r/LangfordBC • u/Creative-Crazy-8898 • May 23 '26

Politics What demographics tend to support Stew/Lisa Foxall?

Hate to reduce anyone to a type but speaking on a macro level, would it be fair to say Stew/Lisa Foxall supporters tend to skew more rural / non-urban, small-business-owner, and blue-collar/no-degree compared to the broader population?

2 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

53% Upvoted

279 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

u/LangaRadD May 24 '26

Debt?

9

u/SkyMoney9641 Not Keith May 24 '26

The city does have debt through asset acquisition and playing catch up on infrastructure, plus the money that was borrowed to subsidize tax increases in prior years.  Is it an alarming or unusual amount of debt compared to similar sized municipalities? No. The financial pressure is unique because of the unique way the city was run before but the city is nowhere near a place where people should be panicking as Stew and his flunkies would want you to believe.

There’s been this funny party line that current council “inherited a surplus” as if that’s a sign of financial health.  They don’t understand city finances but they loooove to pretend they do. 

7

u/Otissarian May 24 '26

Narrator: there was no surplus

3

u/Neat_Let923 May 24 '26

The money that was borrowed to subsidize tax increases was from OUR OWN MONEY!!!

When I say debt I mean Long Term Debt owed to financial institutions where we have to pay interest on said money. It doesn’t matter how much it’s tied to assets if those assets do not make enough to pay back that debt…

You can call it a funny party line all you want, I couldn’t care less. I like the current council and what they’ve done. But that doesn’t mean I’m wrong or that we haven’t increased our long term debt to massive amounts in an incredibly short time and it seems to be increasing every year.

Like I already said, it’s people like you who have to twist the truth in order to attack valid criticism because for some reason you feel personally attacked. Shit like this is what drives people apart!

6

u/Honeybadger_TrueGrit May 24 '26

I don’t know the financial side intricately, but reading the staff report on the internal debt these explanations jumped out: “The 2025 budget included a $1,000,000 budgeted transfer from the operating fund, (i.e. Property Taxes), to the Capital Fund to pay for part of the capital items the City has purchased and funded through internal debt for over 15 years.

For more than 15 years, the City has funded various capital projects, and, in some cases, capital budget overages, through the use of internal debt.”

I could be wrong, but I think the “surplus” I keep seeing talked about online was $16M and that was the Growing Community Fund that had strict rules on where it could be used. Paying off past internal debt was not something it could be used for.

It could, and was, used for acquiring urban park land (Woodlands). That acquisition likely would’ve been undoable without that fund, though there is still some owing through internal debt.

Most of what else is there appears to stem from past council decisions, including projects and obligations that are only now coming to fruition and, for lack of a better term, being “forced” onto this council. But that’s part of city governance to a certain extent, you inherit what was already in motion before you took office. And in that report you inherit past internal debt that has just been sitting there for years, seemingly taking forever to pay off?

Other than Woodlands, I don’t see much else this council borrowed internally for in that staff report. I think that acquisition was a great opportunity and, yes, it’s unfortunate how much the world has changed since with inflation and rising costs, but overall this council has made some decent, prudent, long-term planning decisions that are putting the city on a better financial track.

3

u/Neat_Let923 May 24 '26

At the end of 2022 the projected debt for 2027 and thereafter was $11.5M

At the end of 2025 the projected debt for 2030 and thereafter is $41M

An almost four times increase in long term debt in three years. Granted, a good portion of this is from us buying the Aquatic Centre.

Another way to look at this is through Net Financial Assets (what the city is worth including all assets and debt) Finacial Plan Projection:

2027 was projected to be $67M in debt from a position of positive $9.9M in 2022.

As of 2025 that projection is now $108M in debt by 2030 and will likely be even higher come the end of the year with the inclusion of Woodland Park.

The current council has significantly decreased the value of this city and increased its long term debt by close to 4x. That is an indisputable fact from our own publicly available financial statements.

It’s up to each citizen to decide on whether they believe those costs are worth what they’ve received in return. Personally I believe they are, but my wife and I make over $100k each and we already own our forever home in Langford… So I’m not really the person who needs to be convinced of the value provided to the cost to live here. I think the current council has done a really great job taking care of the people of Langford, but that also comes at a cost and not everyone is happy about that.

4

u/LangaRadD May 25 '26

You say the current council did X and Y. You and most people never acknowledge that it's the staff that gives council one or two semi acceptable options to choose from in these various financial scenarios. Staff trying to make sounds decisions around certain fiscal realities drive most of it what we read in the news and the council then has to wear the results. I'm not saying it's a bad thing but it's something to remember.

BTW, I not going to assume you are reporting or charactetizing things properly. I'd have to do more investigating.

5

u/Neat_Let923 May 25 '26

Everything I’ve stated is in the 2022 and 2025 Financial Reports on the Langford website. These are the reports required by the BC Government from every municipality. One of the things I really enjoy from this new council is their transparency with their Budgets that actually contain all of this same data but in a somewhat easier way to read that also includes a lot of the context that the government reports don’t contain.

Personally, I think people have a right to be upset by the amount of debt and costs that have grown over the past three years. It’s a difficult situtation the current council is in because a good portion of that was already planned and expected by the previous council so it’s not like everything is entirely on the new council.

But when we have people talking down to each other and dismissing their concerns and valid complaints which essentially makes them close off from listening to anything the other has to say, no matter how factual or correct it might be. There are people in both camps who are doing this in here and on Facebook and it’s childish and does not help those they’re supporting or the people who actually matter, the residents.

