Buying back our waterway access points ++

[OldTimer]

Here’s a different thought …….

Seems a lot of time, effort and money are spent on artificially maintaining “suitable” ongoing “current mob pleasing” populations of introduced Pacific Salmon, or in trying to re-establish natural populations of regionally extinct Atlantic Salmon.

I see in the future ongoing surrounding, intruding, and development of the lands having Great Lake tributaries flowing through them.

In my thoughts I’d rather see these (or a portion of these) fish stocking funds spent to buy back such river/stream perimeter lands from all private interests, and then establish much more public access land along these watercourses - for all to enjoy going forward - permanently. They don’t need development – just a way to prevent their commercial use and get rid of any “no-trespassing” signs now or in the future.

Plus - Rainbow, it seems to me, have proven established naturally reproducing populations at many sites here in Ontario. Perhaps they should be the more popular, and plausible, choice for species maintenance/enhancement going forward.

It is "our" money you know. We collectively get to say how it's spent, and on what.

Comments?

Cheers,

OldTimer

[MuskieBait]

You'll rapidly bankrupt the MNR quickly with this...

For example...

A lake side property on any of the Muskoka lake is in the multimillion dollar range. Even a small rustic cottage on the shore of Lake Muskoka will cost $1 mil. You just want to buy land to create access...

In urban areas, even, for example sake, a river side property on an eastern trib, you're looking at several hundred thousand dollars.

Practically, how many plots of land can be purchased per year with that cost?

And also to be considered...where do we pick these locations to buy back from property owners?

Remember, just because it is the government, it doesn't mean you'll get it at a discounted price either. If I have some prime waterfront property, I'll be selling it to the highest bidder...and I'm a fishing enthusiast. The average property owner will do the same as well. You'll not be buying the property at a discount rate...worse, you may be getting it at a premium just because it's the government and all the bureaucracy that goes along with it...

It's an interesting idea, but not feasible at all...

---

Here's an idea...

Enact a legislation that guarantees public access to waterfront areas in ALL FUTURE development. Developers are required to maintain a public access corridor of a certain width of public land at the fringe of their development plot that allows for access to launch boats, snowmobiles, or for anglers to fish from shore. These access can be left fallow...or MNR can take the responsibility to develop these areas with public launches and/or fishing areas.

On lakes that is being annexed into land for private sale, the government is required to appropriate certain plots of land for public access in similar manner. This can be calculated as a percentage of land intended for private ownership (for example...of the aggregated area land around the lake intended for private ownership, 0.1% of that land should be reserved for public access).

It is hard to look back and change the past...better to change the future.

[OldTimer]

(03-20-2014 11:40 AM)MuskieBait Wrote:  You'll rapidly bankrupt the MNR quickly with this...

For example...

A lake side property on any of the Muskoka lake is in the multimillion dollar range. Even a small rustic cottage on the shore of Lake Muskoka will cost $1 mil. You just want to buy land to create access...

In urban areas, even, for example sake, a river side property on an eastern trib, you're looking at several hundred thousand dollars.

Practically, how many plots of land can be purchased per year with that cost?

And also to be considered...where do we pick these locations to buy back from property owners?

Remember, just because it is the government, it doesn't mean you'll get it at a discounted price either. If I have some prime waterfront property, I'll be selling it to the highest bidder...and I'm a fishing enthusiast. The average property owner will do the same as well. You'll not be buying the property at a discount rate...worse, you may be getting it at a premium just because it's the government and all the bureaucracy that goes along with it...

It's an interesting idea, but not feasible at all...

It's plenty feasible. Think bigger......... and beyond your home town and personal interests

Half full pal.......... half full.

Firstly where did I specifically mention Muskoka or urban centres.

There's plenty more acreage that is undeveloiped (at all) north of the QEW, 403, 407, and 401 for lake Ontario............ then the list would explode in size on the other Great Lakes.

Cheers,

OldTImer

[MuskieBait]

I'm already thinking bigger, OT. That's my whole point about thinking toward the future...the undeveloped land...which you can actually control going forward. It is the future development that we need to worry about...not the areas that are already developed. The government has control over the land and how to zone or allocate that land. You don't necessarily need to buy back land to control its use.

For example, government do not need to buy back land to build stormwater ponds. They just need to enact a requirement that developers must incorporate a stormwater pond on property of the developed areas. It is very common now in many municipalities. For example:

http://www.brampton.ca/en/residents/Road...ponds.aspx

It is up to MNR, MOE and the provincial government to push for this by creating those legislature to apply these requirements on developers...if you want a consistent province wide approach.

Along the same lines of requiring public access on developed land, the government can also enact legislature to require the reservation of land surrounding a tributaries to serve as a riparian zone, in much the same argument as they use for the requirement of stormwater ponds (to prevent erosion, flooding, conserving habitat...etc). A strip of several hundred meters of land to be reserved on each side of the watercourse bank can be reserved...and this land will allow for public access in the future. There is no need to buy back any land.

