Midfield Mobile Home Park

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Ducay

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.

Originally Posted by Regorium

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.

What makes the city right in this? The fact that they are legally allowed to do this? City council is elected to serve in the best interests of the people living in the city. Even the ones who live in trailer parks. What does the rest of the city have to gain from the city evicting these people? How much were the costs of the infrastructure repairs compared to the costs of the settlements? Whether you care to acknowledge it or not, at the end of the day every law that the court rules by has been implemented through the court of public opinion. When there is an area of the law that may require a change the only way to have a change considered is by lobbying law makers with the opinions of the public who decide whether or not those law makers remain in their positions.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

What makes the city right in this? The fact that they are legally allowed to do this? City council is elected to serve in the best interests of the people living in the city. Even the ones who live in trailer parks. What does the rest of the city have to gain from the city evicting these people? How much were the costs of the infrastructure repairs compared to the costs of the settlements? Whether you care to acknowledge it or not, at the end of the day every law that the court rules by has been implemented through the court of public opinion. When there is an area of the law that may require a change the only way to have a change considered is by lobbying law makers with the opinions of the public who decide whether or not those law makers remain in their positions.

Your incessant assumptions that the entity with more money is always screwing the one with less is so predictable and repetitive, I pretty much gloss over your posts nowadays. Even when it's hockey players vs owners, you just automatically assume that there's a screw job going on. I don't even know why I'm bothering to reply to you, because I know you will simply not believe what I say, and continue to bang that "little guy" drum, no matter what, but here goes...

The crumbling infrastructure in that park is actually running underneath the trailers and lots, not under the roads. If there was a water main break, it would very possibly require the demolition or temporary removal of someone's home. That is a huge liability that the City is wise to avoid before it happens.

Avoiding that means either removing all the structures and redoing the pipes, or else laying new ones under the existing roads (tearing up all the roads and installing brand new infrastructure). Neither of those are good ideas on a plot of land located where that plot is. I know you have absolutely no comprehension of real estate values, but if nothing else, can you please try to understand that if the city did not continue to densify as it grows, this city would be about 100km in diameter by now, and that would be a f-load more pipes than the taxpayers could afford to build, and building new infrastructure for a low density development with that proximity to downtown is downright ludicrous.

It's not always a boogeyman, iggy. Sometimes "the best interest of the people living in the city" means that a few people get ample notice, and have to leave. Sort of like with the West LRT. Or Glenmore and Elbow.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Your incessant assumptions that the entity with more money is always screwing the one with less is so predictable and repetitive, I pretty much gloss over your posts nowadays. Even when it's hockey players vs owners, you just automatically assume that there's a screw job going on. I don't even know why I'm bothering to reply to you, because I know you will simply not believe what I say, and continue to bang that "little guy" drum, no matter what, but here goes...

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.

The crumbling infrastructure in that park is actually running underneath the trailers and lots, not under the roads. If there was a water main break, it would very possibly require the demolition or temporary removal of someone's home. That is a huge liability that the City is wise to avoid before it happens.

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.

Avoiding that means either removing all the structures and redoing the pipes, or else laying new ones under the existing roads (tearing up all the roads and installing brand new infrastructure). Neither of those are good ideas on a plot of land located where that plot is. I know you have absolutely no comprehension of real estate values, but if nothing else, can you please try to understand that if the city did not continue to densify as it grows, this city would be about 100km in diameter by now, and that would be a f-load more pipes than the taxpayers could afford to build, and building new infrastructure for a low density development with that proximity to downtown is downright ludicrous.

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.

It's not always a boogeyman, iggy. Sometimes "the best interest of the people living in the city" means that a few people get ample notice, and have to leave. Sort of like with the West LRT. Or Glenmore and Elbow.

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.

[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.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Meh, no offense to anybody in particular, but it's not exactly CP's intellectual A team arguing against the City here

You sure you're the right guy to be making that call?

Originally Posted by Sliver

If you look at the facts honestly and objectively, the only conclusion you can come to is the City handled themselves well

It's not illegal so therefore the city did nothing wrong? They saved us good citizens millions of dollars? That kind of seems like the consensus.

Danielle Smith read the letter the City of Calgary wrote to tenants in 2012 today. This quote from it is pretty telling....

Midfield Park will not close until the construction of the new East Hills Estates Park has been completed...registered Midfield tenants will be entitled to a relocation allowance....all rights to the relocation allowance will be transferable to future purchasers of mobile homes in Midfield"

This is the letter that people took to banks to get financing. This is the reason some people were able to obtain mortgages. The city said "yes, by all means continue buying trailers. We will pay to have them moved to a new park". So that's what people did from 2012-2014.

