Return to Website

Expropriation Law Centre Forum

Welcome to the Expropriation Forum. This is the place for discussion of expropriation related topics.

Expropriation Forum
Start a New Topic 
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Re: Re: Re: Re: P3 Delivery


Why do you think the expropriation authority would not continue to exercise their authority responsibly - what are some of the possibilities - one factor that could make a difference would be the need for the p3 partner to stay on a deadline for completion - which could bring the need for quicker settlement of negotiations or the use of expropriation powers at an earlier date. The power to expropriate is always a consideration on both sides of negotiations and there appear to be many factors in place to ensure that it is not used indiscriminatly. What kind of possibilities do you see that could affect the use of these powers?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:


Given that the frequency of expropriation significantly increases overall r/w delivery costs for major linear projects, the transfer of the expropriation authority to the private sector is unlikely to occur. The question in my mind is can expropriation authorities continue to exercise their authority reasponsibly, when the objectives of the P3 particpants may be different, but equally important. There are clearly new dynamics at play in the decision making process. I don't have the all the answers, but am interested in what others have to say.


As to your second question, P3 delivery has provided governments in BC with numerous opportunities to deliver much needed capital projects with far less of its own funding being required. I expect use of P3 delivery as a delivery model to increase significantly in BC, at least for the foreseable future.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:


What do you see as the advantages and disadvantages of taking the decision making process of expropriation out of the governments hands? If, as you say, the vihp was a resounding success, why is the government changing its method of funding these projects?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:


Anyone familiar with the Vancouver Island Highway Project is aware the delivery of the project was a resounding success financially and as evidenced by the quality of the product. Although contract agents were frequently used within the property acquisition function, the expropriation decision making process remained in the government's hands entirely. While it seems very unlikely this will change, I would be interested to know if the decision making process for expropriation has ever been turned over to the private sector in other jurisdictions and if so, what was the outcome. I suspect the inclusion of the acquisition function in the contract specifications would have signicant implications.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:


Bill 57 - section 5 seems to indicate that all powers the transportation ministry have can be turned over yet section 6 seems to state that they will retain powers of acquisition - rather ambiguous. It would appear that they intend to turn over complete projects from design to completion - it seems to me that vihp was a partnership - what did they do with that and was this a beneficial partnership to both gov. and private sector?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

With the advent of P3 delivery of capital projects in BC, does anyone have any insights how acquisition work might differ from solely government delivery. Will acquisition remain in the hands of government or move to the private sector.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: P3 Delivery


I am only speculating, but it strikes me that the motivation of the private sector may sometimes be at odds with that of the authority. I wasn't suggesting the authority's power of expropriation would be used indiscrimantly, but possibly more frequent than if a project was not P3 delivery, assuming the goals of all parties are to be achieved and delay claims avoided.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:


Why do you think the expropriation authority would not continue to exercise their authority responsibly - what are some of the possibilities - one factor that could make a difference would be the need for the p3 partner to stay on a deadline for completion - which could bring the need for quicker settlement of negotiations or the use of expropriation powers at an earlier date. The power to expropriate is always a consideration on both sides of negotiations and there appear to be many factors in place to ensure that it is not used indiscriminatly. What kind of possibilities do you see that could affect the use of these powers?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:


Given that the frequency of expropriation significantly increases overall r/w delivery costs for major linear projects, the transfer of the expropriation authority to the private sector is unlikely to occur. The question in my mind is can expropriation authorities continue to exercise their authority reasponsibly, when the objectives of the P3 particpants may be different, but equally important. There are clearly new dynamics at play in the decision making process. I don't have the all the answers, but am interested in what others have to say.


