Cottages for sale on Native Lands? Serious Question.

[Mr.Canada]

We have a trailer right now to get away to on the weekends and we're outgrowing it as we're spending more and more time there so we're needing something bigger. Ok, so now we've recently been looking at buying a waterfront cottage around Owen Sound. We've seen plenty for sale on MLS but some are on the Native reserve up there.

I know non Natives cannot own Native lands so if I was to buy a cottage on Native lands do I lease the lands from the local band?

Is this how it works?

I know between C.r and Shwa they pretty much know everything about these things so I thought what better people to ask. I figure people who dislike my online persona are much more inclined to give me a straight and honest answer.

Thanks.

[Borg]

I know I am not one of those you asked, but I will tell you it is nothing but trouble.

Sooner or later you will either be asked to leave or be told to leave.

You will leave your assets behind

Too many examples out there to ignore

Borg

Edited July 8, 2010 by Borg

[Shwa]

We have a trailer right now to get away to on the weekends and we're outgrowing it as we're spending more and more time there so we're needing something bigger. Ok, so now we've recently been looking at buying a waterfront cottage around Owen Sound. We've seen plenty for sale on MLS but some are on the Native reserve up there.

I know non Natives cannot own Native lands so if I was to buy a cottage on Native lands do I lease the lands from the local band?

Is this how it works?

I know between C.r and Shwa they pretty much know everything about these things so I thought what better people to ask. I figure people who dislike my online persona are much more inclined to give me a straight and honest answer.

Thanks.

I'd move to Owen Sound if I could - beautiful country indeed. However, the winters are out of the question for the spouse.

Honest answer: http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/scr/on/ni/nwshie-eng.asp#Leases

Leases on First Nation Reserve Land

The Crown, as represented by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, is the lessor for all leases on reserve lands. The Crown leases reserve land at the request of a First Nation and its membership.

Land that is designated under the Indian Act may be leased for any purpose authorized by the designation document. The designation of land is commonly used to authorize the leasing of reserve land to non-members of the First Nation, or to a First Nation corporation for commercial, recreational or residential development.

Although many leases contain standard departmentally approved clauses, every leasing situation is somewhat unique. All lessees should carefully review their lease agreement to ensure they understand the terms and conditions and their obligations and responsibilities under the lease agreement. If lessees are uncertain about the meaning of the lease agreement, it is advised that they consider seeking independent legal or business advice from a professional.

Payment of Rents

Consistent with the normal process for any lease administered by INAC, all the rents paid by the lessees are held in trust for the First Nation by the Crown. These revenues are accessible to the First Nation.

Make sure that everything is copasetic with INAC and the Band before signing any lease agreement, especially private ones.

[TimG]

I would not touch property on indian land until they offer fee simple ownership like the Nisga are doing.

[Wild Bill]

We have a trailer right now to get away to on the weekends and we're outgrowing it as we're spending more and more time there so we're needing something bigger. Ok, so now we've recently been looking at buying a waterfront cottage around Owen Sound. We've seen plenty for sale on MLS but some are on the Native reserve up there.

I know non Natives cannot own Native lands so if I was to buy a cottage on Native lands do I lease the lands from the local band?

Is this how it works?

I know between C.r and Shwa they pretty much know everything about these things so I thought what better people to ask. I figure people who dislike my online persona are much more inclined to give me a straight and honest answer.

Thanks.

I would keep in mind that no matter what understanding of your legal position when you lease the property things could change without notice!

The developers at Caledonia thought they were within the law when they started the Douglas Creek Estates. The Six Nations protesters thought differently and the situation became a mess for all involved.

We have seen that issues can suddenly surface that are a surprise to some of the people involved. We can argue about who was responsible but what earthly good would that do you? You would have gone through all the usual channels. Ordinary citizens do not have the resources or the psychic powers to identify or predict all the possibilities.

As we also saw at Six Nations, different political groups can develop that have power within the band at different times. Who's to say that some activist group might arise that has issues with your lease and any property involved?

Myself, I would not invest a dime in any such situation. Without the rule of law you would be totally vulnerable! McGuinty showed that if things heat up he will NOT protect the average citizen!

