Access to Crown land

[Fancy]

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).

[Gone_Fishin]

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.

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.

[Verum]

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.

[Gone_Fishin]

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.

[Verum]

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.

[alanjh595]

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.

[Verum]

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.

[Urban Cowboy]

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.