Tax exempt conservancy land is a serious threat to Manitoulin

To the Expositor:

Residents of Manitoulin Island feel like “cellophane people” when we read articles written by the likes of Bob Barnett of the Escarpment Biosphere Conservancy. Again Mr. Barnett lobbies the Minister of Natural Resources, Mr. Michael Gravelle, for our tax dollars to restore Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) funding to EBC’s coffers so that he can finance the appraisals and legal work required to realize this apparent obsession of achieving the international target of 17 percent of Manitoulin Island as conservation land. Not once does Mr. Barnett express any consideration or concern regarding the resulting impact on Island Communities if this 17 percent of Manitoulin’s tax base is removed. Mr. Barnett appears more concerned with protection of the “tempered forest” than the people who have homes on this island. He seems oblivious to the fact that these are the people who so carefully nurture the natural resources, and regularly pay taxes as expected of any responsible, civic-minded Canadians. Remember, it is our tax dollars that Mr. Barnett so desperately needs to pay for his appraisals and legal fees.

Mr. Barnett, can people’s lives and dreams be so easily destroyed to permit trees space to grow? Do people have value only to contribute financially to the attainment of the stated objective—acquisition of 17 percent of Manitoulin to fulfill international conservation obligations?

On Tuesday, December 17, 2012, Mr. Mike Mantha MPP hosted a teleconferencing session for Manitoulin Municipal Representatives with MNR contact Eric Bianchini. Most Manitoulin municipalities participated. Although municipal representatives asked for clarification of many issues regarding conservancy land “tax exempt” designations, not all answers received were encouraging.

Firstly, a municipal representative requested clarification of “the process” by which MPAC receives direction that a property has been “designated tax exempt conservancy land.” The MNR spokesperson stated that the MNR has complete authority to declare conservancy land 100 percent tax exempt. He acknowledged there are accepted criteria for this designation: 1. a wetland, 2. an ANSI (Area of Natural and Scientific Interest), 3. an Endangered Species Habitat, and 4. a Community Conservation Area, but admitted that these criteria are rarely considered when determining a property’s “tax exempt” status. He informed that conservation land applications to the MNR by large conservancies such as the EBC and NCC are usually ratified automatically without any required inspection of the property by MNR officials.

Municipal representatives also asked if the MNR or any government agency performs “impact studies” on Manitoulin municipalities to determine the possible short and long-term effects of MNR designations of large tracts of Manitoulin properties as tax exempt. Sadly, the answer “no” offered yet more proof of a general lack of concern for the plight of rural communities; communities challenged by the increasing burden of providing the following much-needed services for local residents: policing, hospitals, ambulances, libraries, social services and housing, recreational facilities, road construction and maintenance, and homes for the aged. Considering that the average population of seniors on Manitoulin is much higher than the provincial average, and the average wage of islanders is much lower, how much longer can Manitoulin communities continue to carry the wealthy EBC “tax exempt” landowners’ share of the tax burden?

Another disappointing reply was received from the MNR spokesperson when he was asked if a review process was in place to reassess a designated property’s “tax exempt” status. The municipal representatives were informed that the landowner was required to re-apply to the MNR each year to retain the “tax exempt” status, but no re-assessment based on criteria for “tax exemption” was ever performed. The MNR informed that the process of designation of Conservancy Land as “tax exempt” is an automatic order to MPAC, as authorized by the Ministry of Finance regulations. Municipal representatives are never invited to participate in this process. The MNR designate advised the municipal representatives to take their perceived problems regarding this process to Mr. Dwight Duncan, Ontario Minister of Finance, to seek recourse for concerns. He stated that the Ministry of Finance was the only ministry with authority to change the assessment regulations to address inequities judged to unfairly impact on Northern rural communities.

In support of Manitoulin municipalities, Mr. Mike Mantha, MPP, after conferring with Mr. Ken Noland, chairperson of the Manitoulin Municipal Association, agreed to request a meeting of MMA representatives and the Ontario Minister of Finance to question the MNR’s absolute authority to declare tax exempt lands without some requirement for an impact study to assess the effects of such decisions on each specific community. The MMA awaits his response.

In closing, let’s be realistic, Mr. Barnett of EBC, consider the possibility of the Greater Toronto Area communities losing 17 percent of their tax base. Would this not make it rather difficult for these communities to provide the necessary funding of essential services that you and your neighbours enjoy? Are we, the residents of Manitoulin Island, merely “cellophane people,” not really visible in southern Ontario’s big picture of a Future Ontario? Also, Islanders feel it is not acceptable to lobby for tax dollars under the guise of improving tourism to the island, unless all tax exempt conservancy properties have open access to the general public. This would promote opportunities for all residents and tourists to the Island to enjoy the natural beauty of these large tracts, rather than merely establishing large private playgrounds for wealthy eco-tourists from southern Ontario, and Europe. The latter, unfortunately, is the public perception of the EBC Conservancy Movement on Manitoulin Island.

Wayne L. Bailey

Evansville

pdabous

The definition of “natural resource” has two faces, as my careful reading of many definitions of this term reveals. All definitions concur that natural resources are essentially usable by man to transform into goods that satisfy needs and wants of man. The second face involves the preservation of landscape and habitat for organic life, to the end of preserving biodiversity and an essential and enduring link between man and his historical natural environment. There is also a profound recognition of a fiduciary human responsibility to act on behalf of the welfare of natural organic life as an end in itself, apart from an anthropocentric bias. The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources manages both these aspects for the benefit of both Ontarians and Ontario’s natural, undeveloped world.