There is no question that the City knew they had a responsibility to accommodate these people. That's why they committed to doing so in the first place. And there's no doubt they've failed in their fiduciary duty to citizens by reneging on their commitment.

If you have one asset to sell and you do something like this, then fine. You win. Take your money and run. But I'm sure somewhere down the road someone is going to look at this and ask for something in the way of a risk premium when doing business with the city. I sure would. If your commitments mean nothing I'll be covering my interest and then some.

Anyway, the city plans on spending close to 4 million and three years paying people and have achieved nothing but a massive problem. Just looking at the assessed values of these places, 35k per unit seems like a pretty accurate average price...maybe even a bit high. So for 6.5 million, they could have come very close to covering off people's equity. After that is accomplished I could care less if people miss their ancestral village. You're equity whole...life goes on.

An extra 2-3 million bucks to fix this is peanuts. 4-5 million more even is sfa. It's the interest on the change this project would have earned had they done it ten years ago. It's a million stupid things we've bought in the last ten years. It's literally nothing. What it is though, is credibility.

A letter from the City of Calgary should mean more that the paper it's printed on. And whoever counts the beans on these projects should definitely go back to abacus school. I'd trade ten years of developed property taxes on this land for 3-5 million bucks any day.

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.

I know the city didn't build the park. But I'm pretty sure they approved its design and development plan. I'm also pretty sure people didn't just start dropping trailers around willy nilly. It's kind of puzzling to say we built an entire city properly except this place. And by the way it's on you.

[Titan]

It would be very interesting to actually read that whole letter. The excerpt does not sound good from the City's perspective but there is not enough detail to be definitive.

[llwhiteoutll]

People need to stop holding that letter up like some legally binding document. Plans change, especially when the very people you are trying to accommodate are against your plans to accommodate them.

[cam_wmh]

Is that letter online for viewing anywhere?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by 4X4

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.

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.

When you say the infrastructure runs underneath structures, do you mean the mobile homes? As in you know moveable properties? I may be having one of my logic oversight episodes you were talking about, but I think there is a chance the city would be able to avoid ripping through a trailer's living room.

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?

So according to you the actual costs were either $11 or $17 million, the disparity between those estimates makes me question their accuracy, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. In any event the price tag on its own doesn't make or break the case for whether or not it is a viable investment. If we looked at the price tag of any single service the city does in isolation everything looks expensive. Look into how much it costs to repave the street infront of one city bloc, if we just looked at the price in isolation on everything we'd never fix anything. Obviously the land is valuable, but the city selling it doesn't really benefit me so why would I be opposed to the people who it does effect fighting to keep it? Considering how much this repair would cost me individually as a taxpayer I couldn't justify displacing people in order to save money so that someone more fortunate can eventually profit. You don't have to agree, but to be honest I considee my taxes being spent on helping others to be one of their least wasteful uses.

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.

The funny thing is, I haven't been arguing what the city should or shouldn't do. The few posts I had made in this thread up until you started attacking me for doing so had not been advocating this at all, I was simply commenting on how the city has handled the situation and whether or not there is an argument to be made against the way they've dealt with this as opposed to just believing the city can do no wrong.

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.

I'm sorry if my terminology offends you. We can agree to disagree about your perceptions. This isn't my battle to fight, I'm just supporting the people who are fighting it, hopefully that doesn't ruin your day.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

When you say the infrastructure runs underneath structures, do you mean the mobile homes? As in you know moveable properties? I may be having one of my logic oversight episodes you were talking about, but I think there is a chance the city would be able to avoid ripping through a trailer's living room.

A key claim of the tenants has been that their trailers have degraded to the point where they are unmovable. So the trailers would have to be moved in order to repair buried utilities, then they would be demanding money to pay for the damage caused by moving them for the repairs.

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

So according to you the actual costs were either $11 or $17 million, the disparity between those estimates makes me question their accuracy, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. In any event the price tag on its own doesn't make or break the case for whether or not it is a viable investment. If we looked at the price tag of any single service the city does in isolation everything looks expensive. Look into how much it costs to repave the street infront of one city bloc, if we just looked at the price in isolation on everything we'd never fix anything. Obviously the land is valuable, but the city selling it doesn't really benefit me so why would I be opposed to the people who it does effect fighting to keep it? Considering how much this repair would cost me individually as a taxpayer I couldn't justify displacing people in order to save money so that someone more fortunate can eventually profit. You don't have to agree, but to be honest I considee my taxes being spent on helping others to be one of their least wasteful uses.

The tenants wanted to purchase the land for its assessed value of $10 million, the city said that in order for it to be sold, the utilities would need to be fixed and that would cost in the neighborhood of $7 million, so would need $17 million to sell the land. Regardless, the park is not public land, so it is an entirely different situation than the city repairing utilities on public land. If the city fixed the utilities, the tenants would see their rent increase in order to fund those repairs. If the repairs were completed on the taxpayer dime, they would be creating a precedent and then have to fight every single homeowner that has a sewer or water line need to be replaced on their property.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

A key claim of the tenants has been that their trailers have degraded to the point where they are unmovable. So the trailers would have to be moved in order to repair buried utilities, then they would be demanding money to pay for the damage caused by moving them for the repairs.

Some of the tenants have made that claim, but not all of them in any case there is no point debating the impact this would have since we don't know exactly how many units could not be moved and what the costs associated with that are.

The tenants wanted to purchase the land for its assessed value of $10 million, the city said that in order for it to be sold, the utilities would need to be fixed and that would cost in the neighborhood of $7 million, so would need $17 million to sell the land. Regardless, the park is not public land, so it is an entirely different situation than the city repairing utilities on public land. If the city fixed the utilities, the tenants would see their rent increase in order to fund those repairs. If the repairs were completed on the taxpayer dime, they would be creating a precedent and then have to fight every single homeowner that has a sewer or water line need to be replaced on their property.

There would be no precedent set, the single homeowner would still be responsible for utility repairs on their property, the difference in this case is that the city owns the property and fortunately for them taxpayers sign their paycheques.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

When you say the infrastructure runs underneath structures, do you mean the mobile homes? As in you know moveable properties? I may be having one of my logic oversight episodes you were talking about, but I think there is a chance the city would be able to avoid ripping through a trailer's living room.

Yes. Mobile homes. Those things that are named that because they're made in one place, and assembled in another. We no longer call them that, becaues they're not actually any more mobile than a house built on site. Nowadays, we call it pre-fab.
"Mobile" homes sit on grade, houses sit on a foundation. It's still a big job to move either one. There are no wheels and no trailer hitch.

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

So according to you the actual costs were either $11 or $17 million, the disparity between those estimates makes me question their accuracy, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. In any event the price tag on its own doesn't make or break the case for whether or not it is a viable investment. If we looked at the price tag of any single service the city does in isolation everything looks expensive. Look into how much it costs to repave the street infront of one city bloc, if we just looked at the price in isolation on everything we'd never fix anything. Obviously the land is valuable, but the city selling it doesn't really benefit me so why would I be opposed to the people who it does effect fighting to keep it? Considering how much this repair would cost me individually as a taxpayer I couldn't justify displacing people in order to save money so that someone more fortunate can eventually profit. You don't have to agree, but to be honest I considee my taxes being spent on helping others to be one of their least wasteful uses.

I've got no problem with you agreeing with people for fighting it. It's all the BS you're spewing instead of facts. If you had any kind of fiscal awareness, you'd realize that repairing something like this is a waste of money from the perspective of the taxpayer. Either way, the City is moving houses, but you're suggesting that they put them back afterward, in a place that, as long as things are being moved, should be higher density. The place ran it's course. Arguing that the City is being greedy as opposed to prudent is where you're missing the point. That's the same point you always miss. I swear to God, if a rich man pulled a sliver out of your toe, you'd accuse him of stealing from a poor man.

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

The funny thing is, I haven't been arguing what the city should or shouldn't do. The few posts I had made in this thread up until you started attacking me for doing so had not been advocating this at all, I was simply commenting on how the city has handled the situation and whether or not there is an argument to be made against the way they've dealt with this as opposed to just believing the city can do no wrong.



I'm sorry if my terminology offends you. We can agree to disagree about your perceptions. This isn't my battle to fight, I'm just supporting the people who are fighting it, hopefully that doesn't ruin your day.

That's all you ever argue, iggy. You're as predictable as an equation, except you don't understand the math behind paying for things logically as opposed to emotionally. That's not always a bad thing; you just don't know what you're talking about. And my day has been great, thanks.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Yes. Mobile homes. Those things that are named that because they're made in one place, and assembled in another. We no longer call them that, becaues they're not actually any more mobile than a house built on site. Nowadays, we call it pre-fab.
"Mobile" homes sit on grade, houses sit on a foundation. It's still a big job to move either one. There are no wheels and no trailer hitch.

