Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarley
I used to share your viewpoint, but I have since changed it after thinking a little more about the whole situation. This is not a typical landlord / tenant scenario where the landlord holds title to the land and the improvements while the lessee holds the right to occupy. In this case, the lessee holds title to the improvements, the value of which is almost entirely reliant upon the supply of serviced sites within a reasonable distance.
In 2010, the City told these residents that a new trailer park would be built for them to move into upon the closure of Midfield. Until May 2014, these residents had every reason to believe that the City was acting in good faith. Any person who bought a mobile home or made upgrades to their property between 2010 and 2014 did so believing there would be places to move these assets to upon the closure of the park. By cancelling the replacement park plan, the City rendered a whole bunch of people's property effectively worthless. That's not right and the City should make these people whole.
|
I do have sympathy for those that bought or made improvements between 2010 and 2014. Perhaps a case could be made for negligent misstatement. I am not so sure that many of those left in the park fit that description though (based on the linked article).
__________________
From HFBoard oiler fan, in analyzing MacT's management:
O.K. there has been a lot of talk on whether or not MacTavish has actually done a good job for us, most fans on this board are very basic in their analysis and I feel would change their opinion entirely if the team was successful.
|