He has true ownership of the land and property rights. Eminent Domain can't be imposed.
un freaking believable
- Thread starter gerryh
- Start date
In the legal sense, no, fair market value is not just whatever the owner decides it should be.
Well, no, it is quite well established that the government can do exactly this.
If you guys truly believe that some piece of paper from hundreds of years ago trumps all current laws, you would think that you would be a lot more sympathetic to the issues being raised by first nations people in Canada.
Property rights effectively stripped away in Canada | Troy Media
What he has was endowed as inalienable by the king.
What he has was endowed as inalienable by the king.
What part of that article actually deals with property "endowed as inalienable by the king"?
His document from the King. You and I have no rights and can be subject to eminent domain but he can't.
A few other things come into play here. Sometimes you have to resort to what works. I believe the King back in 1798 may have been George III..................crazier than a sh*t house rat.
Lol, but why? You have provided absolutely nothing to substantiate this claim.
Lots of Kings and Queens have made lots of declarations throughout history, but laws have also changed since then.
Every law we pass has to receive royal assent, so why would this piece of paper be any more valid than any of the stacks of other pieces of paper with royal assent that contradict it?
The treaties certainly have not been honored innumerable times.
Well to be completely fair when they do expropriate they do pay "fair market value".
Yet so many on this forum want the gubmint to do more and more for us; go figure.
Fortunately Walter most of the posters on this board are sane, and we all know the ones who aren't.
In his later years he was. He was pretty sane for most of his reign. For some reason its the last few years that get all the attention. Sane or not, even at that point there were a lot of limitations on what the King could do.
If people are not willing to sell land to the government then the government should use Crown Land. The vast majority of the country is Crown Land. There is more than enough of it. Yes, it may be in the middle of nowhere and be inconvenient to the government - so be it. No one should be forced to give up any property against their will. If people are willing to sell or give their land to the government, fine. If they arent for any price then the government should go elsewhere. Right now they dont have to and what they are doing is legal but it isnt right. That should change.
Have you ever spent much time in Toronto? How well do you think it would function if we didn't have the 401, the Gardnier, or the airports? There were huge fights over getting the land for parts of those, and many people were displaced, but sometimes that is necessary for the greater benefit of our society.