Property Rights

[farmers_son]

Coppertop: You need to be aware that lands that municipalities rent out is not the same as Provincial Crown Leases. Different animal.

I agree that the lease holder should have final refusal when these lands are sold, and I support the lands being sold. The leaseholder would have had an equity value in the land before those lands were transferred to the MD of Taber for $1. That equity has been taken away from them without compensation from either the Province or the MD. In other words expropriation without compensation. That is a serious problem.

I do think the leaseholder should have final refusal on any bid and that the lands should be sold. If the leaseholder was compensated for the equity value that was previously in the lease but is now gone that would be a fair solution that would give the leaseholder a fighting chance to purchase the land.

[coppertop]

FS, how much compensation does a renter get, when they have rented the same apartment for 20 years and the property owner decides to sell off the building for condos ? NONE !!!! In fact unless they can come up with the money they won't even be able to buy a unit.Even if they have had a yearly lease on the unit.

I think if you read my posts you would realize I DO know the difference between municipally owned and Crown land. Once these Tax Recovery lands are transferred to the municipalities for $1.00 per parcel they become municipally owned lands. As indicated, municipalties MUST honor grazing leases for the current and one additional term. Leaseholders did NOT previously own the land, they leased it from the province. Whomever lost the land in tax recovery sad as those cases were, did not have any further claim on the land. None of us know all the details of the properties in the MD of Taber, it would be interesting to hear the municipality's position .

[kpb]

coppertop, how do you feel about leased land, owned by a municipality or the provincial or federal governments, that have say a library on it. Or a police station. Or maybe a university.

Maybe these institutions should not be able to lease this land for long periods of time and should be forced to give up their lease after, say, 40 years (a life time?). Or should they go to the highest bidder at the end of the lease?

kpb

[coppertop]

I don't know of any lands that have such things on them, at least not in this area. There are many schools, fire halls etc. that have been built on Municipal Reserve lands but those lands then are titled to whatever authority governs the building. EG: the regional fire service would hold title to the land and building where a fire hall was built, and in the case of a Library it would be the local or regional library board. As far as schools go I would suspect that most of them are under the control of the school authority, either public or separate. In cases where schools are closed and sold, the school board is the seller, and no doubt if the building is leased the school board is the landlord.

The terms of leases should be honored but in my opinion, these leases should be reviewed every few years to ensure that the lease fees are in line with the going rate. Whether these leases are on Crown land or municipal land.

Our county has reviewed the lease rates on municipal land several times over the years, and in most cases the lease rates increase slightly every five years or so. In 2003/2004 the county did not raise lease rates and waived the property tax on farmland throughout the county including lease land.

[coppertop]

Just wanted to add that it would not be prudent for any publically funded organization to construct a building on lands they did not own, although it may well have happened and still be happening for all I know.

If the tax recovery lands we have been discussing have structures, homes etc. on them that is a different matter, but I understood that they were bare land without improvements.

[farmers_son]

Coppertop: I understand you opinion.

However many years ago the Province in its wisdom created a situation whereby it leased land on long terms with basically an automatic renewal and the right to transfer the lease to someone else. This resulted in the land being treated as the leaseholders own, the same as deeded land with the same high level of stewardship, as well as creating leaseholder equity in the leased land. Obviously the Province could have made a different policy decision back then but the implications for the leaseholder would be an inability to plan for the future and economic pressure to take from the lease and not put back.

When the Province transferred the land to the Municipality the Province reneged on a long term practice that the leaseholders had every reason to believe would be there into the foreseeable future. While the pros and cons of the Provinces long term leasing policy could be debated the fact remains that the leaseholders did have an equity position in the leased land that had been upheld in the Courts. That equity position which might have amounted to hundreds of thousands of dollars per leaseholder evaporated overnight with the stroke of a Minister’s/Bureaucrat’s pen.

Some people think that is wrong and I think they are right to do so.

[coppertop]

FS, I am sure there is more involved in the process than just the municipality asking that the lands be transferred. In fact, any purchase on behalf of the municipality must be done by way of motion in council, and all council minutes are public information, and many are posted on municipal websites.

Once these lands are in the control of the municipality they must advertise in regular newspapers of the intenion to sell or lease land, if there was a huge uproar from the majority of citizens against such a decision I would think the county would reconsider. I don't know the issues with Taber, and haven't been able to find any information on their website. I do know the councillors from the MD of Taber very well, in fact, one of them, Donald Johnson is the President of the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties. I have known all the members of council for years and have always been impressed at the leadership they have shown in matters surrounding land use.I am sure I will be seeing some of them at the upcoming Planning and Development conference so I will certainly ask about these lands.

Again, the wording on the leases will likely be key, according to my source the municipality MUST honor the lease for the current and one additional term.

[farmers_son]

The MD of Taber’s policy on Tax Recovery Lands can be read at:

http://www.mdtaber.ab.ca/MD%20CONNECTION%20WINTER%202007.pdf

Contrast it with the Special Areas policy on giving the leaseholder first chance at purchasing the Tax Recovery Lands within its jurisdiction:

http://www.specialareas.ab.ca/ApprovedLandSalePolicy2004_L01104.pdf

It is crucial to any understanding of the issue that the fact that Crown Grazing Leases would have had an equity value while Municipal Leases do not is recognized. They are not the same. Since the Crown lease would have had equity value and that value would be lost when the lease was transferred to the MD of Taber that would be akin to expropriation without compensation.

[Horse]

Wbrower may I ask just what are these property rights you keep refering to and what is the wording of such motions?
F-S you throw out a lot of figures but can you substancaite them %100,000 in improvemrnts I would sure like to see those and if someone is dumb enough to put that kind of money on something they dont even own then I sure dont feel it is my duty to feel sory for them.
There is a lot of opinions on this and I for one would like to settled, this gov sure has let it go for way to long BILLIONS of dollars have been given to a few people in this province and I would like to know why I dont care how you slice it everyone will agree this is not an equatible arangement for the people of alta, the thurber report was a start but king ralph let it slip away ,I would also like to know why on that it was pased in the ledge but not proclamed , how often does something like that happen, probably more often than thought when that kind of cash is involved.
How many of the 4000 lease holders get the realy big bucks mabey 1/2 hundred? I think it is time for an audit on the books and see for sure.

[coppertop]

FS, I found the information in the MD of Taber's Reeve's report. I am wondering if you read it ? It states that the tax recovery lands were locked into a 10 year lease which expired in 2006, there lands, some 500 quarters are being transferred to the MD and will continue to be until 2016.

The Reeve, Hank Van Beers, who I know well, clearly stated that he and some members of council are leaseholders and cannot vote on the issue due to a conflict of interest. He further states that the leases will CONTINUE to be leased to the current leaseholder who have managed the lands very well. Now this is completely different than the information we were given at the start of this thread.

The county, is in fact honoring the leases and contrary to what we were told at the start of this thread they are NOT selling them to the highest bidder.

Most times municipal councillors do the RIGHT THING, and all too often citizens bad mouth, repeat gossip, etc, without taking time to find out the facts.Listening to coffee shop talk or the fellow at the transfer station in some cases may give a person lots to talk about but unless they have checked all the facts, they may not have all the information required to come to an informed conclusion.