| Author |
Message |
cat
Member
Post Number: 6
Registered: 08-2009
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - 5:41 pm: | 
|
yes, the reference is to the Skyline Reserve as noted above. |
irishfield
Member
Post Number: 206
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - 11:02 pm: |
|
Lets not confuse the Crown "skyline reserve" with deeded 66' wide "Crown shore allowances" fronting private land. These crown shore reserves are still available for sale to the immediately attached land owner through MNR. |
irishfield
Member
Post Number: 207
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 25, 2009 - 11:08 pm: |
|
Note that there are only two parcels of land on the entire mainland shoreline of Lake Temagami that have this feature. The rest is totally Crown land that is frozen from any sale or development under two different MNR policies.. three policies if you include the Municipalites official plan.. but the MNR policy superceeds municipal level anyhow
(Message edited by irishfield on August 25, 2009) |
cat
Member
Post Number: 7
Registered: 08-2009
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - 8:36 am: |
|
I suggest you read the link that alscool mentions above and within that document read the link to 'report on Ferguson Point'. |
lorrain
Member
Post Number: 10
Registered: 12-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, August 27, 2009 - 12:17 pm: |
|
I love all the Hypocrits that post on this thread. The link, all be it a well written article by the Creator supported by a Monitor. Is truly not the entire history of development on Lake Temagami. Rather only selected facts to support the T.L.A.'S continued effort to control the life blood of a community it only takes two to three months interest in each year. |
ed
Moderator
Post Number: 665
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 27, 2009 - 9:52 pm: |
|
Please keep the language respectful. |
lorrain
Member
Post Number: 11
Registered: 12-2008
| | Posted on Friday, August 28, 2009 - 9:31 am: |
|
I apologise for offending anyone or group. I only respond to the comments made by the afforementioned. |
andrewh
Member
Post Number: 30
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Friday, August 28, 2009 - 4:25 pm: |
|
It seems to me this should be a very easy issue for a court to decide. Is this land owned by Temagami Barge? Is there any legal tenancy on this property, such as a Crown lease or LUP?
If not, then I think that should be the end of the story, unless the Crown (who is the MNR in my opinion as they have a legislated authority to administer unpatented land in Ontario) is willing to offer some sort of legal tenancy.
However it sounds like for them to do at this point in time would contravene numerous policies.
I have worked for Temagami Barge and I believe their owners to be good people with good intentions for the lake and the town.
I have also worked for MNR and I believe their staff to be unbiased in their decision making, as much as any person can be.
I'm interested to hear the legal argument for Temagami Barge's tenancy, as this issue seems pretty straight forward. |
betsy
Member
Post Number: 3
Registered: 01-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, August 29, 2009 - 8:05 pm: |
|
Buyer beware! If you get 26 beautiful acres of Temagami real estate (Ferguson Point) for a great price, there’s a reason. The reason is the 1 km of shoreline mentioned in the realtor’s listing aint included in the parcel. You get what you pay for. The rub is the Skyline Reserve and the “MNR’s crown shore allowance” are one and the same.
It may be hypocritical, but I just wrote a large cheque to the Municipality of Temagami for taxes on an island property I only use a few weeks a year. I do so because one of the things I love about L. Temagami is the uniqueness of the Skyline Reserve and minimal mainland development. Sorry if that is controlling the life blood of the community.
|
irishfield
Member
Post Number: 208
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 30, 2009 - 7:44 pm: |
|
Cat I don't need to read alscool's link..there's nobody posting here that knows the situation better than I.
I am bewildered though that you appear to support the commercial use of land by Temagami Barge on road access Lake Temagami mainland on CROWN land, yet you don't appear to support the private use (for a quaint hidden cottage in the trees) on water access Lake Temagami mainland PRIVATE land. |
cat
Member
Post Number: 8
Registered: 08-2009
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 1, 2009 - 7:32 am: |
|
Read the article. |
sundown
Member
Post Number: 481
Registered: 04-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 1, 2009 - 7:51 am: |
|
Hmmmm... never binn muchuva ask-me-momma-man, meseff... muss be tha irish in me, reckon...
But, I'm kinda curious too, about his query?
Regards
Sundown |
shutter_speed
Member
Post Number: 37
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 1, 2009 - 1:16 pm: |
|
"lorrain": Most of us care a great deal about the "lifeblood of the community." That is precisely why we spend so much time (not just"2 or 3 months a year") trying to protect it. It is important to realise what the lifeblood actually is. |
lorrain
Member
Post Number: 12
Registered: 12-2008
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 1, 2009 - 2:05 pm: |
|
Its great to have those that are truly interested in protecting an area for all of its attributes. Temagami certainly deserves this protection. Then there is the question of peoples property rights. Patented Land is certainly distinctly different in Governance from an LUP or Leased Land.First there comes the greater issue of Treaty Land and the support of those inherent RIGHTS.Finally there is Crown Land that "WE ALL SHARE". If you are a Protector of all of these forms of tenure than you can begin to understand the complexity of the region. To select one or another as your focal point is failing the region in general. To select one area to apply the LAWS OF THE LAND to and not another is failing the greater good of the region. I aplaud those that truly stand the front line with an equal respect for all and not a selfish or selective manner in which you appy your efforts. |
betsy
Member
Post Number: 4
Registered: 01-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, September 3, 2009 - 10:10 am: |
|
Oh come on…
You guys, or whoever, bought a barely inland mining claim intending to develop it as waterfront cottage property on Lake Temagami. Doing so necessitated purchasing the adjacent 1 km strip of mainland waterfront Crown Land from the MNR. The scheme was anathema to L. Temagami stakeholders and rejected by the community’s governing bodies.
It didn’t work out and you/whoever are probably considering your next step. You have sour grapes and are blaming everyone else for being selfish and hypocritical.
…It’s not that complicated.
|
lorrain
Member
Post Number: 13
Registered: 12-2008
| | Posted on Friday, September 4, 2009 - 10:07 am: |
|
Is this a new thread of discussion ? One might take it as a distraction of the original discussion point. |
ojig
Member
Post Number: 54
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 4, 2009 - 12:45 pm: |
|
Why would one need a Km of shoreline for a "quant hidden cottage in the trees". Would the width of a dock not suffice.
Just curious. |
Temagami general 
New messages will be added after most recent message, not on archived pages