Mike Harris, The MNR and Lands for life.

[margrace]

Can anyone explain to me what the "Lands for Life" policies that the Harris government brought in actually means to the ordinary land owner.

In our township we have a Wet land Study, we also have no official plan. It appears that the MNR through the Wet land study is promoting that the government will seize, with no enumeration, control of propery that is considered in this study. The land owner will have no control over this lost property but will still have to pay taxes on it and live with the fact that his property behind this seized property had been severely devalued.

Because land owners are protesting this, the MNR refuses to consider our Official Plan. Anyone who owns cottage property in our township has also had their property rights taken away and their ownership devalued.

I am in favour of the non development of these lands but I also think in all fairness that the lost value of land and control of it should be fairly paid for.

This all impinges on Harris' Lands for Life parks policies, which it appears even lawyers cannot explain.

[scribblet]

Here is a link explaining it, I'm not clear on all of it myself. http://www.wildontario.org/whatis.html

My understanding is that more land is protected for conservation. I don't think the land was siezed or taken from the owners, just protected from development. It means ifor example, thqat in many cases cottagers cannot build docks or improve their shoreline in anyway. I don't think this has devalued the property, its just a nuisance, and irritating to think that an owner cannot improve their own property. I guess we have to weigh the pros and cons and how much do we really care about the environment and our wild life.

[margrace]

Here is a link explaining it, I'm not clear on all of it myself. http://www.wildontario.org/whatis.html

My understanding is that more land is protected for conservation. I don't think the land was siezed or taken from the owners, just protected from development. It means ifor example, thqat in many cases cottagers cannot build docks or improve their shoreline in anyway. I don't think this has devalued the property, its just a nuisance, and irritating to think that an owner cannot improve their own property. I guess we have to weigh the pros and cons and how much do we really care about the environment and our wild life.

Oh it goes a lot further than that. If your cottage is under the 100 flood levels then you may not even be able to sell it. A property that had frontage on the river has now lost it and has seen their properties left devalued. Many people own properies of more than 100 acres, through which the Magnetewan River meanders. Our neighbours own property on both sides of it now within the protected wet lands.

[margrace]

Here is a link explaining it, I'm not clear on all of it myself. http://www.wildontario.org/whatis.html

My understanding is that more land is protected for conservation. I don't think the land was siezed or taken from the owners, just protected from development. It means ifor example, thqat in many cases cottagers cannot build docks or improve their shoreline in anyway. I don't think this has devalued the property, its just a nuisance, and irritating to think that an owner cannot improve their own property. I guess we have to weigh the pros and cons and how much do we really care about the environment and our wild life.

Oh it goes a lot further than that. If your cottage is under the 100 flood levels then you may not even be able to sell it. A property that had frontage on the river has now lost it and has seen their properties left devalued. Many people own properies of more than 100 acres, through which the Magnetewan River meanders. Our neighbours own property on both sides of it now within the protected wet lands.

You see Geoffrey is right when he says that people do not pay attention to what is going on. That's why they get government and laws that they suddenly find are taking away their rights.

The USA has much stronger private property rights than we do but it is becoming increasingly the habit of local governments there to seize private lands. Not for roadways, railways or other needful things, but for increasing a tax base. An older couple were losing their home because a high rise would create more of a tax base for the city. Evidently this has become a common practise there.

If the MNR is allowed to set a prescident by their actions then you all could suffer. Isn't it time we looked into some of these supposed protective actions of theirs.

[geoffrey]

You see Geoffrey is right when he says that people do not pay attention to what is going on. That's why they get government and laws that they suddenly find are taking away their rights.

The USA has much stronger private property rights than we do but it is becoming increasingly the habit of local governments there to seize private lands. Not for roadways, railways or other needful things, but for increasing a tax base. An older couple were losing their home because a high rise would create more of a tax base for the city. Evidently this has become a common practise there.

If the MNR is allowed to set a prescident by their actions then you all could suffer. Isn't it time we looked into some of these supposed protective actions of theirs.

Thanks Margrace, I think this is the first time we've come to any agreement on an issue.

If people stand by and let the government push them around, you'll get what we have in Canada. A society where we all believe we have rights but really they are quite limited! Especially in the area of property rights.

Local governments are getting quite ruthless with expropriations. I have yet to see how anyone should have any ability to sell my property to anyone without my consent.

This policy seems rather silly, anything to such an extreme level always is. Why not just have an environmental approval board for projects that will be conducted in these productive areas? Thats respective of the owners and the environment! While we do need to respect property rights of owners, we also have to respect the environment and the community standards.

[margrace]

You see Geoffrey is right when he says that people do not pay attention to what is going on. That's why they get government and laws that they suddenly find are taking away their rights.

The USA has much stronger private property rights than we do but it is becoming increasingly the habit of local governments there to seize private lands. Not for roadways, railways or other needful things, but for increasing a tax base. An older couple were losing their home because a high rise would create more of a tax base for the city. Evidently this has become a common practise there.

If the MNR is allowed to set a prescident by their actions then you all could suffer. Isn't it time we looked into some of these supposed protective actions of theirs.

Thanks Margrace, I think this is the first time we've come to any agreement on an issue.

If people stand by and let the government push them around, you'll get what we have in Canada. A society where we all believe we have rights but really they are quite limited! Especially in the area of property rights.

Local governments are getting quite ruthless with expropriations. I have yet to see how anyone should have any ability to sell my property to anyone without my consent.

This policy seems rather silly, anything to such an extreme level always is. Why not just have an environmental approval board for projects that will be conducted in these productive areas? Thats respective of the owners and the environment! While we do need to respect property rights of owners, we also have to respect the environment and the community standards.

Yes Geoffrey, I agree we do need to respect our environment, after all it is imperative that we have to breath. This whole problem here is to do with the environment and that people should not be allowed to change a swamp into a camp ground.

However we must also respect people who bought property, paid the taxes on waterfront values and then can lose the right to even cross that waterfront meanwhile paying high taxes on it.

[scribblet]

Here is a link explaining it, I'm not clear on all of it myself. http://www.wildontario.org/whatis.html

Oh it goes a lot further than that. If your cottage is under the 100 flood levels then you may not even be able to sell it. A property that had frontage on the river has now lost it and has seen their properties left devalued. Many people own properies of more than 100 acres, through which the Magnetewan River meanders. Our neighbours own property on both sides of it now within the protected wet lands.

You see Geoffrey is right when he says that people do not pay attention to what is going on. That's why they get government and laws that they suddenly find are taking away their rights.

The USA has much stronger private property rights than we do but it is becoming increasingly the habit of local governments there to seize private lands. Not for roadways, railways or other needful things, but for increasing a tax base. An older couple were losing their home because a high rise would create more of a tax base for the city. Evidently this has become a common practise there.

If the MNR is allowed to set a prescident by their actions then you all could suffer. Isn't it time we looked into some of these supposed protective actions of theirs.

We don't have property rights enshrined in the constitution as do the Americans, the NDP is totally against it, liberals have never wanted it either. Whether or not the Ontario liberals would be willing to review this, I don't know.

Does this Lands for Life allow the MNR to sieze property, I doubt it. However, it all seems draconian, but I'm wondering if we have to make a choice between conservation and property rights.

The U.S. has the Eminent Domain, which has been expanded by their supreme court, thus enabling municipalities to sieze property 'for the public good' . The reason given is that an expanded tax base provides more funding for the whole community, thus, more libraries parks etc. In some cases, its a crock, but at least under eminent domain, homeowners are paid market value.