What's yours is the city's - if they want it
In our view: Council should back off expropriation of Killarney Lake land
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
That is sage advice for Fredericton City Council, in light of their decision to expropriate land in the Killarney Lake area.
The city owns 1,500 acres, but would like to add another 2,200 acres to its parcel, which it has earmarked for eventual recreation activities like swimming, walking, hiking and skiing. They made the decision before the May municipal election, but now a few councillors are questioning the wisdom of that decision.
No one can fault the city for wanting to create a wilderness wonderland for its citizens to enjoy, and the potential health benefits the outdoor activities would bring are welcome, particularly in this time of high obesity rates, but it must not pursue that goal at any cost. The end does not justify the means in this case.
It's not as if the city needs a few feet of front lawn to widen a street or add a sidewalk.
In those cases, property owners might not be thrilled, but generally, they would likely understand and accept that expropriation is in everyone's best interests because it would make the street safer. Who can be against safety, even when expropriation is necessary, to make an area less dangerous?
But there is no issue of safety here. While a bigger park area would be enjoyable, it is not necessary, and it's not even planned for the near future.
At least one property owner, Wendell Thomas and Sons Ltd., opposes the city's attempts to expropriate 104 of its acres for the parkland. The Thomas family isn't alone. Four of the city's 12 councillors oppose the expropriation, with good reason. As one of them wisely said, the city has no imminent need to have the property.
Every government has, at its disposal, the option to use expropriation. It is a powerful tool, and precisely for that reason, it should be used sparingly. It should be the last resort when all other avenues, like negotiation, have failed. When, and under what circumstances to use expropriation, should be foremost in a municipality's plans, but in this case, it appears enthusiasm for recreational land has outweighed the caution and responsibility that must come with using the tool.
Property owners work hard for the right to own their land - to have a little piece of the planet they can say is theirs. To have a government come along and take it for no viable reason is an affront to that dearly-held right.
The only thing the city will achieve with this expropriation is a bad reputation for bullying when the fight was not worth the spoils.
More Opinion
Search Articles
More CE Network Sites & Partners:
Comments (1)
All comments are subject to the site Terms of Use. For a full commenting tutorial click here.
Our editorial team relies on filtering technology and our visitor community to identify inappropriate comments. In the event that a site user has submitted offensive content that has evaded our filter, please select the option to Flag As Inappropriate presented within the comment. Thank you for helping to keep this site clean.
I may stand to be corrected but I don't believe Canadian citizens have any actual right to own property as far as politicians and bureaucrats are concerned. We lost any hope of having property rights when Chretien and that gang of premiers gave into PEI's demands in order to get its signature on Trudeau's precious constitution.
Meanwhile back in city hall there are few qualms about using this bit of legislative thuggery against any citizen who disagrees with its intentions. On this Fredericton councilors seem to have a consistent record. Maybe not fair or honorable or right but at least consistent.
Perhaps its time to review municipal powers of expropriation. Base it on the 'abuse it and you loose it' argument.