ae

If these rights do i "whether they are stated or not," why not
state them, in the relevant By-law and in the "Agreement" document

the property owner is asked to sign, for the protection and
enlightenment of all? If these are relevant rights, let's state them -
in the relevant By-law and "Agreement" document. Else, someone

Might ask, "What are they trying te hide?" Another might sue

for having signed under false pretenses of having no legal right

to refuse, to negotiate, or to appeal,

Mr. Freeman states that "we don't believe that any person from whom
the City has received a Right-of-Way has ever seen the face page
of the Bylaw, All they ever see is the Right-of-Way agreement
and this practice will doubtlessly continue no matter what words
are contained in the By-law."

If such is actually the case, that few, if any, ever see any more
than. the Agreement they are asked to sign, it seems all the more
reason to ensure that the individual's rights to refuse, to negotiate,
or to appeal are stated in the only-presented document,

Mr. Freeman states “People who own property know they have certain
rights." Why, then, the hue and cry from many long-time, intelligent
property owners who studied this proposed By-law and its attached
"Schedule A" Agreement document, were concerned, and Signed

the declaration of opposition? Many of us were uncertain or our rights
and of our due process under the law if confronted with a request

for statutory rights-of-way for "a sum not to exceed One Dollar ($1.00).
Many of us knew that many snore would be unsure also,

I question Mr. Freeman when he states that "non-passage of By-law
No. 1726, or its amendment, will not mean the end of the world or
any improvement in the world." On’ the contrary, if City Council
votes to add the requested statement of property owner(s)’ rights
to refuse, to negotiate, or to appeal the decision or demand ror
acquisition of statutory rights-of-way over real property "for a sum
not to exceed One Dollar ($1.00), then the world will, I think,

be @ better place, because City Council will have had the courage
and the moral sense af fair play to outline individual rights

in this matter.

I resent greatly Mr. Freeman's suggestion that our concern for

this proposed By-law might cause or result in harm to fellow
citizens, the very result we are seeking to avoid. We aim to protect
the individual property owner, present and future, from possible harm
incurred by sigming away statutory rights-of-way either unnecessarily
er for an unfair market price because of not being informed or sure
of his or her rights, namely to refuse, to negotiate, or to appeal.
We do not believe that a few should suffer or have to pay the price

for many.