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
Funding

Could someone tell me if it's "legal" if an authority (municipality) runs out the money to pay for the last and most valuable piece of farmland it requires for an "arterial road" extension (which does not legally exist-has not been declared-is not in the OCP but is only a district wish list item) after negotiating and acquiring property from every other owner and then announces the delay of the project with the intent of taking the land ("dedication of 20m x 1000m) at the time of a subdivision/rezoning/DP application using powers granted under the Local Government Act (LGA)?



Can an approving officer force (demand)a 20m dedication for a four lane arterial highway through acreage which only needs a 6m "internal road" from an already existing access point for a residential development? Isn't this well beyond the pale of his powers and the "intent" of the LGA.?

Will any of this change with the new "Community Charter"?



In considering the above, let me point out that the rest of the land has been purchased, the road built, and the land surrounding it developed out, thus increasing property tax values (and every form of pollution) which in turns forces the sale or development of the now "out of place farm" in question and thus triggers the desired application and "dedication"!! Further, the land cannot be sold for "highest and best use" because all potential buyers to date have been told to "stay away" because this dedication will be forced upon the land, thus the third party offer's (all of which have been "subject to rezoning") have not survived the first conversation with the municipal planning department thus further sterilizing the land and decreasing it's value. All appraisers to date have been told the same thing!! Worse, the appraiser's have indicated that they can't use the values that the neighbors where paid for their land by the District because those transactions are not "third party" transactions which has even further isolated the farm.(Theoretically the District could have screwed those owners too but opted not too because of their small sizes - meaning affordability - and that's where they spent all the money (millions) electing to pay "FAIR" market values! The OCP had been changed to reflect residential use for all the farms but the zoning cannot be achieved without the dedication for only this farm.

Perhaps the District officials have elected to anger this single minority owner rather than the two dozen other votes!!



Does the district have to hold a "referendum" if it elects to borrow the millions required to "fairly" purchase the land for this purpose? What if the owner is willing to hold a mortgage?

Doesn't this type of powerplay (extortion!!) by the District constitute an "abuse of office" and thus, can't the owner seek remedy and relief (compensation!!) in Court in addition to that which is available under the Expropriation Act?



I appreciate my questions are fairly involved so Thanks to those who will contributed their time and energy to comment.

Re: Funding


The situation you describe is not uncommon.



It appears the municipality would like to acquire a road through your property but hopes to acquire the land for free by waiting for you to bring in a development application. Upon receipt of a development application, the municipality may be entitled to demand the road dedication as a condition of development approval. On the other hand, the municipality cannot force you to make a development application.



It looks like you are in need of legal advice. Most likely, the municipality has an advantage over you because of its greater knowledge and experience with these issues. You may have some legal remedies but a lawyer would need to know much more about the specific details of your situation before giving any advice.

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

Replying to:

Could someone tell me if it's "legal" if an authority (municipality) runs out the money to pay for the last and most valuable piece of farmland it requires for an "arterial road" extension (which does not legally exist-has not been declared-is not in the OCP but is only a district wish list item) after negotiating and acquiring property from every other owner and then announces the delay of the project with the intent of taking the land ("dedication of 20m x 1000m) at the time of a subdivision/rezoning/DP application using powers granted under the Local Government Act (LGA)?



Can an approving officer force (demand)a 20m dedication for a four lane arterial highway through acreage which only needs a 6m "internal road" from an already existing access point for a residential development? Isn't this well beyond the pale of his powers and the "intent" of the LGA.?

Will any of this change with the new "Community Charter"?



In considering the above, let me point out that the rest of the land has been purchased, the road built, and the land surrounding it developed out, thus increasing property tax values (and every form of pollution) which in turns forces the sale or development of the now "out of place farm" in question and thus triggers the desired application and "dedication"!! Further, the land cannot be sold for "highest and best use" because all potential buyers to date have been told to "stay away" because this dedication will be forced upon the land, thus the third party offer's (all of which have been "subject to rezoning") have not survived the first conversation with the municipal planning department thus further sterilizing the land and decreasing it's value. All appraisers to date have been told the same thing!! Worse, the appraiser's have indicated that they can't use the values that the neighbors where paid for their land by the District because those transactions are not "third party" transactions which has even further isolated the farm.(Theoretically the District could have screwed those owners too but opted not too because of their small sizes - meaning affordability - and that's where they spent all the money (millions) electing to pay "FAIR" market values! The OCP had been changed to reflect residential use for all the farms but the zoning cannot be achieved without the dedication for only this farm.

Perhaps the District officials have elected to anger this single minority owner rather than the two dozen other votes!!



Does the district have to hold a "referendum" if it elects to borrow the millions required to "fairly" purchase the land for this purpose? What if the owner is willing to hold a mortgage?

Doesn't this type of powerplay (extortion!!) by the District constitute an "abuse of office" and thus, can't the owner seek remedy and relief (compensation!!) in Court in addition to that which is available under the Expropriation Act?



I appreciate my questions are fairly involved so Thanks to those who will contributed their time and energy to comment.

Re: Re: Funding


Thanks Bruce. What about the legality of this intentional duress? Doesn't this smack of "abuse of office"?!!



Here's an interesting proposition which I received personally - what would happen if I applied to build a toll road??!!!! If they said no, wouldn't it set a precedent? What's good for the goose is good for the gander right?!!

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

Replying to:


The situation you describe is not uncommon.



It appears the municipality would like to acquire a road through your property but hopes to acquire the land for free by waiting for you to bring in a development application. Upon receipt of a development application, the municipality may be entitled to demand the road dedication as a condition of development approval. On the other hand, the municipality cannot force you to make a development application.



It looks like you are in need of legal advice. Most likely, the municipality has an advantage over you because of its greater knowledge and experience with these issues. You may have some legal remedies but a lawyer would need to know much more about the specific details of your situation before giving any advice.

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

Replying to:

Could someone tell me if it's "legal" if an authority (municipality) runs out the money to pay for the last and most valuable piece of farmland it requires for an "arterial road" extension (which does not legally exist-has not been declared-is not in the OCP but is only a district wish list item) after negotiating and acquiring property from every other owner and then announces the delay of the project with the intent of taking the land ("dedication of 20m x 1000m) at the time of a subdivision/rezoning/DP application using powers granted under the Local Government Act (LGA)?



Can an approving officer force (demand)a 20m dedication for a four lane arterial highway through acreage which only needs a 6m "internal road" from an already existing access point for a residential development? Isn't this well beyond the pale of his powers and the "intent" of the LGA.?

Will any of this change with the new "Community Charter"?



