They only own down to the high tide mark. anyone is free to access the beach by water and use it. If a trail can be built on an adjacent property the same applies. If I owned the property i ;might allow access but I'd close it as soon as I had to start pick up other prople's garbage. maybe they decided to forego the inevitable.

Unfortunately the freaks on Cortes forget private property laws. It is private property. There is no obligation or requirement for the owner to allow public access, period.

Besides, allowing public access opens the property to huge liablities - what if one of the peaceful hippy islanders gets hurt on the beach? What if the two old fisherman's beach fire is the cause of a forest fire on the property? Will Tzeporah Berman and her Greenpeace buddies cover costs and any lawsuits resulting? I doubt it.

Actually, it would be nice to see Tzeporah Berman on an island without ferry access so we here a lot less from that whiner, but that's another story.

So get real Cortes Island. There is a world with rules outside of your hippy utopia, and despite living on Cortes, you ARE subject to it.

One day, my wife, children and I went for a boat ride. When we returned, several kayakers had landed on "our" beach for a picnic lunch. My daughter asked me why they were on our property, and I told her, "This isn't really our beach; it's the Queen's beach, and she says anybody can use it." (Medieval explanations work well with small children. Besides, it's the truth.)

Some of our non-waterfront neighbours cross our property in order to access the beach, and this has made us closer as neighbours.

Perhaps the Lippman's are old-school city folk who just don't get it. Maybe they will figure it out eventually. Fences don't work too well in the island world.

Look on any Royal Ordanance Survey Map of the UK and you will find in the legend a marking for a public footpath. This means that where ever there is a public footpath marked on the map, the public have a leagal right to walk upon it. I believe there is over 100,000 miles of public footpaths in the UK!

http://www.ramblers.org.uk/campaigns/footpaths.html

Great Britain (not just Wales) has a well-used system of public pathways which are ancient, but have survived through generations despite being amazingly intrusive.

I've walked the public path which goes through "Chartwell," the country estate of the British prime minister, for example ... right past the front gate, and on through the pasture to the roadside. There are no guards, warnings, or any visible form of policing.

All the trails are sign-posted very discreetly with an arrow saying "Public Path" and pointing the way onward. Sometimes one of these little signs seem almost unbelievable, pointing to a narrow space between houses in suburbia, but yes, they are still part of the public domain.

Civilization having grown up after the pathways (or perhaps because of them) it's nothing to be almost on the doorstep of a homeowner -- or traipsing right across a farmer's field -- or encountering a herd of cattle.

There's a sensible stipulation in British common law which says that unless a public path is walked at least twice a year, I think, its public ownership will lapse.

So of course, there's a volunteer British organization which records the walkers to ensure that, if a pathway hasn't been used recently, their members quick-march to their duty, so as to maintain these ancient routes as a public trust. It's a lovely, fair-minded tradition. All are equal. All, I found, greeted one another cordially in passing. It's a pleasant way to spend an afternoon pondering ancient societies.

It suits the British situation admirably, IMO, where people live in smaller houses in confined urban settings. The public pathways afford anybody the most wide-ranging enjoyment of the total landscape.

Perhaps it's in the British character too, that I saw no trash whatever. I wouldn't doubt but that most Brits would pick up any such garbage, rather than risk having it reflect badly on their privilege of using these ancient trails.

I notice a slight attitudinal difference between poindexter and the other posters, myself included.

Does anyone else note the contrast?

Perhaps it's just me.

BC Mary
You are correct about the footpath issue and I think they just had “Public walks day” Also the other posters are correct about the beach up to the High water mark is public. There is also an old law floating around that talks to a path being used by the public over private property may gain some distinction under the law, but I can’t look it up now.

yup I note the contrast..definitely..its not you.

poindexter opines:

It seems to me, however, that a key element of this story is missed by poindexter. Let me reiterate, from the story:

If there are indeed typical subdivision procedures such as public hearings required by whatever agency (Islands Trust?, Regional Board?) has oversight on Cortes Island, then the question of rights over this "private" property may require review.

In light of this Cotes Island dilemma, I'd like to draw attention to another water access issue; a more generalized one.

http://www.westcoastpaddler.com/community/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=338

In an email, Senator Pat Carney states:

From BC Senator Pat Carney: Campaign to Protect our Public Access to Public Beaches

British Columbians in the Gulf Islands are at risk of losing our public access to public beaches due to the failure of B.C.'s Ministry of Transportation (MOT) to protect our legal rights in the face of opposition by some waterfront property owners.

further:

Sorry, I don't have a date for this Pat Carney email.

I seem to remember an anecdote from somewhere about a sign in a farmer's field that said "Walkers may cross the field for free, but the bull charges."

On topic, the sensible thing to do in this case would be to get the community group concerned about access to chip in the labour and materials to build and maintain clearly marked path, and possibly to run periodic cleanups on the beach if litter is an issue. The story isn't clear on *why* the owners don't want access - they may be really concerned about liability or abuse of the property - some people can be complete pigs about not picking up after themselves. A shame, because then they only ruin it for themselves and everyone else. I also wonder where the existing path goes on the property - if it runs right through their front yard I can see why they might have privacy/security issues.

So Island Timberlands sells individual parcels of land to different buyers. They're not subdividing or rezoning anything, so why would they be subject public hearings?

You don't hold a public hearing to sell your house and property do you? Last time I checked it wasn't a requirement to hold public hearings before transfering property title.

THAT's the point grub.

poindexter the POINT is not what's ;egelly right, but what's morally right.

If I were "king for a day", the high water mark would be extended by about 50 meters, and all waterfront property would have public access... then we wouldn't have this problem.

read "legally" right in my previous post....

Well here's a news flash for you grub - you aren't king, the high water mark is the extent of public access, legal requirements are what rules here, and the Lippmans and Island Timberlands are in the right.

End of story!

all land is public, or should be.

We need to work very hard to ban private ownership and private property, it is the way the ruling class expolits us and deprives up of our heritage.

God forbid they ever get property rights in the constitution.

We should be looking to the beacons of socialist practice, such as Cuba, to show us the way.

Canadian's, inherently, have very little respect for private property and honest law abiding citizen's often see no wrong with criminal trespass because, "I'm not doing anything, I'm just walking through!" Ask anyone who owns a rural property or acerage if they don't agree with my statement.

The Lippmans should get a couple of 200lb snorting Rottweilers to solve the problem. For liability reasons they would be foolish to allow public access.

Speaking from experience with livestock here...it's not so much the walking through, it's the idiots who think it's OK tease or abuse the animals, leave garbage everywhere, and then get pissy and try to sue if they get hurt through their own massive stupidity. They're the reason that people do get so het up about trespassing and privacy rights, and unfortunately they're in the majority.

In America we can shoot trespassers. Legally! I was once forced to shoot over the heads of a young family to make my point. Better believe *they* got the message!
(Bleeding Hearts: Yes, the sheriff was concerned about my marksmanship and the two little ones, but I asked him whether he was running for office again next year and next thing you know, we're shaking hands and away he goes!)
I love my freedoms!

For 17 happy years, I lived on Pender Island, on ocean frontage.

Much like the British organization which guaranteed that their overland pathways were used regularly so as to remain in the public trust, there was a small group of Pender Island people who researched, re-discovered or opened up every public beach access on the island.

Some of these rights-of-way had become overgrown. Newcomers didn't know about them and everyone else, except the old-timers, began to forget. When this task got under way, one or two disputes flared up acrimoniously when the clean-out and opening-up got under way alongside somebody's peaceful estate.

But in the long run, I think it serves everyone best, if there's a normal point of entry onto the beaches which, after all, are part of the public domain. How else can people get onto the shoreline and tidal flats?

Pender Island also had an ancient trail which ran from the Otter Bay ferry landing to Irene Bay, a short-cut across private property which saved about a 10 km. drive. When the property was sold ... there was a controversy, which I think was eventually dropped because it involved very few people. But the issues are real.

I think a case can be made that a healthier community results from people being able to walk freely, enjoying the wonders of the environment.

"In America." God, what an obnoxious term. Last time I looked, "America" included about 8,700 miles of the land masses from the North Pole to the South Pole.
Do tell, modest godsChild, where are these other 34 Sovereign States and 800 million people when you refer to your homeland as "America?"

And does this flatulence explain how you can come onto this site, boasting about shooting a gun "over the heads of a young family" without expiring from utter humiliation.

I have an idea!

BC is big enough, that we could slice the whole province into chunks and float them out into the straits and Ocean, say, ten acres each. Then we could each have an entire island to ourselves, and the total say in who gets to se foot on it. Little boats to go visiting, lots of fun. I believe we would all be friendlier towards each other, if we were more territorially autonomous.

Worth thinkig about?

I own a property on which my father placed a perpetual easement for a public on the sea. The trail runs through our farm.

My father's belief, which the family shares, was that the land is here to be stewarded, including to provide access for others to enjoy views and nature. Many users are in our local community, but others also come from major nearby suburban and urban areas.

Unfortunately, not everyone obeys the signs regarding appropriate behaviour and there is occasional littering and disturbance of liverstock. We bear the resulting costs and inconvenience with a certain amount of swearing. The costs are not prohibitive, however, and the preservation of important community values is rarely free.

BC needs to introduce legislation to ensure that conversion of forest lands to other uses comes under the same processes for public hearings as legal changes of use. Local communities and regional districts need to specify the policies they will follow in such cases.

poindexter:

End of story!

I suppose you were singing from the same songsheet when the government saw fit to ignore the legally agreed to collective agreements of workers like the teachers.

If, on the other hand, you felt that the legislated contracts were the "legal requirements" then I guess it's not "End of story!". I guess laws can still be changed. What say you, poindexter?

frank2
Sounds sensible to me! Better than ‘godsChild's’ solution - which sounds a lot like Dick Cheney's approach to outdoor recreation!

Another method might be a fence with a locked gate to which locals would given a key so they could access the shore and help police the behavior of their guests - relieving, as it were, the owners of the onerous burden of supervision.

