Access Dispute Owner Vs Band

Post Reply
twobits
Guru
Posts: 8115
Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 8:44 am

Re: Access Dispute Owner Vs Band

Post by twobits »

maryjane48 wrote:http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/natural-resource-use/land-use/crown-land/crown-land-uses/residential-uses/private-moorage


This is the real explanation . People can rent or lease out into the water but they do not own it .


Now you are just parroting GordonH with links. The information I provided clearly showed the fee simple legal lot lines. The land portion inside of the lake is not rented or leased....it is legally owned and the reason why these owners can prevent trespass along the beach they own and why their fences blocking access have never been required to be removed.
Do you seriously think that if public access to this waterfront was legal, some do gooder would not have demanded fence removal decades ago? Better yet, why don't you call the City and ask them about the legal status of access to these lands instead of assuming your link is correct and the be all rule. You will find that these lots were surveyed so long ago that their status is grandfathered and the compensation required to force compliance is cost prohibitive. And if you look at the map I provided, you will also see a few of the lots actually have lot lines that do not extend into the lake. The reason for this is that on those lots, a past or current owner has torn down the existing home to completely rebuild. That required a building permit for a new dwelling that also required compliance with existing provincial legislation and giving up that foreshore land right. The way around that, and what is most exercised by current owners is to just apply for a "renovation building permit". As long as only one wall of the existing structure remains as part of the rebuild/renovation, there is no requirement to conform to existing legislation without compensation. It is exactly the same thing as homeowners of areas such as lakefront Kaleden and lower Summerland do to evade new septic tank regulations. They tear down the house leaving only one wall and have the architect design the new home with that wall as part of the house.
What I surmise to have happened with this OK falls owner is that her claim of property boundary is historically correct but the Province more recently and as a result of legislation resurveyed the property to be in compliance with the new legislation. What did no happen was compensation for the expropriation of the land annexed. Since the Province did not pay her, nor did the RDOS, does she not still hold title until compensated? You, as a FN person, should understand the concept of expropriation of land and just compensation. And it would be rather hypocritical if you suggest otherwise.
I love creek fishing....just catch and release for fun. About 15 yrs ago I made the mistake of tossing a fly into Shingle Creek on reserve lands up Green Mountain Rd. Within 30 minutes I was told to vacate immediately and if I ever returned I would be risking an azz full of shotgun.
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.
User avatar
maryjane48
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 17124
Joined: May 28th, 2010, 7:58 pm

Re: Access Dispute Owner Vs Band

Post by maryjane48 »

Since when did a goverment cower in the face of grandfathered contracts ? Lol thats funny .but the reality is a lake is one thing ,lots of different beaches to go to other than complaining about a fence . But on this river if the govt survey says one thing ,she wont be rich enough to out last a govt law suit .

She would be better off engaging them and reaching a workable comprimise on both sides . Kinda like what seasme street tells kids to do
dontrump
Grand Pooh-bah
Posts: 2623
Joined: Feb 20th, 2016, 10:39 am

Re: Access Dispute Owner Vs Band

Post by dontrump »

maryjane48 wrote:http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/natural-resource-use/land-use/crown-land/crown-land-uses/residential-uses/private-moorage


This is the real explanation . People can rent or lease out into the water but they do not own it .


you really should read all the posts and comprehend what I have said and others such a twobits before posting
I said and very clearly you use to be able to buy foreshore rights and LOTS of people have done so but not in the last 20 years or so. LIke people what part of this do u not understand
dontrump
Grand Pooh-bah
Posts: 2623
Joined: Feb 20th, 2016, 10:39 am

Re: Access Dispute Owner Vs Band

Post by dontrump »

About 15 yrs ago I made the mistake of tossing a fly into Shingle Creek on reserve lands up Green Mountain Rd. Within 30 minutes I was told to vacate immediately and if I ever returned I would be risking an azz full of shotgun.


yes its amazing how one way streets run in this country is it not LOL
twobits
Guru
Posts: 8115
Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 8:44 am

Re: Access Dispute Owner Vs Band

Post by twobits »

maryjane48 wrote:Since when did a goverment cower in the face of grandfathered contracts ? Lol thats funny .but the reality is a lake is one thing ,lots of different beaches to go to other than complaining about a fence . But on this river if the govt survey says one thing ,she wont be rich enough to out last a govt law suit .