In considering the above, let me point out that the rest of the land has been purchased, the road built, and the land surrounding it developed out, thus increasing property tax values (and every form of pollution) which in turns forces the sale or development of the now "out of place farm" in question and thus triggers the desired application and "dedication"!! Further, the land cannot be sold for "highest and best use" because all potential buyers to date have been told to "stay away" because this dedication will be forced upon the land, thus the third party offer's (all of which have been "subject to rezoning") have not survived the first conversation with the municipal planning department thus further sterilizing the land and decreasing it's value. All appraisers to date have been told the same thing!! Worse, the appraiser's have indicated that they can't use the values that the neighbors where paid for their land by the District because those transactions are not "third party" transactions which has even further isolated the farm.(Theoretically the District could have screwed those owners too but opted not too because of their small sizes - meaning affordability - and that's where they spent all the money (millions) electing to pay "FAIR" market values! The OCP had been changed to reflect residential use for all the farms but the zoning cannot be achieved without the dedication for only this farm.

Perhaps the District officials have elected to anger this single minority owner rather than the two dozen other votes!!



Does the district have to hold a "referendum" if it elects to borrow the millions required to "fairly" purchase the land for this purpose? What if the owner is willing to hold a mortgage?

Doesn't this type of powerplay (extortion!!) by the District constitute an "abuse of office" and thus, can't the owner seek remedy and relief (compensation!!) in Court in addition to that which is available under the Expropriation Act?



I appreciate my questions are fairly involved so Thanks to those who will contributed their time and energy to comment.

Re: Re: Re: Funding


Sounds like a waiting game here... road dedications in subdivisions happen every day, it's just that some are larger than others. Most developers want the lots and profits but don't want to give up the road dedication to get the end result... and want the town to buy the road area. It's a matter of timing and see who can wait the longest... if you don't need the money from the subdivision... wait!!! and don't waste your money on lawyers either!!

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

Replying to:


Thanks Bruce. What about the legality of this intentional duress? Doesn't this smack of "abuse of office"?!!



Here's an interesting proposition which I received personally - what would happen if I applied to build a toll road??!!!! If they said no, wouldn't it set a precedent? What's good for the goose is good for the gander right?!!

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

Replying to:


The situation you describe is not uncommon.



It appears the municipality would like to acquire a road through your property but hopes to acquire the land for free by waiting for you to bring in a development application. Upon receipt of a development application, the municipality may be entitled to demand the road dedication as a condition of development approval. On the other hand, the municipality cannot force you to make a development application.



It looks like you are in need of legal advice. Most likely, the municipality has an advantage over you because of its greater knowledge and experience with these issues. You may have some legal remedies but a lawyer would need to know much more about the specific details of your situation before giving any advice.

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

Replying to:

Could someone tell me if it's "legal" if an authority (municipality) runs out the money to pay for the last and most valuable piece of farmland it requires for an "arterial road" extension (which does not legally exist-has not been declared-is not in the OCP but is only a district wish list item) after negotiating and acquiring property from every other owner and then announces the delay of the project with the intent of taking the land ("dedication of 20m x 1000m) at the time of a subdivision/rezoning/DP application using powers granted under the Local Government Act (LGA)?



Can an approving officer force (demand)a 20m dedication for a four lane arterial highway through acreage which only needs a 6m "internal road" from an already existing access point for a residential development? Isn't this well beyond the pale of his powers and the "intent" of the LGA.?

Will any of this change with the new "Community Charter"?



In considering the above, let me point out that the rest of the land has been purchased, the road built, and the land surrounding it developed out, thus increasing property tax values (and every form of pollution) which in turns forces the sale or development of the now "out of place farm" in question and thus triggers the desired application and "dedication"!! Further, the land cannot be sold for "highest and best use" because all potential buyers to date have been told to "stay away" because this dedication will be forced upon the land, thus the third party offer's (all of which have been "subject to rezoning") have not survived the first conversation with the municipal planning department thus further sterilizing the land and decreasing it's value. All appraisers to date have been told the same thing!! Worse, the appraiser's have indicated that they can't use the values that the neighbors where paid for their land by the District because those transactions are not "third party" transactions which has even further isolated the farm.(Theoretically the District could have screwed those owners too but opted not too because of their small sizes - meaning affordability - and that's where they spent all the money (millions) electing to pay "FAIR" market values! The OCP had been changed to reflect residential use for all the farms but the zoning cannot be achieved without the dedication for only this farm.

Perhaps the District officials have elected to anger this single minority owner rather than the two dozen other votes!!



Does the district have to hold a "referendum" if it elects to borrow the millions required to "fairly" purchase the land for this purpose? What if the owner is willing to hold a mortgage?

Doesn't this type of powerplay (extortion!!) by the District constitute an "abuse of office" and thus, can't the owner seek remedy and relief (compensation!!) in Court in addition to that which is available under the Expropriation Act?



I appreciate my questions are fairly involved so Thanks to those who will contributed their time and energy to comment.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Funding


Thanks Armon. The problem isn't the waiting or even the dedication in and of itself, it's the fact that because they have the largest track of land it would only be a partial taking - all the rest of the acquisitions were complete takings - and thus, the remaining land turns to crap. Who wants to live next to a major highway? (only residential zoning allowed). What do think about the toll road idea??

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

Replying to:


Sounds like a waiting game here... road dedications in subdivisions happen every day, it's just that some are larger than others. Most developers want the lots and profits but don't want to give up the road dedication to get the end result... and want the town to buy the road area. It's a matter of timing and see who can wait the longest... if you don't need the money from the subdivision... wait!!! and don't waste your money on lawyers either!!

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

Replying to:


Thanks Bruce. What about the legality of this intentional duress? Doesn't this smack of "abuse of office"?!!



Here's an interesting proposition which I received personally - what would happen if I applied to build a toll road??!!!! If they said no, wouldn't it set a precedent? What's good for the goose is good for the gander right?!!

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

Replying to:


The situation you describe is not uncommon.



It appears the municipality would like to acquire a road through your property but hopes to acquire the land for free by waiting for you to bring in a development application. Upon receipt of a development application, the municipality may be entitled to demand the road dedication as a condition of development approval. On the other hand, the municipality cannot force you to make a development application.



It looks like you are in need of legal advice. Most likely, the municipality has an advantage over you because of its greater knowledge and experience with these issues. You may have some legal remedies but a lawyer would need to know much more about the specific details of your situation before giving any advice.

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

Replying to:

Could someone tell me if it's "legal" if an authority (municipality) runs out the money to pay for the last and most valuable piece of farmland it requires for an "arterial road" extension (which does not legally exist-has not been declared-is not in the OCP but is only a district wish list item) after negotiating and acquiring property from every other owner and then announces the delay of the project with the intent of taking the land ("dedication of 20m x 1000m) at the time of a subdivision/rezoning/DP application using powers granted under the Local Government Act (LGA)?