Mr. Bailey has quite exhaustively summed up many concerning tax aspects of the activities of Conservancy and Biosphere activities on Manitoulin. If one reads an abstract of the land trust policy in Ontario, one is left with the impression that land trusts are allowed to be self-policing with regard to land use adhering faithfully to the stated guidelines of land trust creation. There also seems to me to exist the potential for a land trust property to be used as a sort of time-sharing cottage property, with land use guidelines easily known only by “insiders”, as this term is defined in the key terms section of the land trust abstract. These insiders may also enjoy privileged access to lovely properties, which are tax exempted.

Farming may be allowed, according to my understanding of land trusts. Who would enjoy the fruits of this activity?

There is also the possibility of a somewhat artificial inflation of land prices, as property is removed from the market. Such a situation would make it more difficult for moderate income residents to acquire land on their native soil.

Of course, it can be argued that retaining land in a relatively natural state is a service provided by land trust creators, who justifiably could expect some privileged rights of use of this land. That this land trust program is executed under the aegis of a government ministry suggests that our government is monitoring the land involved in this process, to the benefit of all citizens. Of course, “monitoring” is an activity that must be pursued.

Essentially what we have are environmentally concerned people furthering one of the mandates of a natural resources ministry. There will always be a clash between these two faces of natural resources. It is “natural” and desirable that the land trust program be revisited from time to time, just as it is essential that resource exploitation be reconciled with the preservation goals of man. Imbalances will occur, and will be most noticeable, by man, in times of human crisis.
rockpile

a serious threat to manitoulin?Not being able to find a garbage can on manitoulin is a serious threat to Manitoulin. We’ve paid taxes on a large tract of land(700 acres) for 46 years. You would think the keeping Ontario beautiful saying would apply and for your tax dollars at least a garbage can would be available even around towns.After they closed the dump they built some small dumpsters out of plywood that bears can get into easily. These remote sights are always overflowing as are people dropping off everything from old carpet,drywall broken glass etc. what a blight.If you have anything bigger to get rid of I remember being told you’d have to drive to Espanola,what a joke.No wonder people litter everywhere,from morons filling the woods with beer cans etc.. to throwing large junk off at the side of the road or hillbilly it up and just let it sit on their own property.This practice of garbage has been going on long before properties were bought up to be preserved. Manitoulin like most any place a person lives is taken for granted over time. Ive witnessed for 40+ years as locals refer to the alvar lakefronts as typical manitoulin shoreline.However to the contrary very non typical as seen through out the world and should be seen and saved as that for generations to come.
Bob Gladish

It would appear Mr. Bailey has done his homework re. the tax base and the necessary financing for obtaining 17% public conservation lands, so I won’t challenge him on that, however, he appears short-sighted in his estimation of Manitoulin as a wilderess area. It’s easy to say private ownership will help ensure proper stewardship of the land, while maintaining the tax base, but that’s only because Manitoulin is such a low-growth area.

I’m all for extending the Escarpment Biosphere to Manitoulin, and for setting aside even more land for provincial parks. It’s a black mark on Manitoulin that it’s only public protected land is the land assembled at Misery Bay. We should have bought Carter Bay, and should be establishing a contiuation of the Bruce Trail, from South Baymouth, all the way to the western end of the Island, via Cup&Saucer, and the other bluffs along the North Channel. People using provincial campgrounds, and hiking the Bruce Trail, are used by eco-tourists, yes; wealthy elitists, no. It’s a shame no conservation authorities are present on the Island, though I agree Manitoulin Streams is a decent alternative.

I suggest Mr. Bailey take a close look at a map o Metropolitan Toronto. He would see huge swathes of green covering over 17% of the total area. The Rouge River area is now Canada’s first urban national park, and is looking to increasing it’s holdings. The Don River and it’s tributaries have huge urban parks. Their benefits are seen as being more important than adding to the tax base.

I would think when the day comes when Manitoulin is a high-growth area, like southern Ontario, you’ll see flagrant disregard of our natural resources by much of the private sector. Best to protect some of our land while it’s still relatively cheap to do so. Sure, there will be increased taxes, but there will be added tax revenues, as property values near the conservation lands, and the Bruce Trail, will increase. Just look at how property values are structured on lands on or near the existing trail. Many private landowners have title to the land the trail crosses, and they mostly love their situation. They may grumble sometimes because they’re so restricted in what they can do with their lands, but the natural beauty of the area, and the fact that it will remain as such more than compensates.

On a personal note, let me add that I have more access to nature living in downtown Hamilton for part of the year, than I do on Manitoulin. I’m just three blocks away from the Bruce Trail, where I can walk for miles in a wooded setting, often oblivious to the city nearby. On Manitoulin, almost anywhere I go, I’m trespassing, unless I’ve got the landowners’ permission. Many tourists must feel the same way, as the only areas open to them, and worth exploring are Cup & Saucer, and Misery Bay. Private campgrounds are fine, but provincial campgrounds puts us more on the map.

On a humourous note (albeit black humour), maybe all this extra land Manitoulin is getting from the extreme low water levels of Lake Huron, should be converted to public lands. Right now I look at all this extra land as “no man’s land” Who’s land is it, anyway? The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers thinks lower water is going the be the norm in future years…..but that’s another story.