Yet another PC attack on Leaseholders

[Kathy]

This is my response to a LTE found in the Nanton News and the Hanna Herald earlier this month.

RE: Another attack on Leaseholders

"I am very disappointed to see the Hanna Herald, and the Nanton News, both publish an extremely misleading letter regarding agricultural leases on public land. Worse yet, the Hanna Herald didn't even list the author's name. The Nanton News listed the author as Corrie Burkhart of Medicine Hat. Since I am unable to find a phone number for this person, I can only comment back to the paper(s).

I am extremely disappointed in the lack of understanding by Burkhart and the newspaper editors, in the basics of business practices. Agricultural leaseholders have a contract with the government to lease the surface of the land, and are being compensated by third party intervenors, such as the energy industry, for various business related damages and loss of use of that contracted surface. Leaseholders are NOT being compensated for anything that belongs to the public.

This misleading and spiteful letter smacks of the same old ignorance that lead to the defamation of the agriculture community during the Klein rein (aka calling hard-working ranchers of Alberta "welfare cowboys").

It is my opinion that governments around the world are actively seeking to rid the landscape of rural residents so that energy industries can have their way with the land. Trying to turn people against agricultural leaseholders is one methodology; short changing rural school districts is another.

I would hope that Albertans would trust and respect those whose livelihoods are dependent upon the health of our environment, over those industries that want to make a quick buck and take the profits elsewhere.

While the majority of urban Albertans have been pre-occupied with their own community’s affairs (managed by independent councilors), the rural community has become keenly aware of the onslaught of legislation that the Progressive Conservative party/government has methodically set in place to turn Alberta into their private “Cabinet controlled” fantasy world.

Mayors around the province are all crying the blues about the lack of attention for their towns and cities. Perhaps if they bothered to read the Land Stewardship Act (aka Bill 36), these mayors might realize that this heinous Act allows Cabinet to supercede local authorities. The future, under Alison Redford’s PC party, is a dictatorship with seven regional plans that must be followed or the non-complying citizen(s), municipalities, towns or cities will be punished financially and otherwise.

We cannot expect our children to stand up to bullies, without first setting the example.

Kathy Czar
Hanna, Alberta"

Offending LTE from Nanton News link:
"Money for Nothing" by Corrie Burkhart - Medicine Hat www.nantonnews.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3525354

[ASRG]

I always wonder if people think ranchers have it so good with lease land.....then why don't they go buy a lease and have at it!
The courts ruled a long time ago a lease was real property....end of story....in my view!
I'd sure rather see a rancher make a few bucks off his/her lease than the government claw back that money so they can up their pay or hire a few more useless bums to push paper around in Edmonton!

[per]

The article tells mistruths. The government receives revenue from leasing it, lease transfer fees, leasing the minerals and the everything except the adverse affect on a disturbance. The leaseholder is responsible for building and maintaining fences, water supply and any other infrastructure that usually comes with a private lease. The leaseholder is also responsible for access with all users including recreational and industrial. Bill 31 was a disaster that pitted oil, ranching and recreational communities against each other and was ill thought out. The result was a bit of a highbred that we have now. All the Beef groups also agreed on a different pay structure for lease that would be tied to the price of cattle like a royalty. The government also shelved that idea.

I don't have any industrial activity on lease but on deeded I have yet to have a utility come on that I would rather have the utility and the money than no utility or money. They always seem to have a greater cost in some way than what they pay. (just my opinion here)

[forage]

All you have to do is find the author of the TV advertisement that the PC are using that the Wildrose well let special interest groups take over government and quess who Corrie....

[Kathy]

It would be nice if you could make it easy for me, forage... any links which would identify this Corrie Burkhart would be appreciated.

[Horse]

Kathy would you be so kind to explane how a lease costing say 500$/ yr and generating $5000 in oil revenue is notr welfare???? As for purchasing a lerase most were given in the first place . and then sold for the difference between what it is actualy worth and how little the grazing fees are , the alta beef proudcers paid for an study into lease fees and found that that is exactly what is being sold. Justify the difference between the $2.79 per AUM lease fees and the private world of $30/$35 Per AUM. And tell me you are not a welfare rancher.

[Kathy]

A contract is between two willing negotiators.... if it is unfair then the oil and gas companies would not agree to it.

I do not feel that I must justify a contract which I am not party to.

This PC government however, is more than happy to "rescind" any contracts that were negotiated with them - and don't forget there is no compensation. They have already started to rescind contracts... maybe you should ask them why they feel a contract is not legally binding in Alberta.

[ASRG]

Maybe this will be the next great property rights rip off?

Smear the ranchers who have leases. Call them a bunch of welfare bums. Divide and conquer?

Get all the guys without leases in an uproar? Break the contract.....set a precedent? One more step toward ending private property?

Why can't people see the pattern? Don't they realize when the government steals my neighbors property today....they'll be coming for mine tomorrow?

[Horse]

ASRG Your property crown land with a 10 yr lease I think the property still belongs to the crown.
What did you lease grass or oil , if it is oil then pay what the oil companys pay.
How is it you feel intitled to run your cows for free and get a large oil revenue cheque to boot.
We all sell on the same market but lease holders have close to $100 advantage just on grass then you throw in an oil cheque and it sure isnt an ( level playing field) anymore.

[Kathy]

ASRG, the problem is just as you stated, the
connection between property rights is slanted by
those that think "titled land" is the only property
that exists.

I'll bet you a dollar that when an oil company leases
the rights to explore minerals from the province,
the oil company expects, and does in most cases,
make a nice profit. I guess agricultural leaseholders
are expected to only break even. God forbid we
make some money in the cattle business. The
attacks on leaseholders are just getting started
(made easy when hiding behind "handles").

My contract with the government is "renewable" and
gives me "quiet enjoyment" of the property, enough
said.

Land ownership is only one aspect of property
rights. Many ranchers and farmers "lease" or "rent"
their equipment. I don't think they'd be to happy if
in the middle of seeding, the dealership took back
that equipment to lease it to someone else willing
to pay them more. If greed is going to be our only
motivation, the sky is the limit as to the number of
ways neighbor can screw over neighbor.