Kapyong Barracks Discussion

thurmas · #1 Posted **Aug 17, 2015, 1:57 PM**

http://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/appeal-co...acks-1.2518026

Hopefully with this news the decade of nothingness will finally end and we can finally see development of this prime parcel of Winnipeg Real Estate and the widening of Kenaston that is so desperately needed.

esquire · #2 Posted **Aug 17, 2015, 2:36 PM**

Maybe...depends on whether the decision gets appealed to the Supreme Court. That will add a year or so. And once the courts have spoken, there is still the matter of figuring out what to do with the land. This could be relatively quick if the lower court decisions are overturned, but it will probably take a while if the government is required to turn over the land to the bands with a claim, who then have to figure out what they will do with the land.

Bottom line, I don't expect to see anything happen on that site for at least another 5 years.

On the bright side, it is a good form of land-banking... with each decade that passes, the likelihood of seeing something suitably dense (relative to the rest of the area) goes up. Also, considering that commercial and residential development in the city is entering what appears to be a dry spell, maybe it's for the better that this land isn't hitting the market just yet.

CoryB · #3 Posted **Aug 17, 2015, 3:13 PM**

Couldn't the City reach an agreement with both sides in the Kapyong Barracks dispute that the widening of Kennaston benefits whomever ends up with the land at the end of the day? Then the widening of Kennaston could proceed without waiting for the rest of the claim to be resolved?

esquire · #4 Posted **Aug 17, 2015, 3:50 PM**

^ It might be theoretically possible but practically implausible given the number of actors involved. There are a lot of different groups and competing agendas... getting them to agree on something like that at this point would be very difficult.

CoryB · #5 Posted **Aug 17, 2015, 5:37 PM**

^^ Even if the Barracks is transferred to the Aboriginal group would the City not still be able to expropriated the land needed for Kenaston?

The Unknown Poster · #6 Posted **Aug 17, 2015, 5:38 PM**

What is Treaty 1's claim on this land? Why do they have a right to the land as opposed to taking part in any standard sale of the land as one of many potential developers who might be interested?

Simplicity · #7 Posted **Aug 17, 2015, 6:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoryB

^^ Even if the Barracks is transferred to the Aboriginal group would the City not still be able to expropriated the land needed for Kenaston?

My guess is that the city might run into problems trying to exercise their eminent domain on what may ultimately end up as an urban reserve.

esquire · #8 Posted **Aug 17, 2015, 6:11 PM**

^ Long story short, probably well worth it for the City to let the dust settle first instead of trying to wrangle a complicated and potentially costly deal for something that isn't really a do or die project right now anyway.

Riverman · #9 Posted **Aug 17, 2015, 6:19 PM**

Why is this happening here? Why not at CFB Downsview?

rypinion · #10 Posted **Aug 17, 2015, 6:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverman

Why is this happening here? Why not at CFB Downsview?

Downsview isn't Treaty 1 territory?

Komatiite · #11 Posted **Aug 17, 2015, 6:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Unknown Poster

What is Treaty 1's claim on this land? Why do they have a right to the land as opposed to taking part in any standard sale of the land as one of many potential developers who might be interested?

The Feds and Manitoba have recognized treaty land entitlement, so they were obligated to consult with FN on this particular piece of property. The fact that the court used the term "deep consultation" (i.e. $$$) means I would be shocked if this doesn't go to the SC.

The Unknown Poster · #12 Posted **Aug 17, 2015, 7:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Komatiite

The Feds and Manitoba have recognized treaty land entitlement, so they were obligated to consult with FN on this particular piece of property. The fact that the court used the term "deep consultation" (i.e. $$$) means I would be shocked if this doesn't go to the SC.

