A loser with a captial L

[sweetpeach]

Ok, so this guy was offerred $350,000.00 for his ramshackle house that sits on top of a large deposit of gold. He refused all offers and finally the mining company took him to court and the judge awarded him market value.....$14,000.00.

He was "fighting for property rights" lol....(but he'd sell those rights for $1 million which is what he was seeking).

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100804/national/gold_mine_holdout

Ok, so, do you agree or disagree?

 

[The Paranoid Android]

Greed loses out again. Have to agree with the ruling. 3,500 people were waiting to work.

 

[sunflower16]

A loser with a captial L

Perfect tittle. Never new the government had such powers, shocking.

 

[Jackie M]

Imagine turning down 350 and ending up with 14, LOSER! Of course the government has the right to expropriate land, they can take pieces or the entire parcel.

 

[The Wormist]

Ken Masse......

 

[Pompal 09.]

It's not really the government per se whow appropriated the land, the courts were the ones to do it.

They are given the power to do so I would have to say because in most cases, the end justifies the means. In other words, by ruling in favour of the mining company, it brings jobs, resources, and developed to what sounds like an impoverished area.

Like when they were building the highways, if it costs $20M extra to go around a tract of land, or the highway doesn't get built, the good of the many outweigh the good of the few.

I know/knew of one person who had a small parcel of land with a derelict building on it around Yonge and Eglinton. They were building all around it and he was holding out. I guess someone finally met his price because there is a new old age building on the site. But you have to think that he made BIG money on that 1/8th acre chunk of property.

This guy could have done the same. He was offered 300% more than the current market value of the property, he could have been set for life, if not for a LONG LONG time.....but his greed bit him in the ass and I for one thinks he deserves it. I also bet he's going around boo hoo hooing about how he was ripped off by the courts yet it was his own stupidity that did it to him.

I for one can't understand people's attachment to "things" (like his childhood home in this case). It's just a fricken house. Hell if it was that important he could have paid $300,000.00 and had the fricken thing moved....

 

[britttaanybaby<3]

: I think it was pure greed. For that kind of money childhood home or not I am selling.

 

[teebee]

Me too. I mean, unless his childhood was full of unicorns, candy cane trees and dancing fairies granting his every wish....I mean, I just bought my 'dream house' but if someone offerred me a 300% over market value offer? I wouldn't even bat an eye, I'd be out by morning......I mean, for that kind of money I could build TWO dream homes.......

 

[Random R]

Sounds a lot like my house.

I have LOADS of fun in the backyard with the ladies. If you know what I mean.

 

[Iko C]

It is indeed horrifying to see this type of Government/'Court' abuse in Canada.

If the homeowner had the money, it would interesting to see if the vile (and likely corrupt)* decision would be reversed at the higher courts.

Starting with the Magna Carta, and supported by centuries of increasing rights for all citizens in civilized countries, the right NOT to be abused and have property seized by the rich, the powerful and government has been strengthened steadily- until recently.
In the USA it was the Bush Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision that bastardized the 5th Amendment to the Constitution and allowed states and municipalities to run riot over property owners.

Expropriation for true PUBLIC need is still a tragedy, and should carefully be controlled and monitored at only the highest level of Government. Use of this power for PROFIT making corporations is just evil.

As rich as I was, and as vastly richer as I would like to be, I would never participate in such legalized theft. I sure as hell ain't no saint, but this is no different to me than buying a bunch of darkies for my farm, or chaining women to my bed.





* if a willing buyer offered $350,000, THAT is the FMV of the property.

 

[Nicola]

I don't think it was greed, just a principle at stake. Is there a public need for the gold sitting under his house? What is gold used for that demands an instant return? Why the rush to develop it?

It would still be there 50 years later and possibly worth even more.

 

[happy]

:
That statement is incorrect.

The Crown has expropriated land for centuries. The concept of property ownership has everyone turning a blind eye to the unpalatable, but true fact, that the Crown always has and always will take what it wants.

You do not really OWN land, at best you are granted a right of exclusive use with governmental limits on that use, and the government's rights to that land that supersede yours. The word "ownership" is a term favoured by those not wanting you to think about the limits that exist on your rights of possession.

The Expropriations Act in Ontario gives that power to local school boards. The bottom rung of politicians, a step below city counsellors, and they can take your home.

{Unless of course you are a native who has set up a blockade to the casino and the smoke shack, since no politician in Canada possesses a pair of balls you are quite safe and will be left alone}

{Which brings up another aside, if Canadian politicians have no balls do they ever see SP's? }

If you screw up your last will and testament, and have no one in line to get your stuff, it all reverts to the Crown.

