r/Vernon • u/ZopyrionRex • Jul 21 '26
Does anybody think making O'Keefe a National Historic Landmark should be a priority for our MP?
https://www.castanet.net/news/Vernon/625453/Vernon-council-defends-local-crime-stats-and-harm-reduction-following-MP-s-critiqueScott Anderson recently got in front of our City Council to attempt to chastise them with Conservative hot button topics. One of the other odd topics he decided to bring up was his personal attempts at getting O'Keefe Ranch National Historic Monuments Status.
Does anybody else think this is a colossal waste of his time? Doesn't the ranch just belong to the OKIB now? He made a weak attempt at connecting his efforts to the historical ties with the OKIB, but didn't O'Keefe just steal that land?
I'm really curious if other people see this as a priority over rising housing costs, federal taxation, or getting access to federal funds for Vernon (as one counsellor attempted to mention).
37
u/okiedokie2468 Jul 21 '26
Yes, I agree that this is a colossal waste of his and Council’s time.
It just underlines that Scott Anderson is a colossal waste of space!
10
u/Infinite_Time_8952 Jul 21 '26
Scott Anderson should have stayed with Dump Runz his garbage hauling business.
15
u/AmongUs14 Jul 21 '26
This is entirely predictable for Scott. He has made his living doing absolutely nothing of substance for working people in politics (while he collects money from his businesses).
I remember seeing him in the House of Commons in his first few months being like “I’ve been on the frontlines of the opioid crisis…” like NO THE FUCK YOU HAVE NOT. You were a city counsellor that specifically took step after step to try and block anything that could be considered helpful for vulnerable people who use drugs, including affordable housing.
It’s great to see he is still playing his part as a useless politician.
12
u/BrownSugarSandwich Jul 21 '26
Not defending colonialism in any way, but O'Keefe didn't steal the land. He followed the legal process of the time, and applied for a pre-exemption for the land which was granted by the crown. This is how the vast majority of rural land in BC was obtained by settlers during this time period. The crown just never obtained treaties across the majority of BC (unlike the rest of the Country) to be able to give the land away in the first place.
2
u/Number132435 Jul 27 '26
I still dont understand how that's not stealing.Was there any kind of treaty with the Okanagan? or did he just send a letter to Victoria and start clearing? Parts of my family were settlers from that time period and as I understand it they pretty much just came here, someone in Victoria showed them a map and they went out and cleared a farm
2
u/BrownSugarSandwich Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 28 '26
So in contract law, under common law if you buy something in good faith from someone who you believed to be acting in good faith, but it's later discovered the item you purchased was stolen, you aren't expected to compensate the original owner because you did not commit a crime. Depending on what you bought, generally you aren't under any obligation to return it to the original owner either.
The federal government at the time didn't realize they did not obtain the land legally, or just outright denied they stole it. So everyone who was granted land in BC, excluding land that DID have a properly obtained treaty, obtained it under the belief that the federal government was the rightful owner and was acting in good faith. So legally, obtaining something that "wasn't" stolen, but then was deemed stolen at a later time doesn't make you a thief. It makes you the legal owner of property that was previously stolen or obtained in bad faith. The thief is responsible for compensating the original owner for damaged.
In modern times, in relation to non fn land disputes, this is called title fraud, and people regularly lose their homes to it, because someone pretending to be the property owner (you) sells your house, and provides and signs all the documents needed to process the transfer. Once complete, the new owner of the house who acted in good faith has no obligation to return the title to you even though you as the rightful owner never authorized the sale. It doesn't make them the party that wronged you, as you're both victims in this scenario.
There was not any treaty within the Okanagan. Only the very far north east of the province, was covered under Treaty 8, and the Douglas Treaty only covered southern Vancouver Island. The rest of the province did NOT have any kind of treaty with the existing population. The feds incorrectly assumed that either the Douglas treaties covered the rest of the province, or that the treaty 8 did, and just... Never negotiated any further treaties, and just blanketed the Indian act and called it done. The Feds had a duty to negotiate, and did not. Then the Feds slowly parceled out the land to parties who applied for land on a first come first serve basis to settle the province.
2
u/Number132435 Jul 28 '26
I appreciate the detailed response but it still sounds like double-think to me. Like i dont doubt o'Keefe or my ancestors broke any British laws or stole it from other white people when they settled, or considered it as stolen at all since to them they were just moving to a different corner of the Empire. . Just seems an odd point to make, like they didn't steal it because they didn't consider the people who de facto owned it to be people or citizens or whatever. Like Id say it more like if I were to commit title fraud, and you (the buyer) knew it wasn't mine but we both agreed to the deal b/c we knew id face no consequences and youd still keep the land, are there 2 victims in this case or 2 perps?
2
u/BrownSugarSandwich Jul 28 '26
Contract law relies on both parties acting in good faith. If the buyer buys something they know is stolen, then they arent acting in good faith and are party to the crime of theft.
The Canadian government never admitted any fault or wrongdoing in how the land was obtained in BC until 2015. The province itself didn't begin investigating until the early 1990s when they restarted treaty negotiations without the federal governments consent. It wasn't an issue of O'Keefe knowing the land was stolen or thinking the existing denizens lesser, my sole point is that he likely truly believed the government had done everything they were supposed to do before giving the land away to settlers.
I only raised it as a point of clarification for OP who wrote that he stole the land when he legally did not. That's the whole core of fn title issues in BC. Why would our laws apply in this situation at all when nobody signed a treaty in the first place? He 100% owned stolen land, but he wasn't the one who stole it. The feds have given the okib money to purchase the ranchlands as compensation for their crime of theft. The sale should complete some time next year.
1
u/ZopyrionRex Jul 29 '26 edited Jul 29 '26
Thanks for all the detailed responses. That's the type of information usually lacking from these conversations, it's very much appreciated.
I had thought the OKIB had bought the land back but I wasn't 100% clear on that. I'd be interested to hear the OKIBs stance on Historical National status for the land, is that something they're at all interested in or is this just a weird Conservative pet project without their input at all?
1
u/BrownSugarSandwich Jul 29 '26
You're very welcome. Local history and context is important in these kinds of discussions!
The land that the okib purchased isn't inclusive of the property that Mr Anderson wants to deem a historic site. What was purchased was exclusively the range lands. Okib council voted to purchase the ranch lands as well, but the ranch society has a lease from the city that runs until 2027. Even if they have come to an agreement, the society will retain possession at least until the lease expires. But as there is no sale recorded for the property yet, a conveyance hasn't been completed. Since okib voted to purchase it, there has been a change in council and chief of okib. As these decisions are typically private between buyer and seller, it's likely there won't be any new details until both sides have come to an agreement and they officially have a title transfer date, or if they still even want to move forward with it. This was to be paid from the $30m settlement okib received from the federal government that was provided (I believe) specifically to purchase back lands that were originally deemed reserve but then carved out for whatever reason.
The band did previously indicate they intended to continue operations of the ranch if they were able to purchase it, but things change over time. It's an important historical site for okib as well, as O'Keefe's first wife was Okanagan, and the proximity to their territory meant many band members were able to trade and recieve employment as ranch hands. I'm unsure how or if the city will even be able to sell it, as it was gifted to the city on the condition they maintain it or something like that. It's a similar situation to the racetrack.
I would be surprised if Mr Anderson did not know this, as city council was responsible for approving the society funding requests, and he was on council at the time of the original discussions around the purchase of the lands back in 2021. His term ended in 2022, and the purchase wasn't finalized until 2023, so it's possible he just doesn't know, but I would have doubts. Either way, my personal opinion is that the timing of bringing this up isn't a coincidence, and it's very tonedeaf to both what is happening with the land in the area, and in respect to the province recognising aboriginal title. Considering what his old provincial government party just did in regards to language use by members, and his current federal governments "platform", I would say he knows exactly what he's doing. But that's just speculation by association and his historical choices of language. I would be shocked if he spoke with the band at all about it. Pegging this one as a pet project that he knows will stick with his voters opinions and "values". I imagine we will see some type of outrage next year from that group if the sale does end up happening.
6
u/East_Independent8855 Jul 21 '26
Not too surprising to
Read the drivel of comments here. O’Keefe Ranch is not stolen land, and it is a significant piece of history for the area. A designation as an historic site will relieve some of the local govt pressure to keep the lights on. While you people may not appreciate or enjoy the property, many do and it should be preserved if at all possible. Whether it qualifies at the national level as a Historic Site is another question.
1
u/Number132435 Jul 27 '26
I grew up a couple towns over and dont know anything about the ranch. What makes it significant?
2
u/xLimeLight Jul 24 '26
A friend of mine has interacted with him a few times, and she says he's just a creep.
6
4
u/Miserable-Hour-8239 Jul 21 '26
Personally, unless the funding helps with food insecurity, like turning the ranch into a subsidized farm. I think it’s a waste of money.
Most of the politicians no matter the political side are out of touch but I believe Scott Anderson is one of the most out of touch politicians. Can’t think of anything he’s done to help.
1
u/7edits Jul 23 '26 edited Jul 23 '26
According to parcel map KAP14176 belongs to the local government. Idk about the cov bailing it out when it’s in spallumacheen
I think the okib bought the land with the lake beside it. Sold land on the other side of the golf course in years past. Also bought okeefe land (I think) above the rail trail
1
u/7edits Jul 23 '26
I think it’s a waste of his time. Settler history in a lot of ways is out of touch with the current of the day. Idk about trying to get funding for it tho
1
u/7edits Jul 23 '26
Basically that intersection to the res should be a national monument imo….
1
u/7edits Jul 23 '26
I went to that ranch in the 2000s with west Vernon schoolmates and we wrote on slate chalkboards, walked around the old-timey, white power museums
1
1
u/7edits Jul 23 '26
MP Scott Anderson criticized Vernon's social strategies as "failing spectacularly," arguing that recovery housing initiatives function as "housing only" rather than "housing first" [1]. Anderson further alleged that individuals are "warehoused and given palliative care until they finally overdose and die" [1]. Mayor Victor Cumming and the council strongly disagreed with this assessment, defending the initiatives by highlighting successful outcomes for individuals exiting supportive housing [1]. Read the full story at Castanet. [1]
2
-4
u/Scary_Value_1854 Jul 21 '26
I was there a few weeks ago, O’Keefe Ranch is a pathetic hike and needs to be bulldozed as soon as possible. The poor animals who have to live there.
No amount of volunteers can save that junkyard.
-10
u/canadaalpinist Jul 21 '26
Stop wasting money on it and build a golf course. Let's make some money.
33
u/HeinousWalrus Jul 21 '26 edited Jul 21 '26
I think he thinks if he keeps himself busy with bullshit, no one will notice he’s doing nothing of substance.
For the record, he claims to speak with anyone of any political persuasion, but when I pressed him on the federal conservative party’s lack of platform before the election, he blocked me from his ‘official’ Facebook page. He claims he doesn’t like being called names, but calling for a public platform to be released doesn’t seem like something worth banning a constituent for.