Quote:
Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug
Curious if "promising/proposing the East park" makes the list. If the city made no such mention, would they somehow be viewed in a better light?
|
I don't see how they wouldn't be. The narrative that City council pulled the rug out from under them by promising them a new park only to remove it has been a huge sticking point. And it absolutely screwed over some people who took the City's word at face-value and purchased trailers believing they would have a new home in the deep east.
Of course, the residents still fighting aren't bringing up the fact that the location was pretty universally condemned by the residents at the time it was announced.
If all they had done since it was announced in 2007 that the park would be closing was to offer upwards of $20,000 to each residence, I don't see how anyone could really complain. Except for maybe people bringing up
Spenshi wasting tax dollars on people who legally didn't deserve a dime.
I mean, even the argument that it's removing low-income housing makes little sense. There was no requirement to be low-income in that park, of course a mobile park attracts certain income demographics more than others. Spending $90,000 per lot (forgetting about the actual home on the park), when they could use the money in more fiscal responsible ways to achieve affordable housing, is not how I would want my council to act.
Again, I have compassion for anyone in the situation. It's hard to argue that they weren't in a bad situation when you have suicides taking place. But the blames doesn't fall squarely on the City.