lower class are first to suffer?

Wednesday, July 18, 2007 re blog look for comments

NEW BRUNSWICK EXPROPRIATION VICTIMS - DEAL OR NO DEAL????

deal
Originally uploaded by Oldmaison

Expropriation? Has it ever happened to you or someone you know???

We all have heard of the famous Jackie Vautour and his over 30 years long battle with the Government.






I have been told the Government or bureaucrats have the system set up for only the well connected people such as Appraisers and Lawyers to make money from property owner losses.







From what I’m told the Appraiser will get roughly 25%. The property owner will also receive 25% and the lawyers will get a grand total of 50%!!!!







…and the taxpayers pays the bill!!!

Is this a way to take and justify the taxpayer’s funds?

For more info on this issue. Click below –




target="_blank">Charles
Blog




The landowners will be told by the bureaucrats such as John Stanley Raymond of the famous television show- Deal or No deal!!!!








This is my final offer. Deal or not deal???

If you don’t take the deal therefore you’ll be fried because the Government will take it anyway.

Take a close look at the propose LNG Pipe route through Saint John…








Will these landowners be offered a fair deal for their land? Who knows?

Check this blog site out-




target="_blank">Charles
Blog


Richard Harris has been fighting this issue for over 10 years and it did take a toll on his life.







He took his first heart attack in 1999, and since then three more!!

From what I’m told he was dealing with a crooked Atlantic law firm PPHM ,a expert Expropriation Lawyer from Nova Scotia.

Have you ever heard or been caught in an Expropriation case?

Feel free to leave a comment in this blog or send an email to

injusticecoalition@hotmail.com

He’s looking for other people with this issue { Class Action suit} A group of angry former landowners will be more successful!!!

Click below to listen to Richard Harris words -




target="_blank">Charles
Blog

# posted by Charles LeBlanc @ 6:15 PM

Comments:

It is clear that you did not write this one because you cannot write single sentence without lot of errors.

Anyone who thinks that he/she can push a cause through your blog is a deadloss.

# posted by Anonymous : 7:09 PM

lol....in a way..you are correct...I only wrote 3/4 of the blog but the difference is this.....

I wrote the blog and we went over the blog inside out....

We took the time re-redeading the story....

You Know???? Just like the Irvings reporters do when they do a story......

I saw this system in action 6 years ago and I'm certain it's still the same.....

Nothing better in having more opinions on a story before you print it....

I could take the time and have more pride in my blogs but c'est la vie.....

As for fighing for his cause???

Did you know bad publicity is better than no publicity at all???

Enough said...

P.S There might be some bad grammar in this one because I don't take the time to re-read what I wrote...

:P

# posted by Charles LeBlanc : 7:32 PM

While you are somewhat correct about expropriation as usual you ignore the fact that the vast majority of property owner settle through negotiation and come to a mutually satisfactory agreement. Expropriation is always a last resort. As to your supposed source where is their proof? Oh I keep forgetting in a Fascist state you don't have proof...only unnamed and mysterious informants. The truth is the if your over charged by your lawyer that you hire to argue an expropriation who's fault is that but your own? The majority of people who whine about being ripped off (like Jackie) do so not because they want a fair price but because they are too greedy for their own good and still they get more than they deserve.

# posted by Just Passing : 8:12 PM

This goes to show that 'some' people can't be satisfied no matter what Charles writes about, and that's too bad (of course its usually the same two guys).

However, the above poster is way off the mark on this one. There is no 'fair price' settlement. Why do you think expropriation is used? If all those people who have property where the gasline or oil line goes could charge 'market value' then obviously they would be millionaires.

As anybody who has ever dealt with government knows, you take the first offer that comes, because the second will be expropriation. That's especially true when it comes to the feds or the province, but its even true with municipal governments. There are no 'property rights' when it comes to land, the government can do what it wants. And it goes beyond that even to mining rights, which the province always retains, just read last weeks paper about landowners in Cambridge Narrows who just got a big surprise from mining companies.

For more examples than Richard Harris we could mention the 900 families who were booted off their land when CFB Gagetown was built. If you knew that government or industry really wanted your land, then obviously just like in business you have the advantage, so you could name your price. But thats not the reality, and thats why industry usually goes through government to get land- who wants to pay millions for a small piece of land when you can get the government to throw them out for ten grand or so.

