I think you're greatly overestimating the amount of people who care enough about this issue to let it influence their vote, especially since so many of the people there have taken the money and moved.
It's an easy mud slinging issue for his opponents. The controversy is already created so they won't need to generate their own to try and shake confidence in Nenshi.
I am not saying it will be the key election issue, but I bet it comes up a lot during debates or candidate interaction.
__________________
"OOOOOOHHHHHHH those Russians" - Boney M
Last edited by killer_carlson; 08-25-2017 at 11:31 AM.
Could be someone actually did commit suicide, which is horrible in it's own right, but in this case does someone really know why they did. This should stop being brought up as fact, as far as I know they just committed suicide and ONE of the stresses they had was having to move, but you really have no idea what other things may have contributed.
That's all that remains now, rumour and emotional appeal. If they had facts and law on their side, there would be a new park in East Hills that is built and they could complain they aren't close enough to all the ammenaties they want.
It's an easy mud slinging issue for his opponents. The controversy is already created so they won't need to generate their own to try and shake confidence in Nenshi.
I am not saying it will be the key election issue, but I bet it comes up a lot during debates or candidate interaction.
Well with the election on October 9th and the deadline for the park on Sept 30th. And a wack of people not leaving, I would say that the optics of this for the mayor aren't going to look good.
Police going in to arrest people that refuse to leave. Bulldozers crushing people's homes, angry residents being interviewed.
The timing is going to be bad for the mayor and the existing council.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
So was Danielle Smith. She will be talking about the issue at 11:00 am on Qr 770 today.
I wish I could find out which was the council voted but everything they have done on this issue has been in camera and secret.
If his truck was tied to his mortgage, doesn't that indicate that the bank didn't think the trailer was worth the $60K? or perhaps they werent willing to risk the potential closure with nowhere to go without collateral?
$10,000 isn't #### when you owe $60,000 and will have to pay rent as well as paying a mortgage for a home you don't have anymore.
As a bit of a disclaimer, I realize your issue stems from the fact that your sister bought the place after the plans of East Hills Estates was announced, and prior to it being cancelled and I wished that the City were able to make it 'right' with those people. I do have much more sympathy for the very select few of people in that position, but this post is more about the whole of the situation.
And I get where you're coming from, and I don't want to be callous, but $10,000.00 is more than $0.00. Why did these residents deserve anything from the City they weren't entitled to? I know a person through no fault of his own (as everyone on this forum does) that lost his job and had to move cities taking a major hit on his house doing so compared to what he paid. The City didn't offer him $10,000 or help him move, so I'm not sure how far the City should bend its back for these select few residents.
Because they were put in that position due to a decision that the City of Calgary was forced to, and legally allowed, to make?
Well how many millions should the City poor out to the residents of Harvest Hills, Highland Parks and Hamptons? They thought they had purchased homes in a community with a nice golf course. Now instead of backing out onto a golf course they'll be next to a 2000 unit condo parking lot. All of these people potentially took massive hits due to a decision that the City of Calgary Council approved. The fact is, without owning the property, they don't have the a right to determine how the property is developed. Whether it be golf courses turning into condos or mobile parks turning into office space, that's not their decision to make, and they shouldn't receive compensation from the City as though they did have property rights.
The Following User Says Thank You to Oling_Roachinen For This Useful Post:
^ Not to mention the fact that these are the same people who chose not to buy the land when the city offered. They had the chance to determine the development of the site and turned down the opportunity
^ Not to mention the fact that these are the same people who chose not to buy the land when the city offered. They had the chance to determine the development of the site and turned down the opportunity
Again you're asking low income people to come up with $10 million bucks, or about $55,000 a share.
Some people are already paying a mortgage on their home and other living expenses.
That was a poison pill offer, the city knew they'd say no because there's no way its affordable.
It would be equivalent to a person buying a condo and getting a special assessment for nearly the value of their condo.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
I think there's a major difference between there being nowhere to put your home versus no longer having a golf course next door.
I have sympathy for the people who bought when East Hills was the plan and before it changed. It appears that the City stated they were building East Hills and people bought, assuming that. Now since that option is gone, clearly the City wasn't legally required to (or maybe they were but they have better lawyers than poor people?). I would be curious to see if the letter stated that the plan was not for certain.
I also realize that being forced to move from a home you've lived in for 40+ years is hard. How many people have been there when a relative has had to be moved out of a lifelong home due to age/illness? It's very stressful and the idea that health issues, including suicide, would occur is not unusual at all.
It's an awful situation and even if they City is legally in the right, I question if they are morally right. Laws are simply rules that we draw up and maybe home and land owning people never even considered this situation.
At this stage, I'm not sure what the right answer is. But it bothers me to see so many people with an attitude that people were stupid to think they wouldn't be kicked out with a trailer and nowhere to go and they should be grateful for getting $10 000 (no one is getting $20 000 unless they have somewhere to go with their trailer).
I'm betting with an election coming up that a either a long term extension is put in place or the city ups its offer.
The optics of this are bad and getting worse, and none of the incumbents wants to be running against images of low income people and seniors being dragged out of their home by the police while trailers are crushed.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
It's an awful situation and even if they City is legally in the right, I question if they are morally right. Laws are simply rules that we draw up and maybe home and land owning people never even considered this situation.
At this stage, I'm not sure what the right answer is. But it bothers me to see so many people with an attitude that people were stupid to think they wouldn't be kicked out with a trailer and nowhere to go and they should be grateful for getting $10 000 (no one is getting $20 000 unless they have somewhere to go with their trailer).