She would be better off engaging them and reaching a workable comprimise on both sides . Kinda like what seasme street tells kids to do


Ya, you're right. That's what it is all about. Ransom the woman with prohibitive costs she has to pay out of her own pocket or hit the road. Ironic isn't it how the Government's inaction to do things properly screws both private property owners and FN's at the same time.
And as Sesame Street teaches kids.....two wrongs do not make a right. You might learn from that else you are nothing but a hypocrite.
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.
LANDM
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 11639
Joined: Sep 18th, 2009, 11:58 am

Re: Access Dispute Owner Vs Band

Post by LANDM »

dontrump wrote:
you really should read all the posts and comprehend what I have said and others such a twobits before posting
I said and very clearly you use to be able to buy foreshore rights and LOTS of people have done so but not in the last 20 years or so. LIke people what part of this do u not understand

It was not common 20 years ago. And lots of people have NOT done so. What you are claiming as fact is simply not true.
You and 71 others Like this post
dontrump
Grand Pooh-bah
Posts: 2623
Joined: Feb 20th, 2016, 10:39 am

Re: Access Dispute Owner Vs Band

Post by dontrump »

It was not common 20 years ago. And lots of people have NOT done so. What you are claiming as fact is simply not true.


No my friend its your statement that is not true mine is factual.My understanding it was common and what iam claiming is true as I was involved in the ownership of OK lake development property and we bought the foreshore rights.I believe we were about the last ones to ever be allowed and that was 1995-96 from memory. most people back then did not know there was such a thing and honestly beleived they owned the property
Point in case here;The city of Vernon was trying to plan a OK lake front walk way which turned out to be (as we all knew) a ridiculous and preposterous ideal and the big stick in the mud was the property we owned could not be included because we owned the foreshore rights (opps)
theseeker
Fledgling
Posts: 189
Joined: Apr 14th, 2012, 1:19 pm

Re: Access Dispute Owner Vs Band

Post by theseeker »

I really think you all have to get a life, and move on. Sorry to say it.
twobits
Guru
Posts: 8115
Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 8:44 am

Re: Access Dispute Owner Vs Band

Post by twobits »

theseeker wrote:I really think you all have to get a life, and move on. Sorry to say it.


Move on if you like. Personally I will call a spade a spade every time I see it. I have yet to see Gordo, Dawn, or MaryJ rebut the legal lot lines of South Beach or Sudbury Ave including foreshore rights.
If you are happy with misinformation, that is your prerogative. This OK Falls property owner may not have foreshore rights, that is yet to be determined. The point of the discussion here is that those rights may not be as clearly defined as some special interest people here would like everyone to believe.
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.
LANDM
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 11639
Joined: Sep 18th, 2009, 11:58 am

Re: Access Dispute Owner Vs Band

Post by LANDM »

It was not common 20 years ago. And lots of people have NOT done so. What you are claiming as fact is simply not true.


dontrump wrote:
No my friend its your statement that is not true mine is factual.My understanding it was common and what iam claiming is true as I was involved in the ownership of OK lake development property and we bought the foreshore rights.I believe we were about the last ones to ever be allowed and that was 1995-96 from memory. most people back then did not know there was such a thing and honestly beleived they owned the property
Point in case here;The city of Vernon was trying to plan a OK lake front walk way which turned out to be (as we all knew) a ridiculous and preposterous ideal and the big stick in the mud was the property we owned could not be included because we owned the foreshore rights (opps)


I cannot comment on what you, as a single property owner, did in 1995. I can, however, comment on the accuracy of my statement and reiterate that what I said is, in fact, correct.
To be clear, what *exactly* are you saying when you say you "bought the foreshore rights"? Be precise, please, so I can see if we are even talking about the same thing. There are a couple of different notions being thrown out in some of these posts so it would be nice to know what you are saying exactly.

