3 ms·
It’s a pretty interesting development. I wonder what the legal framework for someone living there will be if they’re not a First Nation citizen? From the artic
by Erikun 3y ago
It’s a pretty interesting development. I wonder what the legal framework for someone living there will be if they’re not a First Nation citizen?
From the article:
“ But Indigenous nations are accountable, first and foremost, to their own citizens. That could mean temporarily barring access to traditional lands, as in Joffre Lakes. It could also mean maximizing the economic potential of their property, to provide housing and funds to support education, health care and community growth. ”
- lwansbrough 3y agoIn terms of land/home ownership, what it has meant in other parts of the metro area, is leaseholds. You can “buy” a property at a slightly reduced cost which will be reclaimed after several decades (100 years?), usually starting from the time of development. In terms of laws, policing is handled by the local police force, ie. VPD. While there is rhetoric about sovereignty, practically speaking much of the challenging problems are still handled by the Crown’s government and not by tribes.
- Erikun 3y agoSounds like it wouldn’t be any different from home ownership or renting in any other part of Vancouver then.
- potmat 3y agoReally? Seems very different. There are some leaseholds on reservations near my cottage and "owning" one does not mean what you think it means. On a normal property as long as you pay your taxes it's yours in perpetuity, and the value tends to rise over time. With a leasehold it's never "yours" and can be taken away at a future date. The value approaches zero as the lease approaches its end date, since there's no guarantee it will be extended, so the property depreciates over time. This also has the effect of making any buildings on the property fairly dilapidated as the end-date nears, as the buildings can/will be confiscated with the lease (there's no incentive for the owner to maintain them).
- vivekd 3y agoI remember reading that natives are not allowed to sell tribal lands in Canada Might not be a huge bar though , they could put it up as rental property which we desperately need in Canadian cities - and their website suggests that's exactly what they're doing https://senakw.com/vision https://senakw.com/vision
- jamwil 3y agoI don’t think they would be limited to rentals given the leasehold titles he mentions as a likely framework. The same is true of national lands or parks — you can buy a property in the Banff townsite, or on Port Authority lands, for instance, but it’s a leasehold title and the land reverts to the crown at expiry.
- ok_dad 3y agoLeaseholds are very common in Hawaii due to similar ownership, although here it’s privately owned land by native orgs in most cases, because the Hawaiians specifically voted down reservation-like agreements to maintain what sovereignty they have left. It works out pretty good here, buildings are routinely demolished and bigger ones grow in the place. Most of the land like this is in town, commonly Waikiki hotels and apartments are leasehold. We’re still having a very horrible housing crisis here, though.
- curmudgeon22 3y agoThese leaseholds are typically more difficult to get a mortgage on, restricting lenders and increasing price :/
- vkou 3y agoIf it's difficult to get a mortgage, it should cause prices to drop. Easy access to zero-interest-rate borrowed money is one of many things that drives prices up.
- Tiktaalik 3y agoThe Squamish have said that they're going to align with the Provincial tenancy act, presumably to give certainty to renters. > Tenants moving into any of these properties will be protected by the BCRTA as they would in any other rental property in the province. https://www.squamish.net/bcrta-adoption/ https://www.squamish.net/bcrta-adoption/
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]