And no, I don't have friends or family there.
I respect your opinion, but this thread is evidence as to why we work with a court of law and not a court of public opinion.
I'm betting with an election coming up that a either a long term extension is put in place or the city ups its offer.
The optics of this are bad and getting worse, and none of the incumbents wants to be running against images of low income people and seniors being dragged out of their home by the police while trailers are crushed.
You're right, but how would this be fair to the good citizens that actually followed the directive?
The Following User Says Thank You to Regorium For This Useful Post:
I'm betting with an election coming up that a either a long term extension is put in place or the city ups its offer.
The optics of this are bad and getting worse, and none of the incumbents wants to be running against images of low income people and seniors being dragged out of their home by the police while trailers are crushed.
How could they up their offer when over 80% of the trailers have already made arrangements? That would be crippling optics with negotiating with the City on anything, the last thing the City would want would to be caving into the squeaky wheel and letting everyone know.
Realistically, the unabondanded trailers are served notices to evacuate the premises while the water and electricity is (or will be) turned off. And that gives them like 2 extra weeks, conveniently having the sheriff come to them shortly after the election.
Meh, no offense to anybody in particular, but it's not exactly CP's intellectual A team arguing against the City here.
If you look at the facts honestly and objectively, the only conclusion you can come to is the City handled themselves well and the remaining residents have planned poorly to still be there. It's not an opinion you'll hear on the news because who would want to put themselves in the cross hairs by saying it so bluntly on a live newscast; however, it's what the majority of thoughtful Calgarians know to be true, and those are the ones who are more likely to vote, anyway.
The number of people who would vote on this issue alone is immaterial.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Sliver For This Useful Post:
You're right, but how would this be fair to the good citizens that actually followed the directive?
How would it be unfair to those good citizens? They chose to leave rather than fight to stay. I find it odd how you oppose the opinion that what is happening to the remaining tenants is unfair, yet are now trying to argue letting them stay would be unfair to those who left.
How would it be unfair to those good citizens? They chose to leave rather than fight to stay. I find it odd how you oppose the opinion that what is happening to the remaining tenants is unfair, yet are now trying to argue letting them stay would be unfair to those who left.
Chose to leave is a pretty strong phrase.
They were given no other option or the ability to negotiate, the City outlined what would happen and they followed through with it as no other legal choice remained.
The other alternative was breaking the law. After September 30, 2017, anyone still on the property is trespassing. Caving in and giving the law breakers some form of higher compensation would not at all be fair to those who followed the rules. Even if that ends up being the case somehow.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Oling_Roachinen For This Useful Post:
They were given no other option or the ability to negotiate, the City outlined what would happen and they followed through with it as no other legal choice remained.
The other alternative was breaking the law. After September 30, 2017, anyone still on the property is trespassing. Caving in and giving the law breakers some form of higher compensation would not at all be fair to those who followed the rules. Even if that ends up being the case somehow.
They aren't breaking the law at the moment. Right now it's essentially a game of chicken, the residents who stayed are gambling. They may receive nothing for their fight while those who chose to leave when they did would still have their settlement they agreed to. Whether this was done intentionally or not, the residents who stayed have given themselves some leverage to either get an extension or a better settlement because the current city council will not want this to becoming a focal point during the election.
Caving in and giving the law breakers some form of higher compensation would not at all be fair to those who followed the rules. Even if that ends up being the case somehow.
Lawsuit from the (greater numbers of) people that followed the rules for matching payouts incoming?
They aren't breaking the law at the moment. Right now it's essentially a game of chicken, the residents who stayed are gambling. They may receive nothing for their fight while those who chose to leave when they did would still have their settlement they agreed to. Whether this was done intentionally or not, the residents who stayed have given themselves some leverage to either get an extension or a better settlement because the current city council will not want this to becoming a focal point during the election.
It had better not be an issue. Another sob story where the city is in the right, but the media will make it out to be something it isn't.
The Following User Says Thank You to Ducay For This Useful Post:
They aren't breaking the law at the moment. Right now it's essentially a game of chicken, the residents who stayed are gambling. They may receive nothing for their fight while those who chose to leave when they did would still have their settlement they agreed to. Whether this was done intentionally or not, the residents who stayed have given themselves some leverage to either get an extension or a better settlement because the current city council will not want this to becoming a focal point during the election.
You're absolutely right. It's a game of chicken and I'm cheering for the City.
For me, I would hope that after Sept 30, the City of Calgary drops their compensation to $0 rather than $10,000. The remaining people can deal with the police.
Using the media to shame has been very effective, so it's possible I'm fighting a losing battle, but I have always believed in the court of law over court of public opinion, and this is just me being consistent with my values.
You're absolutely right. It's a game of chicken and I'm cheering for the City.
For me, I would hope that after Sept 30, the City of Calgary drops their compensation to $0 rather than $10,000. The remaining people can deal with the police.
Using the media to shame has been very effective, so it's possible I'm fighting a losing battle, but I have always believed in the court of law over court of public opinion, and this is just me being consistent with my values.
They won't back down. They'll use the court to back up a legal eviction and can then deflect the blame. There is no way the court would grant squatters rights to people who hold no lease and have no legal claim to the land. If they do, it would turn tenancy law on its head and open the door to a lot of nonsense from other tenants.
People thinking about renting should be taking a lesson from all this. Everything is done by the letter of the law, no exceptions.
