Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarley
In 2010, the City told these residents that a new trailer park would be built for them to move into upon the closure of Midfield. Until May 2014, these residents had every reason to believe that the City was acting in good faith. Any person who bought a mobile home or made upgrades to their property between 2010 and 2014 did so believing there would be places to move these assets to upon the closure of the park. By cancelling the replacement park plan, the City rendered a whole bunch of people's property effectively worthless.
|
I completely see where you're coming from, and I far from completely disagree. It's certainly a ####ty situation, potentially made worse by a council blunder. But isn't that part of the $10,000, trying to make whole? Another $10,000 for relocating the trailer.
That's a potential $20,000 per residence, when really, a more heartless council wouldn't really have to offer anything legally? Again, as far as I'm aware, no contract or protection in place. They rent the land, the landowner has the right to do as they please. That includes legal eviction. Is there some nuance I'm missing with this situation other than the residents thinking "it won't actually happen to me."? Were the residents lucky in that the City owned the land and pushing people out of their home with 0 compensation would have looked bad, but a private company able to do so?
I get that not everyone here was in the same position. With an older community, some might have taken the chance to just take the cash and move into a retirement facility while letting their trailer depreciated over the last decade+. Others may have been putting in cash for improvements expecting to move to East Hills Estates and that sucks for sure, and like I said a mistake on the council but really, they've been fighting this thing since 2000. No one should have been super surprised that they would be forced to move their trailers at this point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!
It would be fair enough the to just compensate people for their land only value and give them 10k to move their house somewhere. I don't see why mobile homes should be different.
|
Well, there's the fact that people owning the land they live on is not at all the same as renting, like that right there ends any type of comparable regardless of how long you want to reach. Also the mobile home part somewhat suggests it would be more readily available to be moved.