Attawapiskat chief wants more cash? You don't say!

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

The problem with ownership is it would give them the right to sell. The reserve land belongs to the whole tribe so allowing one member to sell it is seen as anathema.
I disagree and think that property ownership is the cornerstone of progress but no one asked me.

the whole idea of reserves is so antiquated, it just needs to finally go away. they've done nothing to help the people they were setup for and have been a magnet for rampant drug use, corruption, and a renewing cycle of poverty. any politician that finally has to balls to come out and say such, with a plan to phase the reserve system out and integrate the native population properly into mainstream Canadian society will get my vote

[T@T]

Probably been hashed over for eons but can someone fully explain to me why taxpayers fund the Natives out the ying yang like their gods?

Natives claim - it was our land
My take - umm no, you just took it before us,you didn't buy it from anyone. If I climb up up a mountian slope and I'm the first human to steep there...do I own it?

Fact is back in the day Natives were savages, settlers from the east,Europe and Canada were murdered in their sleep because a tribe of 500 natives figured they owned 5000 sq miles of land. they started the american indian wars and caused their own removal from the lands because of violence against the innocent.

It must be the only time in history someone lost a war and gets paid for doing so.

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by T@T

Probably been hashed over for eons but can someone fully explain to me why taxpayers fund the Natives out the ying yang like their gods?

Natives claim - it was our land
My take - umm no, you just took it before us,you didn't buy it from anyone. If I climb up up a mountian slope and I'm the first human to steep there...do I own it?

Fact is back in the day Natives were savages, settlers from the east,Europe and Canada were murdered in their sleep because a tribe of 500 natives figured they owned 5000 sq miles of land. they started the american indian wars and caused their own removal from the lands because of violence against the innocent.

It must be the only time in history someone lost a war and gets paid for doing so.

Wow. This isn't even close to what happened. I can't even begin to explain where you're wrong because everything in this post is so fundamentally out to lunch. Right from the concept of land ownership before Europeans arrived to...well...everything else. You really need to go out and do some learning about these things in a way that you won't get on a message board.

[trublmaker]

Originally Posted by T@T

Probably been hashed over for eons but can someone fully explain to me why taxpayers fund the Natives out the ying yang like their gods?

Natives claim - it was our land
My take - umm no, you just took it before us,you didn't buy it from anyone. If I climb up up a mountian slope and I'm the first human to steep there...do I own it?

Fact is back in the day Natives were savages, settlers from the east,Europe and Canada were murdered in their sleep because a tribe of 500 natives figured they owned 5000 sq miles of land. they started the american indian wars and caused their own removal from the lands because of violence against the innocent.

It must be the only time in history someone lost a war and gets paid for doing so.

fact is the American constitution used the Iroquois nations "constitution" as a guide line.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by T@T

Probably been hashed over for eons but can someone fully explain to me why taxpayers fund the Natives out the ying yang like their gods?

A lot of the natives signed treaties. Legal agreements between the group and the government. The treaties outline how the relationship is to be handled including what both sides have promised the other side.
By your logic we should stop upholding our end of the deal, but if we tear up the treaty would we not also have to return the land that was offered in exchange?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Azure

Property ownership would encourage them actually giving a crap about it. As of right now they don't care.

Case in point: My condo complex. One of four buildings has a very high ratio of renters compared to the others. That same building takes up about 70% of the condo board's unplanned maintenance and repair costs.

[GP_Matt]

Could a condo board charge more for a non owner occupied unit?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by T@T

Fact is back in the day Natives were savages

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll

Fact is, humans are savages.

[Jbo]

Whatever someone's own stance on Native Canadians is, I think we can all agree that throwing money at the problem is not the solution.

There should be a comprehensive audit on these reserves every single year, in order to qualify for further funding. While I understand that treaty law has been established, I'm not sure why continued on-going support by Canadian taxpayers can't demand this.

Im angry... not just at the corrupt leaders of some of these reserves, but the Federal government for managing this incorrectly for decades.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Could a condo board charge more for a non owner occupied unit?

Nope. Fees have to allocated by unit factor, full stop.

You can do certain things. For example, one condo I know of charges a security deposit to owners of units which have been rented out to cover damages.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Nope. Fees have to allocated by unit factor, full stop.

You can do certain things. For example, one condo I know of charges a security deposit to owners of units which have been rented out to cover damages.

They have to be based on unit factor, but unit factor isn't set in stone. I can't remember the method for changing the unit factors but I suppose you wouldn't want to increase their unit factor for renting anyway, especially if there were a lot of rental units as it would increase their voting power.

