Northgate....... revisited

[oneoff]

Mid January of this year it was posted "But without public disclosure and a request for offers its going to be very difficult to show that the taxpayers got anything approaching what this property might be worth."


The RM minutes of Jan 12/2012 have been adopted and indeed report that Blocks of lots were to be sold to Corus. The fact is that still the general public is ignorant of the deal that the RM made with Corus Land Holding Corp. No price mentioned; no terms and conditions if any; no public access to the contract as required by Sec 117 1 (a) of the Municipalities Act.
The council report submitted to the local papers didn't mention the motion; those in the gallery at the actual meeting totally missed the motion reported in the minutes.


But the good news is that lots have sold in the last three weeks; and have traded at $30,000 each down to a paltry $5000. (I haven't beeen able to determine the lot locations of a few properties yet).
And there were probably close to 20 lots involved so far. Corus also has an interest registered against another lot too.
And for those who think this is none of anyone's business; it just goes to show that my guess about "prime" real estate was not premature or unfounded. I hope that those who still have private property are aware or make themselves aware before they sell what they might believe is practically worthless. Its too bad that council doesn't appear to realize the full stategic value of being adjacent to the third north-south railline in western Canada; the value of a townsite; and streets and lanes; and particularly what such public land is worth. If Council is up to speed; then maybe this knowledge should be shared with the people who "own" the asset.
As for the significant RM property which Council obviously believes still has not reached the stage where the Jan 12/2012 deal has been consummated; lets later compare how our elected officials stack up to $5000 to $30,000 and pending sale prices for adjacent lots.
Don't be fooled by the RM sale in what might be "Blocks"; and the prices quoted which are for individual "lots".
All things considered; there could be an argument that savvy entrepreneurs still have a chance to acquire some prime property....or not.

[sumdumguy]

Oh, the webs we weive, when we practice to
deceive. Looks like a watergate cover- up?

[sumdumguy]

Correct me if I am wrong Oneoff.

The issue is that public land is being sold under
the table without full disclosure?

Is the council is deiberately witholding and maybe
omitting information so as to not allow locals from
bidding on it?

What is the legislated tender process under the
municipal act?

Could elected officers personally benefit with
insider information?

[parsley]

I recall a mine being built where the councillors
did a bit of a fancy-dance pre-buying up land
cheap. and resold some for a dandy premium, got
caught, and had to pay up. Yup.

These days, some folks call a maneuver like that
innovative thinking. In the old days we simply
called it crooked bullshit. Im a bit old fashioned.
Pars.

[oneoff]

Notsodumbguy... Thats about the best list of municipal questions I've ever seen; and as it happens "Municipal advisors" have personally answered those same questions for me.

Local government is one of three levels of government in Sask. It is based on ratepayers selecting (by election or acclamation) council members who are accountable and responsible to those electors. The provincial government and the Minister is just not going to become directly involved in local governance; and the tools ratepayers have include selecting their council representatives who realize they are accountable and responsible to their electorate; making sure ratepayers ideas and needs are known by council; letters to the editor; attendance at council meetings; sitting in the council gallery; following issues being considered by council; reading the minutes; discussions with councillors and the public at large; petitions; petitions for a referendum and the courts.