Can an approving officer force (demand)a 20m dedication for a four lane arterial highway through acreage which only needs a 6m "internal road" from an already existing access point for a residential development? Isn't this well beyond the pale of his powers and the "intent" of the LGA.?

Will any of this change with the new "Community Charter"?



In considering the above, let me point out that the rest of the land has been purchased, the road built, and the land surrounding it developed out, thus increasing property tax values (and every form of pollution) which in turns forces the sale or development of the now "out of place farm" in question and thus triggers the desired application and "dedication"!! Further, the land cannot be sold for "highest and best use" because all potential buyers to date have been told to "stay away" because this dedication will be forced upon the land, thus the third party offer's (all of which have been "subject to rezoning") have not survived the first conversation with the municipal planning department thus further sterilizing the land and decreasing it's value. All appraisers to date have been told the same thing!! Worse, the appraiser's have indicated that they can't use the values that the neighbors where paid for their land by the District because those transactions are not "third party" transactions which has even further isolated the farm.(Theoretically the District could have screwed those owners too but opted not too because of their small sizes - meaning affordability - and that's where they spent all the money (millions) electing to pay "FAIR" market values! The OCP had been changed to reflect residential use for all the farms but the zoning cannot be achieved without the dedication for only this farm.

Perhaps the District officials have elected to anger this single minority owner rather than the two dozen other votes!!



Does the district have to hold a "referendum" if it elects to borrow the millions required to "fairly" purchase the land for this purpose? What if the owner is willing to hold a mortgage?

Doesn't this type of powerplay (extortion!!) by the District constitute an "abuse of office" and thus, can't the owner seek remedy and relief (compensation!!) in Court in addition to that which is available under the Expropriation Act?



I appreciate my questions are fairly involved so Thanks to those who will contributed their time and energy to comment.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funding


If the remaining land "turns to crap" you have a claim for injurious affection or damages to the remainder. The res. lots next to a highway being worth less than they would have been if not next to a highway. Partial takings happen all the time, if you cannot convince the authority to purchase the whole property, which alot of people try to do. The toll road idea won't fly (i'm presuming that you would build a road and charge a toll to cross your land?) The agency will just exprop. the road area prior to construction. One fellow in Delta tried to build the road on his own a few years ago and charge the gov for the construction.

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

Replying to:


Thanks Armon. The problem isn't the waiting or even the dedication in and of itself, it's the fact that because they have the largest track of land it would only be a partial taking - all the rest of the acquisitions were complete takings - and thus, the remaining land turns to crap. Who wants to live next to a major highway? (only residential zoning allowed). What do think about the toll road idea??

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

Replying to:


Sounds like a waiting game here... road dedications in subdivisions happen every day, it's just that some are larger than others. Most developers want the lots and profits but don't want to give up the road dedication to get the end result... and want the town to buy the road area. It's a matter of timing and see who can wait the longest... if you don't need the money from the subdivision... wait!!! and don't waste your money on lawyers either!!

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

Replying to:


Thanks Bruce. What about the legality of this intentional duress? Doesn't this smack of "abuse of office"?!!



Here's an interesting proposition which I received personally - what would happen if I applied to build a toll road??!!!! If they said no, wouldn't it set a precedent? What's good for the goose is good for the gander right?!!

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

Replying to:


The situation you describe is not uncommon.



It appears the municipality would like to acquire a road through your property but hopes to acquire the land for free by waiting for you to bring in a development application. Upon receipt of a development application, the municipality may be entitled to demand the road dedication as a condition of development approval. On the other hand, the municipality cannot force you to make a development application.



It looks like you are in need of legal advice. Most likely, the municipality has an advantage over you because of its greater knowledge and experience with these issues. You may have some legal remedies but a lawyer would need to know much more about the specific details of your situation before giving any advice.

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

Replying to:

Could someone tell me if it's "legal" if an authority (municipality) runs out the money to pay for the last and most valuable piece of farmland it requires for an "arterial road" extension (which does not legally exist-has not been declared-is not in the OCP but is only a district wish list item) after negotiating and acquiring property from every other owner and then announces the delay of the project with the intent of taking the land ("dedication of 20m x 1000m) at the time of a subdivision/rezoning/DP application using powers granted under the Local Government Act (LGA)?



Can an approving officer force (demand)a 20m dedication for a four lane arterial highway through acreage which only needs a 6m "internal road" from an already existing access point for a residential development? Isn't this well beyond the pale of his powers and the "intent" of the LGA.?

Will any of this change with the new "Community Charter"?



In considering the above, let me point out that the rest of the land has been purchased, the road built, and the land surrounding it developed out, thus increasing property tax values (and every form of pollution) which in turns forces the sale or development of the now "out of place farm" in question and thus triggers the desired application and "dedication"!! Further, the land cannot be sold for "highest and best use" because all potential buyers to date have been told to "stay away" because this dedication will be forced upon the land, thus the third party offer's (all of which have been "subject to rezoning") have not survived the first conversation with the municipal planning department thus further sterilizing the land and decreasing it's value. All appraisers to date have been told the same thing!! Worse, the appraiser's have indicated that they can't use the values that the neighbors where paid for their land by the District because those transactions are not "third party" transactions which has even further isolated the farm.(Theoretically the District could have screwed those owners too but opted not too because of their small sizes - meaning affordability - and that's where they spent all the money (millions) electing to pay "FAIR" market values! The OCP had been changed to reflect residential use for all the farms but the zoning cannot be achieved without the dedication for only this farm.

Perhaps the District officials have elected to anger this single minority owner rather than the two dozen other votes!!



Does the district have to hold a "referendum" if it elects to borrow the millions required to "fairly" purchase the land for this purpose? What if the owner is willing to hold a mortgage?

Doesn't this type of powerplay (extortion!!) by the District constitute an "abuse of office" and thus, can't the owner seek remedy and relief (compensation!!) in Court in addition to that which is available under the Expropriation Act?



I appreciate my questions are fairly involved so Thanks to those who will contributed their time and energy to comment.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funding


Yes BUT it's only injurious affection IF they expropriate! If the owners submits a subdivision/rezoning application and that portion of land has to be dedicated, then there's no compensable damages!! That's where they've got you by the you know what's as Bruce also pointed out. It's great strategy for them. The toll road is a really serious consideration because it would serve to set a precedent and force their hand? Why wouldn't they allow it? Can they legally stop (oppose) it when they've done exactly the same thing all the way up to the land and if they don't allow it, then how can they come back and do exactly the same thing themselves. I think this forces their hand. Keep in mind that the owners would only make the application for the zoning. They don't have to build the darn thing right away but it put's the cat amongst the pigion's don't you think?? Why shouldn't the land owner be aloud to profit from the income generated off his land which would mitigate the losses suffered to the balance of the property if he had to gift it? No one's commented on whether this situation constitutes "abuse of power of office". People shouldn't be ransomed like this so blatantly in my opinion. The powers to be know exactly what they're doing and how much hardship they're creating. I don't beleive it's fair and equitable and I don't beleive it should be allowed to continue. Couple this with the "quiet" expropriation exercised by the DFO and it's streamside legislation across the country and it's no wonder people are p'ed off!! They ought to change the name from expropriation to extortion.

