By Stan Church and Dan Smith, 
Calgary Herald 
March 20, 2011 

Re: "Clear as mud," Editorial, March 7.

The Calgary Herald suggested that "the proposed land-use framework needs an outside panel of expert, third-party referees to analyze the legislation and make recommendations."

With respect, we don't think this is necessary. Many of the concerns regarding the Alberta Land Stewardship Act have been expressed by representatives of one political party in Alberta and appear rather partisan. In the interests of clarity and certainty, the proposed Bill 10 amendments to the act would more than answer these concerns.

Bill 10 amends Section 19 of the Alberta Land Stewardship Act to create a new right to compensation to any "compensable taking" suffered by a landowner as a consequence of a regional plan. Compensable taking is broadly defined to cover not just the distinguishing of a property right, but any negative impact on "the right, title or interest" for which there is compensation in either Alberta statutes or common law.

This represents a dramatic expansion of landowners' rights to compensation for any negative economic impact that a regional plan might have on their land. Indeed, the new Section 19 expands the principle found in the conservation directive section of the act (Sections 35-43) that landowners should be compensated not just for the expropriation of land, but for any negative impact that new regulatory restrictions might have on the economic value of the current use of that land.

In the new era of enhanced environmental stewardship, the greatest threat to landowners is not expropriation, but this kind of "regulatory taking." The Alberta Land Stewardship Act, plus the Bill 10 amendments, put Alberta ahead of any other province or U.S. state when it comes to protecting landowners' property rights.

The economic interests of landowners are further protected by the new Section 15(1) that authorizes the minister to grant a variance to a landowner whose current use is adversely affected by a regional plan. This amounts to a safeguard against any "undue hardship" that a regional plan might incidentally impose on a landowner.

For example, a landowner who has a parcel of land that sits right on the boundary line of special use zones and who thinks that the value of his use of that land is being adversely affected, can now petition the minister to include (or exclude) that parcel in the zone. The minister may grantthe request so long as the exclusion (or inclusion) does not undermine the purpose of the regional plan. This is a simple but important protection against unintended consequences.

With the addition of the amendments contained in Bill 10, we would suggest that the intent of the legislation is clear and protects property rights.

As to another panel of experts, to quote a now deceased American politician, "An expert is somebody who is more than 50 miles from home, has no responsibility for implementing the advice that he gives and shows slides." We've had enough of these already.

Stan Church is a thirdgeneration rancher, a lawyer with an extensive rural land practice and a former board member of the Alberta chapter of Nature Conservancy Canada. Dan Smith is a lawyer in Medicine Hat with an extensive practice in agricultural lands. Both served as members of the South Saskatchewan Regional Advisory Committee.

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald