Leasehold land

[omisimaw]

ROFL just as was thought! No proof to such outlandish comments, no answer as to the hearing issues, nada, nothing...
except
more proof of one individuals attempt at getting attention and support of his obvious vendetta against Mayor Baker.

[Donald G]

When you go fishing you need to be smarter than the fish, or you go home frustrated.

[kgcayenne]

…free enterprise system…

Donald, you’ve used this term a few times now.

Isn’t free enterprise defined as an economic system where few restrictions are placed on business activities and ownership. In this system, governments generally have minimal ownership of enterprises in the market place. This system aims for limited restrictions on trade and minimal government intervention.

Therefore, if future developers and existing water users in the business sector have to pay higher DCCs and CECs due to the complications these water licences will place on the maintenance and operations of the reservoir, then really, you should support the lawsuit because free-enterprise businesses relying on DLC for water supply will be negatively impacted all because of a handful of private folks leasing some land on the water source.

[Donald G]

To kgcayenne and crazyoleme ...

Since you have never once identified the amount of water being taken from the lake by all of the cabin owners combined I have to assume that you have refused to acknowledge the truth because it undermines your allegations or you do not know the truth.

The water studies that have been done in the past have identified that the total water use by those holding leases is about .001 (one tenth of one percent of the total water available) IF they ALL used lake water for all of their domestic needs, which means all of the water that THEY ARE PRESENTLY PERMITTED BY LICENSE TO TAKE.

In actual fact only TWO of the cabin owners on Crooked Lake actually use water from the lake because it is NOT drinkable or otherwise potable due to NATURAL turbidity and the residue from the various fish and animals that are born, live, breed and die on the watershed.

If you took the time you would have known that most of the cabin owners either bring potable water from home or collect rain water from their roofs ...

Other KNOWN facts will now be given each time you or other jealous 'johnny come lately' whiners (my opinion) come up with false information ... as you have for some time now.

You have also left high taxes out of the contribution being made by those who are leasing the lots.

You have also constantly ignored the fact that, under the Water Act and Land Act not one of the persons leasing can;

1) Draw any additional water than the small amount presently allotted,
2) Install or make any changes to their septic systems from what presently exists,
3) Remove any trees without permission of Forestry,
4) Erect any larger residences from that that presently exist.

You have also consistently ignored the fact that the cabin owners have, in the past agreed to have the height of the EXISTING dams raised to allay the present unfounded water concerns being voiced by a few vocal alarmists, who in my opinion, are using water as a means of trying to strip the people leasing of their land, without having to compensate them in any way.

I find the methods being used by those involved reprehensible ... although I do respect their right, as citizens of Canada, to voice their (selfish and misguided) opinions.

Perhaps you would care to let readers know why the hearing has again been cancelled at the request of the Mayor 'et al' ... for the third time ... at a cost of how many additional taxpayer dollars? The paper is now OVER 1 1/2 feet high (and the cost) with nothing whatever to show for the money spent.

[kgcayenne]

There is more to it than that. Answer the questions I posted earlier.

[Donald G]

I have no intention of participating in your world of make believe. Or getting distracted from the central topic regarding leasehold land. As I said in one of my first posts, there has been far too many completely unfounded allegations made by those who would strip the lease holders of their 50 year old rights on very questionable and unproven grounds, to this point. If you want to talk about verified facts I will participate providing that the hearing that was to have been held today has not again been cancelled at the request of the Mayor 'et al'. If it has been cancelled I would double my belief that the whole matter has more to do with political opportunism than anything to do with water. There is no reason whatever for further delay. If I had any property in, or lived in Lake Country I would be absolutely livid, given the information I have learned to date.

[Rwede]

To kgcayenne and crazyoleme ...

Since you have never once identified the amount of water being taken from the lake by all of the cabin owners combined I have to assume that you have refused to acknowledge the truth because it undermines your allegations or you do not know the truth.

The water studies that have been done in the past have identified that the total water use by those holding leases is about .001 (one tenth of one percent of the total water available) IF they ALL used lake water for all of their domestic needs, which means all of the water that THEY ARE PRESENTLY PERMITTED BY LICENSE TO TAKE.

In actual fact only TWO of the cabin owners on Crooked Lake actually use water from the lake because it is NOT drinkable or otherwise potable due to NATURAL turbidity and the residue from the various fish and animals that are born, live, breed and die on the watershed.