As to your second question, P3 delivery has provided governments in BC with numerous opportunities to deliver much needed capital projects with far less of its own funding being required. I expect use of P3 delivery as a delivery model to increase significantly in BC, at least for the foreseable future.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:


What do you see as the advantages and disadvantages of taking the decision making process of expropriation out of the governments hands? If, as you say, the vihp was a resounding success, why is the government changing its method of funding these projects?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:


Anyone familiar with the Vancouver Island Highway Project is aware the delivery of the project was a resounding success financially and as evidenced by the quality of the product. Although contract agents were frequently used within the property acquisition function, the expropriation decision making process remained in the government's hands entirely. While it seems very unlikely this will change, I would be interested to know if the decision making process for expropriation has ever been turned over to the private sector in other jurisdictions and if so, what was the outcome. I suspect the inclusion of the acquisition function in the contract specifications would have signicant implications.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:


Bill 57 - section 5 seems to indicate that all powers the transportation ministry have can be turned over yet section 6 seems to state that they will retain powers of acquisition - rather ambiguous. It would appear that they intend to turn over complete projects from design to completion - it seems to me that vihp was a partnership - what did they do with that and was this a beneficial partnership to both gov. and private sector?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

With the advent of P3 delivery of capital projects in BC, does anyone have any insights how acquisition work might differ from solely government delivery. Will acquisition remain in the hands of government or move to the private sector.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: P3 Delivery


I think you have a very valid concern - are you aware of any studies done on the pros and cons of p3s?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:


I am only speculating, but it strikes me that the motivation of the private sector may sometimes be at odds with that of the authority. I wasn't suggesting the authority's power of expropriation would be used indiscrimantly, but possibly more frequent than if a project was not P3 delivery, assuming the goals of all parties are to be achieved and delay claims avoided.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:


Why do you think the expropriation authority would not continue to exercise their authority responsibly - what are some of the possibilities - one factor that could make a difference would be the need for the p3 partner to stay on a deadline for completion - which could bring the need for quicker settlement of negotiations or the use of expropriation powers at an earlier date. The power to expropriate is always a consideration on both sides of negotiations and there appear to be many factors in place to ensure that it is not used indiscriminatly. What kind of possibilities do you see that could affect the use of these powers?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:


Given that the frequency of expropriation significantly increases overall r/w delivery costs for major linear projects, the transfer of the expropriation authority to the private sector is unlikely to occur. The question in my mind is can expropriation authorities continue to exercise their authority reasponsibly, when the objectives of the P3 particpants may be different, but equally important. There are clearly new dynamics at play in the decision making process. I don't have the all the answers, but am interested in what others have to say.


As to your second question, P3 delivery has provided governments in BC with numerous opportunities to deliver much needed capital projects with far less of its own funding being required. I expect use of P3 delivery as a delivery model to increase significantly in BC, at least for the foreseable future.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:


What do you see as the advantages and disadvantages of taking the decision making process of expropriation out of the governments hands? If, as you say, the vihp was a resounding success, why is the government changing its method of funding these projects?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:


Anyone familiar with the Vancouver Island Highway Project is aware the delivery of the project was a resounding success financially and as evidenced by the quality of the product. Although contract agents were frequently used within the property acquisition function, the expropriation decision making process remained in the government's hands entirely. While it seems very unlikely this will change, I would be interested to know if the decision making process for expropriation has ever been turned over to the private sector in other jurisdictions and if so, what was the outcome. I suspect the inclusion of the acquisition function in the contract specifications would have signicant implications.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:


Bill 57 - section 5 seems to indicate that all powers the transportation ministry have can be turned over yet section 6 seems to state that they will retain powers of acquisition - rather ambiguous. It would appear that they intend to turn over complete projects from design to completion - it seems to me that vihp was a partnership - what did they do with that and was this a beneficial partnership to both gov. and private sector?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

With the advent of P3 delivery of capital projects in BC, does anyone have any insights how acquisition work might differ from solely government delivery. Will acquisition remain in the hands of government or move to the private sector.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: P3 Delivery


I have researched the matter extensively, but have yet to find the issue addressed. I am hoping others may have had first hand experience they can share.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:


I think you have a very valid concern - are you aware of any studies done on the pros and cons of p3s?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:


I am only speculating, but it strikes me that the motivation of the private sector may sometimes be at odds with that of the authority. I wasn't suggesting the authority's power of expropriation would be used indiscrimantly, but possibly more frequent than if a project was not P3 delivery, assuming the goals of all parties are to be achieved and delay claims avoided.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:


