Tax revolt brewing; Mine's neighbours withholding property dues

[jennie]

Background: Landowners in Frontenac County (40k n of Kingston) woke up one day to find trees downed and their property staked for uranium mining. They were not amused to find out that under the Mining Act, they have absolutely no rights, even if uranium is found and a mine is built on their property. The local landowners went to the Algonquins for help, knowing that staking had occurred on traditional Algonquin land too. Landowners and Algonquins have been blockading the site since June 28, preventing the mining company from its work. A judge recently granted an injunction to the mining company for removal of the protesters. They are determined to stay ...

http://www.newsweb.ca/2007/07'34_Aug_30/Candidates_mining.html

Candidates deepen positions on mining in LFL&A

By Jeff Green

A veritable media scrum took place along a lonely stretch of road north of Clarendon this week, with CTV, Global, CKWS and CBC radio vying for a word from OPP officials and local Algonquin leaders.

It’s fair to say the attention is unprecedented. The events at the Robertsville mine and the adjacent 30,000 acres encapsulate concerns about surface and subsurface property rights, uranium exploration and mining, and aboriginal land issues, and they have been the subject of particular interest to four men: The candidates for MPP in Lanark, Frontenac, Lennox and Addington.

Ross Sutherland (NDP), Ian Wilson (Liberal) and Randy Hiller (Conservative) all appeared at an all-candidates meeting focusing on the Ontario Mining Act in late July. Since then, they have all been thinking long and hard about where they stand in regards to what is happening in North Frontenac as they prepare for the official election campaign, which kicks off on September 10.

Rolly Montpellier, (Green Party) is late entering the campaign, but he brought his party leader, Frank DeJong, to the Robertsville mine on August 27.

DeJong said that Green Party policy calls for a “moratorium on uranium exploration and mining in Ontario, as is in place in New Brunswick. We also call for subsurface and surface rights to be re-united.”

Elaborating on their position regarding uranium mining, DeJong said that there is only a 20-year supply of high grade uranium, such as is mined in Northern Saskatchewan, “and after that, low grade sources, like the ones in North Frontenac, will be used. But it takes so much fossil fuel to process low grade uranium that it would be an economic and environmental disaster.”

Ross Sutherland (NDP) was the first candidate to take a stance in support of the Algonquin occupation, coming to the site on June 29. He also called for a moratorium on uranium mining and nuclear power generation.

Recently, Peter Tabuns, the NDP environment critic, called for Dalton McGuinty to cede to Algonquin demands in North Frontenac and agree to a moratorium on uranium exploration.

...

I am glad to hear that all parties are getting involved, and this is becoming an election issue. Certainly I think McGuinty should use his option of putting a moratorium on mining there. I didn't realize he had the power.

Edited September 4, 2007 by jennie

[geoffrey]

You know that when you buy your house, at least out here. I don't and never have owned Ontario property, but on an Alberta title it clearly states:

"excepting thereout all mines and minerals"

You have no right to the minerals below the ground or to prevent someone from accessing them. However, (again, I can only speak for Alberta) you do have the right to demand compensation for surface access and in some cases mitigation of possible health effects (this could mean a market value buyout or a move of your residence if your land chunk is big enough... paid for by the developer).

If you have oil and gas on your land, they will get it out here. But the EUB will force developers to pay you for your inconvenience.

Again, I'm not 100% sure if it's the same in Ontario, but if you can provide scientific evidence of health risks or what not associated with Uranium mining, you'd probably get a Court to force someone to buy you out.

[jennie]

You know that when you buy your house, at least out here. I don't and never have owned Ontario property, but on an Alberta title it clearly states:

"excepting thereout all mines and minerals"

You have no right to the minerals below the ground or to prevent someone from accessing them. However, (again, I can only speak for Alberta) you do have the right to demand compensation for surface access and in some cases mitigation of possible health effects (this could mean a market value buyout or a move of your residence if your land chunk is big enough... paid for by the developer).

If you have oil and gas on your land, they will get it out here. But the EUB will force developers to pay you for your inconvenience.

Again, I'm not 100% sure if it's the same in Ontario, but if you can provide scientific evidence of health risks or what not associated with Uranium mining, you'd probably get a Court to force someone to buy you out.

I think it is similar ... maybe across the country ... notice we have no 'right to property' in our Constitution.

But these people are pi$$ed ... these are top end retirement and executive acreages on the lakes and in the hills ... this is 'Cottage Country' (commute to Ottawa) ... etc. They paid for the view and the pristine wilderness and solitude, and they are ... well ... pi$$ed by the thousands ! So the property tax revolt is on.

