Kenney wants to sell crown land for profit
 

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/jaso...tion-1.4215687

Haven't seen the thread yet so I figured I'd encourage the discussion. Seems they did the same thing in 2011 but kept it quiet so nobody would complain. This is the first I'm hearing of it.

Link

I like how "Kenney floated the idea last month" turned into "Kenney wants to sell crown land for profit".

Well there's new information.

I'm sure somebody will come on here screaming FAKE NEWS ! ! ! ! ! but the fact is, there's better ways to make up a deficit than to permanently sell off public assets.

Bring it.

I posted the same thing and there is a pretty extensive thread on it. I was VERY surprised at how many people on here thought this was no big deal or fully supported it. This is NOT a good idea and selling public lands is how you end up like Texas or Germany with no public access to land that you don;t have to pay big bucks for.

We could sell off 100% of the crown land in Alberta ans it wouldn't put a dent in the annual deficit let alone the accumulated debt. The is a truly STUPID idea with very short term perspective. The Alberta Fish and Game has come out strongly against this and so should all Albertans.

Agreed.

But I also think it is inevitable for a number of reasons.

For one, the world population and Canada's population is growing rapidly. More land will be needed and the demand will only increase with time.

Second. When a politician decides he or she wants something done he or she will find a way to make it happen, either by spreading misinformation or by outright lying to the public. We've seen it over and over in recent years.
And election after election the majority elect more of the same.

If it's not sold off, it will be developed in other ways which are not wildlife friendly. Leased perhaps, logged off and turned into a government sanctioned tree plantation perhaps, or burnt off as they have done with the hills along the Peace River. Yeah I know that was supposed to enhance those hills for wildlife habitat. Actually it seems it was about enhancing it for Elk habitat. To the detriment of other species.

And finally from my prospective, we have bigger issues to be concerned about.

If today we persuade our politicians that selling off this small bit of land is not in our best interests, have we gained anything if we continue to tear up wild places with our quads and our industrial activity?

There was a time when all of Alberta and for that matter, all of North America was wild, undeveloped wilderness. Today we all live on land that was not so long ago, wildlife habitat.

At what point do we halt the development and for what reason? Who will give up what in order to bring that development to a halt?

We get all worked up when it is our hunting that is threatened but what about our neighbors food and housing needs.

So long as we behave as though we are the only ones on this planet that matter, we can not expect anyone else to give up anything for our sake.

I don't believe in rules and regulations as a means to solve our problems.
I don't believe we should expect our government to bail us out when we make poor choices.

But I have little hope that enough individuals or mankind as a whole will ever take responsibility for the part we play in creating our problems, for it to make a difference.
It's rare today, even in the hunting community, for any individual to give up anything for the sake of our fellow hunters much less the greater good.

How does that work on the farm?
Sell your land base because you are behind one year due to poor crop.
Pretty soon you have no assets and are looking for a job.

For one, the world population and Canada's population is growing rapidly. More land will be needed and the demand will only increase with time.

Canada’s growth rate is 0.73% and the vast majority of that growth is in the large urban centres. The worlds population growth has also slowed considerably (like half) since it peaked in the late 60’s.

Resource development is the killer, and as you get closer to urban centres, it’s when farmland is worth a whole lot more cut into acreages.

Well he has me thinking I might not want to vote for him. We might have another Jim Prentice election.
With the NDP sending out their election propaganda stating why Kenney is not such a good choice it makes a person wonder who to vote for.

Sell some land, put the money on the books.
Then tax the land, and put that money in the books every year.
Sounds like a no brainer.

Growth rate is one thing, overall growth quiet another. .73% of 37 million is still nearly 300,000 more bodies.
300,000 is equivalent to one medium sized city and needs a whole lot of land outside that city to support it.


And I agree, industrial development is out of control as is urban sprawl.

And Canada is far from the root of the problem. We have only .48% of the world population.

As the rest of the world outgrows it's capacity to feed it's own people they will and are putting pressure on Canada to provide some of that need as well as space for some of that population.

So even though we presently have room to grow and surplus to sell, pressure from across the globe will push us to develop, exploit and sell more and more of our space and resources.

And big business and politicians will always do what is in their best interests, not ours.

They will sell the land and then you will have to go begging to the landowner to go hunting on land you always hunted on.

If the land owner says no then you stay home and watch cartoons on T.V.

hi

Warning
 

...

You are correct I have been in the que calling down all that the current party has done. But I am getting a bad taste in my mouth about a new party.
There are other less popular parties like the Alberta party which as a long shot might be a good choice. We need someone to make Alberta great again. Who that might be I do not know.

lol!

Lease value of productive Crown Land is substantially more than annual tax value.
Selling the land to make up for political incompetence and adverse oil prices is a bad idea.
Short term thinking in play here.

And he didn't even quote the part where I really spoke my mind :sHa_sarcasticlol:

land
 

Keg, excellent posts on the subject, very wise response.

Land
 

Bloody **** There is only so much land if you sell it there ain't going to be anymore made.... How bout a responsible government?? How bout tell the traitor in Ottawa to get bent on Carbon tax, and equalization payments, how bou we take care of this Province first??? EH?:angry3:

Farmland
 

This is exactly correct. Development is a long-term benefit for all of us. As I understand it, this involves a relatively small amount of good, arable acreage. Through the tender process, it's available to anyone, proponents and naysayers alike.

I am more concerned about the loss of access with the new parks.

I know it is a slippery slope, when you sell public land. But in saying that for the most part I think that some of it should be sold.
Not all, but some. I think there is a way to do this properly. And as stated, it was a idea that he floated. Like most politicians do. Throw a idea out there, see what the public has to say, and go from there. If there is alot of reasonable outcry for it not to be done, then go from there.
I think there is better ways to make up the money, like taking resource revenues back from grazing lease holders, but I know that is a huge pile of stinking dung to get into.
I don't have a issue with any politician floating ideas, it is a great way for the public to have a say one way or the other.

Maybe we should recruit another Liberal like Ralph to lead Alberta again to pay down the debt.
Strange how it has been done for a century here but now its a problem to sell public lands.

I would say you should be concerned about both! This is a deal breaker for me, one party wants to lock up and "protect" public lands and one wants to outright sell it. Selling off ANY public lands is very short sighted and wont make a dent in our debt, and loss of access in any form will never be OK. Ill be watching this but its beginning to feel like I will be spoiling a ballot.

I feel that if the land is sold it can be put to productive use, and that is what turns the wheels of the economy.
If you think the government should hold all this land so that you can tramp around on it in search of game every once in a while, you are entitled to your opinion.
And, in theory, the government takes it's direction from the people, so if the people want the land to stay public, then I guess that's the right answer.

I wouldn't call it good arable land. If it were, it would already be farmland.

I believe you are right, it would be made available through the normal process which is public auction.

I bought a small parcel of public land two years ago. In that process I learned that such land is normally sold through public auction.

I also think you are right about any such sale having long term benefits for us all. But there would also be something lost for us all.

What I think is debatable is if the benefit is worth the cost.

But I don't think any of that matters over the long term, unless we learn to give a little for the greater good.

If everyone did that we wouldn't need 99 percent of our laws and regulations. If we all did that there would be no poaching, no scammers, no victimization.

The greatest threat to hunting, and to humanity as a whole is not the sale of public land. It is individual selfishness, corporate selfishness and political selfishness.

Selling public land in a weak attempt to get a minuscule reduction in debt doesn't align with my political support.

If selling crown land is such a bad idea why do we have private landownership to begin with ?