Jordan River
#41
Posted 08 March 2010 - 05:58 PM
#42
Posted 08 March 2010 - 06:22 PM
#43
Posted 09 March 2010 - 07:53 AM
An impact assessment for a town site would be very interesting.
I wonder if revenue from development of the JR parcels could have paid for the purchase of the Weeks Lake and Sooke Hills properties....
#44
Posted 10 March 2010 - 08:57 AM
All trees on private land have to pay fees to the government if the trees are sold. No timber can be sold in BC without a timber mark and private land owners need to have a timber market to sell their timber.
#45
Posted 10 March 2010 - 09:01 AM
Bernard - the analysis that you did is good - 4-7 harvesting jobs sounds reasonable. There is another side to the analysis that needs to be done. What is the job gain from having the area dedicated as parkland? I can't give an answer to this, but factors like increased number of B&B's, guiding opportunities, increased general tourism, etc. would need to be taken into account.
Tourism is hard to measure at the best of times. How much impact parkland will have on tourism is almost impossible to measure. Have tried to work on this numerous times in the past.
There is no strong data anywhere to indicate that there is a correlation between the creation of park land and better tourism receipts.
To replace the 4-7 forestry jobs in terms of raw income, you would need 15 to 20 tourism jobs.
#46
Posted 10 March 2010 - 09:26 AM
This is the JR thread, but I think just as interesting is that the purchase pretty much completes the sea to sea greenbelt - there is now park from Tod Inlet to Sooke.
If a good multi use trail network is developed and marketed it could be an amazing draw.
#47
Posted 13 July 2011 - 07:33 PM
This is about the controversial cabin development close to the Juan de Fuca trail.
The story is bizarre.
Juan de Fuca Trail resort moves a shaky step closer
Region may end up suing itself over contentious proposal
Read more: http://www.timescolo...l#ixzz1S2ydo8LQ
#48
Posted 14 July 2011 - 06:21 AM
The article states pretty clearly that with the land being in private hands, either the resort is built and 84% of the land used as park, or the land is logged and then subdivided for development.
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
#49
Posted 14 July 2011 - 07:00 AM
#50
Posted 14 July 2011 - 09:31 AM
#51
Posted 14 July 2011 - 09:49 AM
#52
Posted 18 July 2011 - 07:30 AM
The proposed development is the best solution for protection of the trail, a development that is keeping with the area, profit for the owner, and cost to the public.
#53
Posted 18 July 2011 - 09:04 AM
Victoria current weather by neighbourhood: Victoria school-based weather station network
Victoria webcams: Big Wave Dave Webcams
#54
Posted 18 July 2011 - 09:15 AM
Better than no development?
That means either the developer gives up the land or the government pays for it. Neither one is ideal.
The development means most of the land will become park, or be in a park-like form. The millions it would cost to buy the whole property is not worth the incremental increase in the amount of land that is protected.
Government spending to buy this land means something else will have to be forgone. Certainly there are locations around the CRD that are in much greater need of protection.
The current proposed development is a very good compromise between all the interests at play.
#55
Posted 18 July 2011 - 10:07 AM
#56
Posted 18 July 2011 - 12:52 PM
#57
Posted 14 September 2011 - 01:57 PM
Individualy developed? There is a problem with this if there is no electrical power on site - the power line along Hwy#14 I believe is a small scale transmission line to Port Renfrew and is not designed offer service along the road. To build a house there you would have to bring in the distribution line and this would be a very expensive thing to do.
Most likely the properties will be clear cut from boundary to boundary sometime between 2033 and 2043.
For the CRD or the province to buy this land will cost something like $8,000,000 to $10,000,000. $8,000,000 is my best estimate of fair market value for the land. The extra money to buy would be the range to allow for a price the owner would be willing to accept. No one is going to expropriate this land, I am not even sure the government could legally expropriate this land as there is a test you have to meet to expropriate
#58
Posted 14 September 2011 - 02:59 PM
Was allowing the development to proceed the only realistic way to preserve the trails?
#59
Posted 14 September 2011 - 04:41 PM
So it can still be logged and clear cut? I suppose if it is privately owned but can't be built on what else is there to do with it?
Was allowing the development to proceed the only realistic way to preserve the trails?
The options are:
- The owner preserves the land within a development
- The owner gives the land to the province
- The province and/or the CRD buys the land
- A conservancy group like the TLC buys the land
- The land is sold as individual parcels
- Or it is logged
Number 1 has been shot down. Number 2 is unrealistic.
Number 3 is not likely given the realistic cost of around $8,000,000 for the land. The province rarely buys land to protect it as the province already has 93%+ of the land in the province in Crown Lands. The CRD does not have the money to buy it.
Number 4 is unrealistic because the amount of money needed is more than any of the groups can raise.
Number 5 could happen, but I can not see that happening if there is no power to the properties. The timber value is high enough that average price of each property is over $1,000,000. It is a lot of money for a property that has no power and no water front access.
Number 6 - this is what the plans were for the land before they were sold and the most economically valuable use for the land if a development as Ilkay proposed can not go ahead.
Given the lots and their location, they do not make an attractive package to do a long term ecoforestry type of project. Clearcutting is the fate within 20 years or so.
I assume the lands will classified as managed forest lands which means normal municipal bylaws do not apply to the lands with respect to trees and such.
The only other possible solution that comes to mind would be the Feds buying the lands to make part of a settlement with the local First Nations. Though I do not think that would thrill people that opposed this project as the Pachedaht were in favour of the development. If they have the land there is no way for the CRD or BC to say no to the development. There is little danger of settlement any time soon it seems
#60
Posted 14 September 2011 - 04:50 PM
The options are:
Number 4 is unrealistic because the amount of money needed is more than any of the groups can raise.
- The owner preserves the land within a development
- The owner gives the land to the province
- The province and/or the CRD buys the land
- A conservancy group like the TLC buys the land
- The land is sold as individual parcels
- Or it is logged
TLC is having difficulty raising money ever since their internal turmoil two years ago. Donations have dried up since the recession, and could stay that way in light of the state of world economies.
TLC would likely have to remortgage all its "saved" properties to buy the land, which would result in their downfall.
Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users