Northgate, SK and Corus Land Holding Corp.

[oneoff]

farmaholic and bucket
Conflicts of interest are to be only recognized by the holder of those real and what could be perceived as potential conflicts of interest. Proving any allegation would be done before the court system and a judge; and not by the opinion of any other person.

I have no answers. I have copied and stated the facts I have been able to glean. They are sparse indeed. No one is voluntarily giving any details; let alone publically disclosing even a hint about any public decision even have being made.

The proof of this fact is that anyone can do a Google search; and I challenge anyone to produce any lead of anything concerning Corus Land Holding Corp., other than my posts on agriville; the Oct 2011 Farm Land Security Board decision and a Sask Gazettte advertisement in Sept 2011 registering the company under the Corporations Act in Sask.
There is not one lead to a newspaper story; the Leader Post; a news release; an RM council report; a ratepayers meeting,or other invitation to have some input into ones community and its future; nor a public discussion about a potentially important set of upcoming developments.
And I am not responsible for any of these defects in the optimum democratic processes. To the contrary; I have stuck my neck out so far; and been so attacked; and had such relatively few indications that anyone considers any of the points raised to be of enough significance that very few have raised their voices.
It is entirely the responsibility of the ratepayers to see they get responsible representation from their elected officials. If the majority wish not to become involved in any way; and don't want to know about their business; then there has been a gross injustice done to democratic principles; whether it has been realized or not.

I have reported the facts as I see them. There has been no rebutal nor attempt at explanation by council beyond that they got rid of a liability. I siubmit that council didn't recognize; and still refuses to recognize that no one pays the equivalent of $400,000 per acre for multiple vacant lots in Northgate; and $800,000 for an adjoining quarter section if it strictly a liability. Any businessman; or ratepayers should surely agree; but apparently not. Please concentrate on the facts and and nothing else until those important issues have been resolved.

Just because the majority may believe that dictators can provide good government; we have to stay off our leaders backs and give them free reign; its a thankless job; no one else is available to serve; no one cares about being consulted or informed; does not mean that any of those statements are true; or should be true. . My opinion is that good government comes from discussions; public involement; openness in decision making and developing a concensus for planning, bylaw and policy development.
When it comes to democratic processes, in ny opinion, both ratepayers and council leadership have failed miserably.

[oneoff]

farmaholic In answer to your specific question about accommodating expressions of interest and the past history of lot sales in townsites and hamlets. There are references to Northgate townsite; and 60 acres of subdivided lots, lanes and streets; rail yards; train turnarounds, reservoirs, water bodies etc. could even be considered impressive by todays standards. A few residents obviously purchased some adjoining lots over the years. Who could have any concern about such sales. Growth and business interest has exploded more in the past few months in SE Sask; than maybe in all the changes in Sask history so far. And that is why it was so shortsighted to continue to see Northgate's future as it had been for the last half century.

This wholesale complete disposal of all public property in Northgate as an immediate done deal is completely different.
In my mind, I doubt if anyone could produce an example of this magnitude being enabled in "secret" and I submit behind "closed doors" that enabled a single entity to solely take over this type of infrastucture in Saskatchewan.. I speculate that no one even knows the new owner; nor their serious intentions; and if so why has this not been disclosed even after the land acquisition has been all but completely completed.
Had I any influence; at a minimum I would have I would have ensured that expansion options remained open for an existing James Richardson facilty; lands which are in fact not developed shortly and paying taxes would again become potentially available for other development by other individuals and businesses; and that a public advertisement of an intent for sale would have taken place to provide an opportunity for competing bids. The public would have been given an opportunity for input into proposed development; and the blanket pre-approval of zoning, development and use would certainly not have been given immediate approval. And why does a global company need tax incentives (and if those incentives are designed for commercial businesses; would speculated facilities not be considered industrial facilities)? Afterall, I doubt that the current oil industry is eligible for those new incentives that have been recently approved.

Tell me where else in the world you could get such a blanket go ahead and wholesale handover of a strategic, valuable and potentially desirous property in the current world business environment?

[oneoff]

farmaholic In answer to your specific question about accommodating expressions of interest and the past history of lot sales in townsites and hamlets. There are references to Northgate townsite; and 60 acres of subdivided lots, lanes and streets; rail yards; train turnarounds, reservoirs, water bodies etc. could even be considered impressive by todays standards. A few residents obviously purchased some adjoining lots over the years. Who could have any concern about such sales? But growth and business interest has exploded more in the past few months in SE Sask; maybe more than in all the changes in Sask history so far. And that is why it was so shortsighted to continue to see Northgate's future as it had been for the last half century.