In the end, probably better for neighbours to work out a viable solution than for the state to regulate what would undoubtedly be a contentious issue. Either that or the municipality could take an easement corridor to ensure public access is maintained in perpetuity.

OH!! I thought this story was about land use issues on Cortes Island! My mistake!!

I say stick to the story grub, just because you lose the argument on this article doesn't mean you can jump to another topic to try to make it look like you know what you're talking about.

poindexter:

You're the one who said "end of story". As we know in BC, it's never the end of the story so long as the government cn change the legislation.

No public access to beaches is bullshit! There's a law there that needs writing.

Wherever you research public access in B.C., I'm fairly sure you'll find that even old land surveyors saw the need to mark out these narrow strips of land for ocean beach access. Not so sure about lakes.

Shipwrecks, man overboard, sailboats with a broken mast, fish-boats run down by ocean-going freighters in the dark where the crew got safely away and are awaiting rescue ... so many things go wrong out there on the saltchuck. Emergency rescues require beach access. Nobody could seriously imagine that these are frivolous ... even though people can enjoy these pathways on a free afternoon.

"Hank's Beach is a very important place for Cortes Island ecologically and culturally,"

OK, so if it is of so much ecological importance, why is Tzeporah so keen to have the public tramping around on it?

This is the classic conundrum of those who are a couple of ferry rides away from reality. They have fought the valiant fight to keep the big ugly forest companies from doing any harvesting on the private lands, and then they scream bloody murder when the companies sell the land. This is very much a rerun of what happened on Saltspring a few years back.

As an islander, and I won't disclose which one, I resent the implications that we are all hippies, or two ferry rides away from reality. There are nuts everywhere and not just on the islands.

This is an issue I will bring up to our regional director though, so we won't have the kind of disruption those on Cortes are having. I've found though, that it doesn't take long for "city folk" to loosen up, relax and realize that all that litigation worry rarely happens in an island lifestyle. The Lippmans will soon be leaving their doors unlocked, the key in the ignition and sitting on the beach with a campfire and having a good time with their fellow islanders.

I can see both points of the argument here but I wonder about legal liability issues. If I had such land and opened it to the general public, how do I ensure someone doesn't hurt themselves on it? A tree branch hits someone's head, I didn't clear some rocks and someone falls and breaks a leg, and so on. I'm not sure a private individual wants to assume that degree of liability.

Doesn't every island in The Islands Trust have an Official Community Plan?

Looks to me as if footpaths designated by historic usage could be brought under the same OCP umbrella as the parks, beach access trails, viewpoints, and certain public trails such as "The Heart Trail" on Pender Island, to relieve the property-owners of public liability. Easements are more familiar, and do this too, I think.

The Islands Trust mandate is to "preserve and protect" these jewels of geography for the benefit of all British Columbians.

There used to be -- and probably still is -- an island term: "Drawbridge Mentality." This referred to newcomers who, once they discovered the delights of a Gulf Island and moved there, then tried to prevent others from moving to "their" island.

There used to be -- and probably still is, too -- an ongoing duty to help newcomers adjust to life in Paradise. It's a process, not to be undertaken quickly.

The big question, for which I never did hear a definitive answer, is: what's the maximum population load for each Gulf Island? And even if you figure that out (probably based upon the limited sources of drinking water), how can incoming settlers be denied?

There's a simple answer, and several above have alluded to it:
1. Land below the high tide mark remains public.
2. If there is in fact a public use which has been open and uninterrupted for the requisite time period, then there's a legal public access "easement", to which the property and title are subject.

...So, if there is in fact history of public use, and conforms to the criteria above, it's enforceable. It there isn't such a history, there's no easement, no right of public access. All the rest is just rhetoric.

Many of the problems and possible solutions are contained in the section of the article entitled Tragedy of the commons.

"We need to resist the progressive enclosure of the commons at the macro-scale," says David Shipway, "or it undermines the principle of maintaining public access at the micro-scale with residential development.

percy:

What is the requisite time period? And how is public use defined or proven?

One of the factors I have been seeing with recreational property is that areas that used to be cheap and were bought up by lower to mid-middle class families are now being sold and bought for close to or above 1,000,000. the type of people that can afford to put down that money often are more interested in privacy and have higher expectations from the local infrastructure than the previous residents. Also the concept that many of these Islands have a limited water supply and limited options for sewage and waste disposal comes as a shock to many people that have lived only in a city.

Our family had a place on Capilano river, we used to allow Fisherman and families down to the river, but had problem with large groups of kids partying and it could get quite ugly at times. Not to mention my dogs getting cut by broken glass from the beer bottles.

BC Mary,

I don't believe the Discovery Islands are in the Island Trust. I think their jurisdiction is from Denman/Hornby south.

Percy,

"If there is in fact a public use which has been open and uninterrupted for the requisite time period, then there's a legal public access "easement", to which the property and title are subject."

What are you talking about? There is no such law or even common understanding. The "historic" use over private land was never challenged in the past because the owners were a large forest company with little presence on the site. The new owners inheretted no lingering duties and common sense says they are within their rights to only allow access to those whom they wish to give access to.