This is a very important issue and more research is definitely warranted. My grandmother was absolutely heartbroken when the feds came along and threw them off their land for the Kouchibouguac national park, so if Jackie Vautour has evidence it was illegal, I'll be very interested. And actually where their land was wasn't even used for the park, it sits as an empty field.

Ironically, what is never mentioned is that until he had to leave, it was Jackie Vautour's job to throw people off their land for the park!

# posted by Anonymous : 10:38 PM

"If you knew that government or industry really wanted your land, then obviously just like in business you have the advantage, so you could name your price."

This is why the government uses fair market value in expropriation. If owners want to hold the government over a barrel, then the government expropriates and pays what the land is worth and not what someone tries to extort.

# posted by Anonymous : 11:16 AM

anonymous 10:38 I suggest that unless you know what your talking about you refrain from making such ridicules and rash remarks. It is obvious you have no clue on this subject, you embarrass yourself with your lack of any real knowledge on the expropriation procedure.
But then again that is what one comes to expect from those usual anonymous kind that except every hard luck story they hear as fact. Why actually worry about knowing anything when you can simply place the blame on evil government or evil big business after all.

# posted by Just Passing : 11:19 AM

Nice rebuttal...oh wait, there was none! That's interesting, if I want to buy something from somebody and they have the only source, like say, oil, then its called 'the market'. But if I have land and want to make a profit then its called 'extortion'. If I have land and I know Irving needs it then obviously I can charge whatever they are willing to pay, or else I can choose not to sell. That's a basic right...not to sell.

So the 'fair market value' is what? Well, obviously if a gas line is going to be on it,thats billions of dollars to the owners of the gas, so 'fair market value' is whatever I can get for it. The land is 'worth' hundreds of thousands, even millions, becuase it results in a company making billions. If you had a store and wanted to expand, then the guy who lives next door will obviously look at how much money your store will make and charge accordingly. Whether he gets it is up to negotiation. That's 'the market'.

However expropriation changes all that, so 'fair market value' for the govenrment may mean that your land is hardly worth anything because its out in the middle of nowhere, however, that the land will be used to make millions or billions for a company or government isn't taken into account.

# posted by Anonymous : 12:32 PM

As an update, people can go read about the mining rights in Cambridge Narrows, and uranium mining is a big issue nowadays.

However, as for ancient history, most of those around the federal parks did quite well. They of course had to move, but many were living in poverty and so the change was a benefit (sort of).

I've heard the same about Mactaquac, that those who left were wanting to retire.

Many were very upset about the base, as mentioned, over 900 families were moved and there was some griping, but what kind is only known at the media archives.

I listened to Richard Harris' interview but I'm still not sure what they story is and I can't make heads of tails of it. In most of the other claims the government had to deal with whole communities, and I suspect there's more power over what happens there. As in all politics, if you are just a single person you will get treated a lot differently than when you are an organization.

# posted by Anonymous : 1:22 PM

I'd just like to say, I think Charles is at his best when he is attempting to generate thought and discussion on issues of public policy. Blog entries like this are so much more interesting than photos of random people who obviously aren't happy about being photographed.

More, Charles, more!

# posted by just driving by : 2:00 PM

Sorry anonymous 12:32 you misunderstood..(but whats new about that)There was nothing of substance in your previous remarks worth a rebuttal. I was simply pointing out your lack of knowledge.
I am though still quite impressed with you complete lack of understanding of definitions like "fair market value" especially considering you obviously must have computer access. But don't feel too bad, making up ones own definitions is something that happens here more often than not anyway. Thats how we ended up with Fascists in the legislature after all.

# posted by Just Passing : 2:33 PM

"That's a basic right...not to sell."

Actually when dealing with government, your choice not to sell required land is not a "right."

All land is subject to taxation, expropriation, police power and escheat.

# posted by Anonymous : 4:43 PM

To be honest it really isn't fair to say that some expropriations might not have been handled properly in the past or that the possibility isn't there for it to happen again. But it is not the norm as some would like to let on. If that were the case they wouldn't have to to keep exhuming the same old cases from 25 or 50 years ago. The real fact is that even in cases where land owners are expropriated they do receive fair market value for their property and more. Pointing out an occasional case of a disgruntled landowner doesn't automatically mean they were cheated out of a fair deal.

# posted by Just Pasing : 7:39 PM

Since our two frequent flyer posters don't seem to get it, I"ll reiterate. The entire point about expropriation is exactly the 'definitions' of the two terms above. That is the entire issue, the 'right to sell' and the definition of 'fair market value'.