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

Replying to:


If the remaining land "turns to crap" you have a claim for injurious affection or damages to the remainder. The res. lots next to a highway being worth less than they would have been if not next to a highway. Partial takings happen all the time, if you cannot convince the authority to purchase the whole property, which alot of people try to do. The toll road idea won't fly (i'm presuming that you would build a road and charge a toll to cross your land?) The agency will just exprop. the road area prior to construction. One fellow in Delta tried to build the road on his own a few years ago and charge the gov for the construction.

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

Replying to:


Thanks Armon. The problem isn't the waiting or even the dedication in and of itself, it's the fact that because they have the largest track of land it would only be a partial taking - all the rest of the acquisitions were complete takings - and thus, the remaining land turns to crap. Who wants to live next to a major highway? (only residential zoning allowed). What do think about the toll road idea??

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

Replying to:


Sounds like a waiting game here... road dedications in subdivisions happen every day, it's just that some are larger than others. Most developers want the lots and profits but don't want to give up the road dedication to get the end result... and want the town to buy the road area. It's a matter of timing and see who can wait the longest... if you don't need the money from the subdivision... wait!!! and don't waste your money on lawyers either!!

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

Replying to:


Thanks Bruce. What about the legality of this intentional duress? Doesn't this smack of "abuse of office"?!!



Here's an interesting proposition which I received personally - what would happen if I applied to build a toll road??!!!! If they said no, wouldn't it set a precedent? What's good for the goose is good for the gander right?!!

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

Replying to:


The situation you describe is not uncommon.



It appears the municipality would like to acquire a road through your property but hopes to acquire the land for free by waiting for you to bring in a development application. Upon receipt of a development application, the municipality may be entitled to demand the road dedication as a condition of development approval. On the other hand, the municipality cannot force you to make a development application.



It looks like you are in need of legal advice. Most likely, the municipality has an advantage over you because of its greater knowledge and experience with these issues. You may have some legal remedies but a lawyer would need to know much more about the specific details of your situation before giving any advice.

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

Replying to:

Could someone tell me if it's "legal" if an authority (municipality) runs out the money to pay for the last and most valuable piece of farmland it requires for an "arterial road" extension (which does not legally exist-has not been declared-is not in the OCP but is only a district wish list item) after negotiating and acquiring property from every other owner and then announces the delay of the project with the intent of taking the land ("dedication of 20m x 1000m) at the time of a subdivision/rezoning/DP application using powers granted under the Local Government Act (LGA)?



Can an approving officer force (demand)a 20m dedication for a four lane arterial highway through acreage which only needs a 6m "internal road" from an already existing access point for a residential development? Isn't this well beyond the pale of his powers and the "intent" of the LGA.?

Will any of this change with the new "Community Charter"?



In considering the above, let me point out that the rest of the land has been purchased, the road built, and the land surrounding it developed out, thus increasing property tax values (and every form of pollution) which in turns forces the sale or development of the now "out of place farm" in question and thus triggers the desired application and "dedication"!! Further, the land cannot be sold for "highest and best use" because all potential buyers to date have been told to "stay away" because this dedication will be forced upon the land, thus the third party offer's (all of which have been "subject to rezoning") have not survived the first conversation with the municipal planning department thus further sterilizing the land and decreasing it's value. All appraisers to date have been told the same thing!! Worse, the appraiser's have indicated that they can't use the values that the neighbors where paid for their land by the District because those transactions are not "third party" transactions which has even further isolated the farm.(Theoretically the District could have screwed those owners too but opted not too because of their small sizes - meaning affordability - and that's where they spent all the money (millions) electing to pay "FAIR" market values! The OCP had been changed to reflect residential use for all the farms but the zoning cannot be achieved without the dedication for only this farm.

Perhaps the District officials have elected to anger this single minority owner rather than the two dozen other votes!!



Does the district have to hold a "referendum" if it elects to borrow the millions required to "fairly" purchase the land for this purpose? What if the owner is willing to hold a mortgage?

Doesn't this type of powerplay (extortion!!) by the District constitute an "abuse of office" and thus, can't the owner seek remedy and relief (compensation!!) in Court in addition to that which is available under the Expropriation Act?



I appreciate my questions are fairly involved so Thanks to those who will contributed their time and energy to comment.

Funding


That's what I was saying, if you don't need the revenue from the subdivision and the dedication of your land as road, wait till you get approached for a sale of the partial taking and then claim Inj. affection against the remainder.

Also, on the "toll" idea, why should u profit form the gov bringing traffic to your land and then you get a toll cause it was your property? I don't think so, what about the large cap investment that the gov put in to "bring" the traffic to your prop? Do you get to profit from that? Perhpas everyone who has ever dedicated land would have a toll, and we would have to pay to cross all land? Lets get serious!!


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

Replying to:


Yes BUT it's only injurious affection IF they expropriate! If the owners submits a subdivision/rezoning application and that portion of land has to be dedicated, then there's no compensable damages!! That's where they've got you by the you know what's as Bruce also pointed out. It's great strategy for them. The toll road is a really serious consideration because it would serve to set a precedent and force their hand? Why wouldn't they allow it? Can they legally stop (oppose) it when they've done exactly the same thing all the way up to the land and if they don't allow it, then how can they come back and do exactly the same thing themselves. I think this forces their hand. Keep in mind that the owners would only make the application for the zoning. They don't have to build the darn thing right away but it put's the cat amongst the pigion's don't you think?? Why shouldn't the land owner be aloud to profit from the income generated off his land which would mitigate the losses suffered to the balance of the property if he had to gift it? No one's commented on whether this situation constitutes "abuse of power of office". People shouldn't be ransomed like this so blatantly in my opinion. The powers to be know exactly what they're doing and how much hardship they're creating. I don't beleive it's fair and equitable and I don't beleive it should be allowed to continue. Couple this with the "quiet" expropriation exercised by the DFO and it's streamside legislation across the country and it's no wonder people are p'ed off!! They ought to change the name from expropriation to extortion.

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

Replying to:


If the remaining land "turns to crap" you have a claim for injurious affection or damages to the remainder. The res. lots next to a highway being worth less than they would have been if not next to a highway. Partial takings happen all the time, if you cannot convince the authority to purchase the whole property, which alot of people try to do. The toll road idea won't fly (i'm presuming that you would build a road and charge a toll to cross your land?) The agency will just exprop. the road area prior to construction. One fellow in Delta tried to build the road on his own a few years ago and charge the gov for the construction.