Not a lot of point discussing something if we aren't even discussing the same thing.
You and 71 others Like this post
dontrump
Grand Pooh-bah
Posts: 2623
Joined: Feb 20th, 2016, 10:39 am

Re: Access Dispute Owner Vs Band

Post by dontrump »

To be clear, what *exactly* are you saying when you say you "bought the foreshore rights"? Be precise, please, so I can see if we are even talking about the same thing. There are a couple of different notions being thrown out in some of these posts so it would be nice to know what you are saying exactly.


there are not two different notions here foreshore rights are one thing only. you have private controll over the land between low water and high water
so even if its at high water and someone walks through there and you have the ownership or rights to such their actually tresspassing
User avatar
maryjane48
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 17124
Joined: May 28th, 2010, 7:58 pm

Re: Access Dispute Owner Vs Band

Post by maryjane48 »

About 15 yrs ago I made the mistake of tossing a fly into Shingle Creek on reserve lands up Green Mountain Rd. Within 30 minutes I was told to vacate immediately and if I ever returned I would be risking an azz full of shotgun.

No its 2 different situations . Ine your trespassing on reserve lands which are private. The other they are not .
Last edited by Frisk on Aug 8th, 2016, 8:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Quote fixed
LANDM
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 11639
Joined: Sep 18th, 2009, 11:58 am

Re: Access Dispute Owner Vs Band

Post by LANDM »

dontrump wrote:
there are not two different notions here foreshore rights are one thing only. you have private controll over the land between low water and high water
so even if its at high water and someone walks through there and you have the ownership or rights to such their actually tresspassing

Ok, to say that there are not two separate notions being thrown about here shows you either haven't been reading or you don't understand how foreshore "rights" work. They are NOT one thing only and there have been different things described in this thread. Even you have just used two totally different terms.....ownership and rights.

There have been explanations in this thread of the property line extending into the water.....that would create a water lot. That is not easy to create and is definitely not common. It is actual ownership of the underlying property.

You are describing an exclusive use situation on the foreshore. That is definitely not common and was definitely not easy to do at any point, including just prior to 1995. That does not give ownership of a water lot. Rather, just an exclusive use of a certain area. Just because you claim to have arranged this, does not mean it was easy or common. In fact you described a situation where you were the only ones who had this right along a long stretch and were able to block public use. That indicates exactly how common it was.

Finally there is a non-exclusive foreshore right which would, typically, be dock situations. In this case, which is certainly easy and by far the most common, one simply cannot bar access to the foreshore. Again, this does not give ownership......just the permission to do something within the described area without creating impediments to others using the foreshore. This can be revoked at any time without reason or explanation. It seldom is, but it can be.

So, in summary, your situation that you claim to have been involved with your lakeshore experience in the '90s wasn't common then, isn't common now, and wasn't common before then. Additionally, it was never easy. Finally, it is just one of different types of foreshore "rights".

To indicate that the property being discussed would either be part of a water lot or an exclusive use situation would be far reaching at best, and one would think that the upland owner would have pulled that card out on the first day.

If the most recent survey shows that the landowner is incorrect, then that would be considered the most accurate until she can get something that proves otherwise.
You and 71 others Like this post
dontrump
Grand Pooh-bah
Posts: 2623
Joined: Feb 20th, 2016, 10:39 am

Re: Access Dispute Owner Vs Band

Post by dontrump »

It will be interesting to see if she did in fact own the foreshore rights and the gov screwed up. Foreshore purchases were quit common way back but most people never knew what they really were or how it impacted their lake front lots
so hopefully there will be a much more accurate report on this situation than what we have seen so far
Post Reply

Return to “South Okanagan”