When the government decides the definitions of these things then thats when the problems occur, which is why Charles posts the issue. That's exactly right, that's when we get 'fascists' in the legislature. When the government arbitrarily decides who is a security risk and who should be banned from the legislature, then that's why these are debated.

If we simply admitted that "if the government decides it then it must be right" then obviously this blog and most protests wouldn't even exist.

"Fair market value" is easy to define, it is whatever the market will pay. If you have land and somebody wants it, then you can sell it for whatever the other party will pay. If the other party really wants the land badly and has lots of money, quite obviously its worth more. I really can't explain it any simpler than that.

As for the 'right to sell', that is true, it is always up to government, and thats exactly what we are talking about. When is it right or wrong for government to expropriate and under what conditions. That's the whole issue boys and the reason for the blog. If you really don't have anything to add, as others have said, why the heck are you even hear? Unless it is Dan Brussieres or some MLA that just feels the need to dump over every single blog entry-which seems to be the trend.

# posted by Anonymous : 9:38 PM

We don't know, thats the problem. We have no idea whether its the norm or not, which is why the post was made. Richard Harris obviously feels he's been wronged.

We just saw a case last week about Cambridge Narrows where a mining company is supposed to give six months notice yet people saw markers on their trees with no notice at all. That's breaking the regulations, so obviously its a big problem.

That doesn't even get into the facts about whether private property laws should be changed. Back in the fifties when the mining boom was going on it was a big issue because obviously if a miner wants access to your land because he thinks something is there then your 'fair market value' goes up considerably. However, the province retains all mining rights, which means people can't do anything.


It was also just last year that there were alot of people unhappy about gas lines and oil lines. A CBC report quoted a person asking why the government was expropriating land for Irvings use. That's a pretty important issue and not old news.

Just because there hasn't been a park in decades doesn't mean expropriation no longer happens. However, the media never talks about it, so its good that Charles does, and hopefully more info will come out, so that people can see the evidence for themselves. Nobody is 'assuming' anything, but we know the reports from the newspapers and the CBC, so there is obviously an issue here.

By the way, property rights is a big issue regardless of the stories. As mentioned by the doctor in the paper, the mining act hasn't changed since the eighties. So once again charles is heading up a topic that is ignored by the mainstream media. People can 'assume' that everything their government does is on the up and up, but there are reasons why virtually every commentator and thinker on democracy says that close scrutiny on government is always mandatory.

# posted by Anonymous : 11:35 PM

"Fair market value" is easy to define, it is whatever the market will pay."

But if the government if the only purchaser and needs the property rights for a public project then the market is not operating - this is a special case that requires fair market value, not "as much as they can pay."

# posted by Anonymous : 8:49 AM

Oh I get it completely anonymous 9:38. You just can't take criticism. That much is obvious in such ridiculous and childish suggestions that I might be an MLA or The Dan of your dreams. At least I am willing to take some responsibility for my words by posting with a nic that you seem at least to be familiar with. What have you to hide hmm? Are you so ashamed of your words you can't even come up with some nic worth using consistently? I suspect there are some out there worth suggesting if you like some help. As for why I am here well that is really quite simple... but apparently not simple enough for some. Suffice it to say it could not be for the reason you state otherwise you would not be here yourself.
But please lets get back on topic...so tell me more (or at least something or substance)as I am still unsure of your position on expropriations. Is it your contention that they should be never allowed?.. sometimes allowed?.. is it all about the monies?... or should it just be up to you and Charles as to what land and for what reasons land should be expropriated? You see, its not just words you can not seem to define its also your position.

# posted by Just Passing : 11:22 AM

So how do you define fair market value if 'the market is not operating'? That's the whole issue here. Richard Harris has been in court for ten years because he says he got screwed. However, as mentioned above, many people do fairly well out of it.

But that is the whole question, under what circumstances does the government 'need' the land? And who decides that? That's why property rights are a big issue. If I own land, I paid for it, and I pay taxes on it for services, and so I should be able to decide whether a mining company comes onto my land to look for uranium-not the government.

This is a huge issue and in places like the states they are talking about property rights all the time, called 'eminent domain'. Here we never hear about it in the irving press and only occasionally on the cbc, which of course makes people think all kinds of things about what the government may or may not be doing. Gossip is ripe when there's a lack of information, so hopefully more will come out on this.

