The Village's lack of accountability and transparency led it to cancel this year's rate-payer meeting. Rate-payer meetings have been well-attended in the past.
The Village, in its letter, still does not address what it is trying to achieve by the legal action, and for whose benefit.
Specific to one of the Village's comments, everyone reading this website will agree that no resident of the Village has ever had their access to Buena Vista beach and Sandy beach inhibited.
To be clear, the appeal that the Village is pursuing relates to whether or not it even has the right to bring this action. Even if the Village's appeal is successful, then even more time and rate-payer dollars will be spend pursuing the merits - again, for who's benefit?
The boundaries of the Village appear to be clear enough for the Village to levy property taxes on the waterfront owners based on the property that they own. This taxed property extends under the water. These private land boundaries have existed for 130 years, and have been been validated by ISC.
In court filings, the Village indicates that it is seeking to change boundaries to that it can administer the land. Boundaries do not need to change, and land be expropriated for this - that is what bylaws are used for.
It has not taken 10 years to 'get a decision on this action'. The Village has wasted time and rate-payer money for that period of time, perhaps. The judge took only two months to come to the conclusion that the Village had no right to bring this action. Despite more than 20 village residents being present at the hearing earlier this year, no one from council was in attendance.
Contrary to the Village's assertions, the judge did not determine that the disputed land was 'Crown land'. Rather, the judge stated that the only potential owners of the disputed land were the waterfront owners, or the Crown. Since the Crown chose not to take part in the proceedings, the judge concluded that a declaration regarding the boundaries of the disputed land could not be made under the law.
The Crown was named a party in the application because the Village was seeking a declaration as to the Crown's ownership of the bed and shore of the lake. As the judge put it, the Village was seeking "relief for the provincial Crown that the Crown did not seek for itself". As a result, the Village had no right to bring this action.
You are encouraged to give this situation some thought, and consider the mindset, motivations, and attitude of this Village council when making your decisions at this Fall's elections.
BV Ratepayer Information
Copyright © 2024 BV Ratepayer Information - All Rights Reserved.
Powered by GoDaddy
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.