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

Replying to:


Thanks Armon. The problem isn't the waiting or even the dedication in and of itself, it's the fact that because they have the largest track of land it would only be a partial taking - all the rest of the acquisitions were complete takings - and thus, the remaining land turns to crap. Who wants to live next to a major highway? (only residential zoning allowed). What do think about the toll road idea??

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

Replying to:


Sounds like a waiting game here... road dedications in subdivisions happen every day, it's just that some are larger than others. Most developers want the lots and profits but don't want to give up the road dedication to get the end result... and want the town to buy the road area. It's a matter of timing and see who can wait the longest... if you don't need the money from the subdivision... wait!!! and don't waste your money on lawyers either!!

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

Replying to:


Thanks Bruce. What about the legality of this intentional duress? Doesn't this smack of "abuse of office"?!!



Here's an interesting proposition which I received personally - what would happen if I applied to build a toll road??!!!! If they said no, wouldn't it set a precedent? What's good for the goose is good for the gander right?!!

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

Replying to:


The situation you describe is not uncommon.



It appears the municipality would like to acquire a road through your property but hopes to acquire the land for free by waiting for you to bring in a development application. Upon receipt of a development application, the municipality may be entitled to demand the road dedication as a condition of development approval. On the other hand, the municipality cannot force you to make a development application.



It looks like you are in need of legal advice. Most likely, the municipality has an advantage over you because of its greater knowledge and experience with these issues. You may have some legal remedies but a lawyer would need to know much more about the specific details of your situation before giving any advice.

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

Replying to:

Could someone tell me if it's "legal" if an authority (municipality) runs out the money to pay for the last and most valuable piece of farmland it requires for an "arterial road" extension (which does not legally exist-has not been declared-is not in the OCP but is only a district wish list item) after negotiating and acquiring property from every other owner and then announces the delay of the project with the intent of taking the land ("dedication of 20m x 1000m) at the time of a subdivision/rezoning/DP application using powers granted under the Local Government Act (LGA)?



Can an approving officer force (demand)a 20m dedication for a four lane arterial highway through acreage which only needs a 6m "internal road" from an already existing access point for a residential development? Isn't this well beyond the pale of his powers and the "intent" of the LGA.?

Will any of this change with the new "Community Charter"?



In considering the above, let me point out that the rest of the land has been purchased, the road built, and the land surrounding it developed out, thus increasing property tax values (and every form of pollution) which in turns forces the sale or development of the now "out of place farm" in question and thus triggers the desired application and "dedication"!! Further, the land cannot be sold for "highest and best use" because all potential buyers to date have been told to "stay away" because this dedication will be forced upon the land, thus the third party offer's (all of which have been "subject to rezoning") have not survived the first conversation with the municipal planning department thus further sterilizing the land and decreasing it's value. All appraisers to date have been told the same thing!! Worse, the appraiser's have indicated that they can't use the values that the neighbors where paid for their land by the District because those transactions are not "third party" transactions which has even further isolated the farm.(Theoretically the District could have screwed those owners too but opted not too because of their small sizes - meaning affordability - and that's where they spent all the money (millions) electing to pay "FAIR" market values! The OCP had been changed to reflect residential use for all the farms but the zoning cannot be achieved without the dedication for only this farm.

Perhaps the District officials have elected to anger this single minority owner rather than the two dozen other votes!!



Does the district have to hold a "referendum" if it elects to borrow the millions required to "fairly" purchase the land for this purpose? What if the owner is willing to hold a mortgage?

Doesn't this type of powerplay (extortion!!) by the District constitute an "abuse of office" and thus, can't the owner seek remedy and relief (compensation!!) in Court in addition to that which is available under the Expropriation Act?



I appreciate my questions are fairly involved so Thanks to those who will contributed their time and energy to comment.

Re: Funding


Is residential land not valued higher than farm land? How can there be a claim for injurious affection when the value of the property will increase with the rezoning to residential? There would in effect be no residential lots at all if not for the road being put in? It appears that this landowner wants the taxpayers to pay for improving the value of his property by putting in the road so he can sell lots. Whether or not he dedicates property for the road - is he not required to make some form of dedication, either in property or money, in order to develop these lots?

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

Replying to:


That's what I was saying, if you don't need the revenue from the subdivision and the dedication of your land as road, wait till you get approached for a sale of the partial taking and then claim Inj. affection against the remainder.

Also, on the "toll" idea, why should u profit form the gov bringing traffic to your land and then you get a toll cause it was your property? I don't think so, what about the large cap investment that the gov put in to "bring" the traffic to your prop? Do you get to profit from that? Perhpas everyone who has ever dedicated land would have a toll, and we would have to pay to cross all land? Lets get serious!!


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

Replying to:


Yes BUT it's only injurious affection IF they expropriate! If the owners submits a subdivision/rezoning application and that portion of land has to be dedicated, then there's no compensable damages!! That's where they've got you by the you know what's as Bruce also pointed out. It's great strategy for them. The toll road is a really serious consideration because it would serve to set a precedent and force their hand? Why wouldn't they allow it? Can they legally stop (oppose) it when they've done exactly the same thing all the way up to the land and if they don't allow it, then how can they come back and do exactly the same thing themselves. I think this forces their hand. Keep in mind that the owners would only make the application for the zoning. They don't have to build the darn thing right away but it put's the cat amongst the pigion's don't you think?? Why shouldn't the land owner be aloud to profit from the income generated off his land which would mitigate the losses suffered to the balance of the property if he had to gift it? No one's commented on whether this situation constitutes "abuse of power of office". People shouldn't be ransomed like this so blatantly in my opinion. The powers to be know exactly what they're doing and how much hardship they're creating. I don't beleive it's fair and equitable and I don't beleive it should be allowed to continue. Couple this with the "quiet" expropriation exercised by the DFO and it's streamside legislation across the country and it's no wonder people are p'ed off!! They ought to change the name from expropriation to extortion.

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

Replying to:


If the remaining land "turns to crap" you have a claim for injurious affection or damages to the remainder. The res. lots next to a highway being worth less than they would have been if not next to a highway. Partial takings happen all the time, if you cannot convince the authority to purchase the whole property, which alot of people try to do. The toll road idea won't fly (i'm presuming that you would build a road and charge a toll to cross your land?) The agency will just exprop. the road area prior to construction. One fellow in Delta tried to build the road on his own a few years ago and charge the gov for the construction.

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

Replying to:


Thanks Armon. The problem isn't the waiting or even the dedication in and of itself, it's the fact that because they have the largest track of land it would only be a partial taking - all the rest of the acquisitions were complete takings - and thus, the remaining land turns to crap. Who wants to live next to a major highway? (only residential zoning allowed). What do think about the toll road idea??

