If a person鈥檚 private property is deemed to be needed for the public good, that property can be expropriated by government, but the property owner must be fairly compensated and should not be left worse off financially.
That same principle should apply to instances in which archeological sites are found on private property.
The province is appealing a sa国际传媒 Supreme Court ruling that the archeology branch acted improperly in forcing Wendi Mackay of Oak Bay to bear the costs of excavations on her property.
Mackay had planned to build a new home on property she had bought from her parents. The province told her she had to conduct an archeological investigation because the property was a heritage site, although it didn鈥檛 have an official designation. Eventually, Mackay said the archeological process cost her more than $600,000. Justice Laura Gerow said the government鈥檚 power to impose those costs on a homeowner should be limited.
The province disagrees with Gerow鈥檚 decision and has filed notice of appeal.
Before embarking on another legal battle and spending more public funds, the province should examine the Heritage Conservation Act with the aim of ensuring property owners are not subject to ruinous costs when archeological evidence is discovered.
The act exists to protect heritage resources, and so it should. Requiring archeological investigations when property is developed has added to the province鈥檚 inventory of heritage sites and has deepened knowledge of the past. Taking a look to see if a property has archeological potential should be a normal part of the development process.
But when costs become extraordinary, the province should step in after a certain limit is reached. Archeological resources are regarded as public property; their preservation should be done at public cost.
If the province loses the appeal, public funds will have been needlessly expended. If it wins, more property owners could be on the hook for heavy costs.
Neither outcome is a good one.
