Metro Vancouver wants Musqueam land back

[SpongeG]

Metro Vancouver wants Musqueam land back

METRO VANCOUVER - Metro Vancouver plans to file a constitutional challenge against the provincial government in hopes of recovering chunks of Pacific Spirit Park that was transferred to the Musqueam First Nation.

Metro board chair Lois Jackson said the board has "no quarrel with the Musqueam" but is worried the land deal with the First Nations could be the first in a string of expropriations by the provincial government under a new law that came into effect earlier this year.

The law, called the Musqueam Reconciliation, Settlement and Benefits Agreement Implementation Act, allowed the government to expropriate chunks of Pacific Spirit Park without compensation.

"We'd like the land back," Jackson said Monday. "We're not after money; we're concerned about the idea of park land or green space being expropriated for this use. "The province cannot simply expropriate without compensation; it's very troubling for the mayors."

Under the law, the Musqueam First Nation was given more than $20 million, the University Golf Course near UBC and the Richmond Casino lands in Richmond.

The law declares that "no compensation is payable to the Greater Vancouver Regional District" - the legal name for Metro Vancouver - and "no legal proceedings for damages or compensation" can be filed against the B.C. government.

Metro Vancouver sent letters to both the provincial government and the Musqueam Monday, detailing its plans for the constitutional challenge.

The board will ask the courts to rule on whether the province has the constitutional right to expropriate land for First Nations' land claims when that usually falls under federal jurisdiction.

Mayors on the Metro Board are concerned their municipalities could be subject to the next land grab, Jackson said.

"If the province can expropriate from Metro and others without compensation for Indian Band claims, is that constitutionally correct and can they do that in any municipality?" Jackson said. "We're very concerned about the precedent."


http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=90e627af-14e2-4541-baab-c47dfe8243b2&k=41905

[G-Slice]

Aren't there native bands much MUCH more deserving of what essentially amounts to a transfer payment from government? What about all the reserves in rural areas with ten people crammed into two-bedroom trailers, contaminated water, and alcohol/drug abuse rates rivaling the downtown eastside?

I guess the Musqueam have more ability to rabble-rouse given their urban location and wealth relative to other native bands.

As for the GVRD mayors, I agree, this sets a pretty worrying precedent. But at the same time, I don't think that the parkland should "belong" to the city anymore than it does to the province. Why does the city need financial compensation for the loss of a forest they weren't making any money off of in the first place?

[dreambrother808]

Do the Musqueam have no right to land that belongs to them under treaty? Do we overcome the past by failing to abide by what meagre scraps of land were left for native communities? When is enough enough? When do the rest of us stop thinking its all ours? When do we loosen our grip on the arrogantly self-righteous notion that we always know better, that our choices and prerogatives are always the correct ones? This isn't a handout. It's a case of rightful ownership and what the Musqueam choose to do with this relatively tiny parcel of land deserves some respectful distance on everyone else's part.

[quobobo]

Completely aside from whether or not it should be theirs (I'm leaning towards no, but I don't know the treaty details)...

I'm actually really happy that the course is now owned by an entity that's likely to develop the hell out of it once their contractual obligations are up. A full-size golf course on some of the most expensive real estate in the country is insane.

[leftside]

Pacific Spirit Park does not belong to any individual or any particular group of people. It belongs to everyone. Everyone in the city should be able to enjoy this spectacular park. I am strongly opposed to parts of it being handed over for development. It sets a truly awful precedent. Will Stanley Park be next?

A relatively tiny parcel of land here, another relatively tiny parcel of land there... and soon Vancouver starts to lose a piece of it's soul.

[quobobo]

Pacific Spirit Park does not belong to any individual or any particular group of people. It belongs to everyone. Everyone in the city should be able to enjoy this spectacular park.

The golf course should belong to everyone? The golf course?

Sorry, but I don't like paying for other people to play golf (and yes, I am paying for it along with everyone else - if left up to the market, the land would likely be converted to residential/commercial space, raising supply and lowering prices). I can't see how anyone can defend subsidizing and protecting a golf course at a cost to the public.

[leftside]

I'm not talking about the golf course. I'm talking about the actual park.

[quobobo]

I'm not talking about the golf course. I'm talking about the actual park.

Well, the golf course is all they took from Pacific Spirit.

This article is somewhat misleading - the bill doesn't "allow the government to expropriate chunks of Pacific Spirit Park without compensation", it only applies to the bits of land transferred and they already have that ability with provincial land. As I understand it, this bill doesn't give the provincial government any abilities they didn't have before.

Also, compensation was paid to UBC (about $21 million) - just not to Metro Vancouver.

http://www.leg.bc.ca/38th4th/3rd_read/gov12-3.htm

[twoNeurons]

i doubt raising supply in this area would decrease prices at all.

[dreambrother808]

^^
hahaha... west point grey social housing anyone? how about beachfront access? why shouldn't crackheads have their own private beach to hang out on? it's not fair, otherwise... ;)