I suppose if an oil tanker were to split open in front of the beach the Lippmans would insist that the taxpayer help out with the clean up. Many properties have public easements attached to the title. Why not here?

On the other hand, my sister holds a sizable piece of property along the Columbia River. I couldn't imagine them denying anyone access to the river through their property. But I could understand their reasoning if a 'no tresspassing' sign suddenly appeared. My brother in law cut down a couple of trees to improve access for the public and the Province levied a hefty fine upon him for expressing his community spirit.

In 1946 after the War my family purchased(VLA) a 3 acre hobby farm in Lynn Valley. The property deadended at least three adjoining streets or avenues. We inherited the shortcut walkthroughs from various neighbours..there being not many cars around then. There was never much problem except maybe old Mr. Googan who was pretty much deaf and talked to himself as he walked through...quite loudly and completely unbeknownst to himself I guess. This could sometimes be a little startling but was never a big deal.
There was an informal, kind of protocol with the folks passing through to the bus stop or Village shopping area (The Centre)..they walked quietly and efficiently with their heads down and eyes downcast..they moved quietly(Except old Googan though he didn`t know it) They respected our privacy. We in turn were to respect their privacy and if we had to say hello or whatever you were met with a polite nod but no conversation. Of course you were always welcome in their homes..(they were`nt unneighbourly or in any way unfriendly) to drop in for fresh raspberries and cream and conversation..

I don`t know that firing a shotgun blast over Mr. Googans head would really have made much difference..for one we never owned any guns and he wouldn`t have hear it anyway.

Percy, I think the public use access or use by people other than the owners had to be for 20 uniterupted years without objection by the owner.

However, I seem to remember that may have been turfed thanks to lobbying by the types who wanted to put private property rights within the constitution.

I must offer a very hearty and belated thank you to Pierre Trudeau for ensuring private property rights are not and never likely will be included as though if had something to do with justice.

DogsChild, if you tried that cute little trick anywhere in Canada you'd get what you deserve, tossed in the slammer where you belong despite your surplus pesos.

I'd encourage you to stay on your private property in the US because we really don't need people as ugly as you wandering around posing a danger to Canadians.

If I had to bet money, I'd bet Dog's Child is a fake, just like Ron Erwin and Nemesis were fakes. (Geez, where did those guys go? Sniff.)

Real nutcases would make a better case, wouldn't they?

Odds that he's real: 1 in 6.

godsChild is a put on...

LOL

I think godsChild was a clever satire on the libertarian neo-lib anarcho-Capitalist mindset.
I`m sure he/she must regret seriously hurting some feelings on the fish farm thread.
bob

Who gets to use Hank's Beach?

If the new property owner succeeds in blocking all public access to Hank's Beach, this means that Mr & Mrs Lippman will virtually own Hank's Beach without having paid a penny for it.

As much as one of the more objectionable aspects of the whole private ownership of "some" lands, what is manifest here more than anything is the class division of society within the system of capitalism, and the unequal share distribution and rights attached thereto.

Capitalism is organized theft. This is just another one of those places where we see it in action, and in one of its more annoying aspects.

Working class folks get what they tolerate, even as much as what they deserve.

This is a demonstration of the reality that the private ownership of land, outside one's primary residence, and even sometimes including aspects of that, depending how much we're talking, such as here examplified, needs to be circumscribed/restricted, so as to protect the greater, or at the very least equal "collective" public right of passage, enjoyment and access to the great outdoors.

Capitalism as theft, with it's concomitant class division of society and unequal/hugely imbalanced economic product and power share distribution is the problem. It is this, the main feature it shares with all previous forms of the class division of society, inherited and brought forward from the times of slavery and feudalism, that is a hangover relic and which needs to be sharply corrected.

The private ownership of land, including the "non-reasonable" ownership of resident land-, and we need to collectively arrive at a place where we can decide what that is precisely, like the class divisions within capitalism, and all its attendant grossly distorted socio-economic inequalities is what needs to be brought under broad social control, and encouraged to "wither away" entirely.

But fug, how we're gonna do that when we, as underling class elements, can't even deal with these extreme Neocon nutjobs in Victoria, Ottawa and Washington, I don't pretend to know from this point in time. :-)

There but for the bleating of the sheep...

The application of new principals of "democracy", richer and with more real and meaty content, including "economic democracy", is the road down which we "underling class " elements need to insist upon walking, with or without these Lippman arshole types. And they get in our way..., in the ditch at the side of the road.

Are these the same "Lippmans" Woody Allen mistakenly tied to the fenders of his car while moose hunting in upstate New York?

There is so little difference between the freedom to think one's own thoughts and speak one's mind, and the freedom to walk quietly down an old forest trail to a beach that nobody owns. But all of these basic human rights are under constant assault in a society of legalized bodysnatchers. I suppose one has to persist in exercising these basic freedoms, or risk losing everything worth living for. We're all becoming the Indian on the Reservation. How do you like it?

Wiley
Even after death - see below:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4552742.stm

I like the idea of public access to beaches and more public space. It's what makes Vancouver so wonderful. But I can also understand the Lippman's situation too. I'm not saying what is legal or moral (the history of this situation makes it complicated). But its very understandable why the Lippman's might be resistant to the idea. How many of you encourage or welcome strangers to picnic on the boulevard in front of your house? Your front lawn? Your backlawn? Well maybe you specifically would, and you are a generous and gregarious soul. But most people would not be keen on this idea and it why it never happens. I know many neighbours- and these ain't rich folk- who notice (or complain) when someone unknown parks too long in front of their house. People like feeling they have control and privacy over that which is theirs, esp if they paid a million dollars for it. They may not mind sharing it with those they come to know, but they want to have a say in who uses what they own and how it is used.

On a purely pragmatic level, the minute some of the Lippman's land goes from private to public space, the value of the property will greatly decline- and I hear of no one offering to reimburse the Lippmans for this financial loss.

People are different on the islands. You have to live on one to recognize that fact. We don't live in fear of our neighbours and we quite literally share what we have. We don't think in terms of liability and our trust in our fellow islanders is strong. We live in places like this because of the freedoms we have from so many of the city fears. Life here is stress free and relaxation is first on the list of priorities. City people who haved moved here loosen up quite quickly and get into the swing of island time which is much different than the rest of the world. When they realize that city worries are not even a concept on the islands they sit back and relax. The Lippmanns, if they aren't arrogant twits will soon learn that fact and will see the benefits to island life. Peace and harmony is a big factor on an island and to disrupt those values rather than embrace them would be to their own detriment. They'd best go back to the city and sweat all the stuff there or calm down and go oyster picking. Way better for the heart and soul. On my island, while we all have our own properties, the island itself is most important and ensuring it remains clean and free from stresses is more important than our own properties.

aalborg
I think you're right. It's too soon to tell exactly how this will turn out - just seems like a poor start and that's a shame.

Damn, I wish I'd thought of that line, Wiley! 'Cause its dead on.

Which is what nestingtree doesn't get above. The rest of us, in our great majority, are all living in situations where we are cheek by jowl, crowded out by cars 'n shite, where space is at a premium. It's that class imbalance thingy, built into "the system", which this chap doesn't get not understand, nor likely want to.

And I won't even get into the bloating of populations, production and cities which is again one of the byproducts of the ever "needy" GDP, consumer and cheap labour expansion hyper-dynamics built into current capitalism-, along with other such niceties "under the rug" such as poverty and all manner of gender and class inequalities.

There's a few folks here who smell the coffee though, eh? :-)

Without any private property rights you can also get situations where the government will expropriate your land without any compensation like Mugabe is doing to anyone that oppose him.

Absolute property rights bring their own problems, but so does not have any. If you want to feel used, just wait till a pipeline company decides to cross your property and uses the Pipeline Act to do so. Canadian Property rights are very weak and the government is under no real obligation to reimburses you at market rate, this is what they want to change, so government can’t short change you for property expropriated.

"We need to resist the progressive enclosure of the commons at the macro-scale," says David Shipway, "or it undermines the principle of maintaining public access at the micro-scale with residential development. Large corporate subdivisions should trigger the creation of legal easements for historic trails, new parks, or ecological reserves that are typically required in subdivision at the next scale down of land development."

Stephen Lippman describes himself as "an entrepreneur with a soul."

the Lippmans must be planning on hugging a lot of trees...153 acres...why does anyone need 153 Acres of land on a small island..Farming? Horse logging?

If you`d ever actually hugged a tree there would be no question of access...
Mr. Lippman..a sensitive soul such as you possess will undoubtedly be able to see the canoes of the Klahoose through the mist..from YOUR beachfront.

Well, Mugabe, whether one agrees with his methodology or not, is trying to resolve an imbalance between whites owning all the great estates, and the black majority owning dick shite. So that is another issue.

But otherwise Coling, I do not again entirely disagree with you. There is a place for some surety of ownership, especially of ones primary home space. It is the absolute, brook no resitiction or any limitations on the ownership of land, any amount, of any consequence that is the problem. Ownership of land is seen as having some "sacred" rightness attached to it, regardless of the mass public interest.

And the state even within current capitalism here will quickly roll the bulldozers over your "small property" interest, where it is serves the greater "large capitalist interest".

Too much sanctity to the whole damned class influenced issue.

Coyote
It’s interesting about your statement about what Mugabe is doing. That is the example that everyone thinks about, but what he is also doing is using the same powers to destroy anyone that attempts to oppose him, regardless of colour. You might have heard about the demolition of the market as one example, a lot of the NGO’s have expressed deep concern about his misuse of his powers leading to the situation exactly as you described.

It’s a pity that the black workers who worked those white farms were also driven off the land, because it was turned over to his buddies and supporters. The breadbasket of Africa to the basketcase of Africa.

The solution is obvious. Anyone wishing to use Hank's Beach should bring along a 'Free Miner's' Certificate. Such a piece of paper allows anyone access to everywhere in the Province, buildings excepted.

