D
Degnaw
Guest
^The greenbelt is too narrow between Peel/Halton and Guelph
|
|
|
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
E
EnviroTO
Guest
Compensate land speculators? Give me a break. All markets have risks. Speculating on what one might be able to do with farmland is simply that, speculation. When people make an investment they should realize the risks. When you buy farm land it seems obvious to me that the land is currently only zoned for farms and any other expected future use is speculation about future zoning and servicing by the government. They shouldn't be even thinking about this. How about land owners along Eglinton West hit by the cancellation of the subway... do they deserve compensation? What about hotels that hoped to cash in on Expo 2015 only to have the feds not come forward with funding... do they deserve compenation? Market speculators shouldn't expect compensation. They didn't loose the right to build on those properties... they never had the approval in the first place. They believed that at some point the land would be serviced and zoned for development. If land was zoned for development and approved for development then I would agree that some compensation is required... but I'm pretty sure that those companies and individuals have legal recourse to get their money anyways.
A
AlvinofDiaspar
Guest
So, should landowners compensate the government if their properties rose inadvertently due to public works and infrastructural projects paid for by the general public?
AoD
AoD
A
AlvinofDiaspar
Guest
And from the Star:
Grading greenbelt's guardians
Greenbelt report card (PDF)
Advocates' report sees positive moves but also glaring areas for improvement, like cutting highways to remote projects
Feb 28, 2007 04:30 AM
Peter Gorrie
Environment writer
The greenbelt that's intended to curb sprawl and preserve natural areas in the Golden Horseshoe won't survive unless the province gets much tougher about protecting it, says a report to be released today.
Development is already slated for at least one part of the 720,000-hectare band of farmland, forests and meadows that stretches from Niagara Falls to Peterborough, and north to Lake Simcoe.
And much of the rest is threatened by expansion of highways, water and sewer pipes, gravel pits, as well as industrial and residential projects, says the report by the Ontario Greenbelt Alliance, a coalition of 80 watchdog groups.
The report gives the province a B+ for its handling of the greenbelt since it created the protected zone two years ago.
The public loves this jewel of southern Ontario – it got 89 per cent support in a recent poll – and the government has done a decent job of defending its current borders, the report states. Planning polices also support the greenbelt, at least in theory. And this month, the province added 600 hectares of rural land, just past the northeast corner of Toronto, to Rouge Park.
The government has performed well on some of the 10 "hot spots" identified in the report but failed badly on others, the alliance says.
The crucial factor, though, is that the greenbelt is "too small and still too vulnerable to attack," the report says.
"If the provincial government doesn't take a more aggressive approach to changing development patterns, this Greenbelt will suffer the identical fate as Premier Bill Davis' Parkway Belt of the 1970s (which is now known as Highway 407)."
Along with threats to the greenbelt itself, developers have begun to move into places just beyond its outer boundary, particularly in Simcoe County, on the west side of Lake Simcoe.
If they're allowed to proceed, sprawl, traffic congestion, pollution and the loss of prime agricultural land will continue unabated, the report says.
"If the result of the greenbelt is just an intensification of damaging development pressures as opposed to permanent change in how development happens, it won't be a successful policy," Rick Smith, executive director of Environmental Defence, a member of the alliance, said in an interview yesterday.
The policy allows new highways almost anywhere in the greenbelt, and a proposed network of 400-level expressways would probably lead to development in areas that are supposed to be preserved, said Mark Winfield of the Pembina Institute, another member.
The highway projects "are completely at odds with what the province claims it's trying to do with its planning policy," Winfield said.
The most extreme case is the proposed extension of Highway 404 from Newmarket to Keswick, at the south end of Lake Simcoe, he said.
The entire route is through greenbelt land.
The divided highway would allow easy access from Toronto to a business park York Region recently added to its official plan, even though the project is to occupy 256 hectares of land designated "protected countryside."
The province made only a half-hearted effort to halt the business park and appears to be proceeding at full steam with the 404 extension, Winfield said.
"The rationale for the business park is the highway, and the rationale for the highway is the business park," he said. The twin developments would also increase the pressure for urban growth in the area.
"This is exactly what the province is supposed to be against."
The same applies to proposed expressways that would link Niagara Falls and Burlington, and Brampton and Guelph, Winfield said.
The proposed network "sets in motion a future time bomb for the integrity of the greenbelt."
Provincial officials say they couldn't derail the Keswick business park because it had initial approval before the greenbelt was created. Such "grandfathering" of projects with only preliminary approval "is not sound legal theory" and sets a bad precedent, said David Donnelly, a lawyer with Environmental Defence.
Another trouble spot is Simcoe County, which was not included in the greenbelt and is now the "Wild West of development in Ontario," Smith said.
The province and local governments approved a growth plan for the county that calls for most of the population increase to be in and near Barrie. But developers have proposed projects that would house 250,000 people in conventional suburbs well south of the city. And politicians in Bradford-West Gwillimbury last fall approved a massive business park and shopping mall at Highways 400 and 88 that would cover about 500 hectares designated to remain farmland.
The province hasn't yet said whether it would challenge any of these projects, but Municipal Affairs Minister John Gerretsen said it will be up to local and county councils.
"We're looking for local solutions and we hope that any solution ... will take the (growth plan) as its foundation basis. I'm not willing to speculate as to what we would do if that doesn't happen."
The government plans to eventually expand the greenbelt but hasn't decided by how much, or when, Gerretsen said.
As to Simcoe County: "I can certainly see portions ... that abut the greenbelt, once the appropriate studies have been finished and decisions made, can be added."
Local opposition might scuttle the plan, he suggested: "I think it would initially depend on the reaction of the county council and the two city (Barrie and Orillia) councils there as to how they want to proceed.
"You've got to wait for the appropriate work in order to allow it to happen."
AoD
Grading greenbelt's guardians
Greenbelt report card (PDF)
Advocates' report sees positive moves but also glaring areas for improvement, like cutting highways to remote projects
Feb 28, 2007 04:30 AM
Peter Gorrie
Environment writer
The greenbelt that's intended to curb sprawl and preserve natural areas in the Golden Horseshoe won't survive unless the province gets much tougher about protecting it, says a report to be released today.
Development is already slated for at least one part of the 720,000-hectare band of farmland, forests and meadows that stretches from Niagara Falls to Peterborough, and north to Lake Simcoe.
And much of the rest is threatened by expansion of highways, water and sewer pipes, gravel pits, as well as industrial and residential projects, says the report by the Ontario Greenbelt Alliance, a coalition of 80 watchdog groups.
The report gives the province a B+ for its handling of the greenbelt since it created the protected zone two years ago.
The public loves this jewel of southern Ontario – it got 89 per cent support in a recent poll – and the government has done a decent job of defending its current borders, the report states. Planning polices also support the greenbelt, at least in theory. And this month, the province added 600 hectares of rural land, just past the northeast corner of Toronto, to Rouge Park.
The government has performed well on some of the 10 "hot spots" identified in the report but failed badly on others, the alliance says.
The crucial factor, though, is that the greenbelt is "too small and still too vulnerable to attack," the report says.
"If the provincial government doesn't take a more aggressive approach to changing development patterns, this Greenbelt will suffer the identical fate as Premier Bill Davis' Parkway Belt of the 1970s (which is now known as Highway 407)."
Along with threats to the greenbelt itself, developers have begun to move into places just beyond its outer boundary, particularly in Simcoe County, on the west side of Lake Simcoe.
If they're allowed to proceed, sprawl, traffic congestion, pollution and the loss of prime agricultural land will continue unabated, the report says.
"If the result of the greenbelt is just an intensification of damaging development pressures as opposed to permanent change in how development happens, it won't be a successful policy," Rick Smith, executive director of Environmental Defence, a member of the alliance, said in an interview yesterday.
The policy allows new highways almost anywhere in the greenbelt, and a proposed network of 400-level expressways would probably lead to development in areas that are supposed to be preserved, said Mark Winfield of the Pembina Institute, another member.
The highway projects "are completely at odds with what the province claims it's trying to do with its planning policy," Winfield said.
The most extreme case is the proposed extension of Highway 404 from Newmarket to Keswick, at the south end of Lake Simcoe, he said.
The entire route is through greenbelt land.
The divided highway would allow easy access from Toronto to a business park York Region recently added to its official plan, even though the project is to occupy 256 hectares of land designated "protected countryside."
The province made only a half-hearted effort to halt the business park and appears to be proceeding at full steam with the 404 extension, Winfield said.
"The rationale for the business park is the highway, and the rationale for the highway is the business park," he said. The twin developments would also increase the pressure for urban growth in the area.
"This is exactly what the province is supposed to be against."
The same applies to proposed expressways that would link Niagara Falls and Burlington, and Brampton and Guelph, Winfield said.
The proposed network "sets in motion a future time bomb for the integrity of the greenbelt."
Provincial officials say they couldn't derail the Keswick business park because it had initial approval before the greenbelt was created. Such "grandfathering" of projects with only preliminary approval "is not sound legal theory" and sets a bad precedent, said David Donnelly, a lawyer with Environmental Defence.
Another trouble spot is Simcoe County, which was not included in the greenbelt and is now the "Wild West of development in Ontario," Smith said.
The province and local governments approved a growth plan for the county that calls for most of the population increase to be in and near Barrie. But developers have proposed projects that would house 250,000 people in conventional suburbs well south of the city. And politicians in Bradford-West Gwillimbury last fall approved a massive business park and shopping mall at Highways 400 and 88 that would cover about 500 hectares designated to remain farmland.
The province hasn't yet said whether it would challenge any of these projects, but Municipal Affairs Minister John Gerretsen said it will be up to local and county councils.
"We're looking for local solutions and we hope that any solution ... will take the (growth plan) as its foundation basis. I'm not willing to speculate as to what we would do if that doesn't happen."
The government plans to eventually expand the greenbelt but hasn't decided by how much, or when, Gerretsen said.
As to Simcoe County: "I can certainly see portions ... that abut the greenbelt, once the appropriate studies have been finished and decisions made, can be added."
Local opposition might scuttle the plan, he suggested: "I think it would initially depend on the reaction of the county council and the two city (Barrie and Orillia) councils there as to how they want to proceed.
"You've got to wait for the appropriate work in order to allow it to happen."
AoD
S
spmarshall
Guest
The basic exclusion of south Simcoe and Dufferin Counties and Southeast Wellington County was a mistake. Guelph, Eramosa, Puslinch, Erin Townships in Wellington should have been included, as should have most of West Gwillimbury, Essa, New Tecumseh and Adjala-Tosorontio in Simcoe, and Mono and East Garafraxa Townships in Dufferin.
Silvio Gasparitis, and the rest of you swine, buy land in the above townships.
Silvio Gasparitis, and the rest of you swine, buy land in the above townships.
M
maxy505
Guest
.
Well, that's the philosophical difference, then. You are assuming that "right to use one's land" is granted by the majority, and I am assuming that this right is inherent and can only be modified or taken away with justification and compensation.
They didn't loose the right to build on those properties... they never had the approval in the first place. They believed that at some point the land would be serviced and zoned for development. If land was zoned for development and approved for development then I would agree that some compensation is required...
Well, that's the philosophical difference, then. You are assuming that "right to use one's land" is granted by the majority, and I am assuming that this right is inherent and can only be modified or taken away with justification and compensation.
T
TdotTrickyRicky
Guest
Re: Greenbelt trust
The intention of the legislation was never to have the land act as a large public park or preserve its natural state. It puts planning restrictions on privately owned lands, therefore some kind of public trust or ownership of the land has nothing to do with the intent of the legislation. Actually the use of the word "greenbelt" is in itself misleadings since only a tiny sliver of the lands in question are designated as natural preserves.
The intention of the legislation was never to have the land act as a large public park or preserve its natural state. It puts planning restrictions on privately owned lands, therefore some kind of public trust or ownership of the land has nothing to do with the intent of the legislation. Actually the use of the word "greenbelt" is in itself misleadings since only a tiny sliver of the lands in question are designated as natural preserves.
J
jordancerovic
Guest
Re: Greenbelt trust
"If 89% of Ontarians are in favour of this, surely we'd also be in favour of purchasing the land we wish to dictate the use of?"
The governments and by extension Ontarians dictate the use of all land. The idea that they need to compensate speculators for the decision to not zone and service the land in whichever way the the speculators want is ludicrous. They chose where to invest by purchasing where they did, and it's not the job of taxpayers to subsidize their mistakes.
"Well, that's the philosophical difference, then. You are assuming that "right to use one's land" is granted by the majority, and I am assuming that this right is inherent and can only be modified or taken away with justification and compensation."
They do have an inherent right to use their land... as farmland. There is no inherent right to be able to build whatever you want wherever you own land. Furthermore, the "justification" of this move is more than convincing enough, considering the overwhelming level of support for the greenbelt.
"If 89% of Ontarians are in favour of this, surely we'd also be in favour of purchasing the land we wish to dictate the use of?"
The governments and by extension Ontarians dictate the use of all land. The idea that they need to compensate speculators for the decision to not zone and service the land in whichever way the the speculators want is ludicrous. They chose where to invest by purchasing where they did, and it's not the job of taxpayers to subsidize their mistakes.