Why do you think the expropriation authority would not continue to exercise their authority responsibly - what are some of the possibilities - one factor that could make a difference would be the need for the p3 partner to stay on a deadline for completion - which could bring the need for quicker settlement of negotiations or the use of expropriation powers at an earlier date. The power to expropriate is always a consideration on both sides of negotiations and there appear to be many factors in place to ensure that it is not used indiscriminatly. What kind of possibilities do you see that could affect the use of these powers?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:


Given that the frequency of expropriation significantly increases overall r/w delivery costs for major linear projects, the transfer of the expropriation authority to the private sector is unlikely to occur. The question in my mind is can expropriation authorities continue to exercise their authority reasponsibly, when the objectives of the P3 particpants may be different, but equally important. There are clearly new dynamics at play in the decision making process. I don't have the all the answers, but am interested in what others have to say.


As to your second question, P3 delivery has provided governments in BC with numerous opportunities to deliver much needed capital projects with far less of its own funding being required. I expect use of P3 delivery as a delivery model to increase significantly in BC, at least for the foreseable future.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:


What do you see as the advantages and disadvantages of taking the decision making process of expropriation out of the governments hands? If, as you say, the vihp was a resounding success, why is the government changing its method of funding these projects?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:


Anyone familiar with the Vancouver Island Highway Project is aware the delivery of the project was a resounding success financially and as evidenced by the quality of the product. Although contract agents were frequently used within the property acquisition function, the expropriation decision making process remained in the government's hands entirely. While it seems very unlikely this will change, I would be interested to know if the decision making process for expropriation has ever been turned over to the private sector in other jurisdictions and if so, what was the outcome. I suspect the inclusion of the acquisition function in the contract specifications would have signicant implications.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:


Bill 57 - section 5 seems to indicate that all powers the transportation ministry have can be turned over yet section 6 seems to state that they will retain powers of acquisition - rather ambiguous. It would appear that they intend to turn over complete projects from design to completion - it seems to me that vihp was a partnership - what did they do with that and was this a beneficial partnership to both gov. and private sector?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

With the advent of P3 delivery of capital projects in BC, does anyone have any insights how acquisition work might differ from solely government delivery. Will acquisition remain in the hands of government or move to the private sector.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: P3 Delivery


The government will most likely have a review process when the P3 want to expropriate, such as offers made, demands by the Owner, number of meetings etc, they won't let the P3's run wild with expropriations but will retain control.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:


I have researched the matter extensively, but have yet to find the issue addressed. I am hoping others may have had first hand experience they can share.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:


I think you have a very valid concern - are you aware of any studies done on the pros and cons of p3s?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:


I am only speculating, but it strikes me that the motivation of the private sector may sometimes be at odds with that of the authority. I wasn't suggesting the authority's power of expropriation would be used indiscrimantly, but possibly more frequent than if a project was not P3 delivery, assuming the goals of all parties are to be achieved and delay claims avoided.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:


Why do you think the expropriation authority would not continue to exercise their authority responsibly - what are some of the possibilities - one factor that could make a difference would be the need for the p3 partner to stay on a deadline for completion - which could bring the need for quicker settlement of negotiations or the use of expropriation powers at an earlier date. The power to expropriate is always a consideration on both sides of negotiations and there appear to be many factors in place to ensure that it is not used indiscriminatly. What kind of possibilities do you see that could affect the use of these powers?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:


Given that the frequency of expropriation significantly increases overall r/w delivery costs for major linear projects, the transfer of the expropriation authority to the private sector is unlikely to occur. The question in my mind is can expropriation authorities continue to exercise their authority reasponsibly, when the objectives of the P3 particpants may be different, but equally important. There are clearly new dynamics at play in the decision making process. I don't have the all the answers, but am interested in what others have to say.


