[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Your incessant assumptions that the entity with more money is always screwing the one with less is so predictable and repetitive, I pretty much gloss over your posts nowadays. Even when it's hockey players vs owners, you just automatically assume that there's a screw job going on. I don't even know why I'm bothering to reply to you, because I know you will simply not believe what I say, and continue to bang that "little guy" drum, no matter what, but here goes...

I find it difficult to take a post that starts like that seriously regardless of who it's directed at, but I'll respond anyways.

The crumbling infrastructure in that park is actually running underneath the trailers and lots, not under the roads. If there was a water main break, it would very possibly require the demolition or temporary removal of someone's home. That is a huge liability that the City is wise to avoid before it happens.

The actual costs associated with all the repairs makes a big difference, the breakdowns of the median cost to the individual taxpayers would be interesting to read. The same potential repair risks also apply to any other older areas of the city.

Avoiding that means either removing all the structures and redoing the pipes, or else laying new ones under the existing roads (tearing up all the roads and installing brand new infrastructure). Neither of those are good ideas on a plot of land located where that plot is. I know you have absolutely no comprehension of real estate values, but if nothing else, can you please try to understand that if the city did not continue to densify as it grows, this city would be about 100km in diameter by now, and that would be a f-load more pipes than the taxpayers could afford to build, and building new infrastructure for a low density development with that proximity to downtown is downright ludicrous.

It's just as ludicrous to expect people who are affected by it to not try and fight to either keep their home where it is or to get the best deal they can.

It's not always a boogeyman, iggy. Sometimes "the best interest of the people living in the city" means that a few people get ample notice, and have to leave. Sort of like with the West LRT. Or Glenmore and Elbow.

People fought the city in those examples, in some cases it got people a better settlement, in others they gained nothing. The city knowing that people won't just give up any land rights they have without a fight helps prevent them from railroading people in difficult situations, which is good for everyone since there's always a chance you could one day be in a situation where the city needs your land. These people aren't doing anything wrong, they haven't even gone past the deadline yet. How people are having as big of an issue with what the tenants are doing is kind of sad, unless someone was planning on buying that property, this whole situation affects the tenants a lot more than it will ever affect them, so maybe people should be a little less judgemental and let the tenants handle their business.