Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
I completely understand, do you clearly understand that the city basically told these people that there would be another site to move to and then yanked the blanket out from under them.
|
Yes, I do. I also think that it was unfortunate. But the fact remains that these people knew TEN years ago that they had to move their trailers, and for the past THREE years they knew that they were going to have to find a place on their own. It's a really long blanket that takes 3 years to pull out from someone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
do you understand that the city by doing that is actually causing people to lose an asset (literally their home) that they have paid for or are in the process of paying for?
|
If the trailer-owners lose their property, it is 100% through their own choice. The City is not taking their trailers (the property in question); it is simply requiring them to remove the property from City-owned land when the lease expires.
The City has offered them each $20,000 if they remove their trailers by the deadline. That is more than any landlord is required to do under the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
I mean thanks for being a hero with your "moving story" but your life and what the city is doing is in no way similar on any level.
|
You are welcome, I suppose. I was hoping that you would understand that it is exactly the same thing, but you have to meet me halfway...
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
What the city is doing would be equivalent to your landlord destroying your own assets in your home or garage when he expired your lease.
|
Now I'm starting to think that you are just trolling? I mean, most of your posts are fairly logical, but there is literally nothing in this sentence that is accurate.
1) The City is not destroying anyone's assets. In fact, they are providing $20,000 to each trailer-owner to help the trailer-owner ensure that their asset is not destroyed.
2) The City is ESPECIALLY not destroying anyone's assets
in their home or garage. I like the imagery of jack-booted thugs breaking into trailers and smashing stuff as much as the next tinfoil-hatted guy, but the City is only concerned with the land (which is OWNED by the City), they want nothing to do with the contents or the trailer itself. In fact, as mentioned a few times in this thread, the City is giving them $20,000 to help them protect their assets.
3) The City didn't "expire their lease". It ended, and the infrastructure is in such a poor state of repair that the park has to be closed.
If you are looking for an accurate equivalency, I'll point you back up to my friends' story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
On top of it, it would be equivalent to your landlord saying I'm expiring your lease, but I have another place to go. And then pretty much saying, F you forget about that alternate home and I'm going to destroy your living room furniture on they way.
|
Why stop there? If we are fabricating facts, then you might as well say that the City is evicting them because of their skin colour, or ethnicity as well. Think of all the faux outrage you can generate if you say the City is basically Adolf Hitler.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
I would also guess that your probably not low income, so you have little understanding on what the city's actions of promising then pulling an alternate site for their trailer is actually doing to them
|
You are correct, I am not low income. Each tenant has known for THREE years that they had to move. Plus they get $20,000 for moving.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
On top of that, your dealing with a private company, they're dealing with a city that talks relentlessly about the need for low income housing and helping low income people, and then they turn around and screw with low income people and seniors.
|
The duty owed to mobile home tenants is the same whether your landlord is Joe Average or the Queen of England.
Notwithstanding this, the City is STILL helping these people out more than they are required to, so your argument falls even flatter.
By the way,
here is a link to the Mobile Home Sites Tenancy Act (Alberta). You might find it a useful read if you think the City is not meeting its legal requirements as a landlord.
Heck, I'll buy you a case of beer if you can show:
A) that the City's notice period should have been longer than 3 years. The longest notice period in the Act is when the site is being re-developed into something else (like the condo complex or Green Line that people referenced), and that is only 365 days. For a normal yearly tenancy, the notice period is 60 days before expiry of the current year lease;
B) Any language that indicates that the City would have a different standard of care than a regular landlord; or
C) any language that indicates that the $20,000 that the City is offering is not sufficient.