Councillors, that you had done right by the city you govern. 

You, like Mayor Braun last evening have nothing to say about my central message, that ‘granting’ residents all of a 10 day window to hear about and act upon a Public Hearing, that directly impacts on their lives, is outrageous.   One couple here came home on July 26th.  The woman’s eyes dilated and her hand flew to her heart upon hearing that but for one alert man, their community would ALREADY have been on the way to mobiles gone, replaced by a three-story house and suite.  They were only gone for a few weeks.  Surprise!


I got your card on a Thursday and wrote a short letter that my little grandsons delivered for me in overwhelming heat. Had to pay them big for that. Thankfully one man understood more clearly than I did, just how illegal your swift move was, and on the day of your Hearing, you withdrew 2090 from the agenda.



Maybe all of you on Council get so into the rote of rubber-stamping everything in front of you that your minds are in danger of atrophy.   Because no thinking adult would not see that,……… what you did was shabby.


You allowed K.K. Gill, a woman who purchased 2090 Oakridge in March of this year to apply for the removal of the LUC, that she knew was on the property.  Staff confirm that approval of her application would have set a precedent.  There are numerous ‘landlords’ waiting eagerly for this to happen.


My reference to decisions made behind closed doors is not about your two-year Official Community Plans, to which the public was invited.  I’m referring to the years of watching Council.  When you come out and dispense with items before you in minutes, if not seconds, its obvious those things were all decided before hand.


Some of my neighbours favour the removal of the LUCs and I heartily endorse our collective freedom to express our views honestly and openly.


Nor would I ever object to home-owners being able to rent out one suite in their home, or even two rentals if they own larger parcels.  Because as you say we need more available housing, and many homeowners are hard-pressed to make ends meet.


You know that for YEARS I have consistently asked you, our Council, to “Make the rules by which we can all live communaly in relative health, wealth, peace, harmony and security.  For that to happen we need you to be leaders who are intelligent, courageous, just and fair.


You who make the rules under which we all live, therefore have to make laws that are first doable, reasonable, written with the good of your community in mind, and last of all, but enormously important is that YOU ENFORCE THE RULES THAT YOU HAVE CREATED, AND YOU ENFORCE THEM ON ALL OF US EQUITABLY, AND WITHOUT BIAS.


Sadly, that, Dave is where you and your Council colleagues have let Abbotsford down.


I’ve come to you people for decades now, asking that you either enforce the by-laws, or else admit you’re impotent to do so, and then just remove them and let everyone out on the playing field.  For years you have averted your eyes as landlords have stuffed their dwellings with illegal rental units, and become filthy rich as they’ve been allowed to by-pass Development Cost Charges, costly building codes, city building inspectors, no contribution on behalf of all their hidden tenants towards the communal costs of roads, schools, police, parks,…….or the upkeep of City Hall and your salary.  And lots of sweet, under the table rent money.  No annoying reports to government.  No taxes on that rent money.


Do the math.  The honest developer or landlord pays for all of the above, AND he reports all income faithfully to the government, so that he can pay his fair share of taxes to the government.  Not so for the scofflaws who’ve been using agricultural land, the lowest taxed land of all, and turning them into massive truck parks, turning fertile land into hardpan, dumping oil, gas and lubricants onto the land where it seeps into the aquifer.  No business licence, no taxes,….just the free flow of money into the owner’s pocket.


Of course you know all this.  You have been a Councillor in Abbotsford for many years.  You are well-connected.  You drive your car, presumably with your eyes open and alert.  If all that fails you,…. take a little plane trip over the city you govern, or look at Google maps.  You’ll easily see large truck parks making easy money for the owners.  Say $200. to $300 per truck, each month.  Continual flow allowing for 50 to 100 trucks easily, and no taxes to pay, because, after all these are not registered, legal businesse.


Yes, I could easily live with larger homes with a secondary suite here in my neighbourhood.  But I know way too many of those large houses are apartment houses, not traditional homes.  You’ve gotten away with brushing off complaints from affected neighbours for a long time.  They give up and you get voted back in.  Good job.


You and your colleagues lack the courage to enforce the rules you write.  Your laws are only for law-abiding residents.





On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Dave F. Loewen (Councillor) <> wrote:

Good Morning, Gerda,

I have several points to make in response to your presentation to Council:

1. The Land Use Contract for the property in question dates back to 1972; 44 years – another time and another government. I find it difficult to understand that after a period of that length of time, one would not accept that change is inevitable, if not imminent.

2. The City has just concluded a two-year period of updating our Official Community Plan, which included numerous opportunities for the public to engage in dialogue with staff regarding proposed changes. Every parcel of municipal land was subject to this review. At the end, a wide variety of zoning changes were adopted, including one that affected your neighbourhood. One fundamental change is that secondary suites will now be allowed throughout the city, with only a few exceptions (eg. Cul-de-Sacs, lot size, etc.). In a time of escalating home prices and unaffordability issues, these suites will offer an avenue for young people and those on lower income to find accommodations in our city.

3. And that brings me to my third point – your neighbours have made investments in their properties, which I’m sure, many hope will provide financial security in the future. Your position would deny them the opportunity to capitalize on their position to either sell at a more favourable price, or develop it themselves with a suite to generate additional income. This opportunity is yours as well.

4. My last point is simply a reiteration of the first – the OCP Review was a two-year period with ample opportunity for public input. How can you say, with any integrity, that that is a “behind-closed-doors decision”?


Dave Loewen

Sent from my iPad

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Gerda Peachey <>
Date: Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 9:03 AM
Subject: Abbotsford Council
To: premier <>, Darryl <>, “deJong.MLA, Mike” <>, “Gibson.MLA, Simon” <>,, Rich Coleman <>, Henry Braun <>, Conflict of Interest <>

Dear Premier Clark:   I am appealing to you to speak to our Abbotsford Mayor and Council on my behalf, and that of my neighbourhood.  Municipal leaders have their authority at the pleasure of the Provincial government.  But when the authority of local leaders is abused, you, the senior government have the power to step in and fix things.

I’m appealing to you Darryl, because you are my MLA.

I’m appealing to you Mike, because you personally know the lay of the land, in all of Abbotsford, the Fraser Valley, and specifically my neighbourhood because you have engaged in the buying and selling of properties in my community.

I am appealing to the Conflict of Interest people because they seemed to believe that I could ask my City for answers, but that is not the way it is here.  (See Conflict letter below)

I am not appealing to you Mayor Henry Braun., because you have already, through City Manager, George Murray stated that you want no communication from me.  I am only sending this to you because, unlike you, I do not talk about people behind their backs.

This appeal to you Premiers Clark and MLAs Plecas and deJong is for you to direct our City Mayor and Councillors to answer questions about their plan of bringing the Provincial Land Use Contracts to an early end in the area of Oakridge Cr, Lombard St., Monarch Court and Crystal Court.

To date the neighbourhood has had a fair bit of interaction with City Hall but much of it verbal, and some of the answers, due to the nature of verbal communication, do not mesh with one another.

I have repeatedly asked the City to provide clear WRITTEN answers to some fundamental questions, and they refuse.

However Mayor Braun and Councillor Siemens, in particular have not been reticent to speak.  They abused the power they wield at the Council table to publicly accuse me of “spreading misinformation.”    They used the very public, aired on TV, forum of the Regular Council meeting of October 3rd, to slander me, knowing full well that I was not there.

So I asked them to WRITE exactly what it is that I have misinformed my neighbourhood about, being conscious of my lack of inside information, there is always the possibility of being in error.  But these men refused to do that.  So Richard applied to be a delegation to Council.  They refused that.   So I applied to be a delegate, to respond to their very public slander of my name.  They refused that.

It’s not that I want or need the approbation of such ‘leaders‘.  The problem is their designs on my neighbourhood.

Their process from the start has been fraught with lack of communication, error, murkiness and now silence.  We are to simply wait and hope that when the City deigns to come to us with an information meeting, all will be well.   But I have little reason to trust in men who have conducted themselves in such a shabby way.

And so I ask that you speak to them, and require them to do their jobs on our behalf, and for our good.

If the RS3 the City slid onto our properties, holds, after your LUC is removed,  then this last little bit of affordable housing will have been stolen from many of the current owners, and granted to the land-use speculators waiting in the wings.

The pattern in Abbotsford has been too clear.  Buy up the affordable housing, maybe pick up a critical mass.  Generally we’ve watched these rentals decay to slum status because the speculators are just holding them for an opportune time to ask Council for a re-zoning.  We now see whole streets being swept of affordable housing and replaced by high density, or, so-called ‘single-family‘ homes that become large structures hiding multiple illegal suites.

That is why I have challenged successive mayors and councils for many years,…..because of the growth of ILLEGAL suites, and the ILLEGAL use of agricultural lands for giant truck parks, and the growth of many illegal activities under their watchful eyes.

Illegal means dishonest, it means cheating, it means deceiving, it means stealing.  It means that Abbotsford’s growth has enriched the scoflaws while holding back the honest folk who want, and try to live by the laws that are supposed to govern all of us.

Over the years, I have had many conversations with mayors, councillor and staff at City Hall.  Everyone knows these things are true.  Some staff have even dared to whisper gratitude that people attempt to speak out against this awful uneven playing field, where cheaters prosper and our mayor and councillors let them.