As to your second question, P3 delivery has provided governments in BC with numerous opportunities to deliver much needed capital projects with far less of its own funding being required. I expect use of P3 delivery as a delivery model to increase significantly in BC, at least for the foreseable future.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:


What do you see as the advantages and disadvantages of taking the decision making process of expropriation out of the governments hands? If, as you say, the vihp was a resounding success, why is the government changing its method of funding these projects?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:


Anyone familiar with the Vancouver Island Highway Project is aware the delivery of the project was a resounding success financially and as evidenced by the quality of the product. Although contract agents were frequently used within the property acquisition function, the expropriation decision making process remained in the government's hands entirely. While it seems very unlikely this will change, I would be interested to know if the decision making process for expropriation has ever been turned over to the private sector in other jurisdictions and if so, what was the outcome. I suspect the inclusion of the acquisition function in the contract specifications would have signicant implications.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:


Bill 57 - section 5 seems to indicate that all powers the transportation ministry have can be turned over yet section 6 seems to state that they will retain powers of acquisition - rather ambiguous. It would appear that they intend to turn over complete projects from design to completion - it seems to me that vihp was a partnership - what did they do with that and was this a beneficial partnership to both gov. and private sector?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

With the advent of P3 delivery of capital projects in BC, does anyone have any insights how acquisition work might differ from solely government delivery. Will acquisition remain in the hands of government or move to the private sector.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: P3 Delivery


I think the concern should not be around the use of expropriation as it is governed by its own set of laws. I think the concern should be around negotiating tactics that may be used. It appears from the new act that the government is making sure it is not liable for anything concerning this. Have you inquired of the government about the Risk Management studies they have done, perhaps the answer to why they would include this in their p3 lies in there.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:


The government will most likely have a review process when the P3 want to expropriate, such as offers made, demands by the Owner, number of meetings etc, they won't let the P3's run wild with expropriations but will retain control.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:


I have researched the matter extensively, but have yet to find the issue addressed. I am hoping others may have had first hand experience they can share.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:


I think you have a very valid concern - are you aware of any studies done on the pros and cons of p3s?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:


I am only speculating, but it strikes me that the motivation of the private sector may sometimes be at odds with that of the authority. I wasn't suggesting the authority's power of expropriation would be used indiscrimantly, but possibly more frequent than if a project was not P3 delivery, assuming the goals of all parties are to be achieved and delay claims avoided.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:


Why do you think the expropriation authority would not continue to exercise their authority responsibly - what are some of the possibilities - one factor that could make a difference would be the need for the p3 partner to stay on a deadline for completion - which could bring the need for quicker settlement of negotiations or the use of expropriation powers at an earlier date. The power to expropriate is always a consideration on both sides of negotiations and there appear to be many factors in place to ensure that it is not used indiscriminatly. What kind of possibilities do you see that could affect the use of these powers?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:


Given that the frequency of expropriation significantly increases overall r/w delivery costs for major linear projects, the transfer of the expropriation authority to the private sector is unlikely to occur. The question in my mind is can expropriation authorities continue to exercise their authority reasponsibly, when the objectives of the P3 particpants may be different, but equally important. There are clearly new dynamics at play in the decision making process. I don't have the all the answers, but am interested in what others have to say.


As to your second question, P3 delivery has provided governments in BC with numerous opportunities to deliver much needed capital projects with far less of its own funding being required. I expect use of P3 delivery as a delivery model to increase significantly in BC, at least for the foreseable future.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:


What do you see as the advantages and disadvantages of taking the decision making process of expropriation out of the governments hands? If, as you say, the vihp was a resounding success, why is the government changing its method of funding these projects?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:


Anyone familiar with the Vancouver Island Highway Project is aware the delivery of the project was a resounding success financially and as evidenced by the quality of the product. Although contract agents were frequently used within the property acquisition function, the expropriation decision making process remained in the government's hands entirely. While it seems very unlikely this will change, I would be interested to know if the decision making process for expropriation has ever been turned over to the private sector in other jurisdictions and if so, what was the outcome. I suspect the inclusion of the acquisition function in the contract specifications would have signicant implications.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:


Bill 57 - section 5 seems to indicate that all powers the transportation ministry have can be turned over yet section 6 seems to state that they will retain powers of acquisition - rather ambiguous. It would appear that they intend to turn over complete projects from design to completion - it seems to me that vihp was a partnership - what did they do with that and was this a beneficial partnership to both gov. and private sector?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

With the advent of P3 delivery of capital projects in BC, does anyone have any insights how acquisition work might differ from solely government delivery. Will acquisition remain in the hands of government or move to the private sector.