Property Rights

[wbrower]

Coppertop, The question is: Will this new Stelmach government, that was put in power by rural Albertans, entrench Property Rights.

Or are they just a new face on the same old big oil shuck and jive routine that has short changed rural Alberta since Peter Loughheed refused to include our Property Rights in Trudeau's constitution.

[Horse]

F-S I still dont see why someone should get a preferencal rate. Lets say joe looses his farm to the bank for lack of payment do you think the bank should sell it to tom for what is owing or mabey 50% of what is owing or do you think it should be tendered to the highest bidder? We will all be paying the loss to the bank in hidher rates.
A few yr ago there was a case here where a farmer lost his land and the gov sold it to his brotherinlaw for 40cents on the dollar and there was no oportunity for otheras to bid was that fair? The 40 cents was mabey because mabey he was that far in the hole that40 cents was still a fair price but the real kick was that there was other neibours that would have met that or more but no chance, I will agree that it could be tough but I would like to see things transparant.
I know of a 1/2 section that was tengered by the owner because there was 2 neibours that wanted it, 1 bid 40,000 more than the next highest just because he wanted it or mabey to stop the other from getting it so crap happens but at least everyone had a fair chance.

[coppertop]

The thing I don't understand about this issue is whether or not the taxes owing on these lands was owed to the municipality. All property taxes are now paid to the municipality and any failure to pay property taxes for a period of three years results in the property being put up for tax recovery sale. If the properties in the MD of Taber were in tax arrears to the MD, then they are within their rights to put these lands up for sale, and under the provisions of the Municipal Government Act the lands must be sold by public tender, possibly with the leasee having the opportunity to match the highest bid. In my view this is a fair and equitable way of disposing of these lands.

I don't know what the government will do with respect to entrenching Property Rights, but I would suspect that they will look to the rural and urban municipalities associations for some direction, as they are the ones most affected when taxes are left unpaid.

[farmers_son]

Coppertop: I will quote wbrower as he is more familiar with the exact situation but I agree with his understanding “Tax recovery lands are lands, most likely old homesteads that were abandoned or taken for non payment of taxes years ago. These lands were administered by the provincial government along with grazing leases until recent times there was a cabinet decision to turn tax recovery land back to the counties and MD when requested by the local government to do so." I would add that I would expect the municipality did not even exist at the time these lands were taken over by the crown. They are not tax recovery lands in the same way that would happen today if you did not pay your taxes and the municipality would offer the lands for sale. The owner would have up to the sale date to pay his/her taxes or the land would either be sold at the appraised price or higher or else be transferred to the municipality. I believe these were crown leases for generations and as such the leaseholder would have had an equity position in those leases. It appears from this conversation that the leaseholder equity value was lost when the province handed over the property to the MD of Taber.

Horse; It would seem that fair depends upon which side of the fence you are sitting on. There have been cases in this area where lenders did make special provisions so that land could stay in the family. At that time most here thought that was very fair of the bank, it was actually a good business move on the banks part. It seems like there is more competition for land today and the neighbours here are cutthroat when it comes to land. Quite a change from even 10 years ago. Myself I am guided by the principle do unto others as you would have others do unto you. If I was in the boots of the leaseholders around Taber I would want to be treated fairly as it seems people were treated fairly by other municipalities.

[coppertop]

The MD of Taber was incorporated as the MD of Eureka in 1945, so they are one of the older incorporated rural municipalities in the province.

I have searched on the provincial government website for any information on these lands, it really intrigues me.

[coppertop]

Finally found info on tax recovery lands.The government began acquiring these lands in the 1930's. They are transferred to municipalities upon request, and then the cost is $1.00 per parcel.
The municipalitiy must honor grazing leases for the current and ONE additional term prior to offering the lands for sale or lease by public tender. In my view this is a fair practice, the lands are NOT arbitrarily taken from the leasee, but after a period of time are offered to anyone wishing to buy or lease them.

I do not think that any individual should have lifelong control of lands that are owned by the public, that is the position I took during the time of the Thurber committee's review of grazing leases and it hasn't changed to date.

[farmers_son]

Spoken like someone who, I am betting, does not have any crown land.