As for municipal public land sales; its a lot like tendering for fuel or a road grader or new mower. If published in newspaper recognized to cover the municipality; and conspicuosly posted in the RM office; the community notice boards etc. then its pretty hard to say that anyone is hiding anything or that anyone was trying to hide a pending purchase .............There is an expectation and requirement that sales of something such as land would not be made at below its market value (without advertising); so someone in any hamlet might certainly purchase some adjacent lots to their home for the hundred or two hundred dollars that they had fetched for the last couple decades. But is it not a different matter when a foreign company gets Farmland Security Board clearance to purchase up to two sections of farmland for a "facility" and pays amongst the highest ever prices for comparable land. Please readers; tell me why a municipality would not want not advertise to determine what other local or other competing interest there might be for Municipal land; in effect owned by the ratepayers; especially when an RM holds upwards of 200 lots; Certainly none of the above was done; and even after the fact; when someone asks to see the contract, terms and conditions of the sale authorized by council; (and was denied immediate access as is required bt Sec 117 1(a)) then surely everyone could admit there is at least a legitimate perception that someone (even outside those who obviously had priveleged information) could possibly obtain personal benefits; or direct those benefits to someone else.
To safe guard against such possibilities; the Municipalities Act is clear on "Oaths of Office" and how pecuniary interests are to be dealt with. Municipalities even also commonly require their members to solemnly subscribe to "Codes of Conduct" and "Codes of Ethics". The onus is on the member to disclose those conflicts and abide or potentially put themselves at risk of punishment. Even when there could only be a perceived "Conflict of Interet" it is probably prudent to just let the remaining members make the decision; and completely refrain from influencing the council decision in any way.

There certainly should be additional comments; as "Northgate" is only symptomatic of what happens when electors become apathetic; "cynical and disengaged" ; generally disgusted and cease paying adequate attention to their business.
I'll certainly try to comment on the other questions later.

[jackspratwhynot]

Further to the questions asked....
The concern we all should have is accountability and seeing to it that governments concentrate on doing business from the perspective of the electors interests.

I will report an actual business practice that once had a firm hold on Rural municipalities in Sask. (and maybe even adjoining provinces.) As such many readers may even personally relate to this story.
Some 7 or 10 or whatever years ago; there were three companies who basically supplied rural municipalities wuth road graders. There was Caterpillar whose quotes were typically higher than the other two. Their salesman argued that Cat equipment had a higher resale value; and that all considered their machines were higher priced and "worth every cent of the additional cost".

And there were John Deere salesmen; who pitched green machines.

And there were Champion road graders sold by Redhead in our neck of the woods. There was an organized program ostensably designed to educate whole rural municipal councils about the superiority of Champion road grader products; and in particular "Champion gear factory" near Niagara Falls. There was considerable intesest by councillors in Sask; and in year two of the "chartered" all expense paid tours of the "gear factory" in Ontario; one of our local RM's was lucky enough to be selected. All councillors took advantage of this trip except one who declined to participate. Another councillor found he could not attend and at the last moment the administrator "assumed" the identity of the vacant seat. Probably a humorous or best sellers account of the trip could be made; but suffice it to say that a petioned meeting of the ratepayers did reveal that there was a sidetrip to Niagara Falls and the councillors did journey to Regina; board the plane at Regina; and return some days later.
At the public meeting; a letter from Redhead was read to the relatively well attended ratepayers meeting. That letter empasized that there was nothing wrong with the trip provided to our council members. In fact an example was given as to how in the previous year, a council from SW Sask had attended the Ontario Champion road grader tour and the "ungrateful" wretches had soon purchased a competitors machine. Thus proving that there was absoolutely no harm possible from trips that cost the RM nothing..... (Those are my words; but it is a fair summary, I believe)
At an adjoining RM ratepayers meeting later that evening; that reeve was asked what he and council thought of those trips councillors from adjoining RM's were participating in. He stated that he felt it was a "Golden opportunity" and was looking forward to his RM's turn to go.

Unfortunately there never was another Champion road grader tour on such a scale (if at all). And there was an election (which is an extreme rarity) and there was a new reeve.
I wonder if the ringleaders of those petitioners for that ratepayers meeting were remembered by council and their successors. And have they been forgiven; but especially I wonder if the electors vigilant enough to see that such history is never repeated. again.

[jackspratwhynot]

And here are two examples from an unnamed rural municipality of how democracy is destroyed one chink at a time, over a period of time.
Petitions are a legitimate part of any democracy. But some signators have regrets after the ink has dried. They may even blame the persons circulating the petition. Sometime in the future; another person may find that their petition is a more difficult sell. Ergo petitions lose their effectiveness and one less remedy is available in the democratic process.
Point number two. The right of any individual (or a group ) to distribute information or opinion in any forum should be supported by absolutely everyone.
I am told (firsthand and confirmed firsthand) that even at a public a meeting called by a council; that women distributing a prepared leaflet, prior to the meeting, were ordered by a councillor to "sit down", that they had done it long enough. Those people were shocked and appalled; and when I learned of this episode; so was I. Unfortunately I know that not everone else would agree. I'd like to see that bully and coward defend bullying tactics in public. This must never be accepted or condoned.