If you took the time you would have known that most of the cabin owners either bring potable water from home or collect rain water from their roofs ...

Other KNOWN facts will now be given each time you or other jealous 'johnny come lately' whiners (my opinion) come up with false information ... as you have for some time now.

You have also left high taxes out of the contribution being made by those who are leasing the lots.

You have also constantly ignored the fact that, under the Water Act and Land Act not one of the persons leasing can;

1) Draw any additional water than the small amount presently allotted,
2) Install or make any changes to their septic systems from what presently exists,
3) Remove any trees without permission of Forestry,
4) Erect any larger residences from that that presently exist.

You have also consistently ignored the fact that the cabin owners have, in the past agreed to have the height of the EXISTING dams raised to allay the present unfounded water concerns being voiced by a few vocal alarmists, who in my opinion, are using water as a means of trying to strip the people leasing of their land, without having to compensate them in any way.

I find the methods being used by those involved reprehensible ... although I do respect their right, as citizens of Canada, to voice their (selfish and misguided) opinions.

Perhaps you would care to let readers know why the hearing has again been cancelled at the request of the Mayor 'et al' ... for the third time ... at a cost of how many additional taxpayer dollars? The paper is now OVER 1 1/2 feet high (and the cost) with nothing whatever to show for the money spent.

It's obvious that Donald has far more knowledge of what is actually occurring in regard to the water license issues than those who are chirping from the sidelines. Thanks, Donald, for presenting some facts as they relate to this issue. I agree with you that there is a personal attack on everyone's rights to co-exist and recreate in our watersheds, and that attack is coming from DLC city hall.

Anyone who has ever fished, camped, hiked, or otherwise recreated in the Beaver or Oyama watersheds should be aware that DLC staff also put forth a position that ALL recreation anywhere near, in, or on the watersheds be banned.

Anyone here want a gated and locked watershed like those in Vancouver? Not me. I want to go fishing at Beaver Lake, and I want respectful users of the backcountry to have continued access to our Crown lands, unlike the position of DLC staff.

The attack on the cabin owners who look after our watersheds through their stewardship activities is just the thin wedge. DLC staff hopes to remove those with the larger vested interest first, then the rest of the public will be banned from our watersheds if they get their way.

If KG or Crazyol have EVER accessed the backcountry, they should share the concern of the cabin owners rather than fight against them. The cabin owners are fighting to maintain YOUR access to the watersheds. People need to understand the situation here BEFORE they choose sides!

[Donald G]

To kgcayenne ...

Free enterprise is a form of Capitalism under which the production and distribution of goods and services are privately managed, with a minimum of restriction by the government. Welcome to Canada. Your point being?

[omisimaw]

Get a grip Donald! It is not water consumption of a few cabin owners at Crooked Lake that is at issue. You truly need to get a grip on the bigger picture. Heck maybe you should for once start thinking outside the box!

Failure to grasp the totality of the issue honestly falls on your shoulders and your failure to answer direct questions only propels you into the land of the ill informed even further.

Public information and readily available information do not support your claims at all!

You keep referring to an upcoming hearing. So up with it at what level of hearing are you speaking cause it sounds like someone is appealing a decision on a civil litigation over the issue and hoping that the decision to support DLC will be overturned.

Now I may be wrong but if for one minute you think your rhetoric and misunderstandings or continual DLC/Baker bashing will change or sway anyone you really do need a second cup of coffee. And by the by all hearings, court actions etc etc are general public information and so just when do you hope to be participating in "what" hearing again???

[Donald G]

To crazyoleme ...

Since you have put forth nothing but ad hominum attacks I will assume you have nothing but emotionalized diatribe to offer.

As per my statement to request specific knowledge each time such diatribe is offered as comment ...

1) How much do those leasing the lots pay in taxes? About $4,000.00 lease plus taxes each.

2) What do they get in return? Nothing except the right to buy and use solar panels, the water off of their roofs, to dispose of trees that fall (including bug killed and blow down) over their self made pathways into their property from the logging road nearby, the right to ski or snowshoe into their cabins in winter, the right to cut wood for heating and cooking, and the right to kill thousands of mosquitoes and flies with a hand zapper because they do not want to use insecticides.

3) How many of the lease lots have sand anywhere on their beaches? None

4) How many have natural reeds and mud? All of them.

5) Did you know that there is a large floating island on Crooked Lake, squirrels horse flies, dragon flies, chipmunks, mice, deer, nesting eagles black flies, osprey and a blue heron nest that are protected by the people leasing the lots?

