Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!
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.
|
Well okay this is a weird argument. Like it's a weird position to say that the City should have helped move the buildings to East Hills Estate while at the same time trying to argue that the buildings aren't movable homes. It's also a weird position to argue that paying property taxes somehow gives them annexation rights, which was never even a thought by anyone.
I get your initial argument, and I think we can all agree it's a ####ty situation, but now I feel like you're just throwing stuff out to see what sticks. Property tax, annexation, the inability to move from a mobile park...none of those are at all real arguments in my opinion.