Again, my understanding of what is occurring there is more or less similar to yours.

But that said, Mugabe is using resentments and legitimate grievances against White seizure and monopoly of the land and general economic base that stem from colonial times, merely to achieve what Whites, for example here in North America did. Seize the land and economic resource base to establish and secure their respective own ruling class interests, even though it sometimes impinges on lower class "black interests".

Whereas that "similar scenario", with some differences here being of course, the White seizure of the old Native land/economic base throughout North America, save the reserve/concentration lands where they could be controlled, echoing there in our time, through Black ruling class "re-seizure" of the land and broader economic base from the old colonial White remnants, to secure the power of the rising Black ruling class.

Our current attitude to Mugabe much being shaped, forgetting even our own previous history and treatment of the Native North Americans, by the fact it is our "racial" ox that is being gored. Whereas our, and the White Settler concern for the mass of lower class blacks, and their treatment, has never been much evident before now. They are merely attempting to "use" them now, to shore up their own case.

My heart bleeds not one drop of blood for these remnant Colonial Era White settlers. Their now manifest White tears for lower class Blacks, who no doubt have their issues with their own ruling class Blacks, are "crocadile tears", which play on our ingenuousness.

Blacks will have to settle their own "internal class affairs" one day, as will we.

And who but knows enough about future history to be entirely positive that North American Natives may not one day be able to "re-secure" their own control over the land and economic base of this part of the world. As for example, may yet the Palestinians recover their control over all old Palestine that is currently Israel.

History is full of injustices, or certainly has been to here, with many strange twists and turns, and unexpected outcomes, over the long pull.

And the shelf life of old grievous historical wounds is incredible, capable of spanning many, many generations. Consider the Serbs, Albanians and Kosovites, or the mention of Chechnya, of but examples that spring immediately to mind. (And if you think our own "Reserves" are not long seething hotbeds of resentments, and desires for revenge, one knows dickshit about Native issues.)

Regarding your comment about natives “taking back the land” they certainly enjoy a more robust birth rate than your average Caucasian family. So it might happen. However I do believe the high number of immigrants will affect the handing of First Nation Issues. From what I hear from immigrants is that they don’t really care what happened to the natives here because in their eyes it pales in comparison to what went on their country. I give the FN’s approx 10 years before the significant political power of immigrant groups starts to affect the direction of politicians in this regard.

So Eddy Haskel, where do we git them thar Free Miner's Certificates?

Aalborg

I don't know what island you are on but take Galiano. It's FULL of "keep out" and "keep off" signs. Lots of yards with growling dogs, designed to ward off tourists. These aren't city folks in retreat mansions either- these are looking like pretty earthy long time islander types who seem incredibly territorialy and resistant to 'outsiders' in any form (and we always assume they are just protecting their grow ops). The island mentality is full of contradictions and double standards.

Well this island has no keep out/off signs. Lots of dogs, but the family pet kind. I guess we are lucky here because this island mentality is pretty straight forward and the feelings for this island supercede any personal property. Then again we respect each others property and no one I know has anything to hide so you can go anywhere and be welcome. This island has hundreds of miles of trails that lead to beaches that are uninhabited and belong to no one. So I guess we have more freedoms than many of the other islands. When those "city folk types" move here and get territorial it doesn't take long to change their point of view and realize community spirit is more valuable. They do come round and soon enter into the swing of things.

What drives me crazy about issues like this is the way that so many decisions make sense on a personal level for people but we end up in a diminished world that none of us prefer.

Few people care enough or feel powerful enough to change the pattern.

People with relatively deep resources can have a huge impact on a small community, for the better or for the worse.

Why are the new owners attracted to the community?

Probably for reasons related to the fact that the community isn't severed from the land. Locals walk it, pick from it, grow food in it. They are intrigued by land, bonded to it. This as a good thing, an old thing, important knowledge or wisdom that has survived or been revived.

If the new owner likes the Cortes community, why sever it from one of its most long standing and precious places?

On the other hand, if one wants a private personal fantasy, why not do it in a truly private place?

Why take for one family so much that so many people have visited and enjoyed and loved for so long?

The new owners are normal, in the cultural flow, making a decision that makes sense to them on a personal level and, like some have written here, most people out there would agree. Lucky them. They won the game.

But the island is truly diminished.

I am sad about Hank's Beach, and about what all our little decisions add up to for the world.

When in Rome, do as the Romans. What the Lippmans have selfishly not recognized is that community values in places like Cortez Island are not the same as they are on the Mainland. I agree that if vandalism or garbage is left behind confront the community and say Hey, if you don't smarten up I will restrict access.
From poindexter - "Unfortunately the freaks on Cortes forget private property laws. It is private property. There is no obligation or requirement for the owner to allow public access, period." I think in this situation its the Lippmans who are the "freaks". Sure private property laws exist but in this case I think a little courtesy from the newcomers is in order.

Colin, I'm not an immigrant and I understand you are married to one so may have a better understanding of what that person and any of her personal family who also moved to Canada, may think.

