Young described the access himself
In a largely favourable 2018 Douglas profile1, Young described annual retreats bringing councillors, staff, business representatives, and developers together to set priorities in the budget process.
The article also described infrastructure projects becoming priorities when developers were willing to contribute money. Young presented those partnerships as a way to build more with limited municipal resources.
A city organized around speedy approvals
The profile reported that, after the 2008 downturn, Langford eliminated residential building-permit fees and offered ten-year tax holidays for new government office space and rental accommodation. It promised subdivision answers within 30 days and building-permit approvals within 48 hours.
Developers objected. Council shelved the dust bylaw.
At the December 5, 2016 meeting, Les Bjola, representing the West Shore Developers Association, asked council to defeat the proposed Dust Control Bylaw’s first three readings. The minutes record council’s response2: remove Bylaw 1666 from the agenda and refer dust management to the developers’ association to work with staff. Young was present.
The industry facing the proposed rules asked council to stop them. Council complied, handing the issue back to that same industry. That is a concrete example of whose objections could change the City’s direction.
A 2023 engineering report3 confirmed the draft had been withdrawn. It also noted existing dust-mitigation provisions and enforcement difficulties with a separate bylaw. The next council eventually adopted new construction-impact and dust-control rules in May 20264.
Developers’ frontage work came with a City subsidy.
In 2017, Young’s administration introduced artificial turf on boulevards and development frontages. The City’s March 2023 review5 described a 65% City, 35% developer split for installation costs. Developers paid all installation costs for conventional sod. Langford also took over turf maintenance earlier than the industry-standard point described by staff.
After more than five years of experience, staff said the expected savings had not materialized. Artificial turf required more maintenance visits than projected, cost more to repair, and left the City responsible for the full replacement cost after an expected 10–15 years. The following council directed staff to remove the artificial-turf requirement and restore standard maintenance and warranty arrangements5.
The deal shifted most installation costs and earlier maintenance onto the City on the expectation of savings. The later review found those savings had not been delivered. This concerns boulevard and frontage landscaping, rather than sports-field turf.
The criticism of that model
Young gave businesses seeking City approvals organized access to the setting of City priorities. Residents outside those relationships had to rely on the public participation process.
Young’s model gave the development industry organized access to priority setting. Langford should have made that process easy to scrutinize: participants, agendas, recommendations, and the path from retreat discussion to public budget decisions.
Read alongside the reported difficulties residents faced in public hearings, the imbalance is clear: developers joined priority-setting retreats while residents struggled to get information and be heard.
Sources
- Paul Willcocks, Douglas: Seven Secrets to Langford’s SuccessJune 1, 2018: Young’s description of retreats, partnerships, and approval targets.
- December 19, 2016 council agenda: December 5 minutesPrinted pages 3, 6 and 9: attendance, developer objection, and removal of the dust bylaw.
- June 5, 2023 engineering report on dust controlWithdrawal of the 2016 draft, existing provisions and enforcement considerations.
- City of Langford, May 22, 2026 construction-impact updateMay 19 adoption of the Good Neighbour Policy and Community Standards Bylaw.
- March 20, 2023 staff report: artificial turf in boulevards, and signed council minutesAgenda pages 59–61: 2017 policy, 65% City installation subsidy, earlier maintenance takeover, unmet savings and replacement costs. Minutes item 8.1: direction to remove the requirement and restore industry standards.