Property Rights

[coppertop]

FS,The MD is the people,not just the seven people that sit around the council table. I can assure you that any lands owned by a municipality are owned by the citizens of that municipality who elect their council to make decisions on all things in the citizens interest. The MD can sell the lands, lease the lands, turn the lands into a municipal park, give the lands to some environmental group or whatever council decides. If the public do not like the way council decides on issues regarding municipally owned lands then the public will either raise the issue with council or make their opinions known by the way they vote.

The allegations about council's decisions being controlled certainly is the key to this entire issue. If in fact, any individual or group of individuals have proof of that allegation they can request a ministerial review of the conduct of council.

I would be willing to guess that the council is not taking direction from any special interest group but are acting, as most elected officials do, in what they genuinely feel is the best interest of all their citizens.

I don't like to see allegations thrown around about anyone who chooses to serve the public, unless there is a basis for the allegations. You may wish to brush off the allegations, but such allegations have the ability to tarnish the reputation of people who have devoted many years of service to their community.
To disagree with the decision made by politicans, local, provincial or others, is certainly the right of any citizen, but to make insinuations about the integrity of those same politicians without basis of fact is wrong. There are many decisions made by our local council that I personally do not agree with, and some have come back to haunt them, but they certainly have made them in what they feel are the best interest of their citizens, not because they were being controlled by any group.

[farmers_son]

I think there are things that local councils do well and there are things that are better left in the hands of governments that can take a broader view and are not subject to the same local influences or put another way, special interest groups. I personally cringe when I see a local council put in control of that much land and that many people’s livelihoods. The future of multigenerational farms will be at stake here. This land should not in the control of the MD but sold. I think the Special Areas policy of first offering the land to the previous leaseholders is a very workable solution to a difficult problem.

I guess it boils down to a difference in philosophies. As a third generation farmer I understand the importance of the land and the ties that bind us to the land. I am very uncomfortable when I see local government owning nearly 600 quarters of land and the concept that “everyone” should be owning parts of these peoples farms just raises way too many red flags for me.

[coppertop]

FS, Crown lands, grazing leases on public lands that aren't in the green zone etc. are all held in trust for the people of Alberta by the government.

I think you are selling municipal politicians short and certainly underestimating the ability of many of them to make decisions under pressure. I can assure you that when I was an elected official there were many times the council chambers was full of people demanding that council put money unto specific projects, either road paving or recreational facilities. As an elected official you have to decide whether you base your decision on the demands of a room full of people or the silent majority that may never make their views known but elected you to make decisions in their best interest.
It's certainly not an easy task, and those who cave to a few noisy members of the public aren't really there for the good of all they represent.

As far as your concern regarding 600 quarters of land in the hands of local elected officials, how do you feel about millions of dollars of land in the hands of cities, towns etc., and this is a normal situation all across the province. Many municipalities hold title to significant tracts of land.

I think the real problem with these lands is that the leaseholders are a bit grumpy because they have lost the right to sell the leases, which in my view should never have been allowed in the first place.
You refer often to Special Areas, they are not the same as municipal land and they are not run in the same fashion.

I think that most of us who are involved in the agriclutural industry appreciate the importance of the land and the ties that bind us here.

The land base in our province must support more people every year, I will be extremely pleased when the Land Use Policy Framework is enshrined in legislation, although that isn't likely to happen for at least another year.

[farmers_son]

My interest is in farm lands and the people that farm that land. I will have to leave concerns over land in towns and cities to people who are interested in that subject. I have no way of knowing if the Province ever created lease arrangements in the cities that gave the leaseholder equity in the property as was done with Crown Grazing Leases.

I guess it is understandable if the previous leaseholder is a bit grumpy after they have had hundreds of thousands of dollars in equity in their Crown Grazing Lease stripped away from them without compensation.

Special Areas is indeed different but could serve as a model on how do deal with these Tax Recovery Lands and the MD of Taber would be wise to consider that model. If nothing else that model could provide a convenient out for council faced with dealing with a tough issue and conflicting interests.

It is not a question of selling local elected officials short. Some of the local officials go onto politics at the provincial even federal level. The difference is in the structure of local government versus how government is structured further up and how that different structure does not provide the same checks and balance that the Parliamentary system we use in Edmonton and Ottawa provide. The reality is that in rural Alberta someone can get elected to municipal council with fewer than 100 votes. It does change the way decisions are made locally versus provincially.

[kpb]

farmers son is correct in his thinking. Several years ago the courts in this province ruled that crown leaseholders had a valid equity position in their leases. I would expect there to be lawsuits that, based on precedent, would be successful if there is a general move to seize this equity without compensation.

