West Kelowna Strongly Objects to Proposed Land Exchange

Re: West Kelowna Strongly Objects to Proposed Land Exchange

Postby Rwede » Aug 15th, 2011, 10:06 am

Mr. Personality wrote:
goatboy wrote:
Mr. Personality wrote:I was discussing this with a native friend of mine not too long ago.
She said, "It pales in comparison with what you (white folk) took in the first place."
I found that tough to argue.


Actually, I didn't take anything from your friend.

Neither did I, and nothing was actually "taken" from her, as she was born in the mid 80s. White folk, did take almost an entire continent however, and I (maybe you too? I'm not certain) am white folk.


"White folk"? No mongoloids (oriental, for those wondering) or negroids settled Canada too? I don't think those races would like to have their contributions to Canada's history disregarded.

When it comes down to it, Kennewick Man and his kin, who were caucasian, were here before any of the natives. Maybe I should get 698 acres for allowing the interchange work, too.
"I don't even disagree with the bulk of what's in the Leap Manifesto. I'll put forward my Leap Manifesto in the next election." - John Horgan, 2017.
User avatar
Rwede
Walks on Forum Water
 
Posts: 11728
Likes: 9542 posts
Liked in: 5121 posts
Joined: May 6th, 2009, 9:49 am
Location: is everything!

Re: West Kelowna Strongly Objects to Proposed Land Exchange

Postby Apple11 » Aug 15th, 2011, 10:56 am

I dont know too much about this topic but it has me thinking...
If the WFN get the area around the water shed and Rosevalley reservoir will that not give them the access to cut off the water supply to the reservior? Doesnt the DWK charge for water from that reservoir? So in turn could the WFN possibly overtake the water supply and then start charging the DWK to use it? Isnt that a pretty big revenue maker for the DWK? This whole thing is crazy!
Apple11
 
Posts: 53
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 13 posts
Joined: Oct 13th, 2006, 8:04 pm
Location: kelowna / okanagan

Re: West Kelowna Strongly Objects to Proposed Land Exchange

Postby Jim Dixon » Aug 15th, 2011, 11:48 am

heather yeats wrote:
The Jim Dixon wrote:I am not "white folk'. I am not First Nation either - I'm First Canadian - my skin colour has nothing to do with who or what I am, nor does yours, or theirs.

As for "pale in comparrision", they didn't buy the land, receive it as a gift, or steal it - they never owned it in the first place. They migrated here as well - just like our First Canadians ancestors. I'm ashamed of my forefathers treatment of the 'other' landed immigants, those that call themselves First Nations. It doesn't mean that you or I First Canadians owe the First Nation anything, nor they owe us except both sides owe mutual respect - when earned and to share and enjoy the same rights and freedoms as anyone else - - no more, no less.

Any land swap should be treated like any other land swap/deal and appraised equally.



Dead Right!!

What gives the Provincial Government the right to negotiate these kind of agreements behind the backs of the people who elected them into their positions of TRUST???

Hi Heather,
One of the things I learned during the four long and arduous, but educational years during the governence study, was that sometimes, on the QT, or in-camera better serves the community than being wide open about something. Before someone else slams me for saying such, be it known that I argued long and hard to keep our study open and transparent (I hate that word). Others, mainly the politicians, and those they appointed to the committe, wanted to keep almost everything under the table.
The only things we did kept quiet (in-camera) were the discussions as to whom we might contract with to be the consultants, and 2, any discussion with the province on land aquisition, be it swap, purchases, or gift from the province. And I agree with that. Any discussion released too early, and the prices of adjoining properties would go nuts. Prices on property being eyeballed by the municipality for municiplal parks, yard works, palaces and so on, would also go ballistic. The taxpayers would most certainly end up paying a heck of a lot more than it's real worth - which we already do time and time again with cost over-runs.

Is some of the land in consideration provincal, putting it in their jurisdiction?

Doesn't highways have a right-of-way reserved in case they decide to extend the connector up to Vernon?

Isn't there a major issue about the ground water from the hillsides that feed some of the property in the mini-basin there?

And since most of BC's First Nation's have laid claim to 110% of the land in BC, what's to decide? :127:

When a reporter asked me if I thought qwe should join Kelowna, (through a Kelowna boundary extension), incorporate as a single munikcipality with a country smack in the middle of it), or stay the course with a expensive and faltering CORD (who like to avoid blocks of wood in a cord and call themselves RDCO instead). I answered with we should join First Nation. They have all the resources, the tenacity to get things done, a government that has more money than Jehova, owns as far as the eye can see and then some, and doesn't need provincial approval to think 'whats next'. She didn't print that either.

