T'su Tina Vote

[mersar]

The claims usually go back to trying to say that the treaties they signed gave them parcel x, y and z, but they never actually got z so now they want it.

As for Highway 22, your pretty much dead on. I asked my dad about it as his boss lives in Bragg Creek, and he got told about the fun they had. If you know Bragg Creek theres the small triangle of land right as you get into the area where theres roads running on 3 sides. Supposedly the province had wanted to redesign those intersections during the project into a single one, but that small couple thousand square foot piece of land is part of the reserve, and the band refused to swap it for an equal sized piece where the highway was to be realigned from. So they are stuck with 3 intersections literally within a hundred feet or so of each other

[vid]

I don't believe the province or the feds have the right to expropriate any reserve land.

Reserve land is federal land. Until about 30 years ago, they could and did take their land for a whole variety of reasons. I'm pretty sure they can expropriate it but it is controversial.

As for being selective in which pieces of land they claim, they typically have a reason behind it. The mountains south of Thunder Bay for example are claimed by local Ojibwe to be the spiritual home of Animikii, the Thunderbird, and so the mountains have great spiritual importance to them, especially Mount McKay. In Ochichagwe'babigo'inning, there was a rock that had spiritual significance that was destroyed by the government for a dam, and they are still quite upset over it. The area outside of the rock had no real value to them though, that spot was important because of the rock itself. Ipperwash Park in Ontario is a burial ground, it was expropriated during WWII, using the War Measures Act. It was supposed to be given back to them when the war ended but wasn't, which culminated in the incident in 1995. The park is being given back to them this year.

They were semi-nomadic (they settled in areas and had limited agriculture during summers in some places) but they didn't just wander aimlessly around the continent, they stayed in a general area, and many landmarks in those areas are significant to them while much of the land is just land. They could claim it, but it is likely that they just want a certain part that has spiritual significance. I think we should look into some sort of land-held-in-trust partnership thing for such locations. Not have the landmarks specifically their land but have them protected as landmarks of spiritual importance so that they aren't destroyed. As minor as many of them may be, they are part of our nation's cultural history.

Additionally it should be noted that in aboriginal culture, at least before European contact, the concept of owning land was unheard of and alien to them, which is why they were conned into giving so much of it away for so little. They didn't understand the concept and were taken advantage of. In many cases in the former Hudson Bay territories, their land was ceded to the crown in treaties, in exchange for various rights like free education and the ability to hunt on their land at any time for sustenance. They frequently didn't receive all of the lands reserved for them. All the existing reserves are probably less than a third of what was promised, many were slowly cut down into smaller pieces and most of them weren't very big to begin with. One of the densest communities in Ontario is a reserve that has about 800 people living in a quarter square mile, because that's how big their reserve is.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ Claims can be classed in very different ways.

BC is in a class of itself since most of the mainland was never covered under treaty (this is being slowly fixed).

The rest of the country most legitimate claims are based on the government carving out land from the original grants under treaties.

In Alberta, since most if not all was covered by treaties, claims can only be based on either treaty violations, or where title was not extinguished.

[Oliver Klozov]

Originally Posted by mersar

The claims usually go back to trying to say that the treaties they signed gave them parcel x, y and z, but they never actually got z so now they want it.

Most are that exactly but the one in Banff is a fair bit more gray. Supposedly in the treaty there is mention of traditional ways of doing some things like securing materiel for lodges. Apparently way back during a drought (no doubt brought on by Red River Cart induced global warming), some Siksika men went up the Bow River and logged some large trees (probably Douglas Fir) and floated them back down the Bow. They claim the land that they logged was in the Castle Junction area and want full rights, including logging of course, to it.

I just can't imagine why those men would have ventured so far upstream and upstream of Bow Falls when Douglas Fir trees are plentiful around Canmore.

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I want that bridge designed by a STARchitect!

Believe it or not, about 6 months ago I heard a rumour that the Province had approached Calatrava's office (haha, yeah I know!) about a potential bridge over the Weaselhead. Something like a 1.6 km bridge. Maybe the writing on the wall was there already. I think the tactic was that if there was going to be huge opposition from the environmental side, make it a beautiful component of the landscape.

take that with a massive grain of salt. I don't remember the source or how credible that might be.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by Wooster

Believe it or not, about 6 months ago I heard a rumour that the Province had approached Calatrava's office (haha, yeah I know!) about a potential bridge over the Weaselhead. Something like a 1.6 km bridge. Maybe the writing on the wall was there already. I think the tactic was that if there was going to be huge opposition from the environmental side, make it a beautiful component of the landscape.

take that with a massive grain of salt. I don't remember the source or how credible that might be.

If that happened, that just might become the world's most expensive bridge in terms of dollars spent per metre of width of the body of water it would cross.

Can you imagine the 1.6 km high leaning tower that would support the cable stays?

[MalcolmTucker]

^ I don't know, the River Tarn is maybe 50 m across which the Millau Viaduct crosses (2400m long, ~€400 million). I know the span would be shorter, but more lanes. With surface approaches, I wouldn't be surprised if a stacked highway makes the most sense to save expropriation dollars.

With construction prices being what they are, and lower house values, it might make sense to move on the project really fast. It may save money in the end. (for the inner ring road)

[Wooster]

If a bridge had to be built there, I'd love to see something like the Millau Viaduct in France, which is a Foster project.