So we agree that they can be moved, and it costs money, was that the point you were trying to make?

I've got no problem with you agreeing with people for fighting it. It's all the BS you're spewing instead of facts. If you had any kind of fiscal awareness, you'd realize that repairing something like this is a waste of money from the perspective of the taxpayer. Either way, the City is moving houses, but you're suggesting that they put them back afterward, in a place that, as long as things are being moved, should be higher density. The place ran it's course. Arguing that the City is being greedy as opposed to prudent is where you're missing the point. That's the same point you always miss. I swear to God, if a rich man pulled a sliver out of your toe, you'd accuse him of stealing from a poor man.

Was the bolded intended to be sarcastic? It's very difficult to tell given the rest of the paragraph. I mean seriously, are you sure you're responding to the right poster? I haven't argued the city is being greedy at all, I understand their reasoning behind what they are doing, I'm just able to look at the situation from both sides and can understand why these people are fighting and believe it's not a bad thing for them to be doing. It doesn't even mean I think they're going to win.

That's all you ever argue, iggy. You're as predictable as an equation, except you don't understand the math behind paying for things logically as opposed to emotionally. That's not always a bad thing; you just don't know what you're talking about. And my day has been great, thanks.

You seem to be more concerned with your view on my posting history and complaining about it than you are with actually reading and accurately responding to my posts. If my posts bother you so much you can avoid reading them or put me on your ignore list, but please spare me the long winded posts where you use your opinion of me as your main argument for why I'm wrong about things I haven't even said.

[BigNumbers]

If that letter said in it's entirety what was posted without context, there would be a legal case proceeding against the city. The fact that there isn't means the letter has nothing of substance to it in it's entirety.

These people got more notice than any other tenant would get. Why should they get special treatment just because their landlord happens to be the City of Calgary?

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

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.

Doing a quick mortgage calculation, $55K over a 25 year mortgage at 3% interest is $260 per month. At 4% it's $290 per month. How much were these residents paying per month in rent? Because the cost of rent goes away if they buy the land.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Doing a quick mortgage calculation, $55K over a 25 year mortgage at 3% interest is $260 per month. At 4% it's $290 per month. How much were these residents paying per month in rent? Because the cost of rent goes away if they buy the land.

Aren't the term limits for mobile home mortgages shorter than 25 years?

[ken0042]

I hadn't thought of that. As it turns out the limit is 20 years. So $305 to $333 depending on 3-4% interest rate. Still in the same ballpark, and I'm not sure if that would apply to the land purchase.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by BigNumbers

If that letter said in it's entirety what was posted without context, there would be a legal case proceeding against the city. The fact that there isn't means the letter has nothing of substance to it in it's entirety.

These people got more notice than any other tenant would get. Why should they get special treatment just because their landlord happens to be the City of Calgary?

The issue for them isn't simply finding another place to live, the issue is finding a suitable place to relocate their homes (easier said than done).

The city was wrong to give them false hope about having a replacement motor home park to move to.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

The issue for them isn't simply finding another place to live, the issue is finding a suitable place to relocate their homes (easier said than done).

Isn't that an issue that is shared by every mobile home owner who does not own the land their home rests on?

Will the City need to rescue them as well should their land owners decide not to renew leases?

The City has to be very aware of any precedent set dealing with the Midland folks.

[monkeyman]

I'm honestly shocked by the responses this thread has gotten.
I think it's a shame these people are being treated the way they are.
They're not looking for a financial windfall; they merely want to live out their lives without facing homelessness and financial ruin. Many of these people are elderly, spent their entire lives living and paying taxes in Calgary. We as a society look to our government to help those who can't help themselves, It's one of the reasons we all pay taxes, not just to build fancy new stadiums. It's sad that a city as progressive as Calgary proclaims itself, would rather see the old and impoverished in homeless shelters and living off financial aid than being self-sufficient. A new trailer park would have helped, not only these people but many lower income Calgarians to gain a toe hold or even just hang on to the modest existence they have.
To have the city pry their fingers from that ledge just isn't right.
Of course, this doesn't fit into the Cities vision of Calgary; they demand lower density and less sprawl. Screw it if it means excessively high rents, housing shortages and inflated house prices that ultimately lead to more homelessness and greater poverty.
The city may be legally correct, but morally, they come across like any slum lord, willing to sacrifice the weakest of society to build more profitable, higher density condos.
P.S. I have no dog in this fight, I don't know anyone who lives there. I'd just be heartbroken if one of these people were my Grandmother, father, aunt, sister...