Landowner Rights v. the Environment

During the last four years of Bracebridge and District Councils, the general community has had to deal with a constant fight and battle between the perceived rights of landowners versus the perceived rights of the environmental community.
Environmentalist urge local governments to increase controls and protections for those things we all come to Muskoka to enjoy. Namely, the physical beauty of Muskoka includes a diverse ecosystem of waterways, Canadian Shield topography, natural vegetation and our naturally diverse animal populations. We all share Muskoka and we all want to ensure that its natural beauty is not destroyed.
Landowners in rural Muskoka believe that their rights are being trampled. Many of these landowners are descendants of the original founders of Muskoka. The original pioneers of these lands came to a rugged and undeveloped Muskoka and settled their land as they were asked to by the Crown. Other landowners have purchased lands and manage their properties under agreements with the province such as MFTIF (commonly known as managed forests) and others under provincial agreements based on their farming arrangement. These landowners believe they are already under contractual obligations with the government and that they should not be subject to additional government controls. When a municipality (or other government level) takes away the primary use of your land, this constitutes regulatory expropriation. In other words, when governments take away your rights to use your land in the ways you always have, it has expropriated your land rights. Traditional expropriation requires compensation on behalf of the local government.
How can the rights of landowners be protected? How can the local government ensure that valuable wetlands, natural habitat and other significant natural heritage areas are protected? These are not easy questions to answer.
Clearly, when a municipality takes away granted land rights from a landowner, the value of the landowners investment may decrease. Are there mechanisms to mitigate the investment loss?

Taxation Reductions
Landowners who are subject to managed forest agreements are subject to only 25% of the taxation rate. For example, a 100 acre vacant rural property is assessed at $400,000. Under traditional taxation rates, the property would be taxed approximately $4,000. If this property was placed under a managed forest agreement, the property would be taxed only $1,000 per year. This same tax reduction strategy is also available for farms.

Conservation Easements
I believe that a solution lies in an instrument called a Conservation Easement. This easement is a document that allows a landowner to retain ownership of all their land while the significant sensitive area would be monitored by an independent agency such as the Muskoka Heritage Trust. What is the benefit to the landowner?

1. An appraisal would be completed on the lands to determine what land value decrease would result in the conservation easement
2. The landowner could then apply for a reduction in municipal taxes for the reduced value of the property
3. The landowner may have rights on the easement property such as the removal of firewood (dead trees), tapping of trees in spring and other minor, unobtrusive uses such as hiking and passive recreational activities
4. The landowner could apply to the Trust for an “ecological gift” tax receipt. This would typically be given in the amount of land value lost as a result of the easement. The landowner could then use this tax receipt for a 29% charitable tax credit (cash in hand) that could be invested in the rest of their property, new equipment for their business, retirement financing or other uses. A loss in a property value of $100,000 could result in a cash tax credit of $29,000.

How can the Town help with this process? I believe that the Town of Bracebridge, other surrounding Townships, the District of Muskoka and the province should create a funding pool to offset the costs of obtaining and maintaining these easements so that those landowners who are the most largely effected can work towards a peaceful solution of this issue with our trail system so that we all may enjoy the beauty of Muskoka winters without the threat of blockades on the trails.
How can this be funded? I would strongly suggest that the Town reduce the amount of money spent on outside consultants. On an annual basis, local governments traditionally spend tens of thousands of dollars on reports from outsiders when our local managers and staff are providing most of the necessary data. We need to be autonomous.

Official Plan Amendments
Another simple solution would be the exemption of Official Plan amendment application fees for rural residents who wish to argue that their properties contain no areas of significant Natural Heritage. It has been openly acknowledged by local planning departments that there are mapping and aerial photography errors that may not be consistent with some properties and their environmental features. Citizens who are currently under agreements such as Managed Forest Agreements, certain farm designations and families of original pioneers to Muskoka may have their properties already under agreement with the province or federal government through existing contracts and Land Patent Rights given. These rural landowners should be given the opportunity to discuss in an open forum their argument against unnecessary protections by the Town. In general, landowners should not be faced with the added financial burden of “proving” that their land is free of environmentally significant features.

Summary
While rural and waterfront properties with significant natural heritage, wetlands and other areas should be protected by the Township, local governments need to be willing to accept responsibility for the revocation of landowner rights and values. Landowners should be entitled to continued use of their property without unjustified controls. Significant natural heritage should be protected. The Town needs to work closely with landowners in significant natural heritage areas to provide conservation guidance, education on natural heritage issues and when needed, suggest easements and other methods to provide compensation.