Heather wrote:They are supposed to be taking care of business on our behalf.

The WFN is Self Governing and the Province has no jurisdiction over the WFN. It is the same as if we were two different countries. But so many people just dont seem to get this point.


We are two different countries. Soth Africa had the same thing until they abolished apartide. The 'whites' kept the country, the diamond mines, and the SA's got the shafts.

Heather wrote:Come on Province - We are in BC and it is your job to look after BC. Not give our reservoirs and parks away~


I've not followed this as closely as I know you have. Are they giving the resevoir away with the swap? Dinwoodie tried to do that during treaty negotiations. Thank goodness a resident caught that and we kept Rose Valley resevoir. So, is this then just another means of FN getting the resevoir without his help?
Do you think the province will take the $24.00 in trinkets and swap 600+ acres for 8? Hades, what did Canada get for Alaska?

Do you know what company is consulting on this for FN?

J
Dogs - please pick up after your animal! Horses - please pick up after your rider!
User avatar
Jim Dixon
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 729
Likes: 68 posts
Liked in: 84 posts
Joined: Aug 29th, 2005, 8:19 am
Location: Earth - but that too is temporary.

Re: West Kelowna Strongly Objects to Proposed Land Exchange

Postby waterwings » Aug 15th, 2011, 1:46 pm

waterwings
Übergod
 
Posts: 1069
Likes: 5 posts
Liked in: 19 posts
Joined: Jun 12th, 2009, 10:22 am

Re: West Kelowna Strongly Objects to Proposed Land Exchange

Postby kay-c » Aug 15th, 2011, 2:04 pm

Its a good thing the natives agreed in the beginning that they did not need any watersheds. They decided they liked pumping their water uphill to themselves.
kay-c
Board Meister
 
Posts: 487
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Feb 28th, 2008, 11:41 pm

Re: West Kelowna Strongly Objects to Proposed Land Exchange

Postby western_star » Aug 23rd, 2011, 1:30 am

Apple11 wrote: This whole thing is crazy!

:ohmygod: It is an outrage how government treats the people they serve, ain't it. What a tragedy! We as people need to put a stop to this craziness!! It is not as extreme here as in some countries where the people have to kill their leader or enlist help from another country to abolish their leader, sadly for other countries. We as people could stand up for ourselves a little more too. We as people are much to blame sitting around doing nothing about government immunity built into legislation, recall that takes so much work for people that often its not worth fighting for, referendums not binding on government, Vernon Jubilee Hospital with no beds, kind of stuff. We need to change legislation so that we don't have so much trouble and have to do so much work trying to make positive changes fighting everything government does all the time. Like the HST, Gravel Pit on crown land next to a Resort, Police beating innocent people, homelessness and government officials getting rich, etc. I could list so many other things but I would be wasting energy on all these other things instead of changing legislation so that government can't keep secrets, and so there is no immunity for government officials and that officials can loose everything if they screw people, oust government if they lie, government need to shop like normal people and not spend $500 for a hammer for an example, etc. We as people need to work changing these things so we don't have to work so hard changing all the other things. There are many other examples of government not telling us things and keeping secrets even being so bold as telling us they are keeping secrets ... just cause they can!!!
User avatar
western_star
Übergod
 
Posts: 1221
Likes: 406 posts
Liked in: 17 posts
Joined: Sep 7th, 2009, 12:18 pm

Re: West Kelowna Strongly Objects to Proposed Land Exchange

Postby western_star » Aug 23rd, 2011, 1:58 am

hereiamagain wrote:If the 698 acres are being re-evaluated, then it seems right to me that the land that is being converted right now, should be re-evaluated too, apples to apples.

Very good point!!
User avatar
western_star
Übergod
 
Posts: 1221
Likes: 406 posts
Liked in: 17 posts
Joined: Sep 7th, 2009, 12:18 pm

Re: West Kelowna Strongly Objects to Proposed Land Exchange

Postby blueberry » Aug 23rd, 2011, 8:43 am

WFN has to replace any land that it gives up to the province with reserve lands of equal or greater size or value. Their lands are also not subject to provincial expropriation, so so much for that old move.

