A Word on Property Rights

Majority of NEEA members are property owners within this area, others, are long-time area residents. For some of us, this land has been in our family for generations. Property rights seem to be more top of mind in rural areas compared to urban areas. Perhaps it is because rural property owners tend to own a lot more land than the average home owner in the city. More importantly, it is probably because many rural land owners depend on using their land to earn a living.

One major difference between the plan area and other areas where individuals rely on their land to earn a living, is that this is urban land. It may appear rural, but it has been part of the City of Edmonton, pegged for eventual development and urban land for 30 years.

NEEA believes property rights are important, and that all landowner’s rights should be respected, regardless of rural or urban. However, I am sure we can all agree land use varies greatly between rural and urban, as do broadly accepted expectations of what can and can’t happen on that land.

Throughout the history of this plan area, property rights have been respected. When the land was annexed 30 years ago, no one was forced to sell their land. Recognizing the inevitable development signalled by the annexation, some landowners chose to sell; others chose to consider new ways to do business.

Now, 30 years after the first step towards development, NEEA believes property rights are still being respected. Landowners and residents have had tremendous opportunities to be involved in the planning process, through public open houses and the Stakeholder Advisory Group, as have other community groups who do not own land.

Because some land owners rely on their land to earn a living, some growing vegetables, their property rights are respected, and these uses are reflected in the plan for the area. All land currently being used by major vegetable producers to grow produce are retained in the draft plan as agricultural use. No land being used to grow vegetables by major producers are marked to be turned into houses or condos or shopping centres. It is protected in the proposed plan for this purpose.

This was done because this is what these landowners wanted; their property rights are being respected. The proposed plan was designed with this in mind. The draft plan goes even further than respecting property rights in relation to agriculture use. The plan has considered other ways to integrate agriculture into this urban community and create a unique neighbourhood. It proposes designating another 11 hectares along the utility corridors and rail rights of way as agriculture, and using some of the City’s park land for community gardens.

What’s been so disappointing is that while these landowner’s property rights were completely respected, some still suggest ignoring their neighbours’ property rights by essentially sterilizing a large tract of land –600 hectares-- and designating the land for only agriculture use. The rights of landowners who want their land to remain agricultural are being respected. And so too should the rights of landowners who don’t want their land designated as agricultural.

Join NEEA. Send an email to NEEAandfriends@gmail.com