This wholesale complete disposal of all public property in Northgate as an immediate done deal is completely different.
In my mind, I doubt if anyone could produce an example of this magnitude being enabled in "secret" and I submit behind "closed doors" that enabled a single entity to solely take over this type of infrastucture in Saskatchewan.. I speculate that no one even knows the new owner; nor their serious intentions; and if so why has this not been disclosed even after the land acquisition has been all but completely completed.
Had I any influence; at a minimum I would have I would have ensured that expansion options remained open for an existing James Richardson facilty; lands which are in fact not developed shortly and paying taxes would again become potentially available for other development by other individuals and businesses; and that a public advertisement of an intent for sale would have taken place to provide an opportunity for competing bids. The public would have been given an opportunity for input into proposed development; and the blanket pre-approval of zoning, development and use would certainly not have been given immediate approval. Streets, roads and lanes woul not have been offered up for wholesale closure. The integrity of the townsite would have not been compromised until there was a demonstated need to make nessessary infrastructure changes.

And why does a global company need tax incentives (and if those incentives were created for commercial businesses; would speculated facilities not be considered industrial facilities)? Afterall, I doubt that the current oil industry is eligible for those new incentives that have been recently approved.

Tell me where else in the world you could get such a blanket go ahead and wholesale handover of a strategic, valuable and potentially desirous property in the current world business environment?

[farmaholic]

Oneoff: I see your concern regarding the sequence of events that lead to this. However, would public disclosure of an interested party in the townsite scared off the potential buyer and would anyone else have stepped up to the plate to develope it into what ever the present buyer has planned? It is hard to put a value on something that no one really wanted until someone steps up and expresses an interest. Could have Council received more money for the property? Probably. Is it possible to think that there will be more benefits gained in the long run than what was sacrificed in the short term. A deal on the property and a couple years tax concessions may be peanuts in comparison to the long term benefits to the area, like more jobs and a long term tax base.

I am not being argumentative, just trying to understand your concerns. You appear to have to very good qualities if used productively, determination and a strong will.

[oneoff]

If the concensus is that one looks after me, me, me first second and third; I think I could can learn to live with it pretty quick.
There just doesn't seem to be much support for acting otherwise.
Seems kind of odd that there seems to be so little pressure on council to be accountable and more open with the bylaws and motions that are so hastily made in some cases and so drawn out and non-productive in others. The only common denominator is that the council avoids every public forum of communication with whom they are supposed to serve.

[oneoff]

farmahloic The first step in answering the last question is to know what has been proposed by the new owner. That question is still completely unanswered.
Realize everyone has been shut out of the completed land acquisition. So what justification for not answering the first question that is essential to any debate on what that facility or facilities are being proposed.

[farmaholic]

I think the minutes of the council meetings can be scrutinized by anyone, at least the ones in our RM were recently regarding a water drainage issue. I don't know how much detail is in them. I would assume the bantering back and forth between Councilors wouldn't be recorded but motions, maybe some relevent debate and the results of votes are. In general, I think alot people in the rural municipal electorate are apathetic until something that affects them personally arises. How do you engage them?

[farmaholic]

Would it then be fair to say you're not opposed to any development of the area but to the way it was handled. By the sounds of it, it is too late to change anything. If you want to make a difference, you might have to get behind Councilors who are more transparent or get involved yourself and encourage other like-minded people to run for council.

[oneoff]

People are engaged by desiring to be informed and becoming informed.

But as previously mentioned in older posts; there is not even a general knowledge of the right of ratepayers to observe open council meetings from the gallery. Then the apathy and cowardice of all but a very few to ever attend such a meeting in their whole life; the deliberate refusal of most RM councils to broadcast or record their meetings for public viewing; a general council atmosphere that their decisions are no one's business outside the RM; motions made such as banning all electronic devices from the council/committee meetings without prior council approval; snide comments obviously directed at susceptable visitors in the gallery; direct comments made at those present in the gallery who are in no position to defend themselves from their attackers; council members who have blurted out that they will vote against every approach made to council by a certain ratepayer(s); a reeve that says as reeve he can do anything that he wants; all coucil membersbeing allowed to make the decisions with their division (with a near automatic reciprocal agreement of similar support for their other division); and a council that sits though a member declaring that he has a conflict of interest; remains in his seat; speaks to the issue at hand and quite probably was included in the vote.

And unfortunately I don't see how it would be productive in any way for one new person(s) to want to try to become involved in such a situation.
As stated before; there need to be some drastic changes to the "old boys club". Such things as a significant number of female councillors; members confident and sensible enough to not be afraid of having their council attendence observed or broadcast live through modern internet audio and video techniques.
Civil discussions and invitations for opinions at public meetings and gatherings should be encouraged and a scheduled common event and expected on at least a yearly basis. Currently such meetings are avoided and never held by several; but we do have social gatherings like golf tournaments.
Until the atmoshere changes; democracy will deteriorate until there is no respect for the institution. I don't know what drives some councils; other than catered meals; the power to treat identical situations differently; bylaws that are not enforced according to how they read; draconian new codes and statutes that arguably are not desired by sparsely separated rural ratepayers and on and on.

[oneoff]

I've done more to promote development than most others. And could point to some significant successes. But its always hard to soar like an eagle when you're flying with turkeys.
A person with much experience once said " leave your hatchets and personal agendas outside the council chambers; and only conduct business within." Develop appropriate and necessary policy, bylaws and motions that will be used on a blanket basis; and not as a framework to decide on a case by case basis how identical situations will be decided differently.