Again, it doesn't matter if the natives would be right or wrong in such a situation. If protests occurred over land you had leased you would be "in the soup". Again, McGuinty has shown that legal resolutions would take years, if ever!

You have to plan for future possibilities. The political situation over your desired cottage property may seem stable today but what about 20 years from now?

I could see if you REALLY loved the property you might drop a mobile home or trailer on a lot. If anything ever happened you could then simply drive away, with no deep losses.

Again, my advice is to ignore all the politics and legalities and simply look at the example. If you make any investment it will be at risk. That's the simple truth!

There are native spokespeople who claim that natives own ALL of Canada! You want to trust the situation over a cottage lot?

[charter.rights]

The very simple end of it is that when the lease is up, the cottage is no longer yours. Under the terms of the leases, the cottages would revert with the land to the owners.

In the case of the Chippewas of Nawash, the cottagers had 2 years to remove personal effects before they were evicted. The band did not renew the lease and the cottages lost all their cottages.

[Shady]

As far as I'm concerned, native land is on Canadian land.

[charter.rights]

As far as I'm concerned, native land is on Canadian land.

No one cares about what concerns you.

Canada doesn't have any land. All lands are under treaty with First Nations, or subject to consultation with First Nations.

In fact the reverse is true. All land Canada claims is on native lands. Check out the Royal Proclamation 1763. It says so.

[Bonam]

Safer just to stay away from it. Better to do your business (buying land) with people who aren't likely to stab you in the back and chase you off it with protests. Better also to enter into contracts which the government will actually enforce, rather than simply capitulating to the other side because they are "special".

Renting a cottage on a monthly/yearly basis on their land could be ok though, if such options are available, because then worst case you just lose the cost of one month/year.

[Wild Bill]

Safer just to stay away from it. Better to do your business (buying land) with people who aren't likely to stab you in the back and chase you off it with protests. Better also to enter into contracts which the government will actually enforce, rather than simply capitulating to the other side because they are "special".

Renting a cottage on a monthly/yearly basis on their land could be ok though, if such options are available, because then worst case you just lose the cost of one month/year.

Quite logical. Anyone who would enter into a contract that is not truly binding is a fool, whether its with a native band or a corrupt corporation. The problem with the Chippewas was that although they were legally within their rights the cottage owners had been lulled into believing that the leases would be perpetually renewed. So they had BUILT cottages and invested in more improvements! When the leases were ended the cottage owners lost all they had spent on development. The Chippewas acquired not just their own original property but got cottages for free! There is no reason why they couldn't then re-lease the properties for more money to someone else, assuming the market would support it and they could find people willing to sign such a lease. I wonder what is the status of those cottages today. I seriously doubt if the Chippewas razed the lots and returned them to some pre-white man natural state.

All quite legal. Someone might argue that over the generations similar things have been done to natives. The problem is that when you take your revenge against people not because they specifically have harmed you but merely because they are of the same race then that is a moral problem.

Edited July 9, 2010 by Wild Bill

[Shady]

All land Canada claims is on native lands. Check out the Royal Proclamation 1763. It says so.

It doesn't say that at all.

[Mr.Canada]

Hrm. All interesting points. I'll probably stay away from it. The cottages are fairly cheap but the land is leased. Sounds dubious to me for sure. Especially since natives cause this trouble all the time, I think I'll stay away from any arrangement like this. We'll look to buy the land outright and own it.

Thanks all for the input.

[Borg]

Especially since natives cause this trouble all the time,

Politically incorrect but accurate statement

Smart decision - tough to deal with an organization that will often not stick to the deal they themselves created

Borg

[charter.rights]

Politically incorrect but accurate statement

Smart decision - tough to deal with an organization that will often not stick to the deal they themselves created

Borg

Silly you. Take a look at who is still not complying with the treaties and agreements made over the last 300 years. It sure isn't the natives.

[Wild Bill]

Politically incorrect but accurate statement

Smart decision - tough to deal with an organization that will often not stick to the deal they themselves created

Borg

Sometimes the 'deal' was created by the 'white man". Sometimes it was the natives. It doesn't matter to someone looking to make a deal such as leasing a cottage lot today. Events have proven that you can't trust the deal and who you are dealing with.