But now the fight is personal.  This Council has slapped an RS3 zoning under your LUC, a zoning that expressly DENIES the very thing we are.  We are all, mobile and modulars.  RS3 forbids mobiles and modulars.  There has been no response to my repeated requests for this strange concept of ‘grandfathering‘,……a grandfather graciously allowing us to remain on the land we bought.  Legal non-conforming continuance, with some conditions??????   From Conflict email below:

I also encourage you to talk to the Abbotsford Planning Department with regard to your questions about grandfathering. Grandfathering is a term used to describe sections of the LGA that address legal, non-conforming uses. Grandfathering may allow an existing, legal use to be continued when a new land use bylaw is adopted, however there are a number of related conditions and limitations.  In your case, there may also be specific details around LUC No. 13 and the LUC termination options, so it is best to talk to the Abbotsford Planning Department directly.

What can be right about changing zoning behind the backs of the people who bought in good faith, those who pay the taxes that pay for all things City Hall?

There was no hint of such a future designation in the  original LUC covering our purchase of land designated back in 1972 as mobile on self-owned land.  If the City gives the land-use sharks the zoning they want many people will be forced to move.  And affordable housing may come to mean renting an illegal suite in a mega-house for more than the mortgage some of these folk are now paying.

If this sounds cranky, it is based on knowing that we have been governed by mayors and councils who averted their eyes and shut their ears to flagrant abuse of the by-laws that they, Council, wrote for the running of Abbotsford, the City they are elected to govern well.

So please direct them to do the job they are paid to do, on behalf of the tax-payers of Abbotsford.  Answer specific question, and do it in written form so that there can be accountability and no ambiguity for land-owners.

Thank you.

Gerda Peachey Ms. Peachey,

Email of 10/17/16 – Thank you for your emails of September 19 and 22, 2016  to the Honourable Peter Fassbender, Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development regarding the termination of Land Use Contract (LUC) No. 13, Discharge Bylaw 2552-2016, (applicant – K.K. Gill).  The Minister has asked that I respond directly to your concerns about the process undertaken by the City of Abbotsford to discharge the LUC and to address the other issues you have raised.

As you may be aware, LUCs were first enabled under the Local Government Act (LGA) in the 1970s. At that time, the legislative provisions (LGA s. 546) allowed for the discharge of a LUC by bylaw with the agreement of the land owner and the local government, and that authority remains in place today.  In the case of Bylaw 2552-2016, it is my understanding that the land owner applied to have the LUC discharged from their property using this legislative provision and it was being processed accordingly. I understand that the bylaw was recently defeated.

Changes to the Local Government Act through Bill 17, 2014, provided for the termination of land use contracts in two other ways.

1)       A new requirement that all LUCs will be terminated in 2024 (LGA s. 547), and

2)       An early termination option that local governments may use (LGA s. 548).

All of the termination options require that a Zoning Bylaw be in place on the land before the termination is finalized. It is the local government’s responsibility to apply the type of zoning to the land.

I have been advised that the City of Abbotsford is interested in undertaking a comprehensive review of LUCs for the purpose of early termination under option 2 above and may be scheduling public consultation in the near future.  For further information about the City’s early termination activities, you may wish to contact the Abbotsford Planning Department directly at 604-864-5510 or

I also encourage you to talk to the Abbotsford Planning Department with regard to your questions about grandfathering. Grandfathering is a term used to describe sections of the LGA that address legal, non-conforming uses. Grandfathering may allow an existing, legal use to be continued when a new land use bylaw is adopted, however there are a number of related conditions and limitations.  In your case, there may also be specific details around LUC No. 13 and the LUC termination options, so it is best to talk to the Abbotsford Planning Department directly.

With regard to your concern about the length of notice periods, I wish to advise that the notice period for public hearings for the discharge of LUCs is the same as the notice period for public hearings on other types of planning and land use matters. This notice period has been in place for many years and changes are not being contemplated.

With respect to Bill 17, while it was introduced by the Honourable Suzanne Anton, Minister of Justice, different sections of the Bill were put forward by different ministers.  As noted in your email and in Hansard, it was the Honourable Coralee Oakes, as the former Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, who addressed the planning and LUC provisions.

With regard to your final point, if you have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that there is a conflict of interest by a Member of the Legislative Assembly, you may apply in writing to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. The application should outline the grounds for your belief and the nature of the contravention.  Your application must be signed and can be faxed 250-356-6580 or mailed to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, First Floor, 421 Menzies Street, Victoria, BC V8V 1X4.  Further information is available on the Office of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner’s website.

Thank you for taking the time to write to the Minister with your concerns.


Meggin Messenger

Executive Director, Intergovernmental Relations and Planning

Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development


Cathy LeBlanc, M. Sc. Pl., MCIP, RPP

Intergovernmental Relations and Planning

Ministry of Community, Sport & Cultural Development

(250) 387-4049