Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
If they were exceptionally profitable as you describe then I find it hard to believe that we have nowhere for these people to go, and no other options. Surely if it was as profitable as you make it out to be then there would be other options and investors would be clamouring to get in on that action?
|
I know what you're saying but it's not that easy. The company I worked for built a 500 million dollar empire on 18 trailer parks in Alberta and the millions in cash flow they squeezed out of them every month. We bought land on 84th st se, in Balzac and in Aldersyde all with the intent of building new parks. However at the DP phase all three were denied that use because they wanted commercial building. On those parcels, purchased in the 90's there now sits WalMarts, strip malls, and other commercial bricks and mortar development. All of them uses that generate way more property tax revenues for municipalities. The trick is finding a suitable piece of land where people actually want to be. Obviously if you own a lot in downtown Calgary you're going to build as high and wide as possible. So obviously it has to be outside of a development corridor and yet still close to a place people want to be. But rest assured there are people trying to build these things. The opportunities don't really exist. However if you find one, it is literally a gold mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
Did you make that up?
This brand new 2017 home sold out of Red Deer prices out at $133,000. You can find them even cheaper. I find it super hard to believe a 27 year-old trailer home would be worth $90k. Do you have a link to support what you claimed? |
Ah dude, you're talking to Mr. Double Wide here. You can take that price to the bank. It all depends where the trailer is though. Here's one in Okotoks for 86k...
https://www.realtor.ca/Residential/S...Alberta-T1S1M4
The same trailer in Kelowna is over 200k easily. That trailer in Midfield park is 0k. That's not fair. There are similar ones in and around Calgary for the same 80-90k range.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz
That would be a fair argument if the two situations were at all comparable, but there are 2 very major differences:
1) The city isn't annexing the land, the city already owns the land. The city is simply not renewing leases
2) When the city annexes land the houses typically aren't movable. Hence the city has to pay for the house as well.
|
I think the other difference is that this is the city and not a private landlord. I would fully expect the company I worked for to boot residents from their park with as little notice as possible and zero compensation. That's life. But this is not, in my opinion, how a city should operate.
And for the record, it's not too hard to move houses. But it's really easy to pick them up and put them in dumpsters...kind of like what people have to do at Midfield.