Many native supporters seem to feel that because it was likely a 'white man' or a 'white man government who had originally exploited them centuries ago that this is justification for similar retribution against any 'white man' today. This is just more racism, by simple definition! Anytime you take revenge against an innocent simply because of his race you are committing racism. Anytime you try to lump all members of any race into some 'collectively guilty' group you are also guilty of racism!

We are all individuals, responsible solely and only for our own actions. None of us are responsible for the sins of our fathers.

However, that being said we also should not accept a "sins of your father" argument for someone from some group today wronging us, whether it is with some obvious crime or some protest that involves our property or our lives and family. People wrong each other as individuals and as individuals we should expect some retaliation.

As I've said before, the concept of "Don't get mad at me for punching you! Your government made me do it so you should take revenge against THEM!" is simply absurd.

[Shwa]

We are all individuals, responsible solely and only for our own actions. None of us are responsible for the sins of our fathers.

Hmmm... does absolution of our father's sin also absolve us of our father's agreements?

The key idea is to do your homework. There are some reserve lands that I would not hesitate to recommend for a leased land cottage. Others, not so much. But I am not wholly afamiliar with the territory Mr. Canada is looking at and I am not, nor wish to be, a real estate agent.

Edited July 13, 2010 by Shwa

[Wild Bill]

Hmmm... does absolution of our father's sin also absolve us of our father's agreements?

The key idea is to do your homework. There are some reserve lands that I would not hesitate to recommend for a leased land cottage. Others, not so much. But I am not wholly afamiliar with the territory Mr. Canada is looking at and I am not, nor wish to be, a real estate agent.

I have never claimed that natives don't have valid arguments about historical treaties and agreements. We've had a legal framework for such to do with corporations and nations for centuries.

My beef is solely and only with the TACTICS of some natives! If natives choose to terrorize some 'white man's' house bordering a disputed area they can't claim that he was personally someone who had wronged them. They are harassing him simply because they are angry at white men and any white man who's handy will do!

When native protesters stop a VIA railway line or the QEW, they are not targetting the specific people who historically wronged them. They are not even targeting a 'white' government! They are targeting people who virtually all have never done them any harm and who probably USED TO be supportive of native claims!

If I had a beef with the provincial government I would target my protests against my MPP, Queen's Park and if I felt really militant I might blockade McGUINTY'S street! If I was enraged enough I might even try to knock out the electrical power to his home, as the protesters did in Caledonia!

I would never pick out at random anybody who's name had some of the same letters as in McGuinty's name and target THEM!

As far as I'm concerned, I see little difference between many (not all!) native protesters and the KKK.

[TimG]

I have never claimed that natives don't have valid arguments about historical treaties and agreements. We've had a legal framework for such to do with corporations and nations for centuries.

If a corporation has a contract to get a 'medicine bag' then that is all the corporation will ever get. The courts do not reinterpret the contract and claim that a 'medicine bag' now means 'full healthcare benefits'.

If the natives insist on reinterpreting these contracts to suit modern times then it perfectly fine for the rest of us to do the same.

[Shwa]

If a corporation has a contract to get a 'medicine bag' then that is all the corporation will ever get. The courts do not reinterpret the contract and claim that a 'medicine bag' now means 'full healthcare benefits'.

If the natives insist on reinterpreting these contracts to suit modern times then it perfectly fine for the rest of us to do the same.

Please do Mr. Rest-Of-Us. Why not start a class action suit against the government or justice system or, better yet, "the natives." Do it and then come back and tell us how you made out. I, for one, would like - just for once - for a Mr. Rest-Of-Us just like you to actually do something about it instead of whining about it all the time. Participate, stand up and be counted, be proactive.

Can't because you lack the resources, the money or the power to actually effect a change to something that really, really bothers you?

That would mean you are actually Mr. Ineffectual. In that case, your whimpering is wholly justified.

[TimG]

I, for one, would like - just for once - for a Mr. Rest-Of-Us just like you to actually do something about it instead of whining about it all the time.

What we have a situation where the majority has the power strip all rights aways from natives at any time by changing the constitution. Fortunately, (for natives at least), the majority does not wish to resort this option and is willing to live with the various petty injustices created by these historical agreements. That complacency would disappear if the burden of these agreements got too high for the majority to bear. My hope is we will never have to deal with a nasty constitutional battle like that and I suspect the SCC will be careful with its rulings because of that risk.

That is why I say the contract-is-a-contract argument is largely nonsense as far a natives are concerned. What we have are never ending political negotiations between native and the non-native citizens.

[Wild Bill]

Please do Mr. Rest-Of-Us. Why not start a class action suit against the government or justice system or, better yet, "the natives." Do it and then come back and tell us how you made out. I, for one, would like - just for once - for a Mr. Rest-Of-Us just like you to actually do something about it instead of whining about it all the time. Participate, stand up and be counted, be proactive.

Can't because you lack the resources, the money or the power to actually effect a change to something that really, really bothers you?

That would mean you are actually Mr. Ineffectual. In that case, your whimpering is wholly justified.

Hey, most of the time as individuals we are ALL ineffectual! The important point is that TimG is not the only Canadian with his POV. MANY other Canadians share it! What's more, quite often poorly thought out protest tactics often add to those numbers. The native protesters can actually lose more than they gain.

Where this matters is at the ballot box. If the numbers add up to enough to sway a ballot then an elected member had best pay attention or he will lose his seat! It is very short sighted for natives to think that they are only fighting a government. Politicians need popular support to acquire power and if giving in to native demands on an issue is perceived as wrong or unfair by the rest of Canadians then it would be stupid to expect a politician to commit political suicide just to make some protesters happy. Even if the law was clearly in the natives' favour no politician worth his salt would then give in. Instead, he would make sure that the issue would be stalled and never resolved for generations, long past the time when he need worry about winning an election!

Without the support of mainstream Canadians protesters like those at Six Nations will never get what they want. Meanwhile, they still persist in using their neighbours as cannon fodder in their war with governments and seemingly totally bewildered at why they don't get more support!

I realize that most of the militant protesters are leftists and anti-business but it might do them some good to take some salesmanship courses. They could easily have won their demands in Caledonia AND won the support of the townsfolk at the same time! A child with a lemonade stand could have done a better job.

No, the natives there chose a different path. So be it. Reap the whirlwind! As ye have done so shall ye receive.

Pity!

[charter.rights]

There is a very simple premise to native protest....

You might have noticed that the majority of protests occur on their own land (or on lands that are under claim). They are not targeting 'white man's' house. How racist of you to make such a comment. They are shutting down the use of their land, in an effort to get our government to live up to our agreements and obligations. When one finds themselves on disputed lands - such as those that rented cottages at Hope Bay, then they are not the victims. They should have done their due diligence and if they don't then they deserve what they get.

In terms of protests zones, the same thing applies. Haldimand County was put on public notice of the DCE lands at Caledonia were on disputed territory. But the County approved the development and the builder went ahead regardless. And you want to blame the natives? They have a right of proprietary estoppel. That is the law and it was exercised accordingly.

The after affects in Caledonia was brought upon the home owners by themselves, by trying to intervene in the dispute as if they had some right to their neighbour's property. The result was tit-for-tat. Go back to the reports on the Friday night rallies and see exactly who started the taunts and attacks....it is clearly recorded.

So the point is Bill, your whining is all frivolous bunk. Get over it. The natives have every right to stop development or trains, or any other action on their land. The Royal Proclamation 1763 guarantees it.

[Wild Bill]

There is a very simple premise to native protest....

You might have noticed that the majority of protests occur on their own land (or on lands that are under claim). They are not targeting 'white man's' house. How racist of you to make such a comment. They are shutting down the use of their land, in an effort to get our government to live up to our agreements and obligations. When one finds themselves on disputed lands - such as those that rented cottages at Hope Bay, then they are not the victims. They should have done their due diligence and if they don't then they deserve what they get.

