Midfield Mobile Home Park

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

These people own their homes. It's like saying why not just buy the land people own and then give them 10k to throw their houses away because we really don't need the house. The owners can still own it. They just have to move it.

In addition the city pays for business value when they buy land with commercial concerns on it. They had to pay The Brick a wack of money not only for the land and the building but also for the business value. That seems like another incident when the city goes above and beyond what is needed to treat people fairly.

When you look at some of the past city issues with expropriation of land, they generally employ the same tactics...wait while the properties lose value due to impending development and then offer at the revised down assessed value. Then lock it up in court forever and settle when there is no other choice.

It's actually amazing how all this would change on a dime if it happened to anyone of CP's finest.

Please address Oling_Roachinen's post above.

[BlackArcher101]

So looking into all the area development plans, etc which include the Belvedere area (where they wanted to put the park), it appears to develop that park and any other major residential area east of Stoney, they are limited by the sanitary sewer infrastructure.

It notes developing that land will trigger significant upgrades downstream. Now, they upgraded one of the trunk lines from Chestermere last year I think, but whether they included development of this area in those numbers is unknown.

Regardless, there seems to be more to the story here and I hate how it was all in camera. Development of this area, after their east hills estates plan was completed, likely was deemed uneconomical at the time until the remainder of the area is close to be developed. To install and also upgrade the infrastructure for an early installation of the park may not have been on the cards. Would REALLY like to get a hold of that plan.

This letter is dated Feb of 2012, and the Belvedere development plan was released on May 2013 and has no mention at all regarding a mobile home park or low income housing. Then in April 2014 they officially advise residents that it's no longer in the plan to build a new park. This plan took way too long to be reviewed by council, very abnormal. Something has to be up with this whole deal, it could be the land may even be stuck in a lawsuit? Who knows!

[getbak]

There used to be a trailer park east of Macleod Trail, south of Anderson. It was removed prior to the construction of the Macleod-Anderson interchange. There are now car dealerships and a condo complex where it used to be.

Does anyone know what kind of compensation the residents there received?

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by getbak

There used to be a trailer park east of Macleod Trail, south of Anderson. It was removed prior to the construction of the Macleod-Anderson interchange. There are now car dealerships and a condo complex where it used to be.

Does anyone know what kind of compensation the residents there received?

That was Chateau Estates. It was privately owned but the city bought the land and subsequently moved the residents to the current location on 84th st ne. The residents didn't want to move but were happy with the deal ultimately. All moving expenses were covered. I think it's privately owned but not sure. I suppose that may have been a good point to make regarding precedents.

[iggy_oi]

Looks like the evictions could be delayed further

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/c...wyer-1.4305174

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

That was Chateau Estates. It was privately owned but the city bought the land and subsequently moved the residents to the current location on 84th st ne. The residents didn't want to move but were happy with the deal ultimately. All moving expenses were covered. I think it's privately owned but not sure. I suppose that may have been a good point to make regarding precedents.

It was privately owned, but there was a place for them to move to at the time so they got moving expenses.

I lived right across the street from that park, I remember that at one point there were two parks there.

I lost a lot of my best friends when they moved, they were absolutely vicious road hockey players as well, it wasn't unusual for us to have these massive bench clearing brawls just for the hell of it.

[llwhiteoutll]

Pretty obvious what's happening and hopefully the people still there don't mind being pawns for the anti-Nenshi crowd. Anyone who really cared about these people had years to act, but would have lost the political impact that is gained by waiting until now, this wouldn't be going to court if the election wasn't happening in a few weeks

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Looks like the evictions could be delayed further

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/c...wyer-1.4305174

Interesting read. I don't agree with the lawyers argument that it is contrary to the Charter, but we will find out I suppose.

Comes across more as a ploy to allow the residents to stay a little longer.

[CaptainCrunch]

Its a desperation shot, but its all these people really have.

However I thought that the city was going to build rich people condo's there. If the case is that they're just going to kick em out, pull the utilities and leave the land barren then it does read like something that should be decided by the courts.

[Nufy]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

Interesting read. I don't agree with the lawyers argument that it is contrary to the Charter, but we will find out I suppose.

Comes across more as a ploy to allow the residents to stay a little longer.

Maybe...

delay till the cold weather comes...

Then you cant evict seniors / low income / etc...people out in the freezing cold.

Should get them through to the spring...

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by Nufy

Maybe...

delay till the cold weather comes...

Then you cant evict seniors / low income / etc...people out in the freezing cold.

Should get them through to the spring...

I think it is more likely to be a delay of a couple weeks, at most. If there was a valid Charter challenge here, it would have been made years ago.

I hope the lawyer isn't charging the people of the trailer park much.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Nufy

Maybe...

delay till the cold weather comes...

Then you cant evict seniors / low income / etc...people out in the freezing cold.

Should get them through to the spring...

Leases can be terminated in the winter, you're probably thinking of the rules that say utilities can't be shut off from Oct to April

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Leases can be terminated in the winter, you're probably thinking of the rules that say utilities can't be shut off from Oct to April

Yup, I think he is confused.

Also, they put a load limiter on your line if you don't pay. It allows enough juice to run your furnace fan, but that's it.

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

I think it is more likely to be a delay of a couple weeks, at most. If there was a valid Charter challenge here, it would have been made years ago.

I hope the lawyer isn't charging the people of the trailer park much.

Residents haven't had the money to pay for the lawyers. They have met with many who said they could give a free consultation but it would be very expensive to fight in court. I'm happy to see someone step up to help them. They were promised to be moved just like Chateau Estates and then screwed by the city all to sell the land off to condo developers. The lawyer is helping pro-bono. They are in court as we speak and should have news soon.

[northcrunk]

Looks like the injunction has been granted till Nov 22 court date. Good news.

[Ducay]

Good news! Now they get to move in the snow

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Good news! Now they get to move in the snow

Eh, it's been 10+ years, what's another couple months?

[killer_carlson]

Don Braid of the Herald chimes in:

http://calgaryherald.com/news/politi...-midfield-park

He draws a very compelling comparison to a Glenmore/Elbow interchange situation 10 years ago.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Don Braid of the Herald chimes in:

http://calgaryherald.com/news/politi...-midfield-park

He draws a very compelling comparison to a Glenmore/Elbow interchange situation 10 years ago.

If they want market value, things such as current condition, age and ability to be moved and availability of spots to relocate to should be factored into the price as they all affect the value. It should not be just looking at outstanding mortgage and paying that out.

If you did an actual valuation on some of these places, I doubt they'd get more than the city's original offer.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Don Braid of the Herald chimes in:

http://calgaryherald.com/news/politi...-midfield-park

He draws a very compelling comparison to a Glenmore/Elbow interchange situation 10 years ago.

It's not that compelling.

These people do not have a lease and do not own the land. Any comparison to a group of people who do own the land is not valid.

The argument to pay them out for the lost value of their home should be solely based on promises made by the city which influenced decision making and therefore cost people money.