It occurs to me that perhaps these people can afford to buy the mineral rights back from the miner ... don't know ... but I'll bet the price is climbing now! Maybe that's the plan.

The Algonquins, of course, don't have a choice of selling out ... this is their ancestral homeland for which they are responsible. period.

The land'owners' are likewise determined not to allow the area to be invaded by uranium mining.

It's an amazing dynamic ... very cool, imo.

The lib and pc are 'pondering' ... The lib will have to take the government line, of course, which is they can't comment on a matter that is before the courts. They could have commented during the consultation they were supposed to do, but didn't. Govs prefer to let it get scary rather than have to consult.

The pc will defend the miner ... unless he stands to lose his local voters that way, perhaps.

Edited September 3, 2007 by jennie

[geoffrey]

I think it is similar ... maybe across the country ... notice we have no 'right to property' in our Constitution.

A major flaw in my opinion.

Then again, can you have a right to something you explicitly don't own. You never purchased the mineral rights. You did, however, have every right to buy them at auction before the developer did...

But these people are pi$$ed ... these are top end retirement and executive acreages on the lakes and in the hills ... this is 'Cottage Country' (commute to Ottawa) ... etc. They paid for the view and the pristine wilderness and solitude, and they are ... well ... pi$$ed by the thousands ! So the property tax revolt is on.

I understand the concerns of affected landowners... the industry I work in now (not resources) also deals with rights of way and we have to constantly negoiate with sometimes irrate landowners. And they are completely justified in their anger. I'd be pissed too if someone wanted to build a uranium mine on my front lawn, or drill an oil well or put up an electrical tower.

Never the less, the law isn't on their side.

It occurs to me that perhaps these people can afford to buy the mineral rights back from the miner ... don't know ... but I'll bet the price is climbing now! Maybe that's the plan.

Sure, they could. But it would be expensive. They could have bought them at the open auction they were sold at too, if they were paying attention.

The Algonquins, of course, don't have a choice of selling out ... this is their ancestral homeland for which they are responsible. period.

I won't really regard spiritual responsibilities with any seriousness. Nor will the law. If they have to move, they will move.

[jennie]

A major flaw in my opinion.

Then again, can you have a right to something you explicitly don't own. You never purchased the mineral rights. You did, however, have every right to buy them at auction before the developer did...

I understand the concerns of affected landowners... the industry I work in now (not resources) also deals with rights of way and we have to constantly negoiate with sometimes irrate landowners. And they are completely justified in their anger. I'd be pissed too if someone wanted to build a uranium mine on my front lawn, or drill an oil well or put up an electrical tower.

Never the less, the law isn't on their side.

Sure, they could. But it would be expensive. They could have bought them at the open auction they were sold at too, if they were paying attention.

I won't really regard spiritual responsibilities with any seriousness. Nor will the law. If they have to move, they will move.

Yes, apparently the law is not on their side, in the case of the landowners for sure.

There is nothing ... and they are now refusing to pay property taxes too ... getting interesting for them for sure!

If course, they might not want to buy those mineral rights now because if there is a moratorium which is still a possibility, the price will drop then accordingly, I would expect.

[noahbody]

You know that when you buy your house, at least out here. I don't and never have owned Ontario property, but on an Alberta title it clearly states:

"excepting thereout all mines and minerals"

You have no right to the minerals below the ground or to prevent someone from accessing them.

Actually in Alberta you can own mineral rights if the land was originally purchased from the Hudson's Bay Company, not the government.

[jennie]

Actually in Alberta you can own mineral rights if the land was originally purchased from the Hudson's Bay Company, not the government.

Yes that is the exception.

[jennie]

A major flaw in my opinion.

Then again, can you have a right to something you explicitly don't own. You never purchased the mineral rights. You did, however, have every right to buy them at auction before the developer did...

I understand the concerns of affected landowners... the industry I work in now (not resources) also deals with rights of way and we have to constantly negoiate with sometimes irrate landowners. And they are completely justified in their anger. I'd be pissed too if someone wanted to build a uranium mine on my front lawn, or drill an oil well or put up an electrical tower.

Never the less, the law isn't on their side.

Sure, they could. But it would be expensive. They could have bought them at the open auction they were sold at too, if they were paying attention.

I won't really regard spiritual responsibilities with any seriousness. Nor will the law. If they have to move, they will move.

We think we can demand that they observe OUR laws, even on their own UNCEDED land ... while we fail to give even basic respect to their laws?

This captures in a nutshell what has been wrong with Canada's approach ever since confederation, and it is an attitude that simply does not work to intimidate these generations of Indigenous people.

