Quote:
Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen
Of course that's not the case, while manufactured homes are not built to travel the world, everyone knows they are exceedingly easier to move than your standard one. I mean it's literally called Midfield Mobile Park, but if that's the argument you want go down. Why should I, as a tax payer, even pay 1 dime for someone so stupid to put an immobile home on a mobile park, on land that they are renting that could have their lease not renewed at any time? Again, there was never ever at all any indication in the slightest that the people moving their homes here would have a permanent spot at the location, they all knew the risk. No one in that park was stupid enough to believe that they were purchasing the land in perpetuity, so please let's not insult them by suggesting they did.
The residents did get together and did discuss purchasing the land. They decided against it when they found out the price of purchasing the land and upgrading the lot would be 17M.
|
Too bad they're not
MOBILE homes. They're
MANUFACTURED homes. After 1976 the standards for them changed and they are were much less mobile than before. Some homes in that park are older than that but most are not. Wikipedia says only 5% of double wide homes are ever moved. Take it or leave it. But the fact is these are not trailers, they're not mobile. We have those sort of products now and they're much different. Moving these units basically requires a rebuild.
Anyway, I maintain that the city has a fiduciary duty to its clients and no one citizen should be penalized. We're going to get a massive payout from developing this land. It would cost roughly one bike lane and a couple art projects to not screw these people.