‘Tm sorry. to ‘tell: you" ~ as far as “the law “e th harp drop i in the ) value of f your property. concerned + = - that. you’ re: ‘wasting your time. - ‘Legally, >" a pair Of attractive new side- . “ -by-side - homes ~ which‘ ‘meet © every. requirement of. the a ~ building Fegulations.” “As. i: ‘piore has‘held. and paid taxes on a _’ tract of land for a couple of . decades * can, down-zoning it; in the public interest, to. parkland. MUNICIPAL ACT | He has no redress: at law for the fact-that his property has-been rendered valueless: to him overnight. - These. are ‘the: rather ; revelations . con tained i in a Section: of West. , startling BOT will - 4 nst iia | | probe | plans" The Vancouver Board of Trade, in an attempt to _ assess quickly the relative merits of alternate sports stadium Proposals for Vancouver, has formed a special committee under the chairmanship of Ron Granholm, president of Johnston Terminals Ltd. VBOT President Alex Hart emphasizes that the purpose of the committee is to gather and assess existing material and not to generate new information. Such a non- partisan approach will provide the necessary ingredients for the Van- “ couver Board of Trade to suggest a course of “action which will serve to expedite the satisfactory resolution of the sports, stadium con- troversy. Assistance is sought from the various groups involved. Any members of the general public who wish to provide useful material are invited to do so, in writing and as soon as possible, to The Van- couver Board of Trade, 1177 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, B.C. V6E 2K3. Lowest Pricea! Best Deals! = ry Pw Bp terdt iteatiuMments Creative Music Leysons Rentiin Repaits 1348 Marina Or,. W.V. | Ambleside 996-7227 pee a “you re" “not: ‘ene titled. to. a red. -cent,. even: ; though. you've paid. taxes on _ _ the land. for “10 years. and ‘have: had plans drawn ‘up for - extreme example, ‘a developer who. in theory, ‘awake one ‘morning to find that the’ local: ‘council has - ‘voted: to ‘ban ‘any develop- ment. whatsoever on his . chunk’ of ‘realestate by ~ ‘opinion, “law,” .,. to Vancouver’ 'S- “The situation arises from a clause in B.C.’s: Municipal _ Act which expressly absolves a municipality from: liability ~ for. any loss. sufféred by a. ~ ‘property owner as_the result -of -a. change in zoning — regardless of how long the ‘earlier zoning has been in force. — In the municipal solicitor’s says the draft community plan, this clause could theoretically enable a ~ .council to restrict the use “of ‘all or any” land in the municipality so as “to make its. development, for all ‘practical purposes, im- — Possible.” “The philosophy of the ‘it continues, “a that~ be Council, Ee FROM PAGE A1 The resolution recalls that the principle of paying property taxes by in- stalments actually received . the blessing of the provincial government 17 years ago. Following a UBCM recommendation in 1962 a new section (381A) of the Municipal Act was in- troduced, empowering municipalities to pass an instalment-payment bylaw. In effect, however, the benefits apparently offered to municipalities by the new Section 381A were nullified by two subsections, (6) and (7). These subsections allowed an individual taxpayer to be exempted, at will, from conforming to an instalment- payment bylaw thus making a uniform = in- oamed _tecently , " published : draft community .- _ plan dealing with the legal.‘ - ;, implications of development . and growth: They-apparently. apply not-only to West.Van_ but equally to all other B Cc. - municipalities. _ _ «-. <:@uplex zoning bylaw : and the. : (even. when, as in this ‘case,...- ‘motivated’ by | its view of the. public - interest, should- ‘not - - be hindered in ‘the exercise — - of its powers to restrict, land | use by a fear that c for. - always be free. to re-zone. ‘Provided it does so in what it compensation will swamp the municipality's financial 7 -Tesources.” However, it’s not only the . B.C: Municipal Act that you're up against. The highest courts.in the country have also come down firmly on the side of municipalities. . SUPREME COURT | Quoted in this section of West Van's draft community plan is the case of a Win- stalment-payment system impossible to operate. The present West Van resolution asks Victoria to remove subsections (6) and (7). This, it says, would leave to the discretion of each municipality the option of introducing a uniform in- stalment-payment plan binding upon all property taxpayers. The result would be to place municipaliti€és on the same footing as businesses, by providing a year-round “cash flow”. -nipeg’ ‘developer. who. ‘went — ahead with his building plans - after duly receiving. council.” : - this’. to: change’ the” goalposts | in” as the middle of the game =~ ‘although ‘at. ‘least | one: case authorization. . Later,.. council. -authorization | owas “-, quashed by a court,’ ‘on ‘the -. application. ‘of ratepayers _ : opposed to the development, __ as being. illegal. ‘The landowner, ‘having . ' meanwhile paid’ -out some - appreciable sums.of money, not unnaturally. sued council for damages... . His* bid . for: _. .€ompensation was. ‘thrown |: _out by the Manitoba Court of -- ' , Appeal “and, ‘subsequently, * - by. the. ‘Supreme’. ‘Court: of ~. : . Canada ~