Midfield Mobile Home Park

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

Do renters who don't pay property tax get police protection?

The homes in which renters live pay property taxes. Property tax expenses are passed onto the tenant by the landlord, so yes, they pay (indirectly).

This isn't that hard.

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

Except the park is city owned and it is not private land.

The park was privately owned, then ownership transferred to the city. At that time, did residents expect a change in how things were to operate? Doubt it.

[Ducay]

Hey guys lets keep arguing about the minutia of property taxes since it is such a fun straw man. Does not impact legal ownership of the land. End of story.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Property tax is irrelevant. They've received the services they paid for. EMS, police, transit, roads, etc.

Property taxes do not go towards infrastructure on 'private' land. It's not the public community infrastructure that is poor, it's the park's pipes. If my pipe bursts on my property, it's my responsibility. If their pipes are poor, it's the owner responsibility (which granted is weird because it is the City in this case, but the lands are certainly not public). But property taxes should not, and do not, go towards private pipes. The owner does not want to pay the millions of dollars to repair the infrastructure when they could get rid of the park and sell the land in a money making endeavor.

http://www.calgary.ca/UEP/Water/Page...s-Calgary.aspx

They've already discussed the option to sell the land to the residents, have them pay for the infrastructure (as all private owners do) and make other necessary repair and upgrades. The residents did not want to pay the 17M it would take to do so.

So the plan was for the 183 lower income and senior citizens that lived there to anti-up $93,000 just for the pad, and then have them pay for the necessary repairs, so probably add a bunch more.

That's not a plan, that's the city presenting a poison pill that they knew couldn't possibly be accepted so they could say they presented an alternative.

Of course they didn't want to anti-up on that, there's probably no way they could afford it.

[codfather]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Fine. Then refund property taxes. You can't say these "non homeowners" have to pay property tax. If they don't own homes then don't charge them as if they did. Pretty simple really.

I just did a quick search on the city assessement site and after scrolling through 4 pages, the highest value I saw was $71k. The lowest was around $11k and most (at a quick glance) were around the $15k-$20k range.

Using the city's tax calculator, based on 2017 tax rates, the person with the $71k home paid about $453, the person at $11k paid $70 (for the whole year), and the average would have been around $95-130/year.

So to refund them, how far back would you go? I'd say maybe 3 years to when the plan for the new park feel through. That means people will be getting at most $1500-2000 (the family assessed at $71k would get $1359) with most people getting $200-300. Personally I'd take the $20k the city is offereing.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Not quite CaptainCrunch, the plan was originally proposed by the residents to buy the land over the course of a decade at the property value of 10M.

The City looked at the offer, and came back and said they would have to also repair the pipes and a road at a cost of 7M for a total of 17M. This is as best as I remember.

The residents did not pursue that option.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Not quite CaptainCrunch, the plan was originally proposed by the residents to buy the land over the course of a decade at the property value of 10M.

The City looked at the offer, and came back and said they would have to also repair the pipes and a road at a cost of 7M for a total of 17M. This is as best as I remember.

The residents did not pursue that option.

Fair enough, but you're still asking low income residents to find a way to ante up $55,000.00 per pad to do that. or add about $5000.00 per year to their bottom line living expenses.

Of course its going to be rejected, and I don't doubt that the city knew it would be rejected before they presented it.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Fair enough, but you're still asking low income residents to find a way to ante up $55,000.00 per pad to do that. or add about $5000.00 per year to their bottom line living expenses.

Of course its going to be rejected, and I don't doubt that the city knew it would be rejected before they presented it.

So the city should just give away the land? Or pay for the $7m fix to be a slumlord? I'm missing the argument you're making, since I think you're agreeing any sort of purchase by tenants isn't feasible, the city has a right to evict and do something better with their land.

[Canehdianman]

Man, these are literally some of the worst arguments I've ever read on CP.

I'm guessing that the worst ones have family or friends involved and it had clouded your judgement.

Either that or crazy pills.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

Anyone who purchased a trailer in the park had to be approved by the park management as well as the city. They have a letter from 2012 signed by the city manager stating the land had been purchased in East Hills and the plan is going forward to move the residents to East Hills. It wasn't until Nenshi was elected the plans changed.

So there was no actual agreement in place is what you're saying, just an acknowledgement that there was currently a plan in place, a plan that was still probably undergoing study and review at the time.

I'd bet that at some point during the last 2.5 years, a lawyer has looked at the letter and determined that it doesn't constitute a bindin agreement to move residents to East Hills

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Ducay

So the city should just give away the land? Or pay for the $7m fix to be a slumlord? I'm missing the argument you're making, since I think you're agreeing any sort of purchase by tenants isn't feasible, the city has a right to evict and do something better with their land.

Or maybe the city needs to revisit the original offering of finding a place for the people to go.

Or maybe grab some of the employees and search for options for relocation besides sending out a pamphlet with the addresses for homeless shelters.

While the city has the right to evict people, I find that the whole thing has been badly handled by the city, its pretty much screwed these people over who either can't find a place to move their trailer, or the parks won't take them for example because of the trailers themselves.

I find it somewhat disheartening that this city that talks about affordable housing is putting people in a position of losing their homes that they are still paying for.

I would expect that if this was a private company doing this that the arguments on this board would be way more strenuous against about what it was doing to those people, but because its the city its magically ok.

I think that this was ultimately handled wrong on a few levels.

And no, I have no stake in the game, I don't know people that live there.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Fair enough, but you're still asking low income residents to find a way to ante up $55,000.00 per pad to do that. or add about $5000.00 per year to their bottom line living expenses.

Of course its going to be rejected, and I don't doubt that the city knew it would be rejected before they presented it.