As you are familiar with situation in Florida, there is a ribbon of land surrounding all of the bigger urban canals that is zoned off for municipal and state access to maintain the canals. When the land was developed, this was required by the municipality and state such that developers cannot build on that land. Such restriction can be done in Ontario.

BTW, there is no home town or personal interest in this discussion from the start. If there was any personal interest, I would actually push hard for buying back urban land instead of dumping money to protect access to northern lakes that I rarely, if ever, fish anyways. But my view is broader than just my immediate needs. This issue is about protecting undeveloped lakes that are currently considered "remote" but steadily being developed into "private" lakes surrounded by more million dollar cottages that I will never be able to afford. It is also about protecting access to water when urban sprawl is moving northward and the many smaller creeks, ponds and lakes that will be developed into neighbourhoods in the future. When you have land that is not developed, the government has the most control and it is not necessary to buy back any of it.

Unless your point is to buy back sufficient land to create new parkland areas...

[OldTimer]

(03-20-2014 02:16 PM)MuskieBait Wrote:  I'm already thinking bigger, OT. That's my whole point about thinking toward the future...the undeveloped land...which you can actually control going forward. It is the future development that we need to worry about...not the areas that are already developed. The government has control over the land and how to zone or allocate that land. You don't necessarily need to buy back land to control its use.

For example, government do not need to buy back land to build stormwater ponds. They just need to enact a requirement that developers must incorporate a stormwater pond on property of the developed areas. It is very common now in many municipalities.

It is up to MNR, MOE and the provincial government to push for this by creating those legislature and put pressure on developers.

BTW, there is no home town or personal interest in this discussion from the start. If there was any personal interest, I would actually push hard for buying back urban land instead of dumping money to protect access to northern lakes that I rarely, if ever, fish anyways. But my view is broader than just my immediate needs. This issue is about protecting undeveloped lakes that are currently considered "remote" but steadily being developed in "private" lakes surrounded by more million dollar cottages that I will never be able to afford. It is also about protecting access to water when urban sprawl is moving northward and the many smaller creeks, ponds and lakes that will be developed into neighbourhoods in the future. When you have land that is not developed, the government has the most control and it is not necessary to buy back any of it.

Unless your point is to buy back sufficient land to create new parkland areas...

Yes - It is the urban sprawl that needs be addressed - and was my point.................i.e do it now BEFORE it gets rezoned from green space or agricultural to any sort of residential or business zoning.

Rezoning it as "protected" and "unbuildable" is even better and would effectively stop any development WHILE reducing it's value to the owner.

Exactly the kind of thoughts that "should be" promoted my us - and not just to the MNR, or MOE, but to the federal, provincial, regional governments, cities and towns................ all have $.

Creation of parks etc is nice......... but may attract thoughts of improvements,.... followed by "managing" needs and costs, followed by funding needs.... etc........... eventually resulting in parking meters and user fees......... followed by policing costs.......... and the spiral continues. Why cant we just get (or freeze it) and leave it natural as it is - a lot of these areas seem to be doing fine so far.

As a province we had no problem at all dropping 400 to 750 million (or more) dollars to fund power plants that will never exist. That money alone would have bought ..........as an example (and not specifically) - surrounding Bronte Creeks lands from Highway 5 to Lowville... with lots left over.

Cheers,

OT

[MuskieBait]

I view the issue as more than just urban sprawl, but also development and spread of "cottage country". I talked to friends who are contractors and they are worries more and more of the Haliburton area is being developed as Muskoka is getting saturated and unaffordable. So you have "cottage sprawl" as well. Like I said, to develop a province wide consistent policy, you need the provincial government to do it. Can we still depend on the federal government? They are taking more and more away from us as we speak. Municipal bylaws are hard to control as each municipality (and the mayor as well as the counsellors may have varying degree of "interest" in this matter).

Again, it is not a money issue. You don't need money to require developers to set aside land for public access...unless you are blackmailing them. You need a policy that is enforced...such that it is either compliance, or the land does not get developed.

[OldTimer]

(03-20-2014 03:29 PM)MuskieBait Wrote:  I view the issue as more than just urban sprawl, but also development and spread of "cottage country". I talked to friends who are contractors and they are worries more and more of the Haliburton area is being developed as Muskoka is getting saturated and unaffordable. So you have "cottage sprawl" as well. Like I said, to develop a province wide consistent policy, you need the provincial government to do it. Can we still depend on the federal government? They are taking more and more away from us as we speak. Municipal bylaws are hard to control as each municipality (and the mayor as well as the counsellors may have varying degree of "interest" in this matter).

Again, it is not a money issue. You don't need money to require developers to set aside land for public access...unless you are blackmailing them. You need a policy that is enforced...such that it is either compliance, or the land does not get developed.

Yes - but sometimes it's a case of pay me now........ or pay me (possibly much more) later.

Land usage pledges are not blackmail - they are creative "soft extortion".... smile.....(Consider "either compliance or else")........ and can be politically or emotionally or etc. motivated........smile 2.

Subject lands are not currently in developers hands. Adding land usage pledges to them could possibly lead to inflated sale prices on the balance of the land and/or erected buildings, hence local COL index & inflation effects.

OT