The WSGA has been active in supporting the rights of leaseholders and I would expect this to continue. Leaseholders, as a group, have been very trustworthy about maintaining the quality of their leases and, generally, I would expect the provincial government to continue to support this program. I think the possibility of land abuse is much greater if the leaseholder knows that his term is up in 10 years and someone else will be running the land at that time.

In regards to municipal councils, farmers son is correct again when he points out that the provincial and federal governments have to have a broader agenda than local governments. By definition this is the case. Also, while it is true that there are many fine local politicians, it is also true that there are some that are serving, shall we say, smaller interests or are simply not capable of understanding broader issues.

I have observed that it is not uncommon for people with an ego-based drive to lead everyone they can think of to get into municipal politics. These people are generally not able to grasp larger issues and should not be allowed to make decisions about things that are beyond their own backyards.

In my own county we have councillors elected and resign, plus not re-elected, all over a single subdivison. These people all have one agenda relating to one relatively small item. They are elected with a small plurality. What demonstrated capability do these people have to decide any bigger issues? While municipal politicians always talk about serving the public, I have seen more than a few who appear to be driven more by their own need to be constantly recognized than by any thoughtful wish to work for the general public good.

kpb

[coppertop]

Municipal councilors who need to be constantly recognized are in the wrong career, because, believe me there is little recognition, other than personal satisfaction of contributing to your community.
The accountability factor is likely the greatest among municipal politicians, certainly not because they are more honest, but because they are closest to the people.

You may run into your MLA once or twice a year, and your MP very seldom but you likely see your local councillor out at various public events, at church or what have you, and have instant acccess to them when you do.

The turn over in the last municipal elections rurally was over 40%, and it is anticipated that it will be equal to that this year. Much of this is folks that decide to run for council at the urging of neighbours etc., and when they find it isn't all a bed of roses and they will be called upon to make tough decisions that will tick some of their neighbours off, they decide it't not their cup of tea.

Many of the southern municipalities have councilors, the MD of Taber included,who have given years of service to the citizens of the county, and likely many of those years were witout much in the way of compensation for their time.

As I have said previously if these tax recovery lands are a major burning issue within the MD and the majority of the electorate feel that the decisions made by council are not in their best interest then there will be changes on council this fall.

[kpb]

Well I guess I think that the municipal politicians get lots of recognition--I'm constantly reading about their squabbling in the local newspapers. And yes lots of them have been doing this for lots of years--too many in my humble opinion. Some of these guys need to move on over and let some new blood in.

I get real tired of reading over and over how these guys are tirelessly serving their constituents, how accountable they are to citizens, how it's really not a bed of roses. If it is so tough then why do so many of these guys just hang on and on and on? Must just have that martyr spirit I guess.

The fact is that municipal politicans have immense power over the serfs in their county--power to determine subdivisions, power to enable some people to make lots of money through approving some land subdivisions, power to not enable others to do land deals. That power is solely in the hands of the municipal politicians who may or may not listen to their planners and who may or may not go by their own planning guidelines.

The reason that people enter municipal politics is the same reason that they enter any other politics--to hold power, to make the rules. That's not necessarily bad but it can be. It's just the way it is.

But, please, no more of the poor old sacrificing politician routine. A lot of these guys just cannot get along without thinking that they are needed to lead all of us great unwashed. Believe me, we would be a lot better off if there were less rules, less leading, less committees, less meetings and, yes, less people who feel they are so superior to the rest of us that they just have to lead us down every garden path they can think of.

kpb

[coppertop]

kpb, many of the RULES you feel are not necessary are Provincial rules, not municipal.
Certainly your local politicians decide on subdivisions, approve amendments to land use by-laws and municipal development plans etc. The reason they do so is because the little piece of Provincial Legislation called the Municipal Government Act says they must !

Council's that sqabble in the media are doing no service to their ratepayers, usually the public squabble is the result of one or more councillors deciding to air their view point in the media vs working within their council to gain consenus and do what is right for the good of their municipality.

In our municipality one of the loudest critics of council, an individual who could never find anything good about the decisions made by council for years, who ran and was defeated twice, finally got in by acclamation when a long serving councillor retired after 12 years.

The fellow has had a pretty rough ride, found out that the staff he thought were useless, were in fact some of the best informed within the system, he also found that once he was elected his old cronies who liked to critize every move council made turned on him and challenged his decisions, his expense claims etc.

After his first term he had a completely different view point, and when he ran the second time he was man enough to tell the public at the candidate's forums that had a lot of misconceptions about councillors and the way they performed their duties when he first ran, but his opinion had changed after he saw what they were expected to learn and the decisions they were expected to make.