"Well, that's the philosophical difference, then. You are assuming that "right to use one's land" is granted by the majority, and I am assuming that this right is inherent and can only be modified or taken away with justification and compensation."
They do have an inherent right to use their land... as farmland. There is no inherent right to be able to build whatever you want wherever you own land. Furthermore, the "justification" of this move is more than convincing enough, considering the overwhelming level of support for the greenbelt.
E
EnviroTO
Guest
Re: Greenbelt trust
Restrictions on land use always exist. Any landowner in the city cannot just expect to build an additional 4 floors onto the top of their house. Any landowner cannot simply decide to put a large billboard on their front lawn. Laws exist which restrict the use of all properties. Someone who wants to add a 4 floor addition to their house who is denied the right by the city should not expect compensation unless they had that right at some point and the right was taken away. If I could knock my house down and rebuild it with offices for my business, perhaps a little retail and restaurant on the ground floor, and put my home on the upper floors that would save my business a lot of money and give me some new revenue opportunities... but I can't do that and since I never had the right to do those things I don't think I should expect the government to reimburse me for it.
In the case of farmlands in the greenbelt, the right to build subdivisions on the property did not yet exist. The landowners speculated that at some point the right would exist. They didn't have the approvals to move forward on building new subdivisions. Any developers who did have all the necessary approvals to move forward would have been compensated already if they had been stopped in their tracks. The people the Conservatives want to compensate are farmers, developers, or land speculators that had their prices rise on the assumption that in the future the land would be able to be used for a purpose it did not have the approvals to be used for. I don't see why these people deserve compensation any more than a property owner on Eglinton West that has not had their property value rise due to the cancelled Eglinton West subway.
Well, that's the philosophical difference, then. You are assuming that "right to use one's land" is granted by the majority, and I am assuming that this right is inherent and can only be modified or taken away with justification and compensation.
Restrictions on land use always exist. Any landowner in the city cannot just expect to build an additional 4 floors onto the top of their house. Any landowner cannot simply decide to put a large billboard on their front lawn. Laws exist which restrict the use of all properties. Someone who wants to add a 4 floor addition to their house who is denied the right by the city should not expect compensation unless they had that right at some point and the right was taken away. If I could knock my house down and rebuild it with offices for my business, perhaps a little retail and restaurant on the ground floor, and put my home on the upper floors that would save my business a lot of money and give me some new revenue opportunities... but I can't do that and since I never had the right to do those things I don't think I should expect the government to reimburse me for it.
In the case of farmlands in the greenbelt, the right to build subdivisions on the property did not yet exist. The landowners speculated that at some point the right would exist. They didn't have the approvals to move forward on building new subdivisions. Any developers who did have all the necessary approvals to move forward would have been compensated already if they had been stopped in their tracks. The people the Conservatives want to compensate are farmers, developers, or land speculators that had their prices rise on the assumption that in the future the land would be able to be used for a purpose it did not have the approvals to be used for. I don't see why these people deserve compensation any more than a property owner on Eglinton West that has not had their property value rise due to the cancelled Eglinton West subway.
E
EnviroTO
Guest
Re: Greenbelt trust
Additionally, not only is there losers in land speculation, there are winners. There are farmers that sold their land to developers or land speculators for more than they are now worth... should they re-imburse the purchasers or the government? If loosing money in land speculation is unjust than surely profit making in land speculation should be equally unjust.
Additionally, not only is there losers in land speculation, there are winners. There are farmers that sold their land to developers or land speculators for more than they are now worth... should they re-imburse the purchasers or the government? If loosing money in land speculation is unjust than surely profit making in land speculation should be equally unjust.
M
maxy505
Guest
Re: Greenbelt trust
You can't just state "the right to build subdivisions on the property did not yet exist" as if it is a fact -- without getting into the impossible issue of where rights are derived from in the first place. That's why I said it's philosophical.
If you believe that all property rights are granted by the generosity of the people of Ontario (as represented by the legislature), then all of your points are of course correct.
My position is that the right to use one's property is higher than Ontario law, even though Ontario law doesn't respect that. I do concede that the right can be limited to ameliorate the negative externalities on neighbours (as I said -- "with justification"). However, enacting the greenbelt is not at all the same thing as preventing me from putting a billboard up on my lawn. The billboard creates negative effects on my neighbours. Building subdivisions, on the other hand, simply removes the existing benefit of the greenbelt. The province (we the people) are upset that "our" green land is disappearing and we wish to retain the benefits of having it there. We are presently extracting benefit from other people's land. If they are to be forced to supply us this benefit, they should be compensated.
As for the speculators (let's just say land owners): from a rights perspective I am unconcerned who gains or loses money, as long as people are fairly compensated for the unequally distributed demands society makes of them. Land owners who benefit from a natural increase in the demand for their land (due to population growth, as is happening) don't owe any money to anybody.
It is a bit trickier when you consider cases where the government is supplying a service to a certain area, which increases the value of that area. In the case of the Eglinton subway nobody lost anything, they just didn't gain what they expected -- so no compensation is due. If the subway were built, then perhaps there is a fair way in which the goverment could extract some or all of the benefit it bestowed. Property taxes do this, in part. There has also been proprosal for special taxes on land within a certain distance of the subway (was this tried on Sheppard?).
You can't just state "the right to build subdivisions on the property did not yet exist" as if it is a fact -- without getting into the impossible issue of where rights are derived from in the first place. That's why I said it's philosophical.
If you believe that all property rights are granted by the generosity of the people of Ontario (as represented by the legislature), then all of your points are of course correct.
My position is that the right to use one's property is higher than Ontario law, even though Ontario law doesn't respect that. I do concede that the right can be limited to ameliorate the negative externalities on neighbours (as I said -- "with justification"). However, enacting the greenbelt is not at all the same thing as preventing me from putting a billboard up on my lawn. The billboard creates negative effects on my neighbours. Building subdivisions, on the other hand, simply removes the existing benefit of the greenbelt. The province (we the people) are upset that "our" green land is disappearing and we wish to retain the benefits of having it there. We are presently extracting benefit from other people's land. If they are to be forced to supply us this benefit, they should be compensated.
As for the speculators (let's just say land owners): from a rights perspective I am unconcerned who gains or loses money, as long as people are fairly compensated for the unequally distributed demands society makes of them. Land owners who benefit from a natural increase in the demand for their land (due to population growth, as is happening) don't owe any money to anybody.
It is a bit trickier when you consider cases where the government is supplying a service to a certain area, which increases the value of that area. In the case of the Eglinton subway nobody lost anything, they just didn't gain what they expected -- so no compensation is due. If the subway were built, then perhaps there is a fair way in which the goverment could extract some or all of the benefit it bestowed. Property taxes do this, in part. There has also been proprosal for special taxes on land within a certain distance of the subway (was this tried on Sheppard?).
W
waterloowarrior
Guest
Re: Greenbelt trust
without the government, there would be no 'property rights' as the only people who could 'back up' their claim to land would be the individuals with the most force. The government both protects the 'right' to land and provides for infrastructure that actually gives the land value and should have the right (and the responsibility) to ensure that infrastructure is used efficiently and that land is being utilized in a way that maximizes benefits to society, the economy, and the environment.
without the government, there would be no 'property rights' as the only people who could 'back up' their claim to land would be the individuals with the most force. The government both protects the 'right' to land and provides for infrastructure that actually gives the land value and should have the right (and the responsibility) to ensure that infrastructure is used efficiently and that land is being utilized in a way that maximizes benefits to society, the economy, and the environment.
E
EnviroTO
Guest
Re: Greenbelt trust
Building subdivisions creates negative impacts on neighbours. Traffic, congestion, visual obstacles, etc. It removes farmland from production. If there were no negatives to subdivisions then there wouldn't be greenbelt legislation in the first place.
How is this different? Land owners expected the land to be zoned for development plus city services to the property to eventually be built. They aren't going to gain what they expected. Until the approvals are all there it only pure speculation what the land might be worth and might be able to be used for. In actual terms the land owners lost nothing. They bought farmland which can be used for farming. They still own farmland which can be used for farming.
It is a fact that zoning and property right restrictions are a part of the current method by which our whole society works. Ownership of land takes away the public rights of land. The right to own property takes away public rights to property. The laws preventing crime take away the rights of those who wish to do things that are against the law. For every right gained there is a right taken away. It is a balance of rights that exist in every facet of law and unless the rights are changed (which in this case development rights did not yet exist when all laws are totalled up) then no compensation should be due. The greenbelt legislation only freezes current property use restrictions, it doesn't introduce new ones.
If the approvals were there to build a subdivision and then those approvals were taken away then there should be compensation, however local zoning did not allow subdivisions on that land. The need for zoning approvals is not something new... there is no change in the law here. No change should mean no compensation. The only difference now is that the chance of getting a zoning change approval in the future has been significantly reduced.
