[4X4]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

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.

I find it difficult to take any of your posts seriously, as you consistently overlook logic, and simply champion the little guy, and make out the ones making tough decisions to be big bad guys that are taking advantage. That is not always the case, but you never see that.

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

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.

Other older areas of the city aren't the same thing. In this case, the City owns the park, and the City also is responsible for the infrastructure. That infrastructure, in this case, ACTUALLY RUNS UNDERNEATH STRUCTURES. Do you understand that difference? Ripping up a road is different than ripping through the livingroom of a house. The City doesn't own Inglewood. Or Bowness.

The actual costs were pegged at either $11 or $17 million. Doesn't really matter to me which one it is. At the end of the day, spending either amount to rebuild a low density development in an area like that, when the southern edge of the city is 210 ave, and the north is 144 ave, is stupid. Do you understand that, iggy? Do you understand that what you are saying is that the taxpayers of Calgary should spend money to rebuild a low density complex in a high density area, just because you think that it's mean not to?

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

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.

Well fine by me. I've got no problem with them fighting for better compensation, or a better relocation (or a relocation at all, which I agree they got screwed out of). My reply is directly to you, and your inability to see that there is a good reason for this place to close. Stop arguing that it should be rebuilt or repaired. You're wrong. That's my point. Champion for a new park to be built, or for more money in compensation all you like, and I'll just stay quiet like I was before, but this whining that they should just fix it up because if they don't, they're a big bunch of meanies is so damn ridiculous.

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

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.

There you go again, saying things like railroading. Completely overlooking the reasons why the City made this decision to close the place. You have a perfectly good battle to fight, which is the compensation or the lack of a new park, but you are framing it in your typical fashion, where the big bad corporation is stealing from the poor downtrodden.