Actually, it seems to me that these lands are being arbitrarily taken from the leaseholder without compensation. There is no question the previous leaseholder would have had equity in the lease prior to the Province transferring the land to the Municipality. Assuming this land is simply sold to the highest bidder and the previous leaseholders do not receive some recognition or value for their years of stewardship and the resulting increased value of the lease, where does that leave all the other leaseholders in this Province?

I am in the process of buying a Crown Lease. It would seem that I should be very concerned that my investment might be rather short term and evaporate into thin air at the whim of Government. Although I would never do it, the smart move would seem to be to take all I can from the lease as quick as I can and not worry about the future of the land. In other words, if the Government is going to treat its leaseholders like the private sector treats renters then the leaseholders will need to start treating the land like rented land and rob it for all it is worth. At least in this area, most rented land is in pretty bad shape after 5-10 years while the Crown land is farmed just like the deeded land. Go figure….

[coppertop]

The lease holder on tax recovery land is NOT having the land taken away, they have the opportunity to bid on the purchase of the land or to lease it again, along with the rest of the public.

When land is owned by the municipality it is owned in the name of all the citizens of that municipality. Is it fair that one citizen has lifelong use of lands with no sunset clause or no opportunity for other citizens to use the same lands ? If operators wish to have ultimate control over lands then they should buy the land, not lease it from the public and expect it to be theirs forever.

There must be an element of fairness in all access, and the ability to use crown or municipaly owned lands. I would suspect that the MD of Taber has done due diligence in any decision they have made to request the lands in question be transferred to the municipality.

In my experience municipalities do not do themselves any favor by acquiring more land, usually it causes more headaches than you can imagine.

[coppertop]

just wanted to add this, No I do not have a grazing lease, but I do have years of experience in serving the public. Every decision made by municipalities and government regarding public land has got to be for the greater good vs being in the best interest of one citizen.

[WRAPper]

Wanted to step in on this one, as in our county we don't have many if any tax recovery lands that I am aware of. Howevermour county has recently as well decided to get out of the land businesss in cases where they have small parcels, such as former school sites and also some abandoned railroad allowances that came to them through the other levels of government.
We also happen to be within the "acreage belt" which seems to be in an ever expanded circle around the urban areas. I know that if our councilor supported a move to tender these lands to the highest bidder and in effect created an acreage in the middle of some of these long established farms we'd be seeing a new councilor this fall. That said he's on record for getting these parcels amalgamated into the existing quarters at fair market value and that is really what should happen with all these lands develop a fair market value calculation for all crown parcels like this and as in most other rental scenarios give the renter or quarter owner the last right of refusal amalgamating it into the quarter and get this issue put to bed it's simmered for years and needs to done with.
And as far as property rights WBrower tell me when and where and I'll support you fully. It has been one of my largest issues between oil and gas and hunting etc it's time that we control what we own in this province.

[coppertop]

A lot of municipal reserve parcels out in rural municipalities were taken at the time of subdivision of lands. There is no MR required on the first parcel out, but after that 10% of the remainder is either taken as MR or cash in lieu.

My preference has always been cash in lieu with the exception of a large multi lot subdivision where MR lands can be used for a play ground, community centre etc.

In our county there was some abandoned rail line and the county worked with the landowners to allow these lands to be stand alone subdivisions if that is what the landowner wanted, and in many cases this is what was requested by the landowner. They were buying up the abandoned rail line and selling it as acreages, the only drawback was when there was no access to the parcel, then subdivision was denied. The landowner then had to amalgamate the land into the quarter.

I support landowners having the final refusal to meet the top bid on leases, and tax recovery lands, but I do not support these lands remaining with one leaseholder forever without having some mechanism triggered to ensure that the public is receiving full value for the rental of these lands.

I also feel that anyone bidding on leased land whether it is crown land or municipally owned land should prove they need the land for grass, and that is all they should be leasing. They should be fully compensated for damage to grasslands, fences etc. during the course of resource extraction but the resource revenue should to to the crown. It goes to the municipality on all municipally owned lands that I am aware of.

[wbrower]

To date three constituencies have passed Property Rights resolutions that will come before the P.C. AGM in Edmonton this coming May.

Property Rights resolutions have passed there before but previous governments have simply ignored them.

This time there may be a little more momentum. Rural Alberta seems to be waking up to the fact that we have been short changed by provincial governments and MLA's, who's primary interests have been to feather their own nest, and look after the interests of Resource Companies, rather than looking after our interests.