Not likely that the WFN would have objected to receiving similar lands with a similar value. Imagine the cries of "FOUL!" from West Kelowna had WFN obtained 8 acres of similar land with a similar value along the highway. West Kelowna would have lost real tax revenue and had a chunk of their valuable land base carved out. If that's what Mayor and Council wanted then maybe they should just say that and offer up some instead of fear mongering that the Big Bad WFN is going to cut off the water supply to Rose Valley. Anyone who thinks that 8 acres of steep rocky hillside or land in the middle of nowhere is a fair trade needs to get into this century.

The reality of this is that Mayor and Council boycotting the land swap consultation process is not going to be in the best interests of anyone. Mayor and Council's strategy of holding their breath until they turn blue and throwing rocks at the WFN is not going to be enough to stop the deal from happening.
User avatar
blueberry
Fledgling
 
Posts: 349
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 1 post
Joined: Jul 21st, 2008, 9:43 pm

Re: West Kelowna Strongly Objects to Proposed Land Exchange

Postby hereiamagain » Aug 23rd, 2011, 8:46 am

blueberry wrote:WFN has to replace any land that it gives up to the province with reserve lands of equal or greater size or value. Their lands are also not subject to provincial expropriation, so so much for that old move.

Not likely that the WFN would have objected to receiving similar lands with a similar value. Imagine the cries of "FOUL!" from West Kelowna had WFN obtained 8 acres of similar land with a similar value along the highway. West Kelowna would have lost real tax revenue and had a chunk of their valuable land base carved out. If that's what Mayor and Council wanted then maybe they should just say that and offer up some instead of fear mongering that the Big Bad WFN is going to cut off the water supply to Rose Valley. Anyone who thinks that 8 acres of steep rocky hillside or land in the middle of nowhere is a fair trade needs to get into this century.

The reality of this is that Mayor and Council boycotting the land swap consultation process is not going to be in the best interests of anyone. Mayor and Council's strategy of holding their breath until they turn blue and throwing rocks at the WFN is not going to be enough to stop the deal from happening.


bluberry, what would be the harm then in getting the current land being developed, re-assessed. Would it not be in the WFN favour compared to what it was given in the past?
I shot the sheriff, but I did not shoot the deputy.
User avatar
hereiamagain
Übergod
 
Posts: 1254
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 1 post
Joined: Aug 13th, 2007, 7:24 pm
Location: Okanagan

Re: West Kelowna Strongly Objects to Proposed Land Exchange

Postby Rwede » Aug 23rd, 2011, 9:48 am

Blueberry is WFN and does not want you to know any more about this deal than you already do, as it's not in his/her best interests to have transparency on the issue. Just the same as WFN won't report the number of moose or deer they kill to help the province manage our wildlife resources. The less we know about the size of handouts, the better, apparently.


The way I see the process as it unfolded is as follows:

Individual land holders were already given both fair market value in cash and replacement land for the 8 acres (this has already occurred). In essence, they have already received double compensationfor the 8 acres, not including all the road upgrades onto their lands and the construction contract profits.

Band members see individual band land holders getting a piece of the pie, and they want some too. So, in an effort to avoid any waves in the WFN pool, the province tries to quietly grant them "hush land" to keep them happy.

DWK finds out and the "hush" turns into uproar. And rightly so, IMO.

I, for one, am sick and tired of paying ransom to this group.
"I don't even disagree with the bulk of what's in the Leap Manifesto. I'll put forward my Leap Manifesto in the next election." - John Horgan, 2017.
User avatar
Rwede
Walks on Forum Water
 
Posts: 11728
Likes: 9542 posts
Liked in: 5121 posts
Joined: May 6th, 2009, 9:49 am
Location: is everything!

Re: West Kelowna Strongly Objects to Proposed Land Exchange

Postby waterwings » Aug 23rd, 2011, 11:12 am

RichardWede wrote:The way I see the process as it unfolded is as follows:

Individual land holders were already given both fair market value in cash and replacement land for the 8 acres (this has already occurred). In essence, they have already received double compensationfor the 8 acres, not including all the road upgrades onto their lands and the construction contract profits.

Band members see individual band land holders getting a piece of the pie, and they want some too. So, in an effort to avoid any waves in the WFN pool, the province tries to quietly grant them "hush land" to keep them happy.

DWK finds out and the "hush" turns into uproar. And rightly so, IMO.