After all, their view of First Nations is often shaped by the limited media coverage offered and it certainly is limited.

Lots of poverty, drug and alcohol abuse, unemployment, lack of proper education opportunities, isolation (both distance and social), and a continuing attitude of superiority by those Canadians who need to have identifiable groups to look down upon.

But it has been my own experience in talking to immigrants that once they become aware of the racism, double-dealing, outright theft and ongoing abuse of people who live a First Nations lifestyle, many see what is or can happen here as an experiment.

The experiment is to see if this country has the brains, heart and stomach to rectify the mess created by exploitation and racism over the past few hundred years.

That other countries failed through greed, hatred, stupidity, you name it, doesn't have to mean we can't do better. After al, isn't that why people come to Canada?

Immigrants from Europe might recognize slight similarities between the abuse here and that heaped upon the Roma for eons there.

The world, as you know, is full of similar messes.

I accept that many who put faith in those who claim to have a larger picture of the world, think that First Nations are simply one more group to be exploited by the 'wealth makers.'

Frankly, if immigrants coming to Canada don't bother to educate themselves about racism and inequality in Canada, especially if they have truly suffered in their own native lands, then I'd have to suggest Canada's real wealth certainly didn't increase much when they arrived.

Allan
They may agree that it was not right, but for most it does not seem to be a priority (there kind of busy rebuilding their lives and adapting) and neither do they feel partly responsible as do many people born in Canada do. In an individual it is a subtle difference, but if a large group who generally votes one way or another then that slight difference changes the priority that the politician gives to the problem. When I speak to FN’s outside of the city they don’t see the difference as they are still busy classifying the issue as us vs them (them being white Canadians and everyone else) How they communicate with immigrants to get their message across will become more important if they want to get that respect from the new arrivals.

"If the new property owner succeeds in blocking all public access to Hank's Beach, this means that Mr & Mrs Lippman will virtually own Hank's Beach without having paid a penny for it."

BC Mary, the reason why they paid well over a million for this piece of property is because it is waterfront. The next lot back would cost considerably less. No, they don't own below the HWM as has been correctly pointed out here, but they also have no lingering responsibility to allow access over their private property.

A lot has been made over how the Lippmans must change their ways, but little has been suggested about the Islanders changing their ways. Is Hanks Beach the only beach on Cortes Island? No. Is Hanks Beach accessable from another lot adjacent to the Lippmans property? I have no idea, but I think it likely is. So why are the locals not willing to adapt and either go to another beach or take a different route to Hanks Beach?

And once again, I will pose the question I asked before: If Hanks Beach is ecologically important, why is everyone so hepped up to tramp around on it and have fires within it. I know it is standard operating procedure for all enviros to label everything as ecologically sensative or unique etc etc, but does that label not actually work against them in this case? They should be thanking the Lippmans for limiting access to this last remaining unlogged watershed in the universe. Oops, sorry, got my enviro rallying cry mixed up there.

Speaking of fires, we used to have beach fires at our cabin until the community found out how much it would cost to have firefighters brought in to fight a fire. If you lit a fire on their beach and set fire to their property you could also be held responsible.

As a part owner of Gulf Island water front and a neighbour of recently acquired/logged and soon to be sold privately (MB -Weh -Brascan -???) I gotta say something.
1) Pointdexter may have his toungue in his cheek or his head completely immersed somewhere else but the law is fairly clear about "Right of Passage" above High water for very good reasons: survival of shipwreck victims possibly being the original.
2) In fact no one in Canada actually "Owns" his/her particular chunk of rock or sand or whatever. At best you are a tennant in good standing as long as you behave.
3) Distribution of garbage, fire hazard and Injury Liability seem to be of great concern to the proponents of exclusive waterfront "ownership". Start by emptying your ashtray and disposing of your Ipod batteries in "environmental" fashion (should you imagine you know what that is). Spray your Subaru with fire retardant foam after every wax.
And make no sudden moves - you might startle someone triggering cardiac distress (shooting over the head is not advised).

In the meantime you are welcome to walk across my sundeck (or anyone else's who has built so close to the salt water so that you can not pass in front).

I grew up in a rural community in northern bc, and nearly every walk or hike I went on as a kid was through someone elses land. There was an understanding of permission between neighbours who knew each other, but if you werent that close with a particular neighbour, you'd ask them first. The same for berry picking, mushroom picking, fishing, etc. plus it was considered rude not to ask before harvesting on someone elses land. and it was polite to offer some of your catch in return. some private properties there have a history of 'public' access going back for generations (I'm thinking of one lakefront picnic site, which is often voluntarily improved maintained by neighbours & visitors alike. also, folks get quite upset if some 'outsider' leaves garbage or does damage to it)

I imagine once the Lippmans get to know their island neighbours (and assuming the beach isnt their new front yard) they'll be getting requests for access to hanks beach.. so the beach might end up staying accessable after all.. at least for the neighbours they intend to make friends with.

hers another thought.. assuming there are other privately owned sites on Cortes that have 'public' or 'public for neighbours' access.. how would those land owners react to the Liffmans putting up a gate? would they be the only family not allowed 'public' access? or would they invite them over in hopes of being invited to use the beach in return?

just curious..

