Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobblehead
One of the major things the WRP brought up, Property Rights, is indeed a much greater issue for the rural voters as opposed to urban, specifically Bills 16, 24, 36 & 50 ( link from Vermilion Standard giving a basic outline of the issue). It created a big stir with land owners but seems to have barely made a ripple with urban dwellers. I'm wondering if that is because there are more renters in the city, people are generally more mobile, or some other reason. In any respect, it created a deep divide. |
I think it stems from the idea that people in the city are simply not as concerned about property rights. You don't often hear about a urban subdivision being rezoned or declared non-conforming in a way that impacts large numbers of landowners. For things like a road widening they affect a few people but the rest of the population is generally just happy that they have a better transit corridor.
Farmers and ranchers are concerned that the province will do something to affect them greatly.
An example of a legitimate concern that farmers had would be if the province decided that farmland was worth protecting so they put in a land use framework that indicates farming as the only acceptable use of an area of land. A farmer may have been planning to subdivide that quarter and the law now says they can't. It could wipe out millions of dollars in value and the original version of the law said that the owner had no recourse if he didn't like the provinces offer.
Very few people in the cities are worried about this happening to them, but people who work their land became quite concerned. Enough to have the PCs amend the acts to prevent some of the avenues for abuse.