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

Replying to:


Sounds like a waiting game here... road dedications in subdivisions happen every day, it's just that some are larger than others. Most developers want the lots and profits but don't want to give up the road dedication to get the end result... and want the town to buy the road area. It's a matter of timing and see who can wait the longest... if you don't need the money from the subdivision... wait!!! and don't waste your money on lawyers either!!

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

Replying to:


Thanks Bruce. What about the legality of this intentional duress? Doesn't this smack of "abuse of office"?!!



Here's an interesting proposition which I received personally - what would happen if I applied to build a toll road??!!!! If they said no, wouldn't it set a precedent? What's good for the goose is good for the gander right?!!

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

Replying to:


The situation you describe is not uncommon.



It appears the municipality would like to acquire a road through your property but hopes to acquire the land for free by waiting for you to bring in a development application. Upon receipt of a development application, the municipality may be entitled to demand the road dedication as a condition of development approval. On the other hand, the municipality cannot force you to make a development application.



It looks like you are in need of legal advice. Most likely, the municipality has an advantage over you because of its greater knowledge and experience with these issues. You may have some legal remedies but a lawyer would need to know much more about the specific details of your situation before giving any advice.

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

Replying to:

Could someone tell me if it's "legal" if an authority (municipality) runs out the money to pay for the last and most valuable piece of farmland it requires for an "arterial road" extension (which does not legally exist-has not been declared-is not in the OCP but is only a district wish list item) after negotiating and acquiring property from every other owner and then announces the delay of the project with the intent of taking the land ("dedication of 20m x 1000m) at the time of a subdivision/rezoning/DP application using powers granted under the Local Government Act (LGA)?



Can an approving officer force (demand)a 20m dedication for a four lane arterial highway through acreage which only needs a 6m "internal road" from an already existing access point for a residential development? Isn't this well beyond the pale of his powers and the "intent" of the LGA.?

Will any of this change with the new "Community Charter"?



In considering the above, let me point out that the rest of the land has been purchased, the road built, and the land surrounding it developed out, thus increasing property tax values (and every form of pollution) which in turns forces the sale or development of the now "out of place farm" in question and thus triggers the desired application and "dedication"!! Further, the land cannot be sold for "highest and best use" because all potential buyers to date have been told to "stay away" because this dedication will be forced upon the land, thus the third party offer's (all of which have been "subject to rezoning") have not survived the first conversation with the municipal planning department thus further sterilizing the land and decreasing it's value. All appraisers to date have been told the same thing!! Worse, the appraiser's have indicated that they can't use the values that the neighbors where paid for their land by the District because those transactions are not "third party" transactions which has even further isolated the farm.(Theoretically the District could have screwed those owners too but opted not too because of their small sizes - meaning affordability - and that's where they spent all the money (millions) electing to pay "FAIR" market values! The OCP had been changed to reflect residential use for all the farms but the zoning cannot be achieved without the dedication for only this farm.

Perhaps the District officials have elected to anger this single minority owner rather than the two dozen other votes!!



Does the district have to hold a "referendum" if it elects to borrow the millions required to "fairly" purchase the land for this purpose? What if the owner is willing to hold a mortgage?

Doesn't this type of powerplay (extortion!!) by the District constitute an "abuse of office" and thus, can't the owner seek remedy and relief (compensation!!) in Court in addition to that which is available under the Expropriation Act?



I appreciate my questions are fairly involved so Thanks to those who will contributed their time and energy to comment.

Re: Re: Funding


Thank for the comments but both of you need to reveiw my original submission.

Facts: The owner doesn't want to sell and didn't want the noise, pollution, crime and disturbance in the first place. He has been singled out for the only potential "partial taking" because of the size of his lot. There won't be an increase in density from single family zoning which only requires a 6 meter internal road - not a 20+ meter 4 lane arterial highway. The land decreases in size and value - ie: more units without "highway" vs less units with highway. He has already suffered loosing his privacy and livelihood and he will further suffer economic damages by being forced to dedicate as opposed to a fair and equitable purchase/sale as all the others property owners before him. Remember, he isn't even allowed to use those sales for valuation purposes!!

Toll roads aren't immoral !!! - they're no different than any other service provided by an individual or corporation for a user fee - (ie:parking to dentists or lawyers!!). They're just another "user pay" BUSINESS. Further, as far as the "why should you pay?" stuff, you end up paying for the road in both a settlement or expropriation process anyway's becuase it's your tax dollars that the goverment pay's with. The only way you don't pay is if you don't use the road (pay the toll) or the land is dedicated in which case the owner pay's (!!!) and the taxpayer still pay's for the construction and maintainance of the road forever. It's my opinion that land ownership rights in this country should not be prejudiced and eroded to effectively create a "public trust" custodianship. I beleive that our law's clearly support this ideology but as displayed in this case in particular, we all have to recognize and condemn an abuse of process and power!!

This is an excellent dialogue and I appreciate your thoughts. It would be nice to hear from one of the experienced lawyers who I'm sure have valuable insight.

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

Replying to:


Is residential land not valued higher than farm land? How can there be a claim for injurious affection when the value of the property will increase with the rezoning to residential? There would in effect be no residential lots at all if not for the road being put in? It appears that this landowner wants the taxpayers to pay for improving the value of his property by putting in the road so he can sell lots. Whether or not he dedicates property for the road - is he not required to make some form of dedication, either in property or money, in order to develop these lots?

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

Replying to:


That's what I was saying, if you don't need the revenue from the subdivision and the dedication of your land as road, wait till you get approached for a sale of the partial taking and then claim Inj. affection against the remainder.

Also, on the "toll" idea, why should u profit form the gov bringing traffic to your land and then you get a toll cause it was your property? I don't think so, what about the large cap investment that the gov put in to "bring" the traffic to your prop? Do you get to profit from that? Perhpas everyone who has ever dedicated land would have a toll, and we would have to pay to cross all land? Lets get serious!!


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

Replying to:


Yes BUT it's only injurious affection IF they expropriate! If the owners submits a subdivision/rezoning application and that portion of land has to be dedicated, then there's no compensable damages!! That's where they've got you by the you know what's as Bruce also pointed out. It's great strategy for them. The toll road is a really serious consideration because it would serve to set a precedent and force their hand? Why wouldn't they allow it? Can they legally stop (oppose) it when they've done exactly the same thing all the way up to the land and if they don't allow it, then how can they come back and do exactly the same thing themselves. I think this forces their hand. Keep in mind that the owners would only make the application for the zoning. They don't have to build the darn thing right away but it put's the cat amongst the pigion's don't you think?? Why shouldn't the land owner be aloud to profit from the income generated off his land which would mitigate the losses suffered to the balance of the property if he had to gift it? No one's commented on whether this situation constitutes "abuse of power of office". People shouldn't be ransomed like this so blatantly in my opinion. The powers to be know exactly what they're doing and how much hardship they're creating. I don't beleive it's fair and equitable and I don't beleive it should be allowed to continue. Couple this with the "quiet" expropriation exercised by the DFO and it's streamside legislation across the country and it's no wonder people are p'ed off!! They ought to change the name from expropriation to extortion.

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

Replying to:


If the remaining land "turns to crap" you have a claim for injurious affection or damages to the remainder. The res. lots next to a highway being worth less than they would have been if not next to a highway. Partial takings happen all the time, if you cannot convince the authority to purchase the whole property, which alot of people try to do. The toll road idea won't fly (i'm presuming that you would build a road and charge a toll to cross your land?) The agency will just exprop. the road area prior to construction. One fellow in Delta tried to build the road on his own a few years ago and charge the gov for the construction.

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

Replying to:


Thanks Armon. The problem isn't the waiting or even the dedication in and of itself, it's the fact that because they have the largest track of land it would only be a partial taking - all the rest of the acquisitions were complete takings - and thus, the remaining land turns to crap. Who wants to live next to a major highway? (only residential zoning allowed). What do think about the toll road idea??

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

Replying to:


Sounds like a waiting game here... road dedications in subdivisions happen every day, it's just that some are larger than others. Most developers want the lots and profits but don't want to give up the road dedication to get the end result... and want the town to buy the road area. It's a matter of timing and see who can wait the longest... if you don't need the money from the subdivision... wait!!! and don't waste your money on lawyers either!!

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

Replying to:


Thanks Bruce. What about the legality of this intentional duress? Doesn't this smack of "abuse of office"?!!



Here's an interesting proposition which I received personally - what would happen if I applied to build a toll road??!!!! If they said no, wouldn't it set a precedent? What's good for the goose is good for the gander right?!!

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

Replying to:


The situation you describe is not uncommon.



It appears the municipality would like to acquire a road through your property but hopes to acquire the land for free by waiting for you to bring in a development application. Upon receipt of a development application, the municipality may be entitled to demand the road dedication as a condition of development approval. On the other hand, the municipality cannot force you to make a development application.



It looks like you are in need of legal advice. Most likely, the municipality has an advantage over you because of its greater knowledge and experience with these issues. You may have some legal remedies but a lawyer would need to know much more about the specific details of your situation before giving any advice.

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

Replying to:

Could someone tell me if it's "legal" if an authority (municipality) runs out the money to pay for the last and most valuable piece of farmland it requires for an "arterial road" extension (which does not legally exist-has not been declared-is not in the OCP but is only a district wish list item) after negotiating and acquiring property from every other owner and then announces the delay of the project with the intent of taking the land ("dedication of 20m x 1000m) at the time of a subdivision/rezoning/DP application using powers granted under the Local Government Act (LGA)?



Can an approving officer force (demand)a 20m dedication for a four lane arterial highway through acreage which only needs a 6m "internal road" from an already existing access point for a residential development? Isn't this well beyond the pale of his powers and the "intent" of the LGA.?

Will any of this change with the new "Community Charter"?



In considering the above, let me point out that the rest of the land has been purchased, the road built, and the land surrounding it developed out, thus increasing property tax values (and every form of pollution) which in turns forces the sale or development of the now "out of place farm" in question and thus triggers the desired application and "dedication"!! Further, the land cannot be sold for "highest and best use" because all potential buyers to date have been told to "stay away" because this dedication will be forced upon the land, thus the third party offer's (all of which have been "subject to rezoning") have not survived the first conversation with the municipal planning department thus further sterilizing the land and decreasing it's value. All appraisers to date have been told the same thing!! Worse, the appraiser's have indicated that they can't use the values that the neighbors where paid for their land by the District because those transactions are not "third party" transactions which has even further isolated the farm.(Theoretically the District could have screwed those owners too but opted not too because of their small sizes - meaning affordability - and that's where they spent all the money (millions) electing to pay "FAIR" market values! The OCP had been changed to reflect residential use for all the farms but the zoning cannot be achieved without the dedication for only this farm.

Perhaps the District officials have elected to anger this single minority owner rather than the two dozen other votes!!



Does the district have to hold a "referendum" if it elects to borrow the millions required to "fairly" purchase the land for this purpose? What if the owner is willing to hold a mortgage?

Doesn't this type of powerplay (extortion!!) by the District constitute an "abuse of office" and thus, can't the owner seek remedy and relief (compensation!!) in Court in addition to that which is available under the Expropriation Act?



I appreciate my questions are fairly involved so Thanks to those who will contributed their time and energy to comment.

Re: Re: Re: Funding


You stated in your original question that this was a farm - it appears now that it is zoned as residential and that the density won't change - a little confusing - has it already been subdivided? Where will the road be located - through the middle of the property - to the side, etc.? What will be left of the property after the road allowance is taken? I can assure you the fact that they do not wish to sell or deal with the changes this road has caused are not unique. Unfortunately the emotions involved in this can cause a great many problems and stresses. Bottom line is if expropriating authority wants your property they will get it or they will redesign the road to go around it. It might bear looking to see if that would be a situation these owners could deal with - also they might want to consider what price they would pay if they were buying the property. Whether or not you consider it a fair system it is the one that you have to deal with - what would be your solution to purchasing property for roads bearing in mind that all parties have to be satisfied - taxpayers as well as property owners? How has he lost his livlihood? Would he not have to put in a road if he wish to subdivide? I think looking at his expenses to subdivide on his own as well as what the difference would be if the road area was paid for by the expropriating authority may bring some perspective on the value. The problem with a toll road is that just because you build it doesn't mean people will use it - unlike the "Field of Dreams".

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

Replying to:


Thank for the comments but both of you need to reveiw my original submission.

Facts: The owner doesn't want to sell and didn't want the noise, pollution, crime and disturbance in the first place. He has been singled out for the only potential "partial taking" because of the size of his lot. There won't be an increase in density from single family zoning which only requires a 6 meter internal road - not a 20+ meter 4 lane arterial highway. The land decreases in size and value - ie: more units without "highway" vs less units with highway. He has already suffered loosing his privacy and livelihood and he will further suffer economic damages by being forced to dedicate as opposed to a fair and equitable purchase/sale as all the others property owners before him. Remember, he isn't even allowed to use those sales for valuation purposes!!

Toll roads aren't immoral !!! - they're no different than any other service provided by an individual or corporation for a user fee - (ie:parking to dentists or lawyers!!). They're just another "user pay" BUSINESS. Further, as far as the "why should you pay?" stuff, you end up paying for the road in both a settlement or expropriation process anyway's becuase it's your tax dollars that the goverment pay's with. The only way you don't pay is if you don't use the road (pay the toll) or the land is dedicated in which case the owner pay's (!!!) and the taxpayer still pay's for the construction and maintainance of the road forever. It's my opinion that land ownership rights in this country should not be prejudiced and eroded to effectively create a "public trust" custodianship. I beleive that our law's clearly support this ideology but as displayed in this case in particular, we all have to recognize and condemn an abuse of process and power!!

