Quote:
Originally Posted by ken0042
Impossible to do anything with- other than place a manufactured home on it. Given a price of $100-150K for a brand new manufactured home; being able to have something that is inner city for $150-200K is an exceptionally good value. So much so that I would think if they had gone that route, when it came to resale they would have been able to command a much higher price. Or lived comfortably on a piece of land that they now own.
|
Sure but you're talking about a very sophisticated investment for people, some of whom, are in subsidized housing. And other who are in no way financially able to do these things. That 55k is going to be pretty tough for a lot of people especially at elevated financing requirements.
Doing anything as ownership group would have made it a syndicated investment corp which brings in massive legal requirements. Not to sound snotty but I'm pretty sure no one in that park is an accredited investor capable of that sort of project.
I've been thinking about the infrastructure. It's not impossible to fix. You leave the old stuff buried under the trailers, install new stuff under the roads and add new trenchless lines to the houses. Or trench lines to the house. They're not attached to the ground. There's 2 feet of space under them. Infrastructure is not the issue.
The real issue as Carra, Nenshi, Ceci, Chabot et all were talking about ten years ago is that the highest and best use is much much greater than 6 units per acre. The city will benefit hugely from greater tax revenue so the residents should at the very least, not have to pay out of pocket for our benefit. All those guys are quoted saying that exact thing. All these councilors agreed we should move these people ten years ago. What's changed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by longsuffering
You never address the difficult questions but I'll ask them anyway.
Addressing your last paragraph, was any effort made to hire a lawyer on a contingency basis? Contingency cases are quite commonplace these days.
Furthermore, of the banks who allegedly lent money against the City's so-called guarantee that a new park will be built, why have none of them taken action against the City? Banks aren't known to shy away from protecting their legal interests
|
Contingency? You're talking about a few grand in most cases or a few million in a class action against the city. I would doubt there is a lawyer you could pay up front who'd want to sue the city on either scale much less do it for free. There's no money there after years and years of that sort of litigation. And I think it's a total myth that lawyers will take on cases pro bono at the drop of a hat. There was no upside here until the media started really getting into it this month.
But my general answer to your question regarding legality is...there are a million different ways to legally rob you blind. Because this might be completely legal, doesn't mean it's less devastating than fraud. It doesn't mean it's smart, beneficial to anyone or a good thing to have happened. It's none of those. I don't care if it's legally fraud or just actually fraud.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knalus
Some of what you are talking about is fair - except that one. The lots in the park are pretty close to the minimum lot size in the rest of the city - 25 feet wide, check it out. Lot depth is also fairly similar to the rest of the city, especially in the inner city, which is comparable in location to the Midfield park.
|
Good point but it sort of doesn't really matter because houses wouldn't be going on the lots as defined by the existing trailers. If sold as a parcel the whole thing would be reworked to maximize views, add commercial possibly or parks. So it's not a viable investment as a buy, hold, build a house sort of thing. It's a whole sale land play which complicates it all very much.