Leasehold land

[omisimaw]

I did not send the letter I posted! It is part of a submission back in the day by the Water Basin Board which is not a Lake Country municipal board but rather a board of many water subject experts throughout the valley.. I also posted a link to their website to give you a chance to see this is not a Mayor Baker initiative.
I am not a supporter or connected to Mayor Baker in anyway and quite frankly do not know what his position on this subject is but mine is and has always been that no leases be issued, that lease land not be sold off and that water source lakes should be regulated and monitored continually to avoid any problems down the line.
Those on here attacking Mayor Baker and the District are obviously those individuals lobbying and doing their best to obtain or expand on and live permanently on what is recreational provincials lands which should remain as such and be accessible to everyone, not a select few.
For donald G to claim he has researched this issue is questionable at best, but down right humorous and it appears he has a few followers which makes it even funnier to read his/their responses, especially when the issues are well documented on how ALL elected local governments are opposed throughout the valley.
The provincial government loves to change their regulations but they have little if any foresight on how they will enforce. RV use of ALR lands is another prime example. After putting in place the abilities to have temporary land use for campers they ended up not being able to enforce the problem and have downloaded this to local government with limited ability to enforce. this ends up as a burden and an expense to local government which only rolls one way - to the taxpayer.
So Donald G and all the naysayers on this thread... do you live, or are you a taxpayer in Lake Country? My guess is - No...

[Donald G]

Thank you for clarifying your position. I fail to understand your allegation that being a resident of Lake Country has anything to do with having the right to have an opinion regarding the issue of lease lots on crown land ... that are not in any way under the purview of Lake Country. The issue of spending tax money to try to gain a degree of control over an issue that, at the moment, does not in any way adversely affect Lake Country is financially and politically irresponsible. There is no reason that the same laws that have provided for the many changes that have taken place on the GREY WATER watershed to date, will serve to permit the same 'fair to all' water access in the near or distant future.

The stated allegation that The Mayor 'et al' of Lake Country want the present EXCESS water saved IN CASE THEY MIGHT NEED IT AT SOME POINT IN THE DISTANT FUTURE is, in my opinion, completely unethical and selfish. A person in Lake Country has no more right to the available GREY WATER than any other citizen of B.C. leasing or owning land within that (or any other) watershed.

As for your ad hominem attacks. If they make you feel better, go for it, but they do not add anything to the far more significant issue being discussed. With respect.

[omisimaw]

The residents of Lake Country that depend on these waters for their water source have no say in what goes on?

[Donald G]

To crazyoleme ...

You are twisting my words again. Presumably to give a false picture of the truth ... the same thing that I have accused those wanting to claim the presently **EXCESS** water as exclusively theirs for the future ... to the exclusion of everyone else who does not live in Lake Country.

Children who needlessly hoard and deprive other children of a presently excess of publicly owned property are subject to corrective parenting. It is sad when a small group of adults must be corrected for the same selfishness ... over grey water.

[omisimaw]

A direct question is not twisting anything and your claim and statements to EXCESS public lands is ridiculous. There is no such thing! But it does put you out there as being an advocate of selling off of public lands and thus not much of an environmentalist!
This is not a Lake Country issue, it is a provincial issue and Lake Country is not the only local government fighting the good fight for the benefit of all British Columbians.
Donald G you can hold onto your vendetta against a municipality you do not even live in all you want but if this is just because of the subject of release of public lands for private ownership then you best broaden your scope to include all municipalities with water sources outside of their limits on provincial land and the largest of that would be GVRD ... and you do not see them letting people build permanent structures anywhere close to that watershed now do you. They actually do not allow public access to most of it for any reason, not even hiking. and if you were to go to the various municipality websites, the water board website, review reports from union of municipalities you would see that this is not a Mayor Baker issue at all.
The only plausible explanation of your vendetta and posts is that either you or someone you know has been trying to purchase lands within the Districts watershed area, or you are possibly a member of some radical group pushing for sale of all the public assets of the province for your own selfish need or want.

[Donald G]

To crazyoleme ...

Your comments are completely off base regarding my interest and purpose in commenting ... so be it.

Since we can not agree on the facts associated to the Mayor 'et al' spending whatever taxpayer money to change the long standing law that has been in effect for years, it is evident that we are certainly not going to reach agreement regarding the legal and moral merits of the initiative . Like roiled water prevents taxpayers from seeing to the bottom of any issue one sided comments by extremists have, in my opinion, similarly presented a distorted, one sided, view of the issue in order to sway things to their advantage. Public education and knowledge is the best way to stop the irresponsible nonsense and political grandstanding that has NEEDLESSLY been going on for far too long now ... and the spending.

Hopefully the upcoming hearing will re-identify the true situation that exists and arrive at a decision that will be fair to all ... as has been done in the past. Perhaps the Mayor 'et al' will accept the decision of the arbitrators this time around.

With respect.

[omisimaw]

So what is your interest and purpose? This is an open board and your posts are always directed at one person or another which is very weird as there is a method to PM for all members.
It is without a doubt not the population at large who would wish to see our public lands sold off to individuals only those who are selfish and want to pave paradise... overdevelop everything everywhere! Most who push for this are coming from places where they can no longer find or afford these type of lands which is sad because you would think they could see just what their greed has accomplished.
When someone continually expresses an opinion that 1 (one) local mayor is on a personal campaign there is but one conclusion and that is they (poster) are on a vendetta. Logic and reality is that a mayor is but one party to the governance group and does not act on their own and most definitely has no way to personally impose his will on the local government to do his bidding. Mayors make up 1 (one) vote to any issue. If council is locked in a 50/50 decision then the Mayor holds the final deciding vote but other than that they are but one voice on the issues of the District.
Now being posted are statements of Mayor Baker 'et al'. So does this mean that the poster finally accepts the fact that this issue is not centralized on the outskirts of Lake Country? Does the poster accept that this is and has been ongoing for over 10 years and that the majority of the population of BC do not wish to dispose of public lands? Dedicated provincial and federal lands for parks and environment or species habitat is mandatory and needs our support not our opposition!

[omisimaw]

A wealth of information on this site http://wcel.org/about-us Also some startling revelations about what happens when lands are sold off! Check out the Silver Star area information for instance or Sun Peaks!

[Donald G]

To crazyoleme ...

Your 'far left of center' comment condemning people being able to lease or buy land, as everyone has the right to do under the free enterprise system, FINALLY tells me everything I need to know about your (and their?) perspective on the issue. You are opposed to people being able to afford to buy and enjoy land, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THERE IS STILL PLENTY OF LAND FOR THE PUBLIC TO USE IN ANY WAY THEY WISH.

In your own words, the Lake Country demands are nothing but a facade being used to try to circumvent the laws that permit people to apply for and purchase government land or purchase land from each other ... plain and simple. Having a government camping park on the lakes in place of the current leases, would be far worse than any suggestion you make regarding the present small number of renters ... even if your own skewed facts are used to measure the situation.

That is what I have suspected and that is why I have involved myself in assessing and deciding the issue to my own satisfaction. What you are doing, in my opinion, is pushing socialism at the cost of free enterprise when it comes to the use of resources ... something to which I am strongly opposed.

With respect for you and your group as people but contempt for your socialist concept.

[OREZ]

... IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THERE IS STILL PLENTY OF LAND FOR THE PUBLIC TO USE IN ANY WAY THEY WISH.

.

Wrong. Public land is not for people to use "in any way they wish." This is either an extremely self centered or naive attitude (or both). There are many MANY areas which are far too environmentally sensitive to just let anyone with a few bucks do as they please and for all sorts of reasons which could have long-lasting and very expensive repercussions. It's actually encouraging to see that many people are finally aware of this.

It doesn't take a person with a "socialist" agenda to know that either. You're really beginning to sound like a spoiled kid who is not getting his way and your comments will lose more credibility with every post on this and other threads if you chose to continue to ignore the big picture and the greater good in favor of your own personal agenda on everything.

[Donald G]

To OREZ ...

Thank you for your opinion. Please be assured that it will receive the consideration it deserves.

Meaningful comunication, at the moent is not posible .. peraps after the socialist emoionalism has abated, the truth will surface.

[kgcayenne]

Meaningful comunication, at the moent is not posible .. peraps after the socialist emoionalism has abated, the truth will surface.

Wow... um.... I see what you mean about communication not being possible. *mmmph*

By the way, attempting to polarize this into a right vs leftist political argument is a very transparent and weak effort to manipulate people into supporting your views. Surely you notice a conspicuous absence of support from either side, right?

[Donald G]

To kgcayenne ...

I think that you completely missed the point regarding communication, didn't you? Emotionalism vs intellectualism? Regardless of how we attempt to skew things (to our advantage), by changing bits of the truth (illustrated by misspelling), the truth (meaning) can still eventually be deciphered? Like everyone else I do have automatic spell-check.

Your continuing efforts to redirect the objective of the discussion into emotionalized ad hominum issues and allegations unrelated to leasehold land, as affected by real or imagined water issues, serve no purpose ... except perhaps the apparent satisfaction associated with name calling.

I look forward to the upcoming hearing to ONCE AGAIN decide the facts of the matter on an a fair and impartial basis rather than the skewed facts being alleged by those who you evidently support. What will be will be ... accepted or not.

With respect.

[omisimaw]

Open board Donald G! Learn how to use the functions if you wish to comment on a post!

The facts are all out there with respect to the selling off of public lands and building and have been for decades. They are public lands and for the betterment, not necessarily use, of all... taxpayer, tourist et al.

I am not a socialist, do not belong to any group and as you do not know me please keep your personal opinions to yourself.

I do not believe in the selling of public lands however there are some public buildings in the province that could use a look at and either turned into public use or disposed of as it only makes fiscal sense. If anyone has taken the time to research the information in the links that I have put up they will quickly see that the issue of sale of public lands is not favoured by the majority, here in BC or elsewhere in Canada for that matter. It also does not have the sanction or support of FN people who more than once have had the foresight to step up to the plate to stop development on public lands.

Your lack of responses to direct questions is interesting as it always appears to be followed by more twisted rhetoric, now even bringing to the table free enterprise. Your posts are more and more looking like those of a personal nature and most definitely are directed not to the topic and issue (which is and always has been province wide) but to the District of Lake Country and the present Mayor.

So there is and has been comments to some upcoming hearing... will Donald G finally answer a direct question? When, where and who are the parties to this "hearing" and can you provide links to the filed materials to support your point(s)?

[Donald G]

To crazyoleme ... I can hardly give you a link to the information to be given at the UPCOMING hearing to be held than you can tell me what the water availability will be on the watershed in question three years from now ... although there are those who profess to be able to do so. To give you links to the allegations consistently made in the past, by those who would attempt to use their political positions 'take over' the lease lots on the lake, under the false guise of "urgent necessity", would lead to you getting a very distorted view of the issue.

Aside from the public officials involved I would be loath, as a party without standing, to purport to be the one to determine whether or not those who are defending the free enterprise system, wished their names to be published. Nor is it my place to identify the time and place for the latest, and hopefully last such, hearing to begin. There has been enough political posturing and financial irresponsibility to date.

As to keeping my opinions to myself I appreciate you telling me that you do not appreciate (tolerate?) other opinions.

Have a nice day my vociferous and sometimes misled (but probably well intended) friend.