[SmokWawelski]

So now that we have established that the 50+ years of negotiations has failed we move on. Save money for the tax payer and come up with a much better solution. I am glad they voted No...this way Calgary will not be hostage whenever money runs dry.

And to Nigel....I realize that the "big bad white man" is at fault for everything around the world, but somewhere along people need to take responsibility for their own actions (or lack of). You mention the residential school issues. The aboriginals won court battle with the federal government, they received compensation for what was done to them.....now they complain that the amount of money that the victims received has caused them to either develop an addiction to alcohol or drugs or allowed them to continue with their addiction, some even committing suicide as the worst case scenario......I really think that the aboriginal community needs to look internally to find solutions. Money can't solve all the problems, playing the victim card, generation after generation will not solve the problem. Looking into the mirror and being honest with one self might be a good start.

Just to stay on topic,
Could our cowboy Bronco just build it over the Weaselhead and be done with it, or 37th or tunnel it, what ever just get it done!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Knoots]

Was the Millau Viaduct really 400 million Euros? Sounds like we could build something pretty fantastic for the $240 million that was supposed to go to the Tsuu Tina. I agree, something that can add to the beauty of the area and not choke off the ecosystem there would be great. I had always envisioned a behemoth-concrete-causeway type bridge. But I'm all thumbs up for something like the Millau Viaduct.

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

^ I don't know, the River Tarn is maybe 50 m across which the Millau Viaduct crosses (2400m long, ~€400 million). I know the span would be shorter, but more lanes. With surface approaches, I wouldn't be surprised if a stacked highway makes the most sense to save expropriation dollars.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Knoots

Was the Millau Viaduct really 400 million Euros? Sounds like we could build something pretty fantastic for the $240 million that was supposed to go to the Tsuu Tina. I agree, something that can add to the beauty of the area and not choke off the ecosystem there would be great. I had always envisioned a behemoth-concrete-causeway type bridge. But I'm all thumbs up for something like the Millau Viaduct.

400 mill + 20 mill for toll station = about $675 million Cdn dollars.. plus a $9-12 toll per vehicle per trip!

I liked the Herald comment that said something along the lines that at least *this* designer bridge would be worth the money.... morons.

Also someone made the comment that a bridge would be a dangerous goods route which would go over the source of our drinking water, would this be the case?

[MalcolmTucker]

Yeah, it would be, but it isn't rocket science to build something like this correctly. We have two dangerous goods routes already right next to water treatment intakes, so what harm does one more do as long as it is properly designed.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

Yeah, it would be, but it isn't rocket science to build something like this correctly. We have two dangerous goods routes already right next to water treatment intakes, so what harm does one more do as long as it is properly designed.

I imagine Class 6 dangerous goods (Toxic and Infectious substances) will be prohibited from using the bridge (if built), just like they are over the Glenmore causeway. Other classes don't affect drinking water as much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_goods
Calgary Dangerous Good Routes Map - warning 6MB file.

[MalcolmTucker]

Well, how does something that is class 6 get to the west of the city anyways?

Or will they not be able to take the northern ring road either.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

Well, how does something that is class 6 get to the west of the city anyways?

Or will they not be able to take the northern ring road either.

All the other dangerous goods routes are routes they can travel on. The rest of the ring road should be a dangerous goods route. But, there's no restriction on other bridges over rivers, so they will probably be fine to go over the weaselhead too.

[mersar]

We discussed this a while back, I think we'd see the SW be restricted like Glenmore as that intake would be downstream, but the rest of Stoney should be fine (the intakes on the Bow are upstream of the bridge so no worry about impacting the drinking water supply from a spill)

[Beltliner]

Here's a hint at the scope of the problem of designing and implementing Plan B:

[freeweed]

Hmm, pretty sure Crowchild won't enter into the equation (although I'd love it to be so). There's just too much to remove for that to be even remotely feasible.

[O-tacular]

I'm quite ambivalent to the no vote by the tsu tina nation. On the one hand traveling from one quadrant of the SW to the other (Ex:Woodbine to Westhills) is a giant pain in the ass. On the other hand, I am quite thankful the reserve is situated where it is as it has remained the only barrier to urban sprawl in this city's history. And who are we to call them stupid for rejecting development on their land and saying that it's a waste of space (this sounds like thinking from the earlier part of the 20th century not today). I think bridging the Weaslehead is a disaster waiting to happen.

[eternallyme]

Here is how I think the 37th Street alignment can be done (pretty straightforward south of the Weaselhead as the ROW is already there). The 54th Avenue crossing is optional depending on the desires of the Tsuu T'ina and Lakeview. Access to the casino would have to be via 66th Avenue (where an interchange is recommended). (Photos are my drawings)

It should be up to 8 lanes wide (probably 4 lanes initially), or 6 lanes wide with provisions for an LRT line in the median. Any outer bypass (the idea for the 16 lanes in the original alignment) would have to go out to Highway 22, with the SW section being a hole in the plan.





Blue - Freeway mainlines
Light blue - Surface ramps
Dark blue - 3rd level ramps
Purple - 4th level ramp
Yellow - Arterial road
Light yellow - Collector or local road
Light red - ROW boundary (anything within it would be expropriated)