# posted by Anonymous : 11:23 AM

"I should be able to decide whether a mining company comes onto my land to look for uranium-not the government."

Unfortunately mineral rights aren't purchased with your land.

I wonder how much it would cost to stake a claim on your own land to preclude another from staking a claim.

# posted by Anonymous : 11:55 AM

I know one thing....if I owned land and was not given the appropriate period of notice before some &^%$# wing nut started posting signs on my property....they would find them in a burned heap by the side of the road. I would keep doing that whether or not it was illegal or not. My land, my property and you damn well better keep your asses off of it or you could be looking down the long barrel of a bang stick.

# posted by Anonymous : 1:56 PM

That is a good point 11:35. We really probably don't know enough about just what is involved when land is expropriated. It is also complicated by these mining claims as of late and the differences between hydro/gas line easements and land for highways and large scale projects like park land.
If what has been reported is true then there are real concerns about the way in which the mining claims are being handled. If people are not being properly notified then they should be complaining. Get a good number of those claims nullified for improper procedure and perhaps they will start to take their responsibilities a little more seriously.. Those are the rules and as some have said there are not all that many rules on the landowners side as it is so we should press hard for the few we have. On the plus side with mining claims, the simple fact that the vast majority disappear in the first year. That may be of little solace to those that hold the opinion that no one has the right to come on their property but unfortunately they are wrong.
Buried gas lines and hydro lines are also sometimes expropriated as a last resort. These are a little different as the land can still be used to some degree by the owners as for farming for example but of course not for the placing of permanent structures and access is still required for inspection and maintenance.
It is highway and other large land tracks that really cause the most problems. Fortunately now a days it is confined mostly to highways Maybe they have learned their lesson since Kouchibouguac but with so many things like native land claims outstanding you can never say for sure when the government may have to assemble another large tract of land down the road. The trouble with highways is they often divide land can make things very troublesome for landowners. Frankly it is a wonder there are not more disputes.
The problem is what do you do? Stop all expropriation? Never build a highway again? I am willing to bet there are a good many out there that would argue that the government has no right to expropriate land yet would be more than willing to see the university be forced to turn it's woodlot over to parkland. Isn't that the same thing?
Even in the U.S. the laws are changing and not always for the better. It was only a couple of years ago that their supreme court upheld the right of cities to expropriate land for no more reason than developing a larger tax base. Things are not always greener on the other side of the fence.

# posted by Just Passing : 4:58 PM

What it comes down to is ..its ok for things like this to happen, that is until it happens to you!

# posted by Anonymous : 9:08 PM

I don't know who is posting these comments but it seems to me like nothing bad has ever happened to you in your life. I can tell you that i was born when this expropriation started. I seen my parents be destroyed by people like you that unfortunately don't know anything except the gossip you here. Atleast my parents, brothers, sisters and I fought for what we believed in especially when we have the proof but the courts will not allow us to show it in a courtroom because of the crooked work that was done during the expropriation. People sending letters to my parents that if he continued his fight that my little sister and i would be kidnapped. So we had to be kept home from school. I know one thing i will never forget what happened in my life. So before you start putting down things you have know understanding about, maybe you should look for the truth before speaking out. Go ask the Big Shots who keep on filling there pockets with the poor mans money, taking away there land and rights and freedoms, because someday it may just be one of your children or grandchildren who may be caught up in this problem someday.

# posted by Anonymous : 7:59 PM

It seems to me that anyone who can say that a man and his family who has fought for 38 yearsl. That is is because he is greedy must be really silly. He lives in a run down little 1 bedroom kitchen trailer that is about 12X12. No electricity, no phone, no bathroom, no shower or tub. Think about it this man has courage that you will never have. This man has proof and someone should look into it. And ask the question why is the government and the courts so affraid to let him show his evidence in a courtroom. Mmm that is so strange, think about that.

# posted by Anonymous : 8:14 PM

you have to realize that New Brunswick is controlled very strickly by few and they want to retain that control.
For example when McKenna was the premier he had total control. The Irvings were big supporters of the liberals so that made the province like one giant monoploy and it still is today. Worse even more is that the media was contolled by no other than the Irving media company so all but one of he daily papers were liberal friendly. Politics now more than ever is all about th controlling interests and nothing more. The middle and lower class are the first to suffer. Plain and simple. When the Government wants to take your land away it is usually to appease a controlling interest. Democracy is being eroding away from the ver ideals it was built upon...