Land owners take action against UBC-O

[gardengirl]

I agree with the property owners. It is a Private Road and was never intended as a roadway.
I heard the UBCO rep and the Lawyer for the property owners on CBC radio this morning.

The Lawyer explained that the roadway was made to access those residential lots and the 10 acre hayfield which was acquired by Okanagan College. That lot was added on to other property which the college owned. That does not mean that the access road to that lot should become a roadway to the rest of the college property.

Apparently it was not a big problem when it was Okanagan College, but when the property was purchased by UBCO, the students were told they had the right to use this road.

[dcipher]

3.The first poster conveniently said "12" landowners, leaving out UBCO. Grandma Freddy then contradicted this by acknowledging that UBCO was a landowner but saying they were "violating" the terms of the agreement. Both statements are totally false and red-herrings.

UBCO is a landowner in the agreement, and using the road as ACCESS WAS THE VERY Point of the agreement. So anyone reading this should not be misled by such erroneous statements. The real question is whether the agreement should be invalidated due to the property being bought by a new entity (UBCO). That is a matter of question, and something the courts must decide.

It's a bit trying continually debunking these posts. I urge anyone who wishes to voice an opinion to get well-informed if they wish their opinion to hold weight!

Well, you'll probably slam me for chiming in again, dcipher, but here goes nuthin' ...

It is MY understanding that the roadway is for access ONLY to those properties on the easement agreement. It was never intended as a public road for the convenience of anybody other than the agreement holders - and only for south access to their own property on the easement - not as a through road for all and sundry to access OUC or UBC-O (whichever signed the original agreement but perhaps passing it on to UBC-O upon their takeover of the uni or whatever you want to call that).

Why are you failing to understand that UBCO is not asking for "public" access. It is asking for access by it's invitees. I realize that you may have trouble because you think potentially high numbers = public, but it does not. You must think through this rationally, not based on wild "impressions". You are trying to make some odd, undefined, differentiation between UBCO having access, and UBCO invitees/employees/attendees. (it would be amusing to know who falls under is "UBCO" in your estimation), however, that is very fortunately, not the way it works. All the landowners are allowed to grant their families, friends, employees, or guests access. It would be sad if say, only the landowner on the agreement was allowed to use the road, and not his wife/child/renter/friend. If one wants to argue that their should be limitations on the invitees, that is another argument (and a reasonable one) but your assertions are simply FALSE.

I know you don't really care, but I see it this way ..

.

If you've made this presumption about me, it is pointless to continue.

Say you own a lot along a street with 11 other lot-holders and there's a school in behind your properties, then the guy three doors over from you decides its okay to tell all the people who go to that school that they can all cut across yours and everyone else's yards to get to the school. How happy would you be about that? Would you think its okay that strangers cut across your yard?

Sigh. Are you being obtuse on purpose? This is not a random invitation, for people to cross the property, it is about access TO one of the property owners. It is the very purpose for which that landowner bought the land, and the people who are commuting have business to be done AT the landowners location, and have been invited by the landowner to do such. If the landowner decides to throw a birthday party for his child and invites the school or half or it, or however many he can manage, he most certainly can grant them access to his land via the road.

Would you not get upset because strangers are on your private land? Would you get a tad ticked if they wore a rut in your lawn and you had to reseed it and pick up the garbage and keep the dog from yapping at them? Maybe they picked your flowers? Would that sit right with you?

Ok....I think you are being obtuse on purpose. This is rhetoric, and rather silly rhetoric. It's bad enough that the lawyer very purpsely uses the "yard" analogy to fire up emotional connotations, but now you've taken it to a whole new level. "picked your flowers"...unreal. I also hope that at least some people reading this would realize IT DOES NOT matter if I would be upset, or YOU would be upset. This is a matter of law and rights. For the record, no, I would not be upset, having seen the road, the distance from the properties if the number of cyclists estimated or even 5 times that number used the road. Not that it matters what I or YOU would feel.

It's obvious to me, that if you think the above passage is a valid or honest argument, that no discussion between us will be fruitful.

Just asking ...... I think we have one neighbour who doesn't know the meaning of "neighbourly".

As stated, this really isn't about YOUR Personal subjective, and ill-defined definition of what is "neighbourly". Even if you wished me to take your opinion of what is "neighbourly" seriously, I would ask you to be informed of the facts; but much more troubling, you've taken your vague opinion and portrayed it as a factual reflection of the situation.

Look Grandma, it may SOUND bad to you, but you need to get all the facts, and then think about the legality of the situation. For what sounds BAD to you, seems quite the opposite for quite a number of people as witnessed by comments made. You are entitled to say you think it's "bad", but if you portray facts incorrectly, or if you portray your opinion as being the relevant crux of the issue, you cannot be surprised when you are called on it.

[dcipher]

I agree with the property owners. It is a Private Road and was never intended as a roadway.
I heard the UBCO rep and the Lawyer for the property owners on CBC radio this morning.

