This site is in beta — data may be incomplete and features are still being added.

MattersParks & RecreationBylaw No. 2237First seen Jan 13, 2025Last discussed Apr 20, 2026

Langford park dedication

Adopted

The bylaw protects 90 City-owned parcels, about 209 acres already used as parks, by formally dedicating them as parkland. The lands include places such as Centennial Park and Glen Lake Beach Park, helping protect green space and tree canopy from future development.

Where it stands: Park dedication bylaw adopted Apr 20, 2026.

Timeline

Every time this matter appeared in council records, newest first.

  1. April 20, 2026· Council

    Bylaw dedicating City-owned parkland adopted

    Council adopted the City of Langford Park Dedication Bylaw No. 2237, 2026, dedicating specified lands as park.

    Discussion

    Council members expressed support for securing public parkland and recognized community benefit; bylaw adopted.

    Decision: Adopted the park dedication bylaw.

    Adopted 7–0

  2. March 31, 2026· Advisory Committee

    Committee recommends protecting 209 acres as parkland

    Committee recommended Council consider giving readings to Bylaw No. 2237 to formally dedicate approximately 209 acres of municipally owned lands as park.

    Discussion

    No public comments; committee supported dedicating existing park-used parcels to formally protect them as parkland under the bylaw and align with the Parks & Trails Master Plan.

    Decision: Recommended Council give first, second and third reading to dedicate approximately 209 acres as park.

    Passed 6–0

    Documents

  3. January 13, 2025·Public comment
    • Lisa FoxallMixed · Woodlands Park purchase
      Supports the park purchase but urges greater cost transparency and keeping the mobile homes to avoid displacing seniors.
    • P HamiltonAsks · Park accessibility
      Asks council to delay adopting the bylaw until plans address accessibility, inclusion, and adaptive features for people with disabilities.
    • A residentConcerned · Woodlands Park purchase
      Criticizes the purchase process for lacking transparency and public consultation, particularly with mobile-home residents.
    • W BowersConcerned · Woodlands Park purchase
      Questions council’s transparency and warns that the purchase and related costs could erode residents’ trust.
    • S. PlankSupports · Woodlands Park purchase
      Supports the purchase as a needed downtown green space and praises the city’s approach to supporting current residents.
    • Joel LankbirdAsks · Environmental and remediation costs
      Asks whether environmental and tree-management studies were completed and urges council to account for unit-remediation costs.
    • David A. LottAsks · Purchase transparency
      Asks whether council members had prior relationships with the park owners and whether other purchases are planned.
    • Rebecca McClureSupports · Woodlands Park purchase
      Supports the purchase, appreciates the owners’ decision to sell to the city, and thanks the city for supporting tenants.
    • S. SeifertMixed · Woodlands Park purchase
      Supports city parks but urges council to slow the process, improve transparency, and give residents a meaningful say.
    • Andrew EllenSupports · Woodlands Park purchase
      Supports the purchase as a valuable, walkable urban park and considers the relocation terms fair.
    • Charles BodyAsks · Park planning and relocation
      Urges council to plan for washrooms and remediation costs and prioritize relocation of mobile homes that may soon lose value.
    • T SunshineSupports · Woodlands Park purchase
      Supports preserving the property as parkland and praises the city’s plan for current residents.
    • A residentConcerned · Park transition and costs
      Asks for a transition timeline, development-cost estimates, and details about the expertise behind the acquisition plan.