I have always said it is easy to criticize and bad mouth local politicians but very few who make a habit of it will ever put their name on a ballot.

[coppertop]

One more comment on the subject of municipal politicians. In Alberta in the last municipal election one jurisdiction had extend the period for nominations to be filed for one extra day because there weren't enough people willing to step up and file papers to run. This has happened in some urban centres as well.

So it's not much wonder that some council members remain in place for so many years, not many people want the job, they are either too busy, don't want to take the flak etc. In many cases the individuals that run are the same people who have always been willing to work voluntarily for many organizations in their community.
Many of our current MLA's were former Reeve's and Mayors of their respective communities, and it's very doubful if they would have gotten the nomination to run as an MLA if the people they represented at the local council level weren't satisfied with the job they did.

[kpb]

coppertop, as I said in my previous post, there are fine people in municipal politics just like in any other walk of life. But the fact is that many of the rulings regarding subdivisions in my own county are inconsistent and appear to be subject to the mood of council at the time.

I have seen many instances where the planners employed by the municipality make a recommendation regarding a land use application or a subdivision application that is overturned or ignored by the council who then proceed in a manner that is opposed to what the planners recommend. And the planners are acting in a way that reflects the local rules that were previously passed by the same council!! Does this seem like intelligent governance to you?

What concerns me about local councils acting on a matter that should be a larger concern is that I don't really think that some of the people on these councils are capable of making reasoned decisions. Some have simply been councillors for too long, some cannot see the general good. But when you quite often see land issues resolved in capricious and arbitrary ways that are inconsistent with the very rules passed by that council you have to wonder about the capability of the people involved.

And I'm not just talking about one council. This is a pattern that has been repeated in previous councils. I believe there are good people in council but I also think that there are people who just want to have power over other people, who have their own axes to grind and who stay in their positions for too long. These people are not few and it is for that reason that I prefer to have larger issues--such as grazing lease dipositions--decided by people with what I think is a greater capacity to see the bigger picture.

As for finding people to do the job of municipal council--that is an old saw and one that I don't think is borne out. I think people would run if they didnt think they would be against the same old boy who has been there forever.

You know what do we really need from municipal council? How about snow off the roads and stick to the rules already laid out for good governance through taxation and land decisions. That's all I want and for that I pay thousands of dollars a year in taxes and still don't get even that. The people in my municipality don't know if their subdivision application will be approved or not because, although the rules are clear, the council often ignores both the rules and the planners in making their decisions.

I think less governance is good governance and I'm just sick of know nothings telling me what I should be doing or, more often, what I shouldn't be doing. Please, just provide the basic services, stick to the rules and leave us in peace.

I get tired of so-called leaders who have never had a commercial farm telling me how to farm, people who don't have families telling me how to raise my kids, people who have never saved any money telling me how to save mine. All these politicians need to get their own lives, leave the rest of us alone and just provide the basics we need as a community. And, please, no more monster new town buildings built on the backs of the local taxpayers only to please the egos of the councillors involved.

kpb

[coppertop]

kpb, I agree with a lot of your reasoning. I have been a member of a Subdivision and Developement Appeal Board and also a Municipal Planning Commission.

The MPC has the ability to grant a variance to the rules in many cases, as do provincial boards such as the NRCB.

I will give you an instance of where that variance recently was utilized to assist a property owner. The application was for a 5 acre subdivided parcel out a a quarter of land with a little draw running through it. The draw never had water running in it in the last 30 years, but the development officer had requessted a 100 meter environmental reserve all along the draw both on the subdivided parcel and the remaining 155 acres of the quarter.

One member of the planning commission lived a mile from the property in question and challenged the development officer to provide a reason for the request, the land owner was adamant that the ER was not necessary because there had never been water in the draw area during the years he had owned the quarter. The RULES ( Provincial ) said an environmental reserve should be added to the title in environmentally sensitive areas which makes sense. The development officr advised the MPC that they should make the ER a condition of subdivision but was over ruled. There was no need for the ER, it would have sterilized a lot of the farmable land on the 155 acres etc.
The farmer was very pleased with the decision by the MPC to grant a variance to the rules, as was the proposed owner of the 5 acre parcel.

Had the one member of the MPC not been aware of the property in question, and understood the area and spoke up to convince her colleagues the ER would likely been a condidtion of the subdivision. Now the MPC member has served as a county councillor in the past, and has lived in the area for years, she knows the rules and understands the ability to grant a variance....was she trying to wield her power, or doing the right thing ???