The billboard creates negative effects on my neighbours. Building subdivisions, on the other hand, simply removes the existing benefit of the greenbelt.
Building subdivisions creates negative impacts on neighbours. Traffic, congestion, visual obstacles, etc. It removes farmland from production. If there were no negatives to subdivisions then there wouldn't be greenbelt legislation in the first place.
In the case of the Eglinton subway nobody lost anything, they just didn't gain what they expected -- so no compensation is due.
How is this different? Land owners expected the land to be zoned for development plus city services to the property to eventually be built. They aren't going to gain what they expected. Until the approvals are all there it only pure speculation what the land might be worth and might be able to be used for. In actual terms the land owners lost nothing. They bought farmland which can be used for farming. They still own farmland which can be used for farming.
You can't just state "the right to build subdivisions on the property did not yet exist" as if it is a fact -- without getting into the impossible issue of where rights are derived from in the first place. That's why I said it's philosophical.
It is a fact that zoning and property right restrictions are a part of the current method by which our whole society works. Ownership of land takes away the public rights of land. The right to own property takes away public rights to property. The laws preventing crime take away the rights of those who wish to do things that are against the law. For every right gained there is a right taken away. It is a balance of rights that exist in every facet of law and unless the rights are changed (which in this case development rights did not yet exist when all laws are totalled up) then no compensation should be due. The greenbelt legislation only freezes current property use restrictions, it doesn't introduce new ones.
If the approvals were there to build a subdivision and then those approvals were taken away then there should be compensation, however local zoning did not allow subdivisions on that land. The need for zoning approvals is not something new... there is no change in the law here. No change should mean no compensation. The only difference now is that the chance of getting a zoning change approval in the future has been significantly reduced.
B
bizorky
Guest
Re: Greenbelt trust
Which "right" are you making specific reference to? For the speculator, it was their right to invest in a future. They bet on a future opportunity that had no gaurantee, and it didn't work out. They lost their investment (or an assumed future profit, to be more precise. They still own the land, which is worth something). This kind of thing happens every day in the marketplace. It's part of the risks of capitalism. One group cannot be expected to compensate for the risk-taking of others.
As for the speculators (let's just say land owners): from a rights perspective I am unconcerned who gains or loses money, as long as people are fairly compensated for the unequally distributed demands society makes of them.
Which "right" are you making specific reference to? For the speculator, it was their right to invest in a future. They bet on a future opportunity that had no gaurantee, and it didn't work out. They lost their investment (or an assumed future profit, to be more precise. They still own the land, which is worth something). This kind of thing happens every day in the marketplace. It's part of the risks of capitalism. One group cannot be expected to compensate for the risk-taking of others.
M
maxy505
Guest
Re: Greenbelt trust
The motive of the landowner is irrelevant; it doesn't matter if it's a farmer or speculator. The landowner holds rights to the land. The "right" I keep referring to is the right to use one's land however one wishes, with the caveats I mentioned above.
Speculators gain and lose money all the time in the marketplace. If they spend money to buy soyabeans and then it turns out everybody hates soyabeans, then tough luck. But if the government steps in and makes soyabeans illegal (perhaps because wheat farmers were losing money) -- that has nothing to do with markets, and everything to do with government interference in the transactions of consenting individuals.
If the government wasn't allowed to interfere with land rights without compensation, then speculation would be fairly based on expected demand for the land. It is unfair to subject landowners (farmers, investors, speculators, inheritors, it doesn't matter who!) to the vagaries of the province's mood.
Which "right" are you making specific reference to? For the speculator, it was their right to invest in a future. They bet on a future opportunity that had no gaurantee, and it didn't work out.
The motive of the landowner is irrelevant; it doesn't matter if it's a farmer or speculator. The landowner holds rights to the land. The "right" I keep referring to is the right to use one's land however one wishes, with the caveats I mentioned above.
Speculators gain and lose money all the time in the marketplace. If they spend money to buy soyabeans and then it turns out everybody hates soyabeans, then tough luck. But if the government steps in and makes soyabeans illegal (perhaps because wheat farmers were losing money) -- that has nothing to do with markets, and everything to do with government interference in the transactions of consenting individuals.
If the government wasn't allowed to interfere with land rights without compensation, then speculation would be fairly based on expected demand for the land. It is unfair to subject landowners (farmers, investors, speculators, inheritors, it doesn't matter who!) to the vagaries of the province's mood.