Think about it before you buy into the nonsense being peddled by the Mayor et al.

[Fancy]

I was trying to find some information about this topic and found this link:
http://www.bobdirks.ca/crooked_lake_cabin.html
The taxes are stated to be a little higher if I'm on the right track.

[Kalvin K]

I was trying to find some information about this topic and found this link:
http://www.bobdirks.ca/crooked_lake_cabin.html
The taxes are stated to be a little higher if I'm on the right track.

That is about what my Grandparents pay.

I think Donald is getting the Lease payment confused with the taxes. With my Grandparents lot they pay approx $4000 a year to the government in order to keep the lot.

I haven't been following the last few pages as I hate the drama, but if anyone has questions I will do my best to provide an honest no BS answer. I have already posted a bunch of information in this forum under the post titled "Your Taxpayer Dollars at Work". So I reccomend any interested people read that thread 1st and post either there or in here and I'll provide whatever additional information I can.

We have not heard of any upcoming public hearings. There will be a court hearing (I don't know when) but it's not a place for the public to come and ask questions, get information, voice opinions, etc.

[omisimaw]

Whoa up a minute Kalvin... all court proceedings are public in nature and in information available. Can joe public get up and speak, no but if a person is interested in hearing all sides to the equation they can attend, unless specifically set aside by the court.
The lease holder does in fact have 2 payments ... one a lease and the other a tax payment to the governing body or provincial tax department.
It is not a matter that there are leases and have been for decades it is a matter of whether there should be more allowed and to this I say no! PLUS leases should be recreational and not residential save and except for the few commercial ones that are out there but definitely not in favour of expansion and loss of crown land.
When is the court hearing and where is it? You see there is always the opportunity to contact the parties (either side) to weigh in if they feel you have anything viable to contribute.

[Donald G]

To Fancy and Kalvin K ... Your FACT FILLED COMMENTS are much appreciated by 'outsiders' like myself. I am only now getting to the point where I can separate most of the fact from the fiction. I appreciate people like yourselves correcting what some of us honestly misinterpret or misquote. Spouting known fiction for the sake of dishonestly affecting decisions to be made is another matter.

The $2,500.00 lease figure was used because one of the cabin owners was kind enough to show me their receipt. They said it had gone up but had nothing to verify their belief. Obviously their lease (which I took to be tax money under a different name) has gone up considerably.

I had it on what I believe to be reliable authority that the hearing regarding the matter was to have started today. When I went to the location at the time identified I was told that no such meeting was being held today. Was I misinformed, or was the hearing AGAIN delayed at the last minute the request of the Mayor 'et al' and if so for what reason ... personally I SUSPECT political opportunism aimed at dragging the issue out for as long as possible.

Was the recent push by Lake Country politicians and authorities to illuminate and remove structures from CROWN land between the high water mark and water level ON THE LARGE LAKES part of the same effort to further confuse the issue on the small lakes? As a way to gain support for those who want to have the leases on the small lakes done away with? That is my suspicion from 70 years of watching politicians in this country, but I have no absolute proof to support my belief.

[Donald G]

To crazyoleme ...

Your new allegation that the present disagreement between the Mayor 'et al' and the PRESENT people leasing lakefront concerns only ADDITIONAL LEASES THAT MAY BE GRANTED is completely false. It may be your opinion or objective, but it is NOT that laid out in the foot and a half of paper that has collected to date. Unless they have suddenly changed their mind, the STATED objective of the ongoing suit by the Mayor et al is to get the Provincial Government to completely cancel all of the PRESENT 50 year old leases, without compensation to the PRESENT occupiers.

Perhaps you should clarify if you are speaking for the Mayor et al, which seems to be the case, or if your comments, like mine are those of an interested citizen and taxpayer.

Do you know what the total money collected from all of the lease and tax money is for ALL of the people who pay such 'fees'.

Will Lake Country be compensating the Province for the thousands of dollars lost?

Why has the Mayor 'et al' not said one word about the many hundreds of 'acre feet' of water rights given in regard to agriculture and grazing leases? Because it is not politically advantageous to take on the Farmers, Orchardists and B.C. Cattlemens Assn?

Do you know why the hearing that was to have gone ahead today was AGAIN delayed and at whose request?

Perhaps we can start by YOU telling everyone what the real reason is for spending thousands of dollars to pursue a suit based on incomplete, and in many respects untruthful information?