AVCANADA

It is currently Mon Sep 25, 2017 11:53 am

All times are UTC-07:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 88 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2017 9:26 pm 
Offline
Rank 1
Rank 1

Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:10 pm
Posts: 43
:smt040


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2017 10:13 pm 
Offline
Rank 4
Rank 4
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 1:43 am
Posts: 249
Now you see what we are up against...... Airport = Sandbox

_________________
People should not have to fear both the government and the criminal. It should be that the criminal fears both the people and the government.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:44 pm 
Offline
Rank 4
Rank 4

Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 9:42 pm
Posts: 207
Simpleton wrote:
Schooner69A wrote:
Simpleton:

Do you have a dog in this fight?


J


Nope, not at all. But I know all the players involved in this case. The outcome of this case has ramifications for planned airport development everywhere. Last count was around $2.2-2.6 million in hangar development is now sitting in limbo with at least 3 companies that were planning to pick up land at Whitecourt...all on hold over this pissing match over jurisdiction.

And because of Jonas' shenanigans, land that was going to be sold to pay for development costs, may not be sold....they only want to do leases now (to exercise some control). Those lots available need a huge amount of earth work to bring them up to suitable grade. The cost to the county to do that work, would mean land lease costs that nobody would pay. If you could buy the lot, you'd pay....but at least it would be a titled lot. Try getting financing on a leased lot....it's dicey.

So, until the "Jonas" issue is sorted out....pretty much everybody who was gearing up to purchase and build in Whitecourt has shelved their plans for now.


Good buy a lot in Parkland and move to Spruce Grove I guess.



Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 3:00 pm 
Offline
Rank 7
Rank 7

Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 9:27 am
Posts: 521
Location: Toronto
Questions for Discovery and Interrogatories:

What communications took place between the helicopter operator, council and various airport managers?

Previous airport managers might be loquacious.

Kindly produce copies of correspondence and council minutes on all airport matters, including in camera proceedings.



Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 7:10 am 
Offline
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:27 pm
Posts: 1581
Location: Sidney, BC
Simpleton wrote:
Black_Tusk wrote:
Simpleton wrote:
Likely echoing in that empty skull pan of yours.


Because I disagree with you? Resorting to personal attacks, nice.


Oh buttercup..you'll be ok big guy.

Image

Christ, what an asshole.



Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 10:28 am 
Offline
Rank 1
Rank 1

Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:02 pm
Posts: 42
So I have a question concerning this issue of federal jurisdiction versus provincial or municipal government laws, regulations, etc., at an aerodrome. If someone has a hanger on an aerodrome, because the aerodrome is regulated federally does that mean no taxes are paid on the hanger. Or does the fed tax the hangers or the provincial government, and who assesses the value.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:06 am 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Posts: 5830
Location: Part of the "me, me, me" crowd, and loving every second of it.
That's a really good question. I can only guess at an answer: because taxing a property doesn't attempt to regulate where it's located, how it's built, or what use is made of it, and because the federal government doesn't have any rules about taxing aircraft hangars, it would be hard to argue that a municipal law taxing all properties infringes on the federal jurisdiction to regulate aeronautics. Municipal property taxes therefore apply.

_________________
Control the horizon, control the airplane


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 1:10 pm 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2

Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 9:48 pm
Posts: 54
It frequently shocks me to no end how often Municipalities are ignorant (willful or not) to the numerous court cases that have strongly established where the jurisdiction line is. In meeting with our municipality they just gave me a totally blank stare and a look of shock when I reminded them that they weren't legally obligated to follow their own building permit by-laws and only chose to do so by policy as the airport landlord. What was more alarming was the look of surprise on the high paid "airport management consultants" face.

It seems to me that Woodlands is aware of bylaw limitations and is attempting to test the jurisdiction of defining where the aerodrome boundaries actually are through zoning rather than zoning airport lands. A tough road given that the lands were previously recognized as "airport", so to try and use municipal level laws to say something is not an "aerodrome" is, in my view, clearly trying to limit a federal jurisdiction.

Yes, overlapping jurisdiction occurs, but it is all up to the courts to define where a lower law impedes too much on a higher jurisdiction. I would have thought we have had enough rulings to make that line pretty clear for municipalities to stop trying to cross that line all the time.



Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 1:14 pm 
Offline
Rank 2
Rank 2

Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 9:48 pm
Posts: 54
photofly wrote:
That's a really good question. I can only guess at an answer: because taxing a property doesn't attempt to regulate where it's located, how it's built, or what use is made of it, and because the federal government doesn't have any rules about taxing aircraft hangars, it would be hard to argue that a municipal law taxing all properties infringes on the federal jurisdiction to regulate aeronautics. Municipal property taxes therefore apply.


Agreed. A taxation bylaw does not impede the exclusive jurisdiction. If the taxation bylaw tried to say that property that house aircraft that fly more than "x" times per year are taxed at a higher rate, that would likely be impeding on the jurisdiction by attempting to discourage aircraft movements.



Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Aug 29, 2017 1:12 pm 
Offline
Rank 1
Rank 1

Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 11:34 pm
Posts: 23
The Disgruntled County of Woodlands councillors have spent $177,042.76 of over taxed taxpayer money on their lawyers alone trying to prevent my hangar from existing on my privately owned airside property at the Whitecourt Airport.
(This does not include other taxpayer money wasted on county employee man hours trying to figure out how to deal with the County Councillors decisions in trying to have the hangar originally prevented from being built, and now removed after it was finished)

It's the County of Woodlands election on October 16 2017. Hopefully the airport problems will be "Voted" away by the overtaxed public.

See the "Freedom of Information and protection of privacy" information provided by the County of Woodlands below.

Image
Image
Image



Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Aug 29, 2017 2:32 pm 
Offline
Top Poster
Top Poster

Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Posts: 5830
Location: Part of the "me, me, me" crowd, and loving every second of it.
According to Google, the population of Woodlands County is only 4,754, so that's $37.20 per head.

_________________
Control the horizon, control the airplane


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Aug 29, 2017 9:03 pm 
Offline
Rank 4
Rank 4

Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 9:42 pm
Posts: 207
Great info, thanks for posting that!

Bureaucrats don't like it when there plan's don't go the way they like and they will gladly spend OPM to sort out and protect there little kingdoms that they have created. We are getting more like Red China every day. Sad really.......



Last edited by Prodriver on Wed Aug 30, 2017 10:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2017 5:00 am 
Offline
Rank 5
Rank 5
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm
Posts: 302
Prodriver wrote:
Great info, thanks for posting that!

Bureaucrats don't like it when there plan's don't go the way they like and they will gladly spend OPM to sort out and protect there kittle kingdoms that they have created. We are getting more like Red China every day. Sad really.......


Goes exactly to my comment on the other thread.



Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 88 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4

All times are UTC-07:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: B208, Google [Bot], montado, Quinny, single_swine_herder, VSF and 90 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]

For questions/comments please send them to
avcanada@gmail.com


AvCanada Topsites List
AVIATION TOP 100 - www.avitop.com Avitop.com

While the administrators and moderators of this forum will attempt to remove or edit any generally objectionable material as quickly as possible, it is impossible to review every message. If you feel a topic or post is inappropriate email us at avcanada@gmail.com .  By reading these forums you acknowledge that all posts made to these forums express the views and opinions of the author and not the administrators, moderators or webmaster (except for posts by these people) and hence will not be held liable. This website is not responsible or liable in any way for any false or misleading messages or job ads placed at our site. 

Use AvCanada's information at your own risk!

We reserve the right to remove any messages that we deem unacceptable.
When you post a message, your IP is logged and may be provided to concerned parties where unethical or illegal behavior is apparent. All rights reserved.