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: 1,017
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 online now
Think about Winnipeg.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 20,484
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: 4,176
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 online now
Think about Winnipeg.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 20,484
^ 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: 4,176
^^ 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, 6:04 PM
Simplicity Simplicity is online now
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
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2015, 6:11 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is online now
Think about Winnipeg.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 20,484
^ 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
     
     
  #9  
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: 3,520
Why is this happening here? Why not at CFB Downsview?
__________________
Get off my lawn.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
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
     
     
  #11  
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
     
     
  #12  
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
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2015, 7:13 PM
cheswick's Avatar
cheswick cheswick is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: South Kildonan
Posts: 1,700
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
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2015, 7:21 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is online now
Think about Winnipeg.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 20,484
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
     
     
  #15  
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: 3,520
I'm entitled to my entitilements.
__________________
Get off my lawn.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2015, 9:06 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,176
^^ 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, 10:01 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
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
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?
The Treaty Land Entitlement Committee website provides some basic context to the dispute. I've parsed the following:

Quote:
On May 29, 1997, the Manitoba Treaty Land Entitlement (“TLE”) Framework Agreement was signed between Canada, Manitoba and the Treaty Land Entitlement Committee of Manitoba Inc., on behalf of 19 Entitlement First Nations (EFNs), at the Opaskwayak Cree Nation, Manitoba.

The TLE Framework Agreement outlines how the parties have agreed to fulfill the outstanding TLE obligations in Manitoba arising from the Numbered Treaties. It sets out the principles, responsibilities and dispute resolution processes associated with the land selection and acquisition process to be undertaken by the EFNs.

The TLE Framework Agreement provides for up to a total of 1,100,626 acres of land and $76 million towards the process of selecting and acquiring lands to be set apart as reserve for the EFNs. Of the 1,100,626 acres, 985,949 is the Crown Land Amount to be selected and 114,677 is the acreage amount to be purchased, or acquired.

To date, 15 EFNs have executed their individual Treaty Entitlement Agreements (“TEAs”) under the TLE Framework Agreement and are currently engaged in the land selection and acquisition process.
You can read the full agreement here. The general principles for selecting land appear on page 35.

My read is that the court is basically saying give them the land, or pony up a settlement. I make that speculation based on the phrase, "deep consultation" which I never encountered in my days as a geologist working with First Nations on their traditional lands. For that reason, I cannot imagine the government just rolling over without a Supreme Court challenge.

Of course, who knows? I am neither involved nor a lawyer, so take it with a grain of salt.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
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
     
     
  #19  
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
     
     
  #20  
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
     
     
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 5:50 PM.

     

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