6 - North Shore News - Sunday, June 18, 2000

VIEW POINT—

Terminally deaf

A CHEMIST WHOS WORKIN
a AWAY To FEED THE Wo
ABNING...A UNWERSITY
te STWOYING STRIPS...

WE GOT A TEAM
DEVELOPING A CURE

CH part of “listen” does
BC Ferries president Bob
Lingwood not understand?

The CEO of the beleaguered Crown
corporation had the gall Tuesday to tell
a crowd of some 150 local residents
that “we're certainly trying to improve
(and) we're trying to listen.”

OK, Bob, the message is simple:
Horseshoe Bay residents don’t want
your. planned expansion of the ferry

revised or not, because they
don't want to play host to the Nanaimo
ferry route any longer. Did you not
hear that az the meeting, or is selective

":. deafness one of the side-effects of wad-

ing through too much red ink.

* ” - How much rock will or will not be
‘removed from under the Upper Levels
Highway is not really the issue, nor is
the size of expanded parking com-
pound. Bay residents are gagging on

you said it

ferry-bound automobiles and wherever
they end up parked won’t reduce traffic
or pollution.

And if a third Lower Mainland ferry
terminal is anticipated why spend $27
million now? Lingwood says a new
route won’t happen for at least 15
years. Why not? Where are the 15-year
capital planning figures? What traffic

projections support the status quo? Are _

the studies there or is this a best guess
here along the lines of “fast ferries
would be a good idea”?

And if a new provincial government
came along that wasn’t in bed with the
unions and wanted to conduct its own
capital planning exercises, wouldn’t it
be interesting to weigh the ballooning
costs of Island ferry service projected
by this Crown corporation, against the
cost of a bridge across the Strait of
Georgia? |

G00 LORD! WILL

THESE FRIVOLOUS

APPLICATIONS EVER
CEASE?!

“FEDERAL GRANTS

FUND THE STRIPPERS
AND TL OTHERS
TOGET LOST.

Musqueam face-off hurts: natives

ere he came from ' or how he got on there nobody
around the $28,000 figure. ‘Last week the

He just walked into th _ the band’s refusal to entertai any co

knows. -
money, was there and he helped himself.”

¢ captain's cabin and the

nan Bob Smee and 3 group of quick- thinking long-

nabbed

would-be thief who somehow got on

tanker ship.at- Vancouver Wharves and was making.

ver $5,000 troi

the ¢ captain’ s cabin. (From a June

‘playing soccer on the

ve just crying for places to play-

iste fi lds doesn’t really solve
cility that can be played on 24 ©

> yay
Larry Reta xecutive irector of provincial hi

all. eed for a multi-ficld sports faci

paper. I found iti in the forest on.

eaten but at least it’s back.”
nan ann

igh school -

ity at the -
ite-in North Varcouver (From a June 14

ous note placed. around the ;
longing to “81-year-old Emily _

a‘memento of her. deceased . .

Europe Seanally
reputation in the’
fe can Play fe fes

era in Montreal,-on becoming known

ii Canada. (From a June 16 News This Week .

NON-NATIVE Musqueam lease-
holders, facing loss of homes and
equity after a

7,000% rent hike,

won’t be the only

losers if their

appeal, now before

the Supreme

-Court, fails.

First, up to speed on.
the facts. The 75 Icase-
hold lots are on 16

‘attractive Musqueam

reserve hectares close to
a golf course in.tony
southwest Vancouver, The original 99-°-

year leases, issued in 1965, were locked in

for 30 years by the federal government at
a modest $400 per year.

-. Today, the BC Assessment Authority
values one of these typical “estate-size
lots at $661,000. And in kecping with

4, the lot size, the houses built on them by.

leascholders were also “above average” in

.., size and quality — current average BCAA
-valuation of such improvements being |
“$100,000.

Mcanwhile, by the end of the 30- year

* fease Ortawa had handed over the task of-

setting new lease rents to the band coun-
cil. Citing skyrocketed real estate prices |

- since 1965, the Musqueam band upped
‘the rent of the leases by some 7, 000% to
around $28,000 annually.

The. Federal. Court knocked this back **
an average $10,000 per year on the

unds that the homes were worth 50% -
ss On the open market than comparable . :

homes off the reserve.

The Musqueam appealed and succeed: ~ *
ed in having the. Federal Court’s ruling ©

*« the rents went

Icascholders’ final appeal fora return to.
the $10,000 level opened in the Supreme
Court of Canada.
The bottom line of this.

- all-round dog’s dinner is
very simple. Realtors
and leaseholders alike
agree that the market
value of the homes is
now precisely zcro.

So who loses what?
For starters, legal costs
* to date are estimated at
./ $1 million-plus for
| leaseholders and the
_—/ same again for the
Musqueam, Many of the former are .
retired seniors living on pensions and any

~ personal savings. If their final court
appeal fails and rents remain at the unaf-

fordable $28,000 level ($2,333 per

“‘month), they stand to lose not only their:
*” deal with them?:

homes but also the sometimes consider-
able cash equity in their upscale but now.
unsaleable residences. They would be
evicted by the band for non-payment of
rent while also losing every cent of their ;
entire personal investment:

Ottawa, too, could pay quite dear!
for its idiotic-30-year rent freeze whic

"rejection of any form of nego!

'

denied the Musqucam the opportunity to,

profit from the red-hot real estate-market
of those decades with manageable, step>
by-step rent-hikes. If the band’s rental -

income — instead of soaring to $28, 090.

promise on its abrupt 7,000% increase
thar has made the properties worth]
and will keep them that way. Who in th
right mind among non- natives would
ever again lease tand from an Indian? /

that being the case, what an earth does

the band council do with all those
empty
members on welfare? .-
An even bigger loss, ho
effect of the band’s ruthlessly. suubbo
ce

today’s reali
Coupled with the Sech
recent reneging on a tre
av inciple it-had already, signe
usqueam have further. bad]

entire, treaty proc

-more Indian bands throug!
Tf this is how. nati
_non-natives ever hop

+ pointing ‘outa pace
“* June 11 column on Sepaza

all

lot —— now drops to zero (or almost) pas

ecause the tinsaleable lots are aban- :
doned, it would, in all fairness, have 2 .

; powerful case for compensation from the

federal Bo vernment.  --
But by far the biggest losers are the: ;

. .Musqueam themselves — .and, by'exten-

ion, fellow natives throug ut B.C. It’s

: “LETTERS T9 THE EDITOR mus clude your
fame, full. address and. telephone. nutnber
trenshaw@nsnews.com

Managing Editor :
B S8S-2131 (116)

what it used to:

~ Peter: De Vries!)

fh