"The west wants out": Separatist sentiments growing in Alberta

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
49,945
3,580
113
Washington DC
Exceptions are a small piece if Ontario and rail right of ways.
Are the leases or tenure effectively indefinite, unless good cause is shown to end them?

Are the leases or tenure part of one's estate?

Is there any ongoing payment (aside from taxes), or is it your once you've paid the price or paid off the mortgage?
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
49,945
3,580
113
Washington DC
I get where you are going and no, it's not the same.
I ain't going anyplace. I'm learning.

I have formed a tentative conclusion, for strawman purposes, that I may end up saying "Is the difference worth a fight?"

I am fully prepared to answer that strawman with "Yes, it is." Or with "No, it isn't."

I'll give you this, thus far. Even if it turns out that the practical difference from U.S.-style land ownership is minimal, you still have a point. I might not agree that it's worth a fight, but I freely acknowledge that ownership of land is fundamental, and I got no problem with people whose view is "close enough" is not close enough. The fee simple absolute (as it's sometimes called in law) is basic to the entire Western system.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
49,945
3,580
113
Washington DC
It is worth the fight. Freedom and security is always worth fighting for.
OK. I regard freedom and security as terms so vague as to be nearly useless, but I don't think I'm gonna get much further with you on this. They do make great rallying cries to justify unspeakable acts of brutality.

So. . . next up is "ditching the Crown." Pretty self-explanatory.

What sort of "constitutional republic," capitalized or not, you shooting for?
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
101,256
6,892
113
Moccasin Flats
I've got more I'm just busy.

Less than 3 months ago SK finally has quasi trespassing laws with at least some form of recourse and protection Rights were there were none before.

Saskatchewan's changes to trespassing laws finally take effect Jan. 1, 2022. The amendments that place the onus on individuals to obtain permission to be on private property were passed in 2019 but not proclaimed.Dec 23, 2021
 
  • Like
Reactions: taxslave

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,326
113
Vancouver Island
Are the leases or tenure effectively indefinite, unless good cause is shown to end them?

Are the leases or tenure part of one's estate?

Is there any ongoing payment (aside from taxes), or is it your once you've paid the price or paid off the mortgage?
Can't tell you what other provinces do, since most of this is provincial jurisdiction. In BC(bring cash, and lots of it) there are some variations depending on when the land was crown granted private ownership) but basically you own the surface rights and sub surface rights may belong to the crown or some mining company. Some of the pre 1900 grants included subsurface rights. The owner of the subsurface rights can come on your property to develop their claims, but have to pay some sort of fee. Similar for water rights. Someone else could own all the rights to a stream crossing your property. Much of this only applies in rural areas since it is probably impossible to get the necessary permits to open a mine in a city. There are many towns built on top of mines though. One could probably buy the mineral rights to their property from the mineral claim owner, or if their claims have expired and you had a free miners license you could stake your own properrty.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
49,945
3,580
113
Washington DC
Can't tell you what other provinces do, since most of this is provincial jurisdiction. In BC(bring cash, and lots of it) there are some variations depending on when the land was crown granted private ownership) but basically you own the surface rights and sub surface rights may belong to the crown or some mining company. Some of the pre 1900 grants included subsurface rights. The owner of the subsurface rights can come on your property to develop their claims, but have to pay some sort of fee. Similar for water rights. Someone else could own all the rights to a stream crossing your property. Much of this only applies in rural areas since it is probably impossible to get the necessary permits to open a mine in a city. There are many towns built on top of mines though. One could probably buy the mineral rights to their property from the mineral claim owner, or if their claims have expired and you had a free miners license you could stake your own properrty.
Thank you. That's helpful.

Here, by contrast, one generally buys land "in fee." That means it's yours, surface, subsurface, water rights, and the air above up to a "reasonable" altitude.

Any of that can be waived by contract or deed, and there are some "easements" that allow people to use your land (generally to cross it), and "covenants" that "run with the land" (meaning a new purchaser has to abide by them), but they have to be specified in the deed and purchase contract. That and zoning (industrial, residential, mixed-use, and such) are about the only limits.

The biggest land fight we had recently was over "eminent domain." The Fifth Amendment says no government at any level can seize your land except for "public use" (and they have to pay you). 50 years ago the Supreme Court decided that a "public use" means a "public purpose" in a case over urban renewal (a position I vehemently reject). Maybe 10 years ago the city of New London, Connecticut, wanted to seize some private houses and sell the land to a developer. The "public purpose" the city cited was that the development would pay the city more property tax than the homes. To the fury of the majority of Americans, the Supreme Court held that was OK. In reaction, many states passed laws or even amendments to their state constitutions that forbade the practice.

Now the politicians have to come up with a new excuse.
 

taxme

Council Member
Feb 11, 2020
2,177
930
113

Alberta better watch out that the Turd does not invoke the Marxist Emergency Act once again and charge Alberta with treason and promoting terrorism for daring to want to separate from Canada. There is nothing that this idiot will try and do to peacefully loving people to try and keep his dictator status going. The Turd did it to the truckers. Hey, we never know, eh?
 

taxme

Council Member
Feb 11, 2020
2,177
930
113
Yeah. One of my first thoughts when the agreement was announced.

Trudeau may actually reach his goal......the complete destruction of Canada as a coherent nation.

I've said it before; Pierre Trudeau kneecapped Canada, and now Justin Trudeau is administering the coup de grace.

We can all thank the Marxist Trudeau's for pretty much destroying this once great nation and trying to turn it into a communist like third world hell hole. And there are still buffoons out there who think that Justy boy is a great leader. Who are these morons? (n)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Colpy

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
101,256
6,892
113
Moccasin Flats
Thank you. That's helpful.

Here, by contrast, one generally buys land "in fee." That means it's yours, surface, subsurface, water rights, and the air above up to a "reasonable" altitude.

Any of that can be waived by contract or deed, and there are some "easements" that allow people to use your land (generally to cross it), and "covenants" that "run with the land" (meaning a new purchaser has to abide by them), but they have to be specified in the deed and purchase contract. That and zoning (industrial, residential, mixed-use, and such) are about the only limits.

The biggest land fight we had recently was over "eminent domain." The Fifth Amendment says no government at any level can seize your land except for "public use" (and they have to pay you). 50 years ago the Supreme Court decided that a "public use" means a "public purpose" in a case over urban renewal (a position I vehemently reject). Maybe 10 years ago the city of New London, Connecticut, wanted to seize some private houses and sell the land to a developer. The "public purpose" the city cited was that the development would pay the city more property tax than the homes. To the fury of the majority of Americans, the Supreme Court held that was OK. In reaction, many states passed laws or even amendments to their state constitutions that forbade the practice.

Now the politicians have to come up with a new excuse.
Alloidial Title.