Canadian Blue Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 (edited) First the Tories begin musing about putting Alberta back into debt after creating a deficit, now they're essentially contravening property rights to get public projects the go ahead. http://othernews.ca.myway.com/article//200...1052364029.html Needless to say I am mortified by this. If a farmer doesn't want a powerline to go through is property he should have the right to refuse it or at the very least get the compensation he demands. I'm glad I didn't vote PC in the last election as this government has thus far acted incompetently when it comes to finances and has been arrogant towards individuals who want just compensation if public projects go through their property. Edited March 11, 2009 by Canadian Blue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 (edited) now they're essentially contravening property rights People don't have a right to property. Edit: Constitutional, that is. Edited March 11, 2009 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Blue Posted March 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 (edited) People don't have a right to property.Edit: Constitutional, that is. They have a natural right to property which is granted to them once they are born. I am of the view that people are born with inalienable rights and that the government is not meant to decide which rights they may have but to protect their rights. Would you feel comfortable if the government took away your house and everything you earned without getting even your input. Edited March 11, 2009 by Canadian Blue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 Would you feel comfortable if the government took away your house and everything you earned without getting even your input. I may not, but they are very much allowed to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Blue Posted March 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 (edited) I may not, but they are very much allowed to do it. Which is a frightening prospect. Regardless, I will always stand up for the farmer or the community that doesn't want to be forced to have a highway or powerline built through their land. It's their land, they should be able to decide what happens with it. That's where I agree with the Green's in Alberta, the rights of the rancher should to do with his property as he wishes shouldn't be given up to help some corporation. Edited March 11, 2009 by Canadian Blue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noahbody Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 If a farmer doesn't want a powerline to go through is property he should have the right to refuse it or at the very least get the compensation he demands. As someone whose family owns farmland and has been in this situation, I think the legislation does require clarity and restrictions, but I do understand the intent. A real life example was a stretch of highway that the government planned to widen as it had no shoulders and was unsafe. To do this required minimal lost acreage. All the farmers along the highway agreed to the government's offering, except one farmer who was displeased with the government and therefore held it for ransom, asking for millions instead of thousands. So the highway further deteriorated for years to the point it was extremely dangerous to drive on in the winter. It's lucky no one was killed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 As someone whose family owns farmland and has been in this situation, I think the legislation does require clarity and restrictions, but I do understand the intent. A real life example was a stretch of highway that the government planned to widen as it had no shoulders and was unsafe. To do this required minimal lost acreage. All the farmers along the highway agreed to the government's offering, except one farmer who was displeased with the government and therefore held it for ransom, asking for millions instead of thousands. So the highway further deteriorated for years to the point it was extremely dangerous to drive on in the winter. It's lucky no one was killed. So it was the fault of the farmer that the governmetn didn't atleat maintain the original highway? What does widening a higway have to do with maintaining it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noahbody Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 (edited) So it was the fault of the farmer that the governmetn didn't atleat maintain the original highway? What does widening a higway have to do with maintaining it? The government was trying to maintain the highway and make it safer. Due to budget, resurfacing then widening at a later date wouldn't be feasible. Edited March 11, 2009 by noahbody Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 What does widening a higway have to do with maintaining it? Drainage , sloping , correcting original deficiences , leveling , straightening ...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 Drainage , sloping , correcting original deficiences , leveling , straightening ...... And yet they still have the original easement to do that with, doesn't mean that it has to be wider to maintain it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 The government was trying to maintain the highway and make it safer. Due to budget, resurfacing then widening at a later date wouldn't be feasible. Better to keep it safe then let it go. This isn't the owners fault, that the government fails to maintain the existing road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 They have a natural right to property which is granted to them once they are born. I am of the view that people are born with inalienable rights and that the government is not meant to decide which rights they may have but to protect their rights.Would you feel comfortable if the government took away your house and everything you earned without getting even your input. Nope. You can;t swing that argument in any place in the world. While I agree that all humans are born with certain inalienable rights, the ownership of property is not one of them. The BEST that we can muster in Canada are common-law rights which are essentially granted by the Crown. However, in delaing with common-law rights we must also be away that natives have an aboriginal and treaty right which over-rules any common laws that may apply. Nor would we want property laws in the way you want to promote them. The state must always have control for the benefit of the community, province or federation lest the pollution you could create affects us all. Our rights to freedom must always be balanced aginst the right of the individual. Unfortunately whether for powerlines or highways the legal right to expropriate comes with a requirement for proof that it is in the public interests. No matter a farmer or developer cannot hold out for "his price" if it is unreasonable and justifiable. Therefore as a general rule the government offers market value for the land, and that is reasonable and just. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 And yet they still have the original easement to do that with, Cant do any of those properly without widening it. I hate that emminent domain exists, but I see some value in it, only that the rules need to be made more clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 The state must always have control for the benefit of the community, province or federation lest the pollution you could create affects us all. How so? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 How so? It is part of the social contract we protect as a nation, as a province and as a community. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 Cant do any of those properly without widening it.I hate that emminent domain exists, but I see some value in it, only that the rules need to be made more clear. realy how was it built in the first place, I've seen many roads re paved without widening them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 First the Tories begin musing about putting Alberta back into debt after creating a deficit, now they're essentially contravening property rights to get public projects the go ahead.http://othernews.ca.myway.com/article//200...1052364029.html Needless to say I am mortified by this. If a farmer doesn't want a powerline to go through is property he should have the right to refuse it or at the very least get the compensation he demands. I'm glad I didn't vote PC in the last election as this government has thus far acted incompetently when it comes to finances and has been arrogant towards individuals who want just compensation if public projects go through their property. Older conservatives love having their estates and their little wild life project - and don't dare undermine the property they own by being covetess of it - Yet they have grown so arrogant that THEY can have property but it is a no no - for others to have their private little kingdoms - maybe they think they actually own everything ..well they don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 It is part of the social contract we protect as a nation, as a province and as a community. What social contract, I never signed a social contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 What social contract, I never signed a social contract. By way of your birth certificate your parents signed on your behalf you are a contractor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 By way of your birth certificate your parents signed on your behalf you are a contractor. Sorry but there is no contract that the government has legal right to mt property and land. I do not recogize the states authority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 By way of your birth certificate your parents signed on your behalf you are a contractor. The birth certificate, certifys you as property of the common wealth - that you have a right to share in the common wealth - It's an ancient Christian contract that her majesty the Queen adheres to - It originated when the early movement of Christians liquidated private property and put the money in a COMMON PURSE - to be taken from as needed. If you are property of the common wealth then the common wealth is also YOUR property...you own it as an individual and as part of the collective commons...a CONTRACT must travel in both directions not just be one sided..If it is one sided it is in breach! No one singular individual or corporate individual - whether it be even government has the right to take and hold privately what belongs to the commons..that is a breach of the social contract..either we all own it or none do - but not one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 I do not recognize the states authority. Your lack of recognition is rather irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 Your lack of recognition is rather irrelevant. It wouldn't be if it were my proprty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 It wouldn't be if it were my proprty. Yes it would be. They can still take your property whether or not you recognize their authority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 Yes it would be. They can still take your property whether or not you recognize their authority. I would like to see them try. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.