I, for one, am sick and tired of paying ransom to this group.


I agree!!!!
waterwings
Übergod
 
Posts: 1069
Likes: 5 posts
Liked in: 19 posts
Joined: Jun 12th, 2009, 10:22 am

Re: West Kelowna Strongly Objects to Proposed Land Exchange

Postby bigdirtbag » Aug 23rd, 2011, 11:13 am

RichardWede wrote:Blueberry is WFN and does not want you to know any more about this deal than you already do, as it's not in his/her best interests to have transparency on the issue. Just the same as WFN won't report the number of moose or deer they kill to help the province manage our wildlife resources. The less we know about the size of handouts, the better, apparently.


The way I see the process as it unfolded is as follows:

Individual land holders were already given both fair market value in cash and replacement land for the 8 acres (this has already occurred). In essence, they have already received double compensationfor the 8 acres, not including all the road upgrades onto their lands and the construction contract profits.

Band members see individual band land holders getting a piece of the pie, and they want some too. So, in an effort to avoid any waves in the WFN pool, the province tries to quietly grant them "hush land" to keep them happy.

DWK finds out and the "hush" turns into uproar. And rightly so, IMO.

I, for one, am sick and tired of paying ransom to this group.


Couldn't agree more.
bigdirtbag
 
Posts: 13
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Aug 22nd, 2011, 6:34 am

Re: West Kelowna Strongly Objects to Proposed Land Exchange

Postby cpt64 » Aug 23rd, 2011, 9:20 pm

Apparently the BC Conservative leader, John Cummins, has taken an interest in this deal:

"There is a process for government to expropriate necessary land where fair compensation is paid," said Cummins.

"This deal has nothing to do with fair compensation; it is squandering of assets which belong to all British Columbians.

"This is a bad deal for West Kelowna. It's a bad deal for British Columbia. It must be stopped now."
cpt64
Board Meister
 
Posts: 577
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Jun 17th, 2007, 12:35 pm
Location: West Kelowna

Re: West Kelowna Strongly Objects to Proposed Land Exchange

Postby heather yeats » Aug 23rd, 2011, 9:29 pm

Not only did the holders of the parcels of land within the eight acres receive compensation for those eight acres
BUT whatever amount of land is not needed for the interchange will be kept in the WFN cache and remain in the current ownership.

SO ...........
1. We pay for eight acres.
2. Develop the interchange to benefit the access to wfn developments (commercial and residential) on the Westside road area.
3. Pay the WFN to manage this development.
4. Give them $8 million.
5. Give them 698 acres of Publically owned Crown Land and part of our reservoir.

And don't even get the full eight acres in question.

What part of "Moronic Negotiations" do we not understand????
heather yeats
Fledgling
 
Posts: 104
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 21 posts
Joined: Aug 8th, 2010, 9:37 pm

Re: West Kelowna Strongly Objects to Proposed Land Exchange

Postby blueberry » Aug 23rd, 2011, 9:46 pm

hereiamagain wrote:
blueberry wrote:WFN has to replace any land that it gives up to the province with reserve lands of equal or greater size or value. Their lands are also not subject to provincial expropriation, so so much for that old move.

Not likely that the WFN would have objected to receiving similar lands with a similar value. Imagine the cries of "FOUL!" from West Kelowna had WFN obtained 8 acres of similar land with a similar value along the highway. West Kelowna would have lost real tax revenue and had a chunk of their valuable land base carved out. If that's what Mayor and Council wanted then maybe they should just say that and offer up some instead of fear mongering that the Big Bad WFN is going to cut off the water supply to Rose Valley. Anyone who thinks that 8 acres of steep rocky hillside or land in the middle of nowhere is a fair trade needs to get into this century.

The reality of this is that Mayor and Council boycotting the land swap consultation process is not going to be in the best interests of anyone. Mayor and Council's strategy of holding their breath until they turn blue and throwing rocks at the WFN is not going to be enough to stop the deal from happening.


bluberry, what would be the harm then in getting the current land being developed, re-assessed. Would it not be in the WFN favour compared to what it was given in the past?


What is the point of having the land reassessed? I think that if WFN thought they were getting a raw deal they wouldn't have made one in the first place. Why would they?
User avatar
blueberry
Fledgling
 
Posts: 349
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 1 post
Joined: Jul 21st, 2008, 9:43 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Central Okanagan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests