HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2015, 1:57 PM
thurmas's Avatar
thurmas thurmas is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,019
Kapyong Barracks Discussion

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

Hopefully with this news the decade of nothingness will finally end and we can finally see development of this prime parcel of Winnipeg Real Estate and the widening of Kenaston that is so desperately needed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2015, 2:36 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Think about Winnipeg.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 20,550
Maybe...depends on whether the decision gets appealed to the Supreme Court. That will add a year or so. And once the courts have spoken, there is still the matter of figuring out what to do with the land. This could be relatively quick if the lower court decisions are overturned, but it will probably take a while if the government is required to turn over the land to the bands with a claim, who then have to figure out what they will do with the land.

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

On the bright side, it is a good form of land-banking... with each decade that passes, the likelihood of seeing something suitably dense (relative to the rest of the area) goes up. Also, considering that commercial and residential development in the city is entering what appears to be a dry spell, maybe it's for the better that this land isn't hitting the market just yet.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2015, 3:13 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,183
Couldn't the City reach an agreement with both sides in the Kapyong Barracks dispute that the widening of Kennaston benefits whomever ends up with the land at the end of the day? Then the widening of Kennaston could proceed without waiting for the rest of the claim to be resolved?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2015, 3:50 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Think about Winnipeg.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 20,550
^ It might be theoretically possible but practically implausible given the number of actors involved. There are a lot of different groups and competing agendas... getting them to agree on something like that at this point would be very difficult.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2015, 5:37 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,183
^^ Even if the Barracks is transferred to the Aboriginal group would the City not still be able to expropriated the land needed for Kenaston?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2015, 5:38 PM
The Unknown Poster The Unknown Poster is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 811
What is Treaty 1's claim on this land? Why do they have a right to the land as opposed to taking part in any standard sale of the land as one of many potential developers who might be interested?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2015, 6:23 PM
Komatiite's Avatar
Komatiite Komatiite is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unknown Poster View Post
What is Treaty 1's claim on this land? Why do they have a right to the land as opposed to taking part in any standard sale of the land as one of many potential developers who might be interested?
The Feds and Manitoba have recognized treaty land entitlement, so they were obligated to consult with FN on this particular piece of property. The fact that the court used the term "deep consultation" (i.e. $$$) means I would be shocked if this doesn't go to the SC.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2015, 7:12 PM
The Unknown Poster The Unknown Poster is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komatiite View Post
The Feds and Manitoba have recognized treaty land entitlement, so they were obligated to consult with FN on this particular piece of property. The fact that the court used the term "deep consultation" (i.e. $$$) means I would be shocked if this doesn't go to the SC.
Does this mean they get dibs on the land without paying for it or that they get first right of refusal at fair market value?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2015, 7:13 PM
cheswick's Avatar
cheswick cheswick is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: South Kildonan
Posts: 1,718
So the ruling was that the Canadian government had to (has to) consult with the affected first nations? I'm a little confused as to what that means. Is that just another way of saying that the land would be theirs, or is it a matter of financially compensating them or what?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2015, 6:04 PM
Simplicity Simplicity is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoryB View Post
^^ Even if the Barracks is transferred to the Aboriginal group would the City not still be able to expropriated the land needed for Kenaston?
My guess is that the city might run into problems trying to exercise their eminent domain on what may ultimately end up as an urban reserve.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2015, 10:44 PM
Danny D Oh Danny D Oh is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoryB View Post
^^ Even if the Barracks is transferred to the Aboriginal group would the City not still be able to expropriated the land needed for Kenaston?
Has the city every expropriated federal land without paying mega bucks for it? That's basically what this is. Would be interesting if it was sold to a private entity how that would be handled.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2015, 6:11 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Think about Winnipeg.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 20,550
^ Long story short, probably well worth it for the City to let the dust settle first instead of trying to wrangle a complicated and potentially costly deal for something that isn't really a do or die project right now anyway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2015, 6:19 PM
Riverman's Avatar
Riverman Riverman is offline
Fossil fuel & rubber
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cobourg, ON/Mesa, AZ
Posts: 3,521
Why is this happening here? Why not at CFB Downsview?
__________________
Get off my lawn.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2015, 6:21 PM
rypinion's Avatar
rypinion rypinion is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: East Exchange, Winnipeg
Posts: 1,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
Why is this happening here? Why not at CFB Downsview?
Downsview isn't Treaty 1 territory?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2015, 7:21 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Think about Winnipeg.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 20,550
Super quick and condensed guide to treaty land entitlement:

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

Some Manitoba-specific info regarding entitlements:

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/130.../1305307177471
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2015, 9:06 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,183
^^ Doing some quick reads: Sandy Bay is part of Treaty One and is not listed on the Treaty Land Agreement. It seems the other Treaty One members may have surrendered their right to claim Crown lands. If that is the case it could be the basis of the Government position in the court case.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2015, 9:05 PM
Riverman's Avatar
Riverman Riverman is offline
Fossil fuel & rubber
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cobourg, ON/Mesa, AZ
Posts: 3,521
I'm entitled to my entitilements.
__________________
Get off my lawn.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2015, 3:12 PM
Pegoise Pegoise is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 24
The City is a junior level of government and cannot exercise any authority on a senior level of government (province or feds and by extension - reserve) All would have to happen through negotiation and agreements.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Aug 23, 2015, 3:57 AM
yellowghost yellowghost is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 99
If this eventually becomes a "urban reserve" with residential and retail developement, it might be a waste of money and time widening Kenaston street. Add the extra lane..if you will, but if history can teach you anything, it is that retail developements means more "intersection improvements" , in this case the construction of a intersection that did not exist, between taylor street and grant. Probably another one on grant also. This would counter balance any benefit of the extra lane. Possibly factor in additional crosswalks and longer redlights to account for people wandering to the other side.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Aug 23, 2015, 10:55 PM
Danny D Oh Danny D Oh is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowghost View Post
If this eventually becomes a "urban reserve" with residential and retail developement, it might be a waste of money and time widening Kenaston street. Add the extra lane..if you will, but if history can teach you anything, it is that retail developements means more "intersection improvements" , in this case the construction of a intersection that did not exist, between taylor street and grant. Probably another one on grant also. This would counter balance any benefit of the extra lane. Possibly factor in additional crosswalks and longer redlights to account for people wandering to the other side.
It's in the south end so it'll get widened no doubt. Kenaston will be 12 lanes wide before the Louise Bridge is rebuilt.

The "urban reserve" with residential development is an interesting issue. Would residential development only be open to First Nations people? How would it be taxed for others if it weren't, since it's Crown/Treaty land? Could you have a mega development in Winnipeg that brings no benefit in terms of $$$ to the City itself, and actually costs the city money for infrastructure improvements around it?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:14 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.