The Lawyer explained that the roadway was made to access those residential lots and the 10 acre hayfield which was acquired by Okanagan College. That lot was added on to other property which the college owned. That does not mean that the access road to that lot should become a roadway to the rest of the college property.

Apparently it was not a big problem when it was Okanagan College, but when the property was purchased by UBCO, the students were told they had the right to use this road.

The last line is incorrect. THIS dispute predates UBCO by about a decade. Since the very opening of the North Campus, this has been under dispute. Gardengirl, that is a fact, if you hear somebody who portray it differently, you need to be suspicious of them indeed!

[grammafreddy]

Look Grandma, it may SOUND bad to you, but you need to get all the facts, and then think about the legality of the situation. For what sounds BAD to you, seems quite the opposite for quite a number of people as witnessed by comments made. You are entitled to say you think it's "bad", but if you portray facts incorrectly, or if you portray your opinion as being the relevant crux of the issue, you cannot be surprised when you are called on it.

So, who are you? A lawyer? Your "relevant crux of the issue" is more valid? Ooookay.

I still hope the property owners win.

[gardengirl]

I agree with the property owners. It is a Private Road and was never intended as a roadway.
I heard the UBCO rep and the Lawyer for the property owners on CBC radio this morning.

The Lawyer explained that the roadway was made to access those residential lots and the 10 acre hayfield which was acquired by Okanagan College. That lot was added on to other property which the college owned. That does not mean that the access road to that lot should become a roadway to the rest of the college property.

Apparently it was not a big problem when it was Okanagan College, but when the property was purchased by UBCO, the students were told they had the right to use this road.

The last line is incorrect. THIS dispute predates UBCO by about a decade. Since the very opening of the North Campus, this has been under dispute. Gardengirl, that is a fact, if you hear somebody who portray it differently, you need to be suspicious of them indeed!

Did YOU hear the interview? The point is that since UBCO purchased the property, UBCO has given the students different information and has encouraged students to use the roadway. There has also been significant growth since OK College was built there.

[dcipher]

I agree with the property owners. It is a Private Road and was never intended as a roadway.
I heard the UBCO rep and the Lawyer for the property owners on CBC radio this morning.

The Lawyer explained that the roadway was made to access those residential lots and the 10 acre hayfield which was acquired by Okanagan College. That lot was added on to other property which the college owned. That does not mean that the access road to that lot should become a roadway to the rest of the college property.

Apparently it was not a big problem when it was Okanagan College, but when the property was purchased by UBCO, the students were told they had the right to use this road.

The last line is incorrect. THIS dispute predates UBCO by about a decade. Since the very opening of the North Campus, this has been under dispute. Gardengirl, that is a fact, if you hear somebody who portray it differently, you need to be suspicious of them indeed!

Did YOU hear the interview? The point is that since UBCO purchased the property, UBCO has given the students different information and has encouraged students to use the roadway. There has also been significant growth since OK College was built there.

No, absolutely not. I did not hear the interview, I can only go by the information you have given and if is correct that the lawyer communicated that "it was not a big problem when it was Okanagan College, but when the property was purchased by UBCO, the students were told they had the right to use this road", then this is absolutely factually incorrect. In fact:
1. the dispute started as soon as the North Campus opened, this is not a new problem, it WAS a source of controversy then

2.Now you seem to be saying that UBCO has given different information. This is also incorrect. Students were told they could use the roadway from the opening of the North Campus. The only time there has been any suggestion that it might not be so, is during the various intermediate squabbles that occured.

I tell you this for your edification, and it can easily be verified by those who were around at the time. Again, I merely pointed out that anyone who would so blatantly mislead you should be listened to with skepticism, but your rather adversarial reply suggests that you have an emotional stake in believing the lawyer without wanting to verify his story. If this is so, then naturally, you will believe him, regardless of the validity of the story.

[Damien]

Looks like the new road is a go ahead, but I think it is passed the far side of the lake.

Apparently the city has informed residents of the Yaletown condos to move their cars off the gravel lot adjacent to the development that they were using as a parking lot. To allow for the beginning of road construction.

[damngrumpy]

I don't live too far from this area, yes it is a bird habitat area. No it should not
be used for the next landfill swamp or not. There are all kinds f wildlife species
that use this lake. As for the road, is it on private land? has it ever been and
or is it maintained by any public funding? And is there a current or past easement?
These are all significant questions. If there was an easement that lapsed the owners
would have a point.
I don't think there is much of a problem with students riding their bikes to UBCO
and remember these kids are not using cars, or at least I have never seen cars being
used. I think the bit about straying onto other property is nonsense, that statement
is little more than an excuse to close the road.

[Damien]

Swamps/Wetlands are some of the most crucial types of bird and wildlife habitat in the world.

Get your head out of your you know what. Complete ignorance.

I hope the #7 bus makes it out to that new road.