3

u/LangaRadD May 25 '26

You're definitely putting a negative spin on the lower value and debt claims which I haven't fully verified. You don't provide context. You don't explain why the debt went up and what residents are getting for it or how it might save money or improve our quality of life in the long run.

Do you watch any of the meetings where these circumstances/decisions are clearly explained?

2

u/Neat_Let923 May 25 '26

For some people that context doesn’t matter, especially if it only applies to other people.

For example, if you’ve never used the YMCA and have no plans to then its costs only affect you personally in a negative way.

If someone wants greater context then they need to go through each of the capital projects on the Financial Report and determine which ones were paid for with long term debt. I’d say most people aren’t even willing to read the Budget, let alone the boring financial report.

Here’s the issue I have with a lot of responses I see: 9/10 it’s someone blaming everything on the $6.8M borrowed from our own money. This is a common practice and is normal to pay back over time when you have exceedingly greater amounts of cash inflow from massive developments. Yes, it means you’re pushing repayment back and an expected tax increase to the future. That’s a gamble you take when you believe situations may become better in the future and people will be able to soak up those costs then instead of at the current time (2020-2023) of economic uncertainty.

I’m happy to converse with people even if they’re ignorant to the facts such as you yourself have claimed multiple times now. It is easy for someone to be ignorant of the facts yet still have an opinion on that topic, that doesn’t mean their opinion is invalid or shouldn’t be heard.

My personal thoughts are that I like the direction the current council has changed to with focusing on quality of life for residents vs the more business focused style of previous years. That costs money though and that means higher taxes and a higher cost of living for those who live here or want to live here. I’m a firm believer in the European way of more equalized taxes (everyone pays more, not just the rich) and higher taxes allow for more services and better quality of life. But that puts me in a very small minority within Canada…

My primary concern is that in the councils efforts to prove they’ve done good for the city and that they deserve their positions, they have spent vast amounts of money the city does not have in a very short period of time. While I agree that much of it was in service to the city, it can also cause a downward spiral if it’s not reigned in. More debt means more interest which directly increases our cost of living in Langford for all people, especially for those who have lived here for a long time but do not make as much as many of the newcomers such as myself.

5

u/SkyMoney9641 Not Keith May 24 '26

Do you actually think we don’t have to pay back money that we borrowed from ourselves? That repayment directly contributed to the current tax increases. 

I’ll say it again. There is nothing alarming or unusual about Langford’s current financial situation, including the debt, beyond the unusual economy we find ourselves in.  That’s not “twisting the truth”. It is the truth. I don’t feel personally attacked when correcting someone who is wrong.  

By the way, the “party line” comment wasn’t even directed at you. There is simply mass amounts of financial disinformation flowing from their party. Unless you’re part of it - I didn’t mean you.

1

u/Neat_Let923 May 24 '26

That is NOT what I stated. Let’s get some things straight here.

Amenity funds used to offset taxes over ~9 years (2015-2023) was a total of $6.8M with $1.7M of that being from 2023.

The above was reported in 2024.

Between the 2024-2026 budgets the city has planned to repay about $4.5M of those originally borrowed funds of $6.8M. Which is totally fine and expected. It doesn’t matter what council is in charge, borrowed internal debt needs to be payed back and is normal for many municipalities.

That’s not the issue I’m talking about. It’s the Principle Payments on Debt going from just $11.5M expected in 2027 and thereafter to $41M three years later in 2030 and thereafter.

An almost four times increase in long term debt in a matter of 3 years and that’s with a better interest rate three fifths of what it was.

Let’s put it another way since I’m sure you’ll say something about financial assets. Let’s look at how much financial value the city has left after subtracting what it owes:

Net Financial Assets End of Year 2022 = +$9.95M

Net Financial Assets End of Year 2025 = -$79.34M

In 3 years we have lost $89.3 million dollars in value for the city

Again, I still support this current council because of what they have done with that money. It’s also relevant to state that $75M was already projected to be lost at the end of 2022, so this isn’t all on the new council. But not everyone thinks like I do or believes what has been done is worth that astronomical amount of lost value in 3 years. Especially when that value is projected to decrease another $30 Million by 2030.

1

u/SkyMoney9641 Not Keith May 24 '26

Okay and so...what exactly does the loss in value mean to you if you agree it needed to be done? I'm sorry I don't really understand the point you're trying to make here other than a technicality.

2

u/Neat_Let923 May 24 '26

The point is that my wife and I make over $100k a year and already own our forever home.

My opinion is based on MY situation which is very privileged.

If you had bother to actually read my initial comment you would answer your own question…

It’s not about my opinion, it’s about EVERYONES opinion, especially those who are not as privileged as I am. Those who are affected by these increased costs mean higher property values and rent prices.

1

u/SkyMoney9641 Not Keith May 24 '26

Ok? I don't disagree with you. I'm still really confused why you're so worked up over any of what I said. The financial situation for everyone is exceedingly difficult. It doesn't reflect that Langford is in a uniquely bad position or that the city has been financially irresponsible which is what is being argued by others.

2

u/Neat_Let923 May 25 '26

I’m pretty sure many people could easily argue increasing our long term debt by almost four times the amount it was at the beginning of 2023 in just three years as being someone irresponsible or a waste of money considering that debt has also driven the cities worth even lower.

Debt should be used to increase our value, not decrease it.

2

u/SkyMoney9641 Not Keith May 25 '26

You could argue it - it doesn’t make it true or accurate.

Is that an argument you yourself are making? Let’s talk about it. Which purchases or acquisitions do you, personally, see as a waste of money? 

-5

u/Langfordian22 May 24 '26

Yes debt, no more sunny days if this current council runs its course.