I don't disagree, but the residents did propose buying the park and the City did come back to them with a 'fair' evaluation on what that would entail. The fact that the residents found it prohibitively expensive suggests that it's not really worth it to the city either. I get the humanity issue, but throwing around millions of dollars while costing themselves additional millions to make complacent a rather small group of people doesn't make a ton of reasonable sense. I suppose the argument could be made that with the millions they save/rent they could have done better than 10,000 but inversely when apparently legally they could have offered 0.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Or maybe grab some of the employees and search for options for relocation besides sending out a pamphlet with the addresses for homeless shelters.

As far as I'm aware, they've had someone at the park for years talking to the residents individually with their options and suggestions.

Edit: Yeah:

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...ing-citys-help
Nenshi said officials have dealt diligently and in good faith with those homeowners over the past three years.

“We’ve had someone on site every week working individually one-on-one with people to help them find accommodation that makes sense for them . . . we will continue to help to ensure everyone has a safe and decent place to go.”

[tvp2003]

I haven't gone back and researched it but I remember when the city originally proposed the plan to build a new mobile park east of the city, people were upset because it was in a poor location and no longer walking distance to the grocery store (ie for seniors). Now the City is "disgusting" for cancelling that plan because it was not financially viable and giving everyone three years notice to move. I don't think there was a way to make everyone happy here short of paying everyone out full market value purely out of goodwill (and I'm pretty sure people would still be upset for having to leave).

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I would expect that if this was a private company doing this that the arguments on this board would be way more strenuous against about what it was doing to those people, but because its the city its magically ok.

I expect the opposite. It seems that some people think because a municipal government owns this trailer park, that there is some extra obligation by them to "make things right". No one would expect a private owner/company who wants to sell or develop this land to go out and buy an extra parcel of land just to move these trailers and be nice to people, no matter if it's a money losing venture or not.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Well if a private company was in this position, it would likely have given them a notice to vacate the property in a couple months. Not given them years, not supplying them with councilors to discuss their option and certainly not paying up to $20,000 to relocate. So yeah, there might be some outrage, but I think the general consensus would be the same - the tenants never owned the property. If a private company did as much as Calgary, we would be applauding the owner.

Of course, there wouldn't be as many sad-stories (not being sarcastic of frivolous) if a private company owned it because the stories of the poor retired couples that lived their for 40 years? They probably would have had to move decades ago when the private company increased the rent, I mean, 300 dollars a month to rent at those location in inner city Calgary during the booms? Yeah, no low-income owner, mobile home or not, is affording what a private company would be asking (if they didn't redevelop years ago).

I certainly feel bad for everyone, it's not a great situation, the same way I felt bad for everyone who took hits on their houses when they moved her during a boom. Or couldn't afford their places when they lost their jobs But when I hear stories about how these people have made that place their home and community for decades and how awesome it is to live there and how they don't want to move, what that is telling me is their landlord has been great to them for decades. I feel a lot worse for the couple of residents who got screwed over buying after the City announced the East Hills Estates.

[jammies]

$90,000 or so a spot to refurb the park sounds pretty cheap for low-income housing. I don't disagree with the city's tactics as far as moving the residents out and giving notice, but I question the decision to close at all. It's not "can they close?" but "should they?"

Being able to sell the land is defensible if the city is going to get out of the land-owning business entirely, but that's not the case. They've just decided that x amount of profit is more important than y amount of low-income housing. Personally I'd be very, very reluctant to consider x to ever be weighty enough unless it was paying for 2 or 3 times as much y made immediately available.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

Anyone who purchased a trailer in the park had to be approved by the park management as well as the city. They have a letter from 2012 signed by the city manager stating the land had been purchased in East Hills and the plan is going forward to move the residents to East Hills. It wasn't until Nenshi was elected the plans changed.

Nenshi was elected in 2010. Also, as has been already pointed out to you, he's only one vote on Council.

Does anyone know how Council voted on this issue, and what other options they considered?



This site has collected all the various media coverage this issue has received, going back to 2006: http://www.midfieldpark.ca/news.html


Here's a story from 2010, before Nenshi or Carra were elected, where the residents are complaining about the plan to relocate them east of the ring road: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...-plan-1.932882

In fact, it seems like the original plan was changed specifically because of pushback from the residents: http://www.calgarysun.com/news/alber.../17254161.html


Also, the original plan would have seen the park closed 5 years ago. Part of trying to find a better solution was to give residents a lot more time to find alternate solutions.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Mobiles sell all the time in Alberta. There is a market for them and it's not unreasonable to think that these tenants deserve market values. Banks lend on mobile homes. Appraisers appraise mobile homes. This isn't a new thing. When you guys say things like well I guess the value is zero dollars and zero cents then, it's just completely ignorant.

Great. If they have value and a market, they can be sold. What's the problem?

BTW - a trailer home that no one wants to buy has no market value. That's kind of the way the market works. You can't acknowledge that no one wants to buy it but it's worth $50K because MARKET!.

[Zarley]

Wow, I'm surprised at the number of you that are missing the point here. The City is clearly in the wrong here, and the way to make things right is to pay these people out for the depreciated cost of their mobile homes. It's simple, and it would be a drop in the bucket compared to the income the Midfield site will bring in upon redevelopment.

[Mass_nerder]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

Man, these are literally some of the worst arguments I've ever read on CP.

I'm guessing that the worst ones have family or friends involved and it had clouded your judgement.

Either that or crazy pills.

Or they're just empathetic toward some less fortunate people caught in a bad situation.

That being said, most of the arguments made here in support of the city make complete sense to me, and I understand why the city is moving in this direction.