[oneoff]

I may as well mention that allegations of Federal election imprompieties on May 2/2011; and Russian "rigged elections" are not limited to national elections around the world.

On the same May2/2011 date there was a vote conducted in the RM of Moose Creek office in regards a binding Referendum question. The question was so poorly and ambiguously worded that council must have felt the need to post a conspicuous yellow note to the municipal desk where voters subscribed to the document declaring their right to vote. The note gave an interpretation as to what a yes vote meant and what a no vote meant. A comment was made by a duly appointed representative (aka. "scrutineer" or "petitioners representative") as to the inappropriateness of such material in a polling station. No action was immediately taken; but the material was removed later. I am not aware if that material was present at the advance poll or not. What I do know was that the suggestion that that material was inappropriate was not acted upon immediately; and that those responsible never acknowledged their mistake; nor were any apologies given or lessons learned.
The reaction I received was interpreted by myself as just another shit disturbing complaint by a troublemaker.

[checking]

Election irregularities associated with the May2/2011 federal election continue to make the news; so why not further comments about the RM Moose Creek Referendum held on the same date.
The Alameda Dam virtually dissects the municipality into two parts. One polling station so everyone had to get to the west side where the vote would determine whether a paving project on Hwy 361 West be constructed or not.
The eastern portion of Hwy 361 which was not to be paved was impassable and reportedly even blocked with a stuck semi trailer. What wasn't a pressing emergency was the only other road across the dam. The RM chose to put a culvert in that road and so blocked the only other convenient way to get to the polling station on May 2/2011.
One can only speculate on the timing and insensitivty of that council decision.

[checking]

At least part of the Jan 24/2012 agreement between the RM Enniskillen and Corus Land Holding Corp. has been released and concludes with "the balance of this page is intentionally left blank". The final page is unnumbered and the seal and signature of Corus Land Holding Corp is not affixed; although dated in the hands of the purchaser on Jan. 12/2012.


Apparently the ratepayers will receive $120,000 (or less depending on lots we may not own); but it is for about 60 acres of "townsite" lots. Council will use its best efforts to close all road allowances, strrets and lanes; other than Boundary Street; and convey title.
The RM shall convey clear title to the 60 acres.
Looks to me that the ratepayers sold out for about $2,000 per acre. Private owners are now receiving $5,000 to 30,000 per lot or about $35,000 to $210,000 per acre. That more than a slight difference. Further we are "conveying clear title to the property"; offering up the substantial streets,lanes and road allowances; and "acknowledging that its development plans will require certain future approvals from the RM.


Get that rubber stamp out.

Further consider that there is no way this wholesale tansfer will even pay for the council authorized demolition of five private houses council is demolishing at the ratepayers expense.
As for the land; if only we new the administrative time costs; land titles searches; legal advice costs; value of "Her Majesties property"; land title transfers on hundreds of lots; council time; document preparations for transfer of hundreds of lots; council expenses associated with this deal; we might be suprised how really cheap we were sold out.

[checking]

The intent of the development has now been described as " an intention to construct a grain handling facility and possibly other facilities on the Property and on the Purchaser's adjacent lands"
Remember that the Farm Land Security Board was savy enough to at least put some time limits on getting those proposed facilities built. One would have thought it prudent to at least copy the Farm Land Security Board conditions into the RM sale agreement. But not so.
Sure looks to me like the townsite of Northgate was forever transferred into foreign hands with no chance of any part of it ever being returned to any use other than what the non-Canadian entity decides. There are still a few privately held lots; and it is to be hoped that those persons do not rely on the RM sale prices as anywhere close to the actual market value of their property.