Tsuu T'ina members to vote on SW Ring Road today

[Peanut]

Originally Posted by Clarkey

I would argue that they have less property rights than the average Canadian. They basically have squatters rights, they can exist on the surface but own no part of the mineral rights and cannot sell their surface rights. They are like long term lease tenants with zero rent. No individuals own anything, they just have squatters rights for an undetermined period of time.

Give them full surface rights and let the natives decide what to do with the land.

Mineral rights in Alberta are seperate from the surface rights... for everyone.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by ricosuave

Then why not just say so - say "We will never give up this land for any price"

Then the world can at least move on.

I was at a function yesterday and spoke with one of the senior Elders. Her opinion was that she would not give up the land under any circumstances and voted against the deal.

[FanIn80]

Can't we just tell George Bush that they are hiding secret oil reserves, and then build the road afterwards?

Oh wait... Damn. Stupid Obama. ><

[JustAnotherGuy]

Originally Posted by ricosuave

Then why not just say so - say "We will never give up this land for any price"

Then the world can at least move on.

How long has this been going on for? When will the 'world' just move on?

If somebody brings it up again they should just be shot. But as we know somebody will bring it up again. Want to bet it will be the 'nations' leadership. Give it a little time and they will come up with a comment about it still being a possibility.

[JustAnotherGuy]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

I was at a function yesterday and spoke with one of the senior Elders. Her opinion was that she would not give up the land under any circumstances and voted against the deal.

Did she at least consider what good could come out of the deal? OR Did she just say forget it without thinking through the proposal.

Ah, who cares. Time to move on. What is plan B. Build that bridge then.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Peanut

Mineral rights in Alberta are seperate from the surface rights... for everyone.

Not completely true. If your family acquired land during the homesteaders act you have full mineral rights so long as the land never left the family.

[ricosuave]

Whatever the plan b options are, surely they are less than the staggering costs of dealing with plan a over and over!

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherGuy

Ah, who cares. Time to move on. What is plan B. Build that bridge then.

City council has a plan B? Riiiiiiiiight. Their plan B consists of sitting back and waiting for negotiating round 658 to start with the band leaders.

I'm wondering what a bridge would cost right now anyway? Half a billion?

At this point I don't really care if they put a ferry across the reservoir. Stop negotiating with these guys who are clearly NOT the easiest solution, and fix the problem. Build a bridge. Build a ferry. Build a frickin trebuchet that launches cars across the weaselhead.....who cares. Just stop trying to pound the square peg into the round hole with this pipe dream of a road allowance!!!!

[Tower]

Originally Posted by flip

They have no more property rights than anyone else.

Actually, they are more sovereign then you.

True History lesson,

White man killed almost 5 million Red men.

White man left about 200 000 Red Man and signed a treaty with the Red man giving them much land to prosper. (Or, in fact, crappy land) Now we White Man must complain when we want to abuse Red Man's land.

I's get into it more but I am lazy today. But I adore what aboriginals do to make the "government pay $$$ for everything". That land is theirs, and I'm pretty sure if they want to push it they could have bum loads of fun with many aspects throughout Calgary where we are using the land that does not belong to us.

[Tower]

Originally Posted by cal_guy

Not true, Reserve lands can be expropriated in the same way as non-reserve private property if they receive permission from the federal government.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc...chorbo-ga:s_35

That is definitely debatable. These Acts and Statues were created far after the signing of treaties.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherGuy

Did she at least consider what good could come out of the deal? OR Did she just say forget it without thinking through the proposal.

Ah, who cares. Time to move on. What is plan B. Build that bridge then.

She rejected it flat out. Doesn't want us taking their land because it is theirs.

[JustAnotherGuy]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

City council has a plan B? Riiiiiiiiight. Their plan B consists of sitting back and waiting for negotiating round 658 to start with the band leaders.

I'm wondering what a bridge would cost right now anyway? Half a billion?

At this point I don't really care if they put a ferry across the reservoir. Stop negotiating with these guys who are clearly NOT the easiest solution, and fix the problem. Build a bridge. Build a ferry. Build a frickin trebuchet that launches cars across the weaselhead.....who cares. Just stop trying to pound the square peg into the round hole with this pipe dream of a road allowance!!!!

