Council motion ammended ....

[oneoff]

And for those wishing some further debating issues; how do you perceive a proposal for subdividing up to 4 parcels for "residences" out of every qurter section. This has apparently been suggested as a possible bylaw for any Rural Municipality in Sask; and has been discussed with some branch of Municipal Affairs which deals with approving bylaws. It has the strong potential to come to your RM next.

It certainly comes as a complete suprise to ordinary ratepayers in this RM. No ratepayers meetings, or publication of any hint of such a bylaw being contemplated.

I see at least one pretty serious imperfection that is headed straight for trouble.
Apparently the bylaw is focused on no more than parcelling out a quarter section into four or less 2.5 to 40 acre surveyed parcels. The problem, as I see it, is that when the Sask Land Titles system was converted to ISC (Information Services Corp); any railway or provincial highway automatically created two or more land titles if they crossed a quarter section. Any of those parcels may be owned by different title holders. And those title holders obviously don't have 160 acres; because although on the same old "quarter section"; there are now multiple actual land titles.
Now is the first one to request surveying out four parcels to have the right to claim the maximum of four parcels to the exclusion of the other title owners who may even have a larger share of the quarter section.

In my opinion this bylaw is fatally flawed by being based on quarter sections; when parcels as registered with ISC have been the current recognized lawful right to property.
Just another reason to brainstorm before drafting a bylaw meant to be enacted. But that is not how ratepayers business is conducted; is it or not?

[oneoff]

And for those wishing some further debating issues; how do you perceive a proposal for subdividing up to 4 parcels for "residences" out of every qurter section. This has apparently been suggested as a possible bylaw for any Rural Municipality in Sask; and has been discussed with some branch of Municipal Affairs which deals with approving bylaws. It has the strong potential to come to your RM next.

It certainly comes as a complete suprise to ordinary ratepayers in this RM. No ratepayers meetings, or publication of any hint of such a bylaw being contemplated.

I see at least one pretty serious imperfection that is headed straight for trouble.
Apparently the bylaw is focused on no more than parcelling out a quarter section into four or less 2.5 to 40 acre surveyed parcels. The problem, as I see it, is that when the Sask Land Titles system was converted to ISC (Information Services Corp); any railway or provincial highway automatically created two or more land titles if they crossed a quarter section. Any of those parcels may be owned by different title holders. And those title holders obviously don't have 160 acres; because although on the same old "quarter section"; there are now multiple actual land titles.
Now is the first one to request surveying out four parcels to have the right to claim the maximum of four parcels to the exclusion of the other title owners who may even have a larger share of the quarter section.

In my opinion this bylaw is fatally flawed by being based on quarter sections; when parcels as registered with ISC have been the current recognized lawful right to property.
Just another reason to brainstorm before drafting a bylaw meant to be enacted. But that is not how ratepayers business is conducted; is it or not?

[oneoff]

jamesb: Its a lot like encouraging all your sons and daughters to pursue farming as a career. First you should spend some time making an honest assessment on if there is any hope of success or adequate success; whether there is sufficient public support; whether the council agenda position and demeanor (in it's current state) is worthy at your attempt furthering improvements in the procedures,objectives and goals of the Municipalities Act and democratic principles.

Probably being in a minority; how would any new councillor handle another councillor declaring a conflict of interest; but remaining in his seat; contributing comments in the discussion about the council motion and then maybe even taking part in the vote.
There is the matter of being associated (or seen to being associated ) with others who do not apparently admit that " a reeve or councillor can not do anything that they want". It is wrong to cast votes with the pre dtermined conclusion that they will always be against a certain party who might ever approach council on any issue.
Sorry; but as long as such issues are facts of life; no one should condone or applaud governments based on those inappropriate attitudes.
It is up to a lot more than a few to strive for open accountable governments. I can certainly live with whatever happens; and have less to lose than many others; (and interestingly more to gain) and while I will do much more than my share to attempt bringing information to light; the ultimate responsibility for good government rests upon a much larger population base.

[JACKFLASH]

oneoff; i know you have some serious shit going on in your RM. Where is the the transparcy. You are fully in your rights as land owner and tax payer to go in and request a presentation to RM council.

[oneoff]

The only satisfaction one will ever get from a group of "pack thinkers" is when they were forced to backtrack on a completely outrageous infringement on basic human rights.
After arguing that they strongly believed no one should use those rights; they unamiously changed a motion to support those rights.
As I said; you had to be there; and very few will ever know; first hand; what is council's true intent.
And that is why there is no permanent, "live" record of what really was meant; and could be proven or spread to all the ratepayers who surely would not tolerate what is going on;......... or not.

[oneoff]

It needs to be mentioned that Enniskillen council members are fully aware of agriville. In fact they may scrutinize it pretty closely. They also aren't telling any of the other sides of the story. It all makes sense.

[cottonpicken]

What the hell are you talking about?

In condenced point form please.

[oneoff]

Cotton: That comment kind of rubs me the wrong way. Perhaps you could tell me exactly at what level you would request me to begin the explanation. And sometimes its best to just ignore an ignorant comment; or reword it to more politely say "Could you please clarify your points". Because right now , I might very well decide I would never waste another second of my time trying to change or improve your opinion of someone such as myself.

[cottonpicken]

Relax,i'm trying to help you.

When on an internet chat forum,its best to use
concise,small spaced out sentences,that cut quick
and fast to the issue,rather than long drawn out
paragraphs,like a power point presentations.

[checking]

Cotton has finally posted one correct thing. He admits that he is "trying". (lol)