The invisible government and your rights to private property

Copyright © All rights reserved Norris Barens

 

The invisible B.C. government and your rights to property

 

In May 2005 I notice a parking ticket on my motor home for $100.00 the ticket said that I was guilty of parking a large vehicle for more than 3 hours abutting private residents. Ok I am choked. You see I work in the movie industry as a first aid attendant and work long hours I have to park my motor home in front of my house so I can have time to sleep before my next shift. This compelled me to do research on my parking ticket. What I found was so disturbing it caused me to seriously question the political system in which I live. I am now determined to expose the crime of Treason that was perpetrated on the citizens of <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 />Vancouver and the abuse of the Canadian political system as a whole.

 

For my job in the movie industry I require a motor home because my job entails carrying supplies for cooking soups and various other snacks such as pop, candies, sandwich meats. Dips, cups, bowls and so on as well as cooking and serving equipment to serve the cast and crew as well as carrying my stock of first aid equipment. As you can imagine this requires a great deal of space packing around enough food for a hundred plus people.

 

So when I came out to find a $100.00 parking ticket on my motor home that was parked “in front of my house” I had to ask myself, this ticket says that because of the shape of my vehicle I am not allowed to do the same thing that every other business owner is allowed to do. Take for example a plumber, lots of equipment and a truck that is as high as mine but his vehicle does not meet the description that was posted on my ticket. A limousine can be 25 feet long 4 feet longer than mine, but does not fit the description on the ticket. So what gives? My motor home is as high as some plumbing trucks and not as long as some limousines?

           

I remembered reading a few years earlier on the internet that in England all land is privately owned including highways. This is significant if the highways are privately owned then what gives the government the right to tell me I can’t park in front of my own house because of the shape and description of my vehicle?

 

I remembered that after reading the above mentioned article from England that I looked up the Municipal Act of 1996 under the heading possession of Municipal roads section 533 that the highways were owned by the municipality (except for any rights in the “soil”  that were reserved by those that built and dedicated the highways). What were these rights?  Highways were built by land developers; a right of easement was then granted to the public to pass and repass over the highways and were to be maintained at public expense. As you will see later the rights that were reserved were the rights of estate. The highways in 1996 were private property here in B.C.

 

The Vancouver Charter is where the City gets it’s authority to govern and I was surprised to find that section 289 of the Charter read quite differently to the Municipal Act of 1996 because the sentence “except for any rights in the soil that were reserved by those that built and dedicated the highway” did not appear in the Vancouver Charter.

 

I wondered how can every other municipality in B.C. have rights in the soil of highways but not Vancouverites??!*#*?? So down to the law library I went I started looking for amendments to the Vancouver Charter of 1953. I started from 1953 and sure enough it stated that under section 289 (1) streets and parks vested in the city; it said “unless otherwise provided for, the soil and freehold of every street in the city shall be and be come absolutely vested in fee-simple in the city, as against Her Majesty and all persons whomsoever, (subject only to any right therein which the person who laid out such street may have expressly  reserved).

 

After reading that section over and over again I notice that the Vancouver Charter 1953 still did not have the same rights as every other municipality in B.C. because although it mentioned the rights that were reserved by those that built the highways there were no rights in the soil.

 

I then went to the act that preceded the Vancouver Charter 1953, the Vancouver Incorporation Act of 1921 under 319 (1) “Every public street, road, square, lane, bridge, or other highway or public place, in the city shall become absolutely vested in fee simple in the city (subject only to any right in the soil which the individuals who laid out such road, street, squire, lane, bridge, or highway may have expressly reserved)”there it was the rights in the soil that still belonged to every municipality in 1996.

 

So alright the Vancouver Incorporation Act 1921 reads like the Municipal Act of 1996. So how can you take the rights in the soil out of the highways that existed in the Vancouver Incorporation Act 1921 and then give them to the City in the Vancouver Charter 1953? I checked long and hard I could not find that it was the intention of the legislature to make this change. Maybe I am a bad researcher and just can’t see it? Well does that really matter? If every other citizen in other municipalities in B.C still retained their rights in the soil of the highways until 1996 then why not Vancouverites?

 

I then looked for the amendment to the Vancouver Charter that removed the rest of the rights that were left in the Charter and found that in 1973 the city of Vancouver asked for and received from the B.C. legislature an amendment to section 289 and 291 (a) the amendment was to ask the legislature to delete the mention of any rights that exist in the highways and they got it!! How did they do that? Let’s remember that highways were private property.

 

I just recently found in the Vancouver Archives the minutes of the Vancouver City Council that related to the request for the amendment to section 289 of the Vancouver Charter. In the minutes of January 23, 1973 Alderman Harcourt states in council

 

“Section 289 and 291 (a) provided for the sale of City

Streets that have been closed and stopped up. They

Also contain a method that your officials felt

Would permit the City to sell such a street even if the

Abutting owners do not consent. We have never been

able to take advantage of this latter provision because

the registrar of the land Registry Office did not agree

with our interpretation”.

 

So Alderman Harcourt had problems taking land off of owners that abut highways and selling their property when the city was through with the streets and of course the money would not go to the owners that abut the highways but to the City. The Alderman goes on to say.

 

“This year, however, after discussions with the new registrar

And the Director of Legal Services in Victoria, it

Was agreed that our objective could be attained if we

Could obtain two minor amendments suggested by the Director

Of Legal Services.

 

I would therefore request Council’s  authority to obtain

An amendment to section 289(1) to delete the words “and

 to any right therein which the person who laid out or

dedicated such street may have expressly reserved” and

to delete the words “by transfer” from section 291A (2).”

 

If you notice after that pesky old registrar left his position and a new one was installed the new registrar is now willing to work together with the law clerk in Victoria and the city of Vancouver to delete the mention of any rights that exist in highways in the Vancouver Charter. Notice that it was the Law Clerk in Victoria that made the suggestion the City deletes the mention of rights that are mentioned in highways. It is noteworthy to mention that the resolution passed with a majority. All it took was one person to stand up and say it was unconstitutional and that motion would have been dead in the water. Did anyone object?

 

For those who are having problems following, two unelected civil servants the Law Clerk and Registrar, and a member of parliament (the one who sponsored the bill). Members of the Vancouver city council just conspired together to steal private property from the citizens of Vancouver. What was there motivation? The City of Vancouver is suppose to be a “not for profit corporation”.

 In a democracy the purpose of an elected government is to manage the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy is to follow the laws that the government enacts. Our government was told by two bureaucrats that they could steal private property and they would help! What we have here is the bureaucracy leading the government or a case of the “tail wagging the dog”.

 

There you have it the invisible government that aided our elected government, or the facade that is meant to act as if they are our representatives have a different agenda then to protect the rights and property of its citizenry. Would your elected representatives conspire to steal your property or rights in them? I am still puzzled how lets say 11 other members of Vancouver City Council or a quorum of 5 voted for this amendment to take the rights of property from its citizens. What did they get for there treachery? If you remember that alderman Harcourt later became Mayor of Vancouver and then Premier of B.C. Who are they working for? Who controls this invisible government? What do they want? Where do they come from?

 

In an attempt to find out from the Law Clerk in Victoria how that bill was passed I asked to see the file and correspondents that took place between the City of Vancouver and the Legal services. I was told it was none of my business and that when a law is made it is law and that’s the end of it and the freedom of information does not apply to the actions in the house. After another phone call I was told the same thing again but the Law Clerk phoned back and said if I write him a letter (not an e-mail because he wanted my signature) with my concerns he would consider my request. I received a reply in mid July 2007 from the Law Clerk which only confirmed my suspicions Bill 50 1973 was not properly passed and there was a lot of unanswered questions that I asked of the Law Clerk.

  

When Bill 50 section 23 was passed it was the law that the bill was to be open for inspection by the public. This is not the case today.

 

Some people I tell this story to are originally passive and polite because it is hard to grasp the concept of property rights in the highways and don’t understand why these rights are important. But after more discussion and evidence their jaw often drops. Until I can show the full amount of evidence I will leave readers with this second Act (stage play) that took place in the hallowed halls of parliament with our honorable members and how I believe that every other municipality is about to have the same crime leveled against them.

 

I followed the Municipal Act of 1996 section 533 it latter became the Local Government Act Division 5 section 524 (1) and it still read the same as the Municipal Act of 1996 which preceded it. Then some time later in that act that section was repealed and then the Local Government Act became the Community Charter in 2003 and the section that relates to the ownership of highways appears in section 35 (1) “Subject to this section, (a) the soil and freehold of every highway in a municipality is vested in the municipality, and 35 (4)

 

 

If you look at Section 35 (4) subsection (a) the other occupier of which they speak is the land owner.

 

If you look at subsection (b) it now reads like the Vancouver Charter 1953 did just after the Vancouver Incorporation Act 1921 the rights in the soil are gone from those the built and dedicated the highways and transferred to the municipalities.

 

In 1953 they did not keep records of house proceedings that I am privy to. The discussions that took place were covered by the news papers of the day and discussions on any subject were hard to find.

 

Today however the debates are covered by what are called Hansard records so I found the debate in the house on the Community Charter the section that deals with ownership of the highways Section 35.

 

If you remember the Liberals had a resounding majority with only Joyce Mc phail and Jenny Kwan as N.D.P. opposition when it came to section 35 (the section dealing with ownership of highways) listen to the debate and you decide. Here are the Hansards from 2003.

 

 

 

 

 

If you look T. Nebbeling mention roads that the municipality built. These are the only roads the municipalities can have title to since they bought, paid for them and built them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jenny Kwan should have been asking the tuff questions on section 35 (how did the municipality end up with the rights in the soil) but she forgot what section she was on. Curious?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  There you have it Jenny Kwan the supposed opposition to the powerful Liberals completely lost her chance to ask the question on how the municipalities ended up with the rights in the soil that just previously belonged to owners that abut highways.

 

So to sum it up we have people of supposedly different political philosophies that are working together to take from those that abut highways their private properties, that were paid for with the money the developers bought the land with.

 

How does the loss of these rights affect property owners? Ask the merchants on Cambie Street who have lost their businesses because the City of Vancouver thinks they own the streets and does not have to ask the owners of the highways if they have concerns about digging up the highways in front of their businesses. Many businesses had to close their doors because of the obstructions in front of their businesses. The city is digging on private property.

 

 Ask the merchant in the downtown core how he likes to have aggressive panhandlers, prostitutes and drug dealers standing in front of his place of business chasing away his hard won customers. In England today these people that did not use the highway/sidewalk for the purpose it was intended, which is to pass and repass would be charged with TRESPASSING.  

 

     Research suggests on the Norfolk County Council web, that the English recognize the rights of the owners of the highways.  In the preamble of the British North America Act 1867 it states that the constitution of Canada shall be similar to the constitution of England.  The Norfolk County Council ’s web page is

 

A particularly reveling explanation as to who owns the roads in England/Canada is this excerpt from the above link.  “6 My deeds show that I own the land you say is highway. Does this mean it isn’t highway?”

 

“As the Highway Authority, we rarely own the land which the highway runs over. Most people own the land up to the middle of their road, but don’t realize it is only the subsoil that they own and the control of the land and its surface lies with the Highways Authority.

The plan below helps to explain this





highway is shown hatched green on this plan. The dotted area is land shown in the householder’s deeds as being in their ownership. As you’ll see, the adopted there is an overlap of the two. Not only is this possible, but is often the case. The highway rights exist over subsoil not owned by the Highway Authority.”

 

When you drive down the roads you are traveling on that part of a person’s private property that you were given a right of easement. You were given these rights by property owners. That means driving is a “right” given to you by private persons not a “privilege” given to you by the invisible government. City Hall probably started the adage you can’t fight City Hall to make you feel helpless against your assailants. If this message does not put a chill down your spine, in an Orwellian tone, then you’re living in a warm fuzzy trance. How much fraud, theft and treason do we allow before we have reform? We are the government not some bunch of petty bureaucrats from The Invisible B.C. Government.

 

 

The B.C. Property Rights Initiative Society is a not for profit society who’s goal it is, is to bring about a made in B.C. constitution for the protection of property rights in B.C.

 

In section 92 (13) of the B.N.A. Act it states that property and civil rights shall be the sole jurisdiction of the provinces. We as British Columbians have the right to the protection of our property “especially from government”. 

 

 

The framers of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms intentionally left out any mention of property rights, in this writers opinion that was a good thing a charter is and instrument that is given to a subject from a sovereign; a constitution is an instrument written by a sovereign to form a better government. We now have the power to act as sovereign individuals (not subjects) and claim our right to be safe in our property. If the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms enumerated property rights in the Charter it may have usurped the Provinces jurisdiction over property rights. It is time to send a message to our government that we are no longer willing to be subjects to their whims and abuses but free and sovereign individuals with inalienable rights.

 

If you would like to no more contact me Norris Barens at

 

 Norris Barens Reform B.C. candidate for Vancouver Fairview President B.C. Property Rights Initiative

 

Copyright© Norris Barens all rights reserved