Skyline...Future of Sask Land Ownership???

[farmaholic]

**** oneoff, was that really called for?

I don't even know if I got my perception of the document right from the quick gleaning of the first few pages. The rest is kind of yadda yadda yadda. In those documents the purpose of them is usually stated in the opening pages.

I'm afraid to ask if I got my "take" right.

[Rareearth]

Someone asks for clarity and a summary.... Wow no meds

I wonder how many people actually follow the web links. I do sometimes and didn't in this case. It's not as simple as one might think with a iPad

[bucket]

Farmaholic

Yep it was.

[phoenix64]

Concerns with these continued challenges of sask land act can be directed to Mark Folk, sask farmland security board mfolk@farmland.gov.sk.ca......board of directors are being ordered by the courts to rethink their initial decision of the divestment of the extra five acres that skyline purchased to challenge the foreign entity provision in the act. Unless concerned citizens contact their mla's and write f.l.s.b. sask farmers in the future will be reduced to serfdom, which is exactly what the bonnefields , pikes, anjelic and pension funds want.

[oneoff]

There is no such a thing as clarification...or a summary at this stage of the conflict. We don't even have access to the the evidence that the Courts have; and the judicial deciion has not been made.

Just like consulting a lawyer for legal advice....all you get is another opinion. No guarantee whatsoever of the ultimate outcome after all the arguents, appeals and deals and spin are completed.

And on this site; one can count on attempts at attacking the messenger. Well maybe its just as inappropriate/appropriate to attack the sources where responsibility and lobbying is deepest. At least it makes one feel slightly better to be on the offensive once in a while.

This ast sumer; the issue of certain "creative" farmland lending/ownership proposals has been rejected as being in contravention of the Farm Land Security Board regulations. And then a 15 acre "actual" purchase was ordered to be reduced down to 10 acres or less and so on. Now the Farm Land Security Board is effectively being taken to the next stage of defendng its decision at the Court of Queen's Bench. Its about derivatives and lending schemes and foreign ownership opportunities that would play out in any number of ways.

In summary; the complaint was before the appropriate Farm Land Security board; and the board's response wasn't what the promoter's wanted to hear.

It's not 15 acres that is at stake. It's who could potentially own large quantities o the relatively "cheapest" agricultural land in the world.
There's such a thing as a foreign country (ies) arranging their future requirement along the line of recent proposals to source potash reserves at the nation level. Might just work for arable land too; if the terms and conditions were appropriate.

Thats what the promoters are pushing. And after the "gus's" have not raised their voices (because they are too "lazy" to care; or their iPhone is too tiny); it will be a "fait accompli"

And so it has escalated to appealing to Queen's Bench.

The Western Producer has amassed 183 pages of court documents. I'd say about 175 of those are faxes of faxes of duplicate copies of the same few pages.

No sense reading those repeats; but once in a hundred times; the notes in the margins might turn out to be very relevant; and in any event they are a necessary part of the paper trail. More infration is always superior to missing information. Thank you Western Producer staff.

Readers really do need to get an adequate high speed internet system so that you can go to web sites and actually read the BroadAcre documents and the Scoular claim and now this threat to current rules for farm ownership in this province.

There will be those who mght benefit immensely; and I'm talking about the average retirement age farmers.

But it likely will be another sad story along the lines of the demise of WIT or the prairie pools; or even some aspects of the CWB. But at least we should all be somewhat informed and have our say before the deals are cast in stone.

But don't be feeling sorry for someone who wasn't sincere in looking for input; and the furthest thing from his mind was to help resolve this issue in the best interest of this provinces residents.

It was an opportunity to give something back for past treatment. It wasn't at all helpful to the serious resolution of this particular land ownership dilema.

[oneoff]

Appears to be SFA on the Farmland Security website about this particular case.

That is apparently confirmed by a former member of the board (in a seperate story that I read a few minutes ago.

I suppose its because its "before the courts"; but just maybe the board should have released the normal "decision" documents before that excuse was possible.

[oneoff]

But "sealed evidence". Just what justifies that draconian move when all were're dealing with is financial arrangements and lots of dirt.