I saw this article a month or so ago. It's a shame. Sadly our government can do whatever they want. At the end of the day, if you think you actually "own" your land, just try to stop the government form taking it.

My grandfathers farm land was also taken "expropriation" by the government about 30 years ago for new development in our area. they accidentally dropped a full truck loads of gravel across his front yard after refusing a few times to take payment for the land and to move on. Later the police came and removed him and my grandmother.

Coinzero, so sorry to hear that

Here is the question: how do you buy land for a BOL without that risk?

Situations like these give us a small taste for what our aboriginal neighbours have been given a proverbial "full meal" of for these last three hundred plus years. What the crown gives; the crown will take away. It's a little different when the victims have the same skin colour as we do though... In answer to 'oldschool's' question, you might want to look to our natives for that answer. Acquire BOL land that absolutely no one else will want or can use. If you improve the land, do so in a covert way so that the crown won't covet the property.

I feel for the guy, but I rolled my eyes at that "Stop the Harper Govt" petition in there. As if Stephen Harper personally created these age old laws and concocted a nefarious plan against an old farmer.

Everything is election fodder...

Sadly, most military bases are the located on expropriated land. I'd lime to hope that most people were properly compensated. I'm torn on this one. Perhaps a good way to look at it is a sacrifice of one for the benefit of all? Co-locating our special forces at an airbase seems to make a lot of sense.

This has bothered me since I read about it. I also wonder if he got paid for any of the land , or if a person refuses
to sell at the beginning, do they get to take it for free when they do take it. Not to mention he has lost
his house in this take over .

Sadly, most military bases are the located on expropriated land. I'd lime to hope that most people were properly compensated. I'm torn on this one. Perhaps a good way to look at it is a sacrifice of one for the benefit of all? Co-locating our special forces at an airbase seems to make a lot of sense.

There is a base that is about 2 hours away that was shut down....they now have great concerts in the summer.

They do the same thing with schools. Close a bunch & then build a new one. I just don't get why they can't let an old man live out his days in peace.

Situations like these give us a small taste for what our aboriginal neighbours have been given a proverbial "full meal" of for these last three hundred plus years. What the crown gives; the crown will take away. It's a little different when the victims have the same skin colour as we do though... In answer to 'oldschool's' question, you might want to look to our natives for that answer. Acquire BOL land that absolutely no one else will want or can use. If you improve the land, do so in a covert way so that the crown won't covet the property.

wow I think you nailed the answer on the head

A poll from http://www.ctvnews.ca/ on if Frank should be allowed to keep his land.

TODAY'S QUESTION

Should the DND back down from expropriating an Ontario farmer's land?

Yes

No

Back down and do what? What is being proposed as an alternative?

As I've written in a similar thread, I feel for Mr Meyers and his family, but....

Most if not all military bases in Canada have been built on land that was previously occupied, usually by farmers. From what I has been written in the medias over the past few months on this topic, the land is required to accommodate a special forces training centre. It makes sense, for security reasons, access to aircraft, etc to have that place co-located with the airforce base. I presume that all the land around the base is already owned by private citizens, just as much as most of the land around military base in Canada (less maybe Goose Bay in Labrador). So the dilemma is where else can you put that centre?

It would make no sense to locate that centre in the middle of nowhere and if the black-pyjama-clad boys with high-speed/low-drag kit are needed, that it takes hours for them to get a ride anywhere. And if you are the passenger in a hijacked plane in Halifax, you probably don't want to wait an extra couple of hours, under duress, for these guys to show up.

ThoughI feel for Mr. Meyers, I'm quite sure he has been offered a fair compensation. While I don't want to discourage any show of supports/petitions in favour of Mr Meyers, I simply want to suggest people think this one out rationally instead of emotionally.

Edited after re-reading a few different versions of the story online...

The area in debate and the CFB Trenton base
is situated between 2 small cities along an area of homes and farms and other retail development
and schools.

In my opinion the base is already big enough and more development will just join
the 2 small cities with the air base smack in the middle by developing and pushing
out the farmers which it sounds like they already have done ?

It will be like one big city with an air base in the middle.

Noise on both sides. I think they should be developing in a more remote location
not in a congested highway area where there is about 10 - 15 miles
between 2 small cities and an air base in the middle.

No.

This is the price we pay for the "social contract". Just as the land was taken away from its previous holders that Mr. Meyers forefathers could homestead it, so that same land is being taken away from him. In answer to the question above, yes Mr. Meyers will be reimbursed for the fair market value of the land as determined by some cryptic algorithm. I'm certain it is little comfort for him though.

Antsy

Two months later and advocates for Mr. Meyers are still working the system and trying to get the decision turned. I understand that he is out of the house now and may, or may not have received compensation for the property (depends who is asked).

eminent domain
n
1. (Law) law the right of a state to confiscate private property for public use, payment usually being made to the owners in compensation