Unfortunately much of the planning and development decisions were downloaded to municipalities in the early 90's. There used to be Regional Planning Commissions where the decisions on planning were not made at the local level. Developers, private citizens and municipalities alike lobbied to do away with those commissions and allow each municipality to develop their own statuatory documents for planning. Certainly there is a lack of consistency as councils change, some are pro developemt, some are pro agriculture and some are afraid to make a decision because of the flak they will get from the public.

But, until there is a change on land use planning across the province local councils and planning commissions are the ones charged with making the decisions. If councillors aren't doing their job, it is up to the voters to make changes at election time. As for newcomers being afraid to take on an incumbent, that is hogwash. If the majority of citizens in any electoral division are fed up with their councillor they will elect someone else. In the 2004 election in our county the Reeve and the majority of council were turfed because of self serving decisions they made the term prior. In fact an old boy that had served for 12 years on council and had retired six years prior ran against the Reeve and beat hime three votes to one. Is he the most effective Reeve in the province, no, but he is an honest, decent person who has brought some resemblance of stability back to our county and that is what he was elected to do.

[kpb]

coppertop I want to pursue this just a little longer with you although this thread is very long already.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree about running against incumbents--I think some good people just do not run because the councillor has been there forever but...

But in the case of municipal planning, I think it is more than just a case of councils changing and thereby changing attitudes, etc. Within each council's terms there are repeated inconsistencies that leave the residents wondering what are the real criteria for subdivision approval. More important, when land use issues are seen to be inconsistently decided and not based upon written law, the suspicion is that they are decided based upon outside influences. And the overall trustworthyness and capability of the council is questioned by the electorate.

You gave me an example of why the MPC would overrule a written requirement and result in a good decision. But there are many other examples of what I am talking about--subdivisions on river flats allowed sometimes and not others, first subdivision out allowed for some people but not others, a recent commercial development allowed on the banks of the Red Deer River, full quarters split sometimes but not others.

When the planners are ignored and the rules are only applied in some cases, it leaves the door wide open for abuse. I think that the province should have more control of planning and some general rules could be laid down that will always be applied--for example, no development of any kind on the flood plain of any river (how we have paid in many counties for allowing development there).

There are other general rules that could be applied. I recognize that each county has its own needs and many rules will have to be unique to that particular county. But there are many other general rules that could be laid down by the province and that therefore would be known and acknowledged by all residents. Also, particular county rules should be established by the county councils and then, for goodness sake, followed by the MPC. In every case. Without exception.

Yes that might mean your fellow has a rule about a ditch that is harsh and maybe unfair. But for every tough ruling like that ---which after all is not that unfair anyways given the amount of land involved--there are dozens of cases where mysterious rule-bending decisions were made that leave the residents puzzled as to what the rules really are and what they mean anyways.

Frankly, I am a lot more comfortable with the provincial government making most of the rules on land use and development than I am with local council members who only seem to obey their own rules when they want to.

kpb

[coppertop]

I agree that there needs to be provincial legislation regarding land use. There are provincial Land Use Policies but they have absolutely no teeth. I have advocated for years that there is a need for an over arching provincial plan, that looks at the Province from the 40,000 foot level. It needs to enshrine environmental issues, areas of historical significanc etc. In our municipality there are two areas where huge multi parcel subdivisions were allowed, one in a swamp and another in the flood plain of a large creek. These were approved back in the days of the old Regional Planning Commissions and have come back to haunt the previous and past councils of our county.

Certainly we have seen in our own county unfairness and inconsistency, not only on the MPC but the SDAB as well over the years. Some new council members just do not want to say no to anyone regardless of whether or not their application is consistent with current Land Use Planning documents.

I could show you horror stories of development in my own community, they should have never been approved and now they are causing all sorts of problems for existing large livestock operations.

kpb, I hope when the Province does take their draft Land Use Policy Framework out for public consultation, you and many other Albertans will provide input and suggestions. This policy will ultimately affect every single Albertan, and you can bet that land developers, special interest groups etc. will have thier say, so it is important that average every day Albertans do to.

[kpb]

I agree with everything you said in your last post and look forward to a provincial land use policy from "40,000 feet" which is a superb way of putting it. I will provide input to my MLA when that takes place.

kpb

[coppertop]

At this point in time there has not been a process decided upon for the public consultation. It may take the form of written submissions, or there may be an MLA committee going around the province meeting with various groups and individuals, similar to what the Klaptstein Committee did with regard to the Confined Feeding Operations.

I have been involved in five separate forums to date on the Land Use Framework, and will certainly post information on this site when I learn what the next steps in the process will be.