[thegreattait]

With regards to the U of M comparison, this land is not yet vacated as the golf course is still building their new location in St.Norbert. Therefore its not an apples to apples comparison. The U of M has stated limited development plans for land that is not yet vacated.

The natives have stated vague plans for land that has been vacant for quite some time.

I would be dissapointed at the U of M if they failed to create plans for the land 5 years after it has been vacated. ( Not saying it needs to be built up in 5 years but have the plans in place for it)

As for whether or not the natives will build a quality development in that area, I have as much faith in them as I do the developers of Waverly West, it is in their best interest to see this land well developed so why would they waste this opportunity. I for one don't think they will.

The issue I have is the right for them to claim this land, Now I am by no means well informed on the legal issues behind this case at least not to the level where I would feel confident challenging the judges decision, but from what I understood, the Treaty one claims were settled, and thus there was no federal obligation for the govenment to consult the natives.

If the Treaty one claims weren't settled and if accoding to the law and text in those treaties requires the government to consult the natives on the sale of crown land then by all means they should have been consulted, and it should be the government with pie on their face for not knowing their own treaties and following their own rules.

I do fee that the government should have the right to withhold some of the land along kenaston, so that it may be used for the traffic project, as this would be something to serve the land in question and the public in general.

sorry for the long winded ramble I just wanted to share my thoughts