36 Replies to “You’re Going About This All Wrong, Mr. Meyers”

  1. If that family has had the land by a Crown Land Patent since the 1700’s and it has never left the family name. It can’t be expropiated, they have the same land rights as an actual Indian Treaty. They should contact Randy Hillier…

  2. If that family has had the land by a Crown Land Patent since the 1700’s and it has never left the family name. It can’t be expropiated, they have the same land rights as an actual Indian Treaty. They should contact Randy Hillier…
    Posted by: RFB at February 7, 2012 4:57 AM
    Dead Wrong! And if he contacts Randy Hillier,Randy will tell him the same thing.
    Crown Letters Patent are NOT a substitute for property rights legislation, and anybody that thinks so are deluding themselves.
    But, maybe former OPP Commissioner Fantino – now a PC MP – would be able to give him some advice on how to handle this.

  4. Jamie you will find that you are mislead. It is settled in law. If they have an original Crown Land Patent they have a Freehold Tenure not a title in Fee Simple. http://www.ontariolandowners.ca/index.php?news&nid=92
    Posted by: RFB at February 7, 2012 7:09 AM
    You can call it whatever you want – fee simple or freehold. It changes nothing when it comes to a government’s ability to take your land.

  8. There’s a larger issue here. Specifically, are there any circumstances in which it is appropriate that a government expropriate private property?

  9. Just read Christie’s book two weeks ago. Couldn’t put it down. Read it in a single sitting.
    It should be required reading for anyone interested in knowing the reality of our double justice system and how the police have been co-opted.

  10. Why don’t they put JTF2 into one of the bases they are shutting down. How about the base in the south end of Winnipeg. They’ve been trying to get rid of that for 10 years. Because they are idiots they will probably lose money disposing of prime real estate.

  11. Scar, probably because Winnipeg is the middle of nowhere. Any large scale terrorism attack would most likely be focused on Ottawa, Toronto or Montreal (as we’ve already seen in the past). Response times are critical.

  12. JTF2 seems chronically unfriendly to its neighbours. JTF2 is still ensconced at the corner of Dwyer Hill and Franktown roads in the far south-west corner of the City of Ottawa, a rural area. Over the years neighbouring land-owners have complained long and loud about JTF2’s bullying tactics and unauthorized incursions on their land. It seems that JTF2 will not only physically relocate to Trenton, it will also move its old attitudes. Mr. Meyers should be prepared for rough handling.
    Overall the Canadian Army has a stellar image with the Canadian public and is held in high regard. Is it JTF2’s secretive nature — the fact that no one really knows what it does and it does not need to explain itself ever — that makes the unit so careless of how it deals with the few civilians who come into contact with it?

  13. cgh “Scar, probably because Winnipeg is the middle of nowhere. Any large scale terrorism attack would most likely be focused on Ottawa, Toronto or Montreal”
    We can hope so. And I always thought Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal were in the middle of nowhere.
    John Walden Meyers was quite a hero during the American Revolution.

  14. JMD, so what you are saying is that they SHOULD be moved out of Dwyer Hill and into a proper military base?
    Of course it’s secretive. It’s the Canadian military’s special operations unit. What, you want them to hand out press releases every time they go covert ops?
    Scar, Trenton is also the location of Transport Command. A special ops unit can only be truly effective if it can be moved RAPIDLY, both domestically and overseas.
    Indeed, Meyers was very much a hero during the Revolution. What does that have to do with the requirements of the Canadian military 250 years later? The aboriginals have been yammering on about treaty rights for decades, but no one on this board has been jumping to their defence lately, and they have a much longer set of claims, supposedly, than the Meyers family.
    “We can hope so.”
    So what are you saying? That you want Ottawa, Toronto or Montreal to be hit by a terrorism attack? I’m sure the dead and injured victims will thank you for your kind thoughts.

  15. The article says the government has been offering 15% above market value, and the landowner is complaining about a “low” price? Curious, that.

  16. Do you really thinks that’s curious gordin? What does “market value” have to do with the value of a property that isn’t for sale? I mean, other than as a mechanism for increasing property taxes.

  18. Ray, all property is for sale, if the price offered is high enough, even in cases where the owner adamantly states otherwise.
    Meyers is now the lone holdout. Even if the government abandons its effort to buy his land, the character of the place will be changed forever, and to his detriment. He may as well accept his 15% over market, and move to some other site that is not in imminent danger of redevelopment.

  19. “all property is for sale, if the price offered is high enough”
    Of course it is, and in this case 15% above what the municipality likes to collect taxes on seems not high enough. Nothing curious about it. What I find curious is how many seem to think it’s just fine that the government should be able to set the price when they force you to sell your property to them.
    As for what is to Meyer’s detriment, there really is no way for me to speak for him.

  21. Perhaps the land owners should sell it to the Indians,at least then it would not be expropriated by the Defence Dept.
    This is happening under a Conservative government,and we should let them know we don’t approve. As the landowner said,there is lots of Crown land available for JTF to use, no need to steal from Canadian farmers.
    Yes,it’s too damned bad we all can’t raise a flag and keep the government’s hands off our property.

  22. Gordinkneehill said: “He may as well accept his 15% over market, and move to some other site that is not in imminent danger of redevelopment.”
    Gord, have you looked at land prices lately? Not going to happen. Myers ain’t going to get a new farm. He’s going to get screwed.
    See, this is where the judge in the Sask public sector union case makes me laugh. You have no right to keep your own house, but your right to strike is cast in stone? As if.
    And by the by, putting JTF2 on 400 acres in Trenton? Its freakin’ stupidity. Well, unless they want to be in striking distance of anything in Southern Ontario/Quebec for some reason. Then it makes perfect sense.
    Which is really quite sinister, given the nature of JTF2.

  23. How come all these Indians never look like the ones depicted on their bad-ass logos and flags?
    A little too much Hollywood movies and romanticizing me thinks.

  24. cgh: Re: “There’s a larger issue here. Specifically, are there any circumstances in which it is appropriate that a government expropriate private property?”
    I suppose when it is for the good of the general public. Examples include installation of infrastructure like water mains, sewers, highways, etc. Such expropriation might include easements, partial takings or acquiring entire properties. This is common in municipalities with expanding populations like the suburbs surrounding Toronto.
    BTW – here is a good guide to expropriation in Ontario.
    http://www.rslawyers.com/pdf/initial.pdf

  25. “all property is for sale, if the price offered is high enough”
    Yeah, some people would sell their grandmother, if they could…and then wonder why their kids sell them out after they’re old and no longer useful.

  26. John; “I suppose when it is for the good of the general public.”
    A good answer, and I happen to agree with you. It’s a pity so many on this board avoid the central question. And in support of your point, most of the infrastructure that we see around us, roads, transmission lines, power dams, the St. Lawrence Seaway were all created using expropriation.
    Without it, we live in caves.
    And in the case of JTF2, this project started back in 2006. It can hardly be said that the government has been unreasonable in its haste. The Meyers are the only holdout. The consequence of refusing to negotiate is you get buldozed.
    Phantom: “…putting JTF2 on 400 acres in Trenton? Its freakin’ stupidity.”
    Trenton is the main base of Transport Command. JTF2 is tasked with international rapid response missions, not just domestic ones. Trenton is the obvious, best place to put it.
    “You have no right to keep your own house, but your right to strike is cast in stone?”
    Try reading the judgment. The judge rejected the legislation because it failed to include a dispute mechanism. As I noted above, the government lawyers screwed up. But he agreed with the government’s fundamental case and rejected the union suit against the other piece of union legislation.
    This is about as far away from “cast in stone” as you can get.

  27. cgh >
    “..most of the infrastructure that we see around us, roads, transmission lines, power dams, the St. Lawrence Seaway were all created using expropriation.”
    That must be because white man stole the land titles and private property from all the Indians who had great cities and social institutions spread across the land. After all they claim to be the first immigrants who must have set their First Nations flag pole on the North American continent and said “this is our private land, no whites allowed”.

  28. “The consequence of refusing to negotiate is you get buldozed.”
    And there it is – you only own what the state allows you to keep – forgive me if I don’t tear up with pride.

  32. cgh, you forgot to read or missed that last part of Phantom’s paragraph, in particular “Well, unless they want to be in striking distance of anything in Southern Ontario/Quebec for some reason. Then it makes perfect sense.”
    Actually JTF2 should be barracked in a training area that has quick air access to not only the Golden Horseshoe cities, but also to other major population centers in Canada and, considering the world we live in today, to foreign places.
    We had a situation once where a grid road needed to be rebuilt from a 1950s standard and widened. All the adjacent landowners agreed and were happy to get the prevailing price for the acre they lost and with the prospective improvement, except for the owner of 1 quarter of land, who did not live along the road and who had a twenty year old grudge against the reeve. His one acre was expropriated and he got the same price per acre as did the others.

  33. Anyone who has dealt with government on the issue of land ownership recently knows that property, civil and legal rights are held in contempt by government – they have a political agenda and your property rights are not in that equation.
    Caledonia has proven a registered, filed deed in Ontrario is meaningless. If your property is hostage to every politically expedient whim of authorities, the fundamental justice and rule of law is effectively in suspension – one must rely only on the justice one can extort from the government through whatever practical means available – this is the lesson of Caledonia, Ipperwash and hundreds of other land disputes.
    Ontario has devolved to a state of soft lawless anarchy and rogue governance where the rule of law no longer protects deeded title or title holders against predatory acts by government or their select patronized client groups.

  34. Ray, all property is for sale, if the price offered is high enough, even in cases where the owner adamantly states otherwise.
    Meyers is now the lone holdout. Even if the government abandons its effort to buy his land, the character of the place will be changed forever, and to his detriment. He may as well accept his 15% over market, and move to some other site that is not in imminent danger of redevelopment.
    Posted by: gordinkneehill at February 7, 2012 11:50 AM
    The Ontario Landowners’ Association has some great ideas when it comes to expropriations, or, land-use restrictions imposed by environmental legislation.
    First of all, the government would have to give the landowner early notification of the intended process (that is not doen in Ontario when it comes to land-use restriction).
    Second, the government should be compelled to prove the need for the expropriation/restriction in the courts.
    Third, all legal costs of the landowner should be borne by the government.
    Fourth, in the event that the process proceeds, full (including devaluation. loss of income, etc.) and timely compensation should be determined by a panel of local peers.

  35. Ken, indeed I did read Phantom’s post thoroughly. He undercuts his own argument when he said “Its freakin’ stupidity.” The location of training facilities is irrelevant; JTF2 already moves all over the country for training purposes. Just as an example, sniper school is in Gagetown. What’s important is the location of the main base.
    For rapid deployment anywhere, it has to be Trenton.
    And your story about the one acre, no kidding. I saw a boatload of this kind of nonsense when I was following various small and not so small town and city councils back in the 1980s. Worst example was when Kitchener was redeveloping its city market, which had been a truly dilapidated area. They bought out all the land owners except one who refused to sell at any price. Naturally, his was the most ruinous firetrap in the whole block. They probably could have condemned the place as a fire hazard, but even then they were excessively generous, expropriated him and paid market value.
    Jamie, those are very good suggestions by the OLA. However, I would prefer the courts to settle appropriate value, not a panel of peers. This is precisely what civil courts are for.

  36. Jamie, those are very good suggestions by the OLA. However, I would prefer the courts to settle appropriate value, not a panel of peers. This is precisely what civil courts are for.
    Posted by: cgh at February 7, 2012 5:05 PM
    Not me. I’ll take my chances with a “compensation jury” any day.
    The average guy and girl are quite capable of putting themselves in the victim’s shoes while wearing a tax-payer’s hat at the same time.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation