47063
48347

Access to Crown land

Re: Access to Crown land

Postby Fancy » Nov 9th, 2017, 10:09 pm

Cactusflower wrote:It's been in the news off and on for about 5 years. What's your point?

You're the one that posted an article from June. Weaver was elected in 2013 and I haven't run across anything about "right to roam" prior to 2016 in the news (the topic and what I referred to).
User avatar
Fancy
The Pilgrim
 
Posts: 43033
Likes: 933 posts
Liked in: 4833 posts
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 5:23 pm

Re: Access to Crown land

Postby Gone_Fishin » Nov 10th, 2017, 9:02 am

Verum wrote:It's not private property, it's privately leased public property and can you please show me where it says that this change in lease conditions would be retrospectively applied to existing leases? That would be a huge legal can of worms and I strongly suspect that would be impossible, but that the change could only be applied to new, or renewed leases.


Fancy wrote:I would think this is applicable:
Right of possession to acquired Crown land
65 Except as otherwise provided in this Act, a person lawfully entitled to occupy Crown land under a certificate of purchase, lease, right of way, easement or licence of occupation may, for that land, take proceedings against any person for recovery of possession of, or for trespass to, the interest in the land in the same manner and to the same extent as if the person were the registered owner of the land.

http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/ ... #section38


Fancy has it right. Crown leases confer the same property rights as fee simple ownership, despite what Verum is arguing. Verum, you need to accept that what you stated is incorrect, and work from there. Weaver's garbage bill would be retroactively imposed on people who have contracted in good faith for their land, and strip them of the rights they have paid for and rights the government has previously agreed to in these contracts. Weaver is out of his league here, and is certainly ignorant of law.

Also, despite the fact that Weaver sucked in a few people interested in the Douglas Lake case, the land in question in DLR is fee simple and not a Crown lease, and therefore that status would not change if this punitive legislation were ever passed. It's too bad people don't fact check these political promises before they blindly throw their support behind these BSing politicians like Weaver.
When you're dead, you don't know you are dead. It is only difficult for the others.

It's the same when you are stupid.
User avatar
Gone_Fishin
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3563
Likes: 3234 posts
Liked in: 2086 posts
Joined: Sep 6th, 2006, 6:43 am

Re: Access to Crown land

Postby Verum » Nov 10th, 2017, 9:54 am

Gone_Fishin wrote:
Fancy has it right. Crown leases confer the same property rights as fee simple ownership, despite what Verum is arguing. Verum, you need to accept that what you stated is incorrect, and work from there. Weaver's garbage bill would be retroactively imposed on people who have contracted in good faith for their land, and strip them of the rights they have paid for and rights the government has previously agreed to in these contracts. Weaver is out of his league here, and is certainly ignorant of law.
...

No, the lease temporarily confers essentially the same property rights, which means that the property is not private property despite the lease because private property is property owned privately.
"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." Explains why so few people reply to me, and why I might not reply
Verum
Fledgling
 
Posts: 335
Likes: 169 posts
Liked in: 264 posts
Joined: Oct 5th, 2017, 11:31 pm

Re: Access to Crown land

Postby Gone_Fishin » Nov 10th, 2017, 2:29 pm

Verum wrote:No, the lease temporarily confers essentially the same property rights, which means that the property is not private property despite the lease because private property is property owned privately.


Wrong. The lessee has all rights of fee simple ownership, except for the right to mortgage or sell the land. The lessee can, however, sell his leasehold interest. All other rights of land ownership are conferred upon the lessee, per the legislation Fancy posted. The lessee is taxed and assessed on the lease as though it were fee simple as well, and not on any leasehold value. Leased land is private property.

Land currently under lease is protected by the Trespass Act. Weaver wants to take that protection away, and force unmanageable liability with no recourse for trespass on the lessee.
When you're dead, you don't know you are dead. It is only difficult for the others.

It's the same when you are stupid.
User avatar
Gone_Fishin
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3563
Likes: 3234 posts
Liked in: 2086 posts
Joined: Sep 6th, 2006, 6:43 am

Re: Access to Crown land

Postby Verum » Nov 10th, 2017, 3:06 pm

Gone_Fishin wrote:
Verum wrote:No, the lease temporarily confers essentially the same property rights, which means that the property is not private property despite the lease because private property is property owned privately.


Wrong. The lessee has all rights of fee simple ownership, except for the right to mortgage or sell the land. The lessee can, however, sell his leasehold interest. All other rights of land ownership are conferred upon the lessee, per the legislation Fancy posted. The lessee is taxed and assessed on the lease as though it were fee simple as well, and not on any leasehold value. Leased land is private property.

Land currently under lease is protected by the Trespass Act. Weaver wants to take that protection away, and force unmanageable liability with no recourse for trespass on the lessee.

Those are pretty big things.
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/property-law/
Property is either classified as private property owned by one or more individuals, or public property owned by government.

When you have a lease, you do not own the land, because otherwise you could sell or mortgage the land, therefore it is not your private property. Just because the lease confers rights almost the same as ownership, doesn't mean that you own the land and if you don't own the land it is not your private property.
"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." Explains why so few people reply to me, and why I might not reply
Verum
Fledgling
 
Posts: 335
Likes: 169 posts
Liked in: 264 posts
Joined: Oct 5th, 2017, 11:31 pm

Re: Access to Crown land

Postby alanjh595 » Nov 10th, 2017, 3:08 pm

If you lease a house, you also lease the land it sits on. It is your private property. Even the landlord can not enter without proper written notice.
User avatar
alanjh595
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 776
Likes: 233 posts
Liked in: 443 posts
Joined: Oct 20th, 2017, 4:18 pm

Re: Access to Crown land

Postby Verum » Nov 10th, 2017, 3:13 pm

alanjh595 wrote:If you lease a house, you also lease the land it sits on. It is your private property. Even the landlord can not enter without proper written notice.

That's not the definition of private property. When a landlord leases you a house, they forego some of their rights. The property is still private property, but and in effect it may be yours for the duration of the lease, but that certainly doesn't mean that it is actually yours, but remains the property of the landlord.
"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." Explains why so few people reply to me, and why I might not reply
Verum
Fledgling
 
Posts: 335
Likes: 169 posts
Liked in: 264 posts
Joined: Oct 5th, 2017, 11:31 pm

Re: Access to Crown land

Postby Old Techie » Nov 10th, 2017, 3:16 pm

alanjh595 wrote:If you lease a house, you also lease the land it sits on. It is your private property. Even the landlord can not enter without proper written notice.


Exactly.

Prime example being all those 99yr lease homes built on the Westside upon native land.

They leased the land and built their homes on it, and for 99yrs it's theirs just as if they'd purchased the land.
"Fools multiply when wise men are silent!" - Nelson Mandela
User avatar
Old Techie
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2170
Likes: 1772 posts
Liked in: 2944 posts
Joined: Apr 27th, 2013, 2:47 pm

Previous

Return to B.C.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: hobbyguy and 10 guests