In terms of protests zones, the same thing applies. Haldimand County was put on public notice of the DCE lands at Caledonia were on disputed territory. But the County approved the development and the builder went ahead regardless. And you want to blame the natives? They have a right of proprietary estoppel. That is the law and it was exercised accordingly.

The after affects in Caledonia was brought upon the home owners by themselves, by trying to intervene in the dispute as if they had some right to their neighbour's property. The result was tit-for-tat. Go back to the reports on the Friday night rallies and see exactly who started the taunts and attacks....it is clearly recorded.

So the point is Bill, your whining is all frivolous bunk. Get over it. The natives have every right to stop development or trains, or any other action on their land. The Royal Proclamation 1763 guarantees it.

Hey, there's no white hood in my closet but I'm getting rather suspicious about yours! You seem so fanatic about believing that any native protester is always 100% right about EVERYTHING that I truly think you lack the ability to recognize any evil or error on your own side!

Canadians will never voluntarily accept your arguments. You argue like an old style communist, who needs a gun to get others to voluntarily stay in his country.

[Shady]

In terms of protests zones, the same thing applies. Haldimand County was put on public notice of the DCE lands at Caledonia were on disputed territory. But the County approved the development and the builder went ahead regardless. And you want to blame the natives? They have a right of proprietary estoppel. That is the law and it was exercised accordingly.

It wouldn't be so bad if natives weren't breaking the law and committing violent acts against other Canadians who have no power or say in the disputed territory.

The Royal Proclamation 1763 guarantees it.

You keep falling back to this proclamation. Unfortunately for you, it doesn't assert what you often claim it does.

Edited July 13, 2010 by Shady

[charter.rights]

It wouldn't be so bad if natives weren't breaking the law and committing violent acts against other Canadians who have no power or say in the disputed territory.

You keep falling back to this proclamation. Unfortunately for you, it doesn't assert what you often claim it does.

But that is just it. The natives are not breaking the law. They are fully within their constitutional rights to protest and associate freely over the abuse on their land. They have a right of proprietary estoppel to stop up and prevent construction on their land. The have the right under the Charter to be consulted on any development of construction that may affect their interests.

The violent acts that might have occurred form time to time were not all the protesters. And there is still lots of doubt in a number of the confrontations about who really started them. But that is not all the protesters.

The Royal Proclamation 1763 states:

"And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to our Interest, and the Security of our Colonies, that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians with whom We are connected, and who live under our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are reserved to them. or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds.

"And We do hereby strictly forbid, on Pain of our Displeasure, all our loving Subjects from making any Purchases or Settlements whatever, or taking Possession of any of the Lands above reserved. without our especial leave and Licence for that Purpose first obtained."

"We do. with the Advice of our Privy Council strictly enjoin and require. that no private Person do presume to make any purchase from the said Indians of any Lands reserved to the said Indians, within those parts of our Colonies where, We have thought proper to allow Settlement:..."

According to the Mitchell Map 1757 and the map that accompanied this proclamation, all lands in southern Ontario were identified as Six Nations Territories. To this day Six Nations has not surrender their rights to any of the vast lands, and have only made leases that were payable into their now $trillion trust account. Within their territory, this proclamation guarantees they shall not be molested or disturbed. (which means no taxes, no Canadian law, no harassment.)

Further where a surrender was purported to have taken place, this proclamation also requires that a public meeting be held, unanimous consent of the entire community has been obtained, a copy of the surrender has been immediately distributed to the Bands involved and a written recording of the meeting and the agreements have been submitted and approved by both parties (as clarified by the Supreme Court of Canada in The Chippewas of Sarnia v. Canada). No surrender has ever been obtained from Six Nations on these lands, nor have surrenders been obtain in a likely fashion in the majority of Canada. However, where a treaty does it exist it does not surrender land and only surrenders some rights to land, while maintaining others.

So the "territory" where no Indians are to be interfered with, and where no settlers or governors may settle identified in the proclamation means all of southern Ontario.

Bill. In 2008, 80% of Canadians believe the government should settle claims with First Nations. So you don't speak for Canadians, and it appears you don't even represent a substantial minority of them.