Here is an 1886 Supreme Court of Canada case dealing with expropriation of land {another aside is that the Supreme Court was not the highest court at that time}.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1886/1886canlii52/1886canlii52.html

This is not a recent thing.

There has been media attention in the last few years as the concept and use of the doctrine of eminent domain has expanded by local governments in the U.S. There are case of homes being expropriated so that a business such as Walmart can set up shop. But it is not new, its just getting a little more attention these days.

Ultimately very few people will change their vote based on this issue so it will continue regardless of what addle minded twerps we elect.

 

[LenaLumpLump]

What he said.

For those of you that own camps, cottages, or a second home out of the city, read the fine print and look into mineral rights. You might own squat diddly. Just ask some of the cottager in the Moskoka region not that uranium is a hot commodity. Just because you own the top doesn't mean you automatically own what underneath and might wake up someday with surveyor stakes on your property.

 

[Matilda]

But being in a democratic Country they won't just take away your land. They will offer to buy you out with a hefty profit like they did to the loser Ken. Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[momokins]

Actually Bear, the fair market value is NOT what someone offerred to pay for it, Fair Market Value is what the going rate for similar properties in similar condition in the area. If some idiot offers 300% over FMV on one property, that doesn't automatically mean that every property in the same area is now worth 300% more than it was an hour ago. It means THAT property MIGHT be worth that much.

That's the rule of thumb version I think.

As for the expropriation of land, it wasn't expropriated, it was purchased. The ruling was that the owner was ordered to sell the land to the buyers at FMV. I believe a truly expropriated land situation is when they seize it without renumeration (someone more legally minded than I can clarify that).

I think the deciding factor here is that the judge probably looked at the proceedings up to the hearing, the attitude of the defendant, and the previous generous offers of purchase. I think the true deciding factor was that they countered with a $1M sale price which negated their "sentimental value" of the property.

 

[Bad Karma]

Actually Bear, the fair market value is NOT what someone offerred to pay for it, Fair Market Value is what the going rate for similar properties in similar condition in the area. If some idiot offers 300% over FMV on one property, that doesn't automatically mean that every property in the same area is now worth 300% more than it was an hour ago. It means THAT property MIGHT be worth that much.

That's the rule of thumb version I think.

As for the expropriation of land, it wasn't expropriated, it was purchased. The ruling was that the owner was ordered to sell the land to the buyers at FMV. I believe a truly expropriated land situation is when they seize it without renumeration (someone more legally minded than I can clarify that).

I think the deciding factor here is that the judge probably looked at the proceedings up to the hearing, the attitude of the defendant, and the previous generous offers of purchase. I think the true deciding factor was that they countered with a $1M sale price which negated their "sentimental value" of the property

Agreed. But see Auggie's comment above. Perfectly ok with me if the mine just built a huge wall around the property and left them with 0$[/QUOTE].

 

[Client_u]

If they want to be nice, yes they can. The cottager in the Rice Lake Area are having that fight right now. It's long and expensive. The government act that covers the situation dates back to the late 1800's and i think the last amendment was made in the 1920's.

 

[KEELEY]

:
That statement is incorrect.

The Crown has expropriated land for centuries. The concept of property ownership has everyone turning a blind eye to the unpalatable, but true fact, that the Crown always has and always will take what it wants.

You do not really OWN land, at best you are granted a right of exclusive use with governmental limits on that use, and the government's rights to that land that supersede yours. The word "ownership" is a term favoured by those not wanting you to think about the limits that exist on your rights of possession.

The Expropriations Act in Ontario gives that power to local school boards. The bottom rung of politicians, a step below city counsellors, and they can take your home.

{Unless of course you are a native who has set up a blockade to the casino and the smoke shack, since no politician in Canada possesses a pair of balls you are quite safe and will be left alone}

{Which brings up another aside, if Canadian politicians have no balls do they ever see SP's? }

*I didnt say that. Others said that.

 

[superspooky78]

An offer alone doesn't establish FMV.

A completed transaction between two, non-arms length parties acting freely does.

Plus, I'm sure said offer was made 'without prejudice'.

I didn't read the article but the Cdn Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not grant property rights (it's silent).

 

[sevenmoreminutes7]

I just read that article.

They lost because they left the court without submitting their arguments, which is more stupid than holding out.

They might have been awarded more than $350K if their arguments were sound.

BTW, how deep does title extend? If he could show that there was gold in the rock just under the house and his outside land, then maybe he could've gotten more.

Instead, the article says he left the court at the direction of some 'adviser', and the court sort of punished them for trying to hold them hostage without presenting arguments.

Dumb.