Yes, there is an alternative plan that has been mentioned. At least I read it somewhere sometime. Perhaps it was speculation and not official. It involved going through the Weaselhead but they didn't want to do for environmental reasons etc etc.

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by Peanut

Mineral rights in Alberta are seperate from the surface rights... for everyone.

Land granted prior to 1887 in Alberta included mineral rights.

[browna]

Absolutely ridiculous decision.

If the city can, as mentioned earlier, terminate access to that Casino off 37th ST, and pull them off the city electrical grid.

At very least, any more devlopment (which we all know is coming) on that land, if even a single family home or convience store, be flat out rejected from using any City of Calgary taxpayer funded access and services to that new development.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by browna

Absolutely ridiculous decision.

Yes, how dare they not let us build a freeway on their land!?!? I mean, we offered them lots of money!

Seriously though, where is all this bloody entitlement coming from?

[flip]

Originally Posted by Tower

Actually, they are more sovereign then you.

True History lesson,

White man killed almost 5 million Red men.

White man left about 200 000 Red Man and signed a treaty with the Red man giving them much land to prosper. (Or, in fact, crappy land) Now we White Man must complain when we want to abuse Red Man's land.

I's get into it more but I am lazy today. But I adore what aboriginals do to make the "government pay $$$ for everything". That land is theirs, and I'm pretty sure if they want to push it they could have bum loads of fun with many aspects throughout Calgary where we are using the land that does not belong to us.

Thanks tips. As if anyone didn't already know that.


So what about the people who came to Canada before the "Red Man"? Is the land actually theirs? How come NA is one of the few places in the world where who lived on the land previously matters? Most every other conquered people in the world gave up on fighting it like 500 years ago and just dealt with it.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by flip

Thanks tips. As if anyone didn't already know that.


So what about the people who came to Canada before the "Red Man"? Is the land actually theirs? How come NA is one of the few places in the world where who lived on the land previously matters? Most every other conquered people in the world gave up on fighting it like 500 years ago and just dealt with it.

Like the Irish?

[llama64]

Originally Posted by flip

Thanks tips. As if anyone didn't already know that.


So what about the people who came to Canada before the "Red Man"? Is the land actually theirs? How come NA is one of the few places in the world where who lived on the land previously matters? Most every other conquered people in the world gave up on fighting it like 500 years ago and just dealt with it.

Read a few history books... Land ownership (and it's related resources) is one of the primary factors in every conflict in human history. It's not just North America.

Getting kinda sick of the "the're a conquered" people argument too. First Nations were not conquered in Canada. They were initially held in high regard by the first European inhabitants (the fur-traders). It wasn't until the settler's showed up that confrontation was encountered when the government out east starting partitioning up the land and "selling" it. The settler's believed they now "owned" the land, while the First Nations had no concept of land ownership at all.

By the time the First Nations actually understood what was happening, they were outnumbered and segregated into ridiculously tiny plots of useless land in preparation for cultural assimilation. No war occured, very few "battles". They were simply displaced.

[flip]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Like the Irish?

Good one.

However, that is a little different scenario but I was more referring to other places that have "natives" that have been integrated into the culture. There are still numerous areas of the world that have struggles between peoples but rarely is a situation as effed up as Canada seen in the world. In Canada we treat the natives reasonably well (from a gov. perspective) all the while we let them squander it and treat themselves like crap. If we found a way to ween them off of their current situation and integrate them into society we'd be better for it.

[flip]

Originally Posted by llama64

Read a few history books... Land ownership (and it's related resources) is one of the primary factors in every conflict in human history. It's not just North America.

Getting kinda sick of the "the're a conquered" people argument too. First Nations were not conquered in Canada. They were initially held in high regard by the first European inhabitants. It wasn't until the settler's showed up that confrontation was encountered when the government out east starting partitioning up the land and "selling" it. The settler's believed they now "owned" the land, while the First Nations had no concept of land ownership at all.

Wow, you totally missed the point of my post.