SJB Unfortunately despite all the good will in the world your...

SJB

Unfortunately despite all the good will in the world your idea of every landowner being happy down to a micro level is not practical.

Some of the landowner claims have and will be argued for hundreds of years. It is what normally causes war around the world.

In the case of AVQ the court had a landownership issue that had been pretty much sorted not only in earlier court announcements, but also without too much argument on the ground.

I do believe getting all of the rightful owners together is possible in this case... but for many other cases around the country this will just start further never ending debates.

It's a perpetual motion machine for lawyer revenues and for government corruption. i.e An MP can still walk into villages buy some influence and then garner the kind of deals that continue to ruin countries like this. Another MP can then get paid to go into one of the villages next door buy a different influence and stop it.

In my mind it was the wrong call, they could have easily asked for a post decision share profit for the 5% landownership not represented (if true).

It would have sent a clear message that protracted land banking, and private payments cannot let a resource sit still why kids do not go to schools and do not have clean drinking water...

To hide this decision behind some kind altruistic 'what is good for landowners' I believe is false and possibly fake... this court case is not good for landowners it puts the power back in gerrymandering politicians and big money middle men.

None of them will give the landowners 20%

IMO and DYOR
Gus