If you read the treaties, they are much more respectful of Indigenous Law. What we agreed to, and what we did were two entirely different things. So let's talk again about just WHO has been breaking OUR laws!! Our governments take ALL the 'awards' in that department!!

I do not believe we can any longer afford the disrespectful approach you espouse, economically, socially or civilly.

If the law is unjust, it is a civic responsibility to oppose it, imo, as the wealthy landowners in Frontenac County are now doing by supporting the blockade (financially and physically) and by withholding their property taxes. No doubt they will be a very visible force in the coming provincial election campaign too, calling for a moratorium on the uranium drilling. That is still one legal avenue to stop this idiocy.

[jennie]

Tax revolt brewing; Mine's neighbours withholding property dues

http://www.thewhig.com/webapp/sitepages/co...ws&classif=

Frank Armstrong

Local News - Friday, August 31, 2007 @ 00:00

Non-native neighbours of a proposed uranium mine north of Sharbot Lake are showing that area Algonquins aren't the only people who have resorted to civil disobedience to push for government action.

A number of North Frontenac Township residents have visited their local government office recently to tell staff they won't pay their municipal tax bills until the township council takes a stance on the prospect of the uranium mine.

[jennie]

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...46-854db0d9d67c

[M.Dancer]

Is it neccessary to have multiple threads on the same topic?

This should be merged with the other uranium mine thread.

[jennie]

Is it neccessary to have multiple threads on the same topic?

This should be merged with the other uranium mine thread.

This is the remaining thread.

[jennie]

I saw news coverage of Ruby and Floyd Montour sitting in front of an earth moving machine yesterday. They are kind and brave and committed Six Nations Confederacy elders.

Protesters stall development; warn that city is on 'collision course' with Six Nations

John Paul Zronik / expositor staff

Local News - Wednesday, September 05, 2007 @ 07:00

A dispute between Six Nations protesters and a city developer heated up Tuesday as natives occupied the site of a housing project on Grand River Avenue.

A half-dozen Six Nations protesters moved onto the site at 10 a.m., demanding that work stop on four duplexes being constructed near Grand River and Jarvis Street.

Two of the protesters entered a hole where developer Mike Quattrociocchi, owner of Mayberry Homes, hoped to soon lay foundations for the new buildings.

Sitting under the shadow of a backhoe, protester Ruby Montour said the city put itself "on a collision course" with Six Nations by approving the construction project, which she said sits on native land.

"I told the city when this man went for a permit ... that they should not give the permit because this land is under dispute," Montour said. "This is Six Nations land.

"Developers getting permits from Brantford better remember: this land is ours."

http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/webapp/si...ws&classif=

...

Quattrociocchi said developers should "absolutely" be worried about protests at construction projects elsewhere in the city. He said the the municipality and higher levels of government need to take action to address Six Nations concerns.

"I think it's disgraceful that individuals have to fend for themselves because the municipality, province and federal government are taking a firm stance on the fence," he said. "All levels of government are forcing me to fend for myself."

The developer also said he's puzzled as to why Six Nations has singled out his development when two new housing developments are located within a short distance along Grand River Avenue.

...

Well he got one thing right ... about the governments abandoning people.

Here is a video of Ruby Montour from June 29.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6194247107440891215

----

EDIT

This post was the Opening Post of a multiple thread which was titled: Protesters stall development

Edited September 23, 2007 by Charles Anthony
former Opening Post of now merged thread

[M.Dancer]

This is the kind of stuff that will in the end be the downfall of any hope in hell of first nations getting more than they already got. Canadians are getting sick and tired of the dramatics and street theatre and want an end to illegal blockades and threats to their livelihood.

[Posit]

Canadians are getting sick and tired of the dramatics and street theatre and want an end to illegal blockades and threats to their livelihood.

No, 80% of Canadians want lands claims settled once and for all. These types of events remind us that we haven't settled many......

[M.Dancer]

No, 80% of Canadians want lands claims settled once and for all. These types of events remind us that we haven't settled many......

If you say so, but I haven't seen any poll to that effect. So I suppose I'm in the 20% who feel regardless of ethinicity, those who don't respect the judicial process should feel its sting.

[Riverwind]

If you say so, but I haven't seen any poll to that effect. So I suppose I'm in the 20% who feel regardless of ethinicity, those who don't respect the judicial process should feel its sting.

I am pretty sure the poll in question asked a 'motherhood' question that no one could reasonably say no to. A poll that asked people how much of a tax increase they would be willing to pay to settle these claims would likely garner considerably less support. Edited September 5, 2007 by Riverwind

[M.Dancer]

I am pretty sure the poll in question asked a 'motherhood' question that no one could reasonably say no to. A poll that asked people how much of a tax increase they would be willing to pay to settle these claims would likely garner considerably less support.

I would like to see all the land claims settled. I would also like to see world peace.

Perhaps if monetary settlements could be first used to pay damages incured by illegal blockades they might think first about causing so much mischif....but probably holding them personally responsible and suing their asses off would be even more effective.

[old_bold&cold]

I do not see any amicable end to the land claims by native canadians, but I do see a forced or managed settlement that will be offensive to both sides in this, but it does have to end. The blockades are just festering angers and when courts rule they be removed, the natives then laugh at the laws. That has to end badly and it will. There will be several actions by all concerned but in the it will be Natives that will sit in jail cells, and that is what the laws will call for. People at one time supported some of the things protested but more and more these things have fallen on to things that do not have the public support. So when the courts are ignored, then the protesters should be arrested, and forcibly removed. If the natives escalate this to weapons being there then I guess that will mean deadly force should be used. That is just the way of the law and the way it will play out in the end

[Higgly]

No, 80% of Canadians want lands claims settled once and for all. These types of events remind us that we haven't settled many......

Exackly.

[noahbody]

I saw news coverage of Ruby and Floyd Montour sitting in front of an earth moving machine yesterday. They are kind and brave and committed Six Nations Confederacy elders.

Protesters stall development; warn that city is on 'collision course' with Six Nations

John Paul Zronik / expositor staff

Local News - Wednesday, September 05, 2007 @ 07:00

A dispute between Six Nations protesters and a city developer heated up Tuesday as natives occupied the site of a housing project on Grand River Avenue.

A half-dozen Six Nations protesters moved onto the site at 10 a.m., demanding that work stop on four duplexes being constructed near Grand River and Jarvis Street.

Two of the protesters entered a hole where developer Mike Quattrociocchi, owner of Mayberry Homes, hoped to soon lay foundations for the new buildings.

Sitting under the shadow of a backhoe, protester Ruby Montour said the city put itself "on a collision course" with Six Nations by approving the construction project, which she said sits on native land.

"I told the city when this man went for a permit ... that they should not give the permit because this land is under dispute," Montour said. "This is Six Nations land.

"Developers getting permits from Brantford better remember: this land is ours."

http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/webapp/si...ws&classif=

...

Quattrociocchi said developers should "absolutely" be worried about protests at construction projects elsewhere in the city. He said the the municipality and higher levels of government need to take action to address Six Nations concerns.

"I think it's disgraceful that individuals have to fend for themselves because the municipality, province and federal government are taking a firm stance on the fence," he said. "All levels of government are forcing me to fend for myself."

The developer also said he's puzzled as to why Six Nations has singled out his development when two new housing developments are located within a short distance along Grand River Avenue.

...

Well he got one thing right ... about the governments abandoning people.

Here is a video of Ruby Montour from June 29.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6194247107440891215

Noticed you conveniently edited out this:

Quattrociocchi was adamant he went through the proper channels to notify the Confederacy about his development, hand delivering a letter six months ago outlining his plans. At the time, Quattrociocchi said he was told he was too small a developer working on too small a project for the Confederacy to be concerned about it.

[jennie]

Noticed you conveniently edited out this:

I edited quite a bit out, not that in particular. He delivered a letter and never checked to see if he had a go ahead? While several other building sites have been shut down and the whole region knows it? C'mon...

But he does have it right about all three levels of government approving, permitting and then abandoning the developers on land in dispute, and they are the ones who have the "duty of the Crown to consult and where necessary, accommodate" the concerns of Indigenous people about uses of their traditional and treaty land, according to the SCoC.

The governments should be facing some heavy lawsuits over this stuff, I would think. Bad faith ...

I can't quite figure out their 'hands-off' strategy.

[jennie]

This is the kind of stuff that will in the end be the downfall of any hope in hell of first nations getting more than they already got. Canadians are getting sick and tired of the dramatics and street theatre and want an end to illegal blockades and threats to their livelihood.

Canadians are smarter than you give them credit for ... They know who is causing these blockades. Our governments that fail to act in good faith.

[jennie]

People at one time supported some of the things protested but more and more these things have fallen on to things that do not have the public support.

You haven't been following the Algonquin blockade of uranium drilling, then, because the local landowners are supporting the blockade.

The support is just starting to build, imo, as people come to understand that their goal is protection of the land.

[jennie]

If you say so, but I haven't seen any poll to that effect. So I suppose I'm in the 20% who feel regardless of ethinicity, those who don't respect the judicial process should feel its sting.

Me too ... and the sting belongs to the government, imo.