The great unvarnished truth of the matter is that, in BC, "Legal Title", is often a big fib. The vast majority of land in BC was pre-empted without proper due process or treaty in a nearly successful racist-supremacist attempt to eliminate the native population as a distinct and enfranchised people. We wrote the book on racial disenfranchisement that the South Africans read for their inspiration to implement Aparptheid.

The Crown dispensed title to lands it had no rights over, and legislated the dissolution and supression of native attempts to preserve their traditional lands and ways of life.

The root cause of this cortez controversy, like so many other land questions in BC, is that the origins of the land title in question was illegitimate and was done without proper deed or authority. We now have a torrens land registration system that, by guarenteeing the title to registered property obtained through void deeds, effectively extinquishes any meaningful way of redressing the thefts of land through the courts.

It's a sad and bitter thing that when you bury justice, you bury it alive, and it comes back to haunt the innocent for generation after generation.

well said tcahill. This whole neo-colonial province is totally gridlocked with the legacy of buried-alive justice, and unresolved land rights. The natives of the Chilcotin are still afraid to go to Victoria, because nine of their chiefs went there on a peace mission a hundred years ago, but were simply hanged in retribution for the Waddington massacre, which by all accounts was quite justified by the abuse that natives suffered under the railway thugs.

Have we become more civilized? Well, the lawyers and judges seem to think so. They are too busy to go for a walk on the Queen's beach.

poindexter:

Give me one example of the peaceful acquisition of private property. I'll save you the time....you can't, simply becaus ewnone exists. Private property has it's roots deep into the "might is right" concept, and anyonewho subsribes to the notion of private property subscribes to beating your neighbour over the head simply because you can.

The Lippmans figure that, 'cause they have money, that somethow entitles them to something?

Poindexter wrote:

Interesting. However, these "private property laws" will only hold up when times are relatively good. That is the only way the "haves" can protect thier interests. Fortunately for us, the "haves" in this world are you and I, and anyone else reading this from their heated British Columbia home.

It would be very interesting to see how this story will be viewed 200 years from now, when there is the possibility of ALL of the earth being privately owned.

Or maybe we can read about it in a children's story, when the snooty protagonist learns to share.

What a concept.

justkatladude: I think you are mistaken. Buying 150+ acres of oceanfront property for only $1.5 is, believe me, a steal. My former home on Pender Island is now worth about $1 million ... on .87 acres. No kidding.

And everybody knows that the next lot uphill from the Lippmans would cost "considerably less" than oceanfront property. Duhh. What's your point, anyway?

You sidestep the issue when you say that "nobody owns the beach" because, if the public is clearly excluded, in real terms it leaves Hank's Beach the private preserve of the Lippmans and their guests.

Whether they paid $150. or $1.5 million for it, has nothing whatever to do with the issue of public access to Hank's Beach.

Nor is it reasonable to shrug the issue off onto a neighbour. Why would you feel it's OK to walk through a neighbour's land when obviously, the Lippman-route is the historic access route?

Which, by the way, is the problem under discussion today.

And just where do private property rights stand when government decides to expropriate?
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2083&dekey=E0572300&curtab=2083_1&linktext=expropriation

And we are talking about property that is accumulated. How about property that is discarded. What "rights" are attached to this:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/03/10/hortons060310.html

"Buying 150+ acres of oceanfront property for only $1.5 is, believe me, a steal. My former home on Pender Island is now worth about $1 million ... on .87 acres."

BC Mary, as I mentioned before, Cortes is two ferries away from reality, while Pender is only one. And that ferry can land you in either Vancouver (albiet not regularly) or Victoria, not Campbell River. Also, the Lippmans bought raw land. What size house was on your parents property? I say parents because the tone of your writing has brought me to believe that your are fairly young. Take it as a compliment if you are over thirty!!

No, the market asked for $1.4 million and that is what it was worth. But as I also pointed out, the next lot back from the beach would sell for considerably less.

juskatladude, since when did reality have a specific location on this planet, and since when did you become it's sole occupant? I think the smaller islands on this coast have every right and need to be a "seperate reality" from the ubiquitously-depressing consumptive dead-zone Walmart World you like to call "reality". It's too bad that many newcomers to these islands bring this viral infection with them when they try to escape.

I hope that the Lippmans realize that the magic of living on an island like Cortes revolves around the richness of the community. You can't build a healthy community with "Keep Out" signs.
I'd like to write more but the sun is out and I'm going for a walk with a friend through the forest to the beach. Yes, we will cross through many properties . . . I wonder how one asks permission from the many creatures that live in the forest (I don't speak newt language! and my varied thrush speak is rather weak). Also, how does one ask permission from the long past ancestors of the first nations people who originally inhabited the area that was stolen from them? It is almost impossible. So we will walk through the area with respect, taking only memories and leaving our footprints as blessings. We will continue to walk this way, as will our children. We are the people who make the community.