People’s homes are usually their biggest asset. And many rely on equity of thier homes for financial planning. I think it’s eminently expected any ruling that affects the land title will cause panic.
I think the Richmond Mayor was over dramatic. However, if you troll around shadow subs of BC/Vancouver topics here on reddit, there’s widespread attacks on Eby, land acknowledges and reocnciliation as a whole for causing this from elements on the right that populate these shadow subs. This is a political time bomb and could sink the NDP government next election. I think Eby is rightly being very quiet and perhaps ‚unhelpful‘ here just to keep an even keel vis-a-vis public opinion, which I can tell ranges from tepid concern to outright hostility.
mukmuk64 on
Having read a few of these sorts of explainer articles since the case I think this one is the best one in laying it all out, especially in noting that these issues have been well known about for decades and yet left unresolved.
Also this is one of the rare articles that gets into the actual details of the case which helps explain why the Cowichan won.
>The roots of the Quw’utsun’s grievance are grounded in a promise British Columbia’s first governor — James Douglas — made in 1859 to exempt Indigenous settlements like Tl’uqtinus from sale or claims from settlers.
>Instead of carrying out those directions, the man tasked with protecting what was supposed to be a Quw’utsun reserve — Chief Commissioner of Land and Works Richard Clement Moody — covertly bought two waterfront pieces of their land himself.
This is some brazen obvious land theft and that the government of the day seemingly let this slide is the root cause of all the present day problems.
The details of the case are very worth noting because while op-ed writers have been casually suggesting that the precedent of this case expands to all of BC, spreading fear and uncertainty along the way, the reality is that No, most people’s property is *not* literally on a previously occupied First Nations village that was explicitly stolen after it was explicitly promised to be protected.
Leave A Reply
Du musst angemeldet sein, um einen Kommentar abzugeben.
3 Kommentare
[removed]
People’s homes are usually their biggest asset. And many rely on equity of thier homes for financial planning. I think it’s eminently expected any ruling that affects the land title will cause panic.
I think the Richmond Mayor was over dramatic. However, if you troll around shadow subs of BC/Vancouver topics here on reddit, there’s widespread attacks on Eby, land acknowledges and reocnciliation as a whole for causing this from elements on the right that populate these shadow subs. This is a political time bomb and could sink the NDP government next election. I think Eby is rightly being very quiet and perhaps ‚unhelpful‘ here just to keep an even keel vis-a-vis public opinion, which I can tell ranges from tepid concern to outright hostility.
Having read a few of these sorts of explainer articles since the case I think this one is the best one in laying it all out, especially in noting that these issues have been well known about for decades and yet left unresolved.
Also this is one of the rare articles that gets into the actual details of the case which helps explain why the Cowichan won.
>The roots of the Quw’utsun’s grievance are grounded in a promise British Columbia’s first governor — James Douglas — made in 1859 to exempt Indigenous settlements like Tl’uqtinus from sale or claims from settlers.
>Instead of carrying out those directions, the man tasked with protecting what was supposed to be a Quw’utsun reserve — Chief Commissioner of Land and Works Richard Clement Moody — covertly bought two waterfront pieces of their land himself.
This is some brazen obvious land theft and that the government of the day seemingly let this slide is the root cause of all the present day problems.
The details of the case are very worth noting because while op-ed writers have been casually suggesting that the precedent of this case expands to all of BC, spreading fear and uncertainty along the way, the reality is that No, most people’s property is *not* literally on a previously occupied First Nations village that was explicitly stolen after it was explicitly promised to be protected.