Does this mean they get dibs on the land without paying for it or that they get first right of refusal at fair market value?

cheswick · #13 Posted **Aug 17, 2015, 7:13 PM**

So the ruling was that the Canadian government had to (has to) consult with the affected first nations? I'm a little confused as to what that means. Is that just another way of saying that the land would be theirs, or is it a matter of financially compensating them or what?

esquire · #14 Posted **Aug 17, 2015, 7:21 PM**

Super quick and condensed guide to treaty land entitlement:

https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/11.../1100100034820

Some Manitoba-specific info regarding entitlements:

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/130.../1305307177471

Riverman · #15 Posted **Aug 17, 2015, 9:05 PM**

I'm entitled to my entitilements.

CoryB · #16 Posted **Aug 17, 2015, 9:06 PM**

^^ Doing some quick reads: Sandy Bay is part of Treaty One and is not listed on the Treaty Land Agreement. It seems the other Treaty One members may have surrendered their right to claim Crown lands. If that is the case it could be the basis of the Government position in the court case.

Komatiite · #17 Posted **Aug 17, 2015, 10:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Unknown Poster

Does this mean they get dibs on the land without paying for it or that they get first right of refusal at fair market value?

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheswick

So the ruling was that the Canadian government had to (has to) consult with the affected first nations? I'm a little confused as to what that means. Is that just another way of saying that the land would be theirs, or is it a matter of financially compensating them or what?

The Treaty Land Entitlement Committee website provides some basic context to the dispute. I've parsed the following:

Quote:

On May 29, 1997, the Manitoba Treaty Land Entitlement (“TLE”) Framework Agreement was signed between Canada, Manitoba and the Treaty Land Entitlement Committee of Manitoba Inc., on behalf of 19 Entitlement First Nations (EFNs), at the Opaskwayak Cree Nation, Manitoba.

The TLE Framework Agreement outlines how the parties have agreed to fulfill the outstanding TLE obligations in Manitoba arising from the Numbered Treaties. It sets out the principles, responsibilities and dispute resolution processes associated with the land selection and acquisition process to be undertaken by the EFNs.

The TLE Framework Agreement provides for up to a total of 1,100,626 acres of land and $76 million towards the process of selecting and acquiring lands to be set apart as reserve for the EFNs. Of the 1,100,626 acres, 985,949 is the Crown Land Amount to be selected and 114,677 is the acreage amount to be purchased, or acquired.

To date, 15 EFNs have executed their individual Treaty Entitlement Agreements (“TEAs”) under the TLE Framework Agreement and are currently engaged in the land selection and acquisition process.

You can read the full agreement here. The general principles for selecting land appear on page 35.

My read is that the court is basically saying give them the land, or pony up a settlement. I make that speculation based on the phrase, "deep consultation" which I never encountered in my days as a geologist working with First Nations on their traditional lands. For that reason, I cannot imagine the government just rolling over without a Supreme Court challenge.

Of course, who knows? I am neither involved nor a lawyer, so take it with a grain of salt.

Danny D Oh · #18 Posted **Aug 17, 2015, 10:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoryB

^^ Even if the Barracks is transferred to the Aboriginal group would the City not still be able to expropriated the land needed for Kenaston?

Has the city every expropriated federal land without paying mega bucks for it? That's basically what this is. Would be interesting if it was sold to a private entity how that would be handled.

Pegoise · #19 Posted **Aug 18, 2015, 3:12 PM**

The City is a junior level of government and cannot exercise any authority on a senior level of government (province or feds and by extension - reserve) All would have to happen through negotiation and agreements.

yellowghost · #20 Posted **Aug 23, 2015, 3:57 AM**

If this eventually becomes a "urban reserve" with residential and retail developement, it might be a waste of money and time widening Kenaston street. Add the extra lane..if you will, but if history can teach you anything, it is that retail developements means more "intersection improvements" , in this case the construction of a intersection that did not exist, between taylor street and grant. Probably another one on grant also. This would counter balance any benefit of the extra lane. Possibly factor in additional crosswalks and longer redlights to account for people wandering to the other side.