I took a quick look at the condo act and it does provide for you to take a deposit of one months rent as a damage deposit from any unit that is being rented. The money can be applied to anything above wear and tear. The condo board can also kick out tenants if they breach the bylaws.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

They have to be based on unit factor, but unit factor isn't set in stone. I can't remember the method for changing the unit factors but I suppose you wouldn't want to increase their unit factor for renting anyway, especially if there were a lot of rental units as it would increase their voting power.

I took a quick look at the condo act and it does provide for you to take a deposit of one months rent as a damage deposit from any unit that is being rented. The money can be applied to anything above wear and tear. The condo board can also kick out tenants if they breach the bylaws.

Yes. I've served an eviction notice for someone who wouldn't get rid of a dog that was causing problems in my capacity as a condo board president.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

They have to be based on unit factor, but unit factor isn't set in stone. I can't remember the method for changing the unit factors but I suppose you wouldn't want to increase their unit factor for renting anyway, especially if there were a lot of rental units as it would increase their voting power.

You can change the unit factors of a condominium by special resolution, requiring 75% of owners holding 75% of unit factors to vote. And you have to declare the basis for setting the unit factors on the condo plan.

Since a unit can change from owner occupied to rental and back again, there's no practical way the unit factor could be changed frequently enough to account for that.

The main complaints are damage and maintenance anyway, which a security deposit would be a bigger help with than an increased unit factor.

[Coys1882]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

By your logic we should stop upholding our end of the deal, but if we tear up the treaty would we not also have to return the land that was offered in exchange?

That's the problem. The treaties should be torn up for the good of humanity - not for the good of white people and their tax money. Until Natives are forced to assimilate and become normal Canadians those reserves will be continue to be set locations for Mad Max sequels.

As for giving the land back - they were conquered - the land should have just been taken. Just like the Danes did with England, attack, govern, let the populace integrate.

[comrade]

Originally Posted by Coys1882

That's the problem. The treaties should be torn up for the good of humanity - not for the good of white people and their tax money. Until Natives are forced to assimilate and become normal Canadians those reserves will be continue to be set locations for Mad Max sequels.

As for giving the land back - they were conquered - the land should have just been taken. Just like the Danes did with England, attack, govern, let the populace integrate.

You must admit, though, that your policy does dovetail very nicely with what's beneficial for "white people" and their tax money. To most Natives I imagine that this would look like yet another example of Canada screwing them over.

For those who say the treaties need to be ripped up, I'm curious as to how you would go about integrating Natives into Canadian society, considering where they are now and how many Natives may not be pleased with the turn of events. Most plans I read about seem to suggest that cutting them off is all that's required to fix the problem.

[GP_Matt]

I firmly believe that land ownership for individual members should be the ultimate goal. Although that would be a long process and probably wouldn't be as effective for the more remote reserves.

[Lt.Spears]

Native Reserves really GMG.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Coys1882

That's the problem. The treaties should be torn up for the good of humanity - not for the good of white people and their tax money. Until Natives are forced to assimilate and become normal Canadians those reserves will be continue to be set locations for Mad Max sequels.

As for giving the land back - they were conquered - the land should have just been taken. Just like the Danes did with England, attack, govern, let the populace integrate.

Remind me never to sign a contract with you. The idea that you should rip up a contract between us because you decided it would be better for me in the long run is pretty appalling.

[Coys1882]

They have been screwed over by Canada - twice. Once for being 'conquered' and then another for being enabled.

You're are right though - getting rid of treaties would work out for white folk but the conditions on reserves are that dire.

The problem is they are caught in limbo land - they aren't living like their ancestors and they aren't living like the rest of us. How do you bring them up to speed? I haven't the foggiest without it turning out like it did in the 20's when the gov't forced them away from their families, sterilized and abused them.

[Coys1882]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Remind me never to sign a contract with you. The idea that you should rip up a contract between us because you decided it would be better for me in the long run is pretty appalling.

Open your eyes man. The idea of a contract is binding regardless of the damage it's doing 200 years later is a romantic notion but the fact is these treaties are destroying a race of people whether they or we want to admit it.

I grew up in Northern Sask with reserves all around us. I had over 1000+ hours on the RCMP ride along and we spent 90% of our time on the reserves. Here I saw first hand the abuse, poverty, and corruption that effected every person out there.

I also worked at a Uranium mine where a certain % of employees had to be Native. These were Indian people whose families did not have treaty rights and there I got to know some of the hardest working, proud people you could ever meet.

These treaties are bad - period.