The Icelandic Canadian - 01.03.1974, Side 30

THE ICELANDIC CANADIAN
SPRING 1974
proceeding with projects of some kind
—buildings, different types of centres
for service in a community and even
roads. When a government expends
public money on these various pur-
poses, it is also aware that people
along the side of these developments
gain an economic benefit. Even when
a mere change of zoning is allowed on
a property, the value of that property
may very well sky-rocket. Our Govern-
has not yet taken steps to stop others
from profiting from this unearned
increment in land values. Whether it
is righ or wrong—it is going on all
the time.
How can it be said this is wrong
for the Hecla Islanders and therefore
they should not be allowed to keep
their land? The Islanders say that this
gain is not what they are after. Their
wants are basic, not speculative. How
can we fairly use this argument
against them? There are other parks
in this province in which there is pri-
vate land. There does not appear to be
any attempt to take away any in-
creased value that may result to those
holdings.
The question is therefore put “Why
the Hecla Islanders?” “Why are they
to be treated any differently from
anyone else in society?”
. . . I cannot say that it is reasonably
necessary that the Parks Branch own
that land which is presently being
used for the homes of the people on
the Island.
Another consideration is that the
Parks Branch is still considering con-
dominiums on tlecla Island. If this
were allowed, then there would be a
type of private ownership introduced
into the Parks policy.
AS TO THE PERMANENT
RESIDENTS:
On the other hand, the question
has to be asked whether a public park
cannot exist even though residents
who have made objections are allowed
to retain their land.
On this question there is no doubt
that however convenient it may be for
the Government to have title to all
the land in the park in its own hands,
it cannot be said that expropriation is
reasonably necessary for the achieve-
ment of the objectives of the expropri-
ating authority.
The expropriating authority could
still, and without any difficulty, ac-
complish all its objectives within the
land already owned.
When I conclude that an expropri-
ation is not necessary, it is for these
reasons.
On the question of “Whether the In-
tended Expropriation is Fair
I am directed by the Expropriat-
ing Act, not only to consider whether
the expropriation is reasonably neces-
sary for the achievement of the objec-
tives of the expropriating authority,
but I am also directed to inquire into
whether the intended expropriation is
fair.
I have tried to consider fairness
from several aspects. Fairness, as relat-