This is an excellent dialogue and I appreciate your thoughts. It would be nice to hear from one of the experienced lawyers who I'm sure have valuable insight.

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

Replying to:


Is residential land not valued higher than farm land? How can there be a claim for injurious affection when the value of the property will increase with the rezoning to residential? There would in effect be no residential lots at all if not for the road being put in? It appears that this landowner wants the taxpayers to pay for improving the value of his property by putting in the road so he can sell lots. Whether or not he dedicates property for the road - is he not required to make some form of dedication, either in property or money, in order to develop these lots?

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

Replying to:


That's what I was saying, if you don't need the revenue from the subdivision and the dedication of your land as road, wait till you get approached for a sale of the partial taking and then claim Inj. affection against the remainder.

Also, on the "toll" idea, why should u profit form the gov bringing traffic to your land and then you get a toll cause it was your property? I don't think so, what about the large cap investment that the gov put in to "bring" the traffic to your prop? Do you get to profit from that? Perhpas everyone who has ever dedicated land would have a toll, and we would have to pay to cross all land? Lets get serious!!


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

Replying to:


Yes BUT it's only injurious affection IF they expropriate! If the owners submits a subdivision/rezoning application and that portion of land has to be dedicated, then there's no compensable damages!! That's where they've got you by the you know what's as Bruce also pointed out. It's great strategy for them. The toll road is a really serious consideration because it would serve to set a precedent and force their hand? Why wouldn't they allow it? Can they legally stop (oppose) it when they've done exactly the same thing all the way up to the land and if they don't allow it, then how can they come back and do exactly the same thing themselves. I think this forces their hand. Keep in mind that the owners would only make the application for the zoning. They don't have to build the darn thing right away but it put's the cat amongst the pigion's don't you think?? Why shouldn't the land owner be aloud to profit from the income generated off his land which would mitigate the losses suffered to the balance of the property if he had to gift it? No one's commented on whether this situation constitutes "abuse of power of office". People shouldn't be ransomed like this so blatantly in my opinion. The powers to be know exactly what they're doing and how much hardship they're creating. I don't beleive it's fair and equitable and I don't beleive it should be allowed to continue. Couple this with the "quiet" expropriation exercised by the DFO and it's streamside legislation across the country and it's no wonder people are p'ed off!! They ought to change the name from expropriation to extortion.

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

Replying to:


If the remaining land "turns to crap" you have a claim for injurious affection or damages to the remainder. The res. lots next to a highway being worth less than they would have been if not next to a highway. Partial takings happen all the time, if you cannot convince the authority to purchase the whole property, which alot of people try to do. The toll road idea won't fly (i'm presuming that you would build a road and charge a toll to cross your land?) The agency will just exprop. the road area prior to construction. One fellow in Delta tried to build the road on his own a few years ago and charge the gov for the construction.

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

Replying to:


Thanks Armon. The problem isn't the waiting or even the dedication in and of itself, it's the fact that because they have the largest track of land it would only be a partial taking - all the rest of the acquisitions were complete takings - and thus, the remaining land turns to crap. Who wants to live next to a major highway? (only residential zoning allowed). What do think about the toll road idea??

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

Replying to:


Sounds like a waiting game here... road dedications in subdivisions happen every day, it's just that some are larger than others. Most developers want the lots and profits but don't want to give up the road dedication to get the end result... and want the town to buy the road area. It's a matter of timing and see who can wait the longest... if you don't need the money from the subdivision... wait!!! and don't waste your money on lawyers either!!

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

Replying to:


Thanks Bruce. What about the legality of this intentional duress? Doesn't this smack of "abuse of office"?!!



Here's an interesting proposition which I received personally - what would happen if I applied to build a toll road??!!!! If they said no, wouldn't it set a precedent? What's good for the goose is good for the gander right?!!

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

Replying to:


The situation you describe is not uncommon.



It appears the municipality would like to acquire a road through your property but hopes to acquire the land for free by waiting for you to bring in a development application. Upon receipt of a development application, the municipality may be entitled to demand the road dedication as a condition of development approval. On the other hand, the municipality cannot force you to make a development application.



It looks like you are in need of legal advice. Most likely, the municipality has an advantage over you because of its greater knowledge and experience with these issues. You may have some legal remedies but a lawyer would need to know much more about the specific details of your situation before giving any advice.

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

Replying to:

Could someone tell me if it's "legal" if an authority (municipality) runs out the money to pay for the last and most valuable piece of farmland it requires for an "arterial road" extension (which does not legally exist-has not been declared-is not in the OCP but is only a district wish list item) after negotiating and acquiring property from every other owner and then announces the delay of the project with the intent of taking the land ("dedication of 20m x 1000m) at the time of a subdivision/rezoning/DP application using powers granted under the Local Government Act (LGA)?



Can an approving officer force (demand)a 20m dedication for a four lane arterial highway through acreage which only needs a 6m "internal road" from an already existing access point for a residential development? Isn't this well beyond the pale of his powers and the "intent" of the LGA.?

Will any of this change with the new "Community Charter"?



In considering the above, let me point out that the rest of the land has been purchased, the road built, and the land surrounding it developed out, thus increasing property tax values (and every form of pollution) which in turns forces the sale or development of the now "out of place farm" in question and thus triggers the desired application and "dedication"!! Further, the land cannot be sold for "highest and best use" because all potential buyers to date have been told to "stay away" because this dedication will be forced upon the land, thus the third party offer's (all of which have been "subject to rezoning") have not survived the first conversation with the municipal planning department thus further sterilizing the land and decreasing it's value. All appraisers to date have been told the same thing!! Worse, the appraiser's have indicated that they can't use the values that the neighbors where paid for their land by the District because those transactions are not "third party" transactions which has even further isolated the farm.(Theoretically the District could have screwed those owners too but opted not too because of their small sizes - meaning affordability - and that's where they spent all the money (millions) electing to pay "FAIR" market values! The OCP had been changed to reflect residential use for all the farms but the zoning cannot be achieved without the dedication for only this farm.

Perhaps the District officials have elected to anger this single minority owner rather than the two dozen other votes!!



Does the district have to hold a "referendum" if it elects to borrow the millions required to "fairly" purchase the land for this purpose? What if the owner is willing to hold a mortgage?

Doesn't this type of powerplay (extortion!!) by the District constitute an "abuse of office" and thus, can't the owner seek remedy and relief (compensation!!) in Court in addition to that which is available under the Expropriation Act?



I appreciate my questions are fairly involved so Thanks to those who will contributed their time and energy to comment.