Quote:
Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen
Not a rhetorical question: How can it be worth more than $10,000 and not be worth it to move though? Especially when the City is willing to pay $10,000 to move, which a quick google search suggests is a reasonable ballpark estimate.
Sure, there might not be room in Calgary, but there is room in the province. If you have a $50,000 trailer, what was stopping you from having someone, say from Olds, purchasing it for $50,000 and then shipping it to Olds for even say $15,000? With the additional (up to) $10,000 that the City offered, and even accounting for mortgage interest, it doesn't quite make sense for anyone to be leaving trailers of any value at the park to me.
If you can't get "full value" for your mobile home after years of it on the market, that's not its true value. Let's cut them some slack and realize it was a bad time for selling homes, but I don't see how people are losing out on tons of value here. Some, sure, but the pennies on the dollar that has been mentioned by residents doesn't quite make sense to me.
|
Sure, it's possible to sell it and move it somewhere else, but that's not necessarily an easy thing to do if you're a senior on a limited income without family around, or someone who is barely getting by and spending all their time working to pay the bills. Then you have to find another place to live.
My biggest issue with this situation isn't so much the dollar figure, as the fact that the city one day said they would develop a new park and then changed that plan, especially since there is no vacancy at any other parks. Someone here mentioned that private developers wanted to open a new park and they were turned down.
This isn't like a landlord evicting a tenant where there's another apartment across town. It's more like a landlord evicting a tenant in a remote community where there are no other homes and the person is forced to leave behind all the furniture they bought, because they have to leave town on a Greyhound bus. The landlord has offered $100 to "cover" the cost, but you still have the $1000 credit card bill from buying the stuff. Only in this case, the "landlord" is the City who supposedly has a goal of ending homelessness.
