Midfield Mobile Home Park

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

I think I've changed my mind. The City should totally bail out these people.

While we're at it, let's also bail out the hundreds, if not thousands of condo owners who have been forced to pay special assessments in the thousands and tens of thousands of dollars for repair of faulty construction (usually due to water leaks) in newer buildings that had been inspected and approved by the City as meeting all Building Codes. We pay taxes too!

Where does it end?

That's an idiotic comparison, there are no parallels between the two situations.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

You conveniently forgot to mention that the residents of Midfield all but rejected the proposed site of the new park. Seems even then they seemed entitled to a "better" location and a better deal.

Chabot addressed this on the radio this morning. The residents didn't reject anything. They were given a questionnaire that asked what they liked about living in the trailer park. The answers were by and large, the location, area, amenities, community etc. So from that questionnaire the city inferred the narrative that the residents didn't want to go to east hills. If you had, on the same questionnaire asked, would you like to move to east hills or be given 10k and directions to the Mustard Seed, the over whelming response I think would be pretty obvious.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

No need for slippery slope arguments. Either the letters are actionable or they are not. I can't view those attachments, so I can't say for sure, but I doubt it. Either way, it is up to the residents to make the argument in court.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

No need for slippery slope arguments. Either the letters are actionable or they are not. I can't view those attachments, so I can't say for sure, but I doubt it. Either way, it is up to the residents to make the argument in court.

I think another reason, besides the expense of fighting the City of Calgary, is that the outcome hasn't been resolved yet. Your losses haven't been realized yet. There's probably nothing to sue for at this point. At the very least you'd have a stronger case once the outcome is realized.

Also, in regards to a small claim being under 50k, I don't know if this would qualify for other reasons. Not every issue is applicable to small claims even if it is under 50k. I suspect this would be queen's bench.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Zarley

That's an idiotic comparison, there are no parallels between the two situations.

No comparison between 2 groups that relied on the City 'promises' (that they'd be moved or that buildings were built to code) to protect their interests yet suffered financial losses as a result of that reliance?

Condo owners warn Calgarians

Hyrhoruk and her boyfriend later discovered that the stucco on her condo was so thin it didn't meet the building code. Her walls were porous.

She had to shell out $75,000 to repair it.

Calgary leaky condos

This past week I heard about yet another sad first time investor story that just broke my heart.

A couple purchased two condo units in a building on 17th Avenue SW, Calgary about 3 or 4 years ago as an investment. The 10 year old building has been plagued by leaks. This year they discovered the problems and damages were far worse than anyone expected.

This couple received two special assessments of $75,000 each. The $150,000 special assessment coupled with the fact that their properties are worth less than what they paid for them, they declared bankruptcy.

Oddly enough I noticed the condo building across the street from their building is now also going through some major restoration. Test spots are being cut out of the stucco above windows and patio doors, scaffold is going up etc.

Just last week I noticed a condo building that I have long admired as a meticulously maintained property suddenly had 6 listings in it. This is a building that rarely saw properties come up for sale. Thought that was strange until I drove by it yesterday and saw scaffold, tarps, dumpsters and stucco being removed -- telltale signs of water issues and possibly some big special assessments.

Driving down 14th Street this past week and saw two more condo buildings with several decks and window covered in tarps. Major signs of water damage to stucco.

The only difference is that trailer park residents have a much more sympathic story.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Chabot addressed this on the radio this morning. The residents didn't reject anything. They were given a questionnaire that asked what they liked about living in the trailer park. The answers were by and large, the location, area, amenities, community etc. So from that questionnaire the city inferred the narrative that the residents didn't want to go to east hills. If you had, on the same questionnaire asked, would you like to move to east hills or be given 10k and directions to the Mustard Seed, the over whelming response I think would be pretty obvious.

The difference is that I own the land my home sits on, the trailer owners do not. You keep ignoring that.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I think another reason, besides the expense of fighting the City of Calgary, is that the outcome hasn't been resolved yet. Your losses haven't been realized yet. There's probably nothing to sue for at this point. At the very least you'd have a stronger case once the outcome is realized.

Also, in regards to a small claim being under 50k, I don't know if this would qualify for other reasons. Not every issue is applicable to small claims even if it is under 50k. I suspect this would be queen's bench.

Not sure what the claim is for, but a tenancy issue can be brought forth in small claims. I thought it would be more of an issue of negligent misstatement, where one party negligently makes a statement to which the other reasonably relies upon and suffers damages as a result.

As I have stated before, there might be something to it, but only for those that actually acted on the statement prior to the City reversing its decision.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

No comparison between 2 groups that relied on the City 'promises' (that they'd be moved or that buildings were built to code) to protect their interests yet suffered financial losses as a result of that reliance?

Wow those two things couldn't be further apart. Faulty construction is rarely a city of Calgary liability. Engineers sign off on design and build inspections, not the city. And with stucco application, you can't inspect the thickness of stucco over an entire building envelop. While the province has said inspection measures need to be improved, the liability for stucco issues is on the builder, then the sub trades that applied it. They know what the building codes are and it is up to them to conform to those codes. Those people tend to go out of business rapidly.

Leaky condos suck and are one of the reasons I won't buy a condo ever again.

[longsuffering]

If I understand the information in this thread, no one from the Midfield trailer owners side has EVER consulted with a lawyer. If they have, no one has mentioned it.

I find that interesting.

In the meantime:

Midfield Park residents rejecting city's help.
“There have been some folks there who have not really been particularly interested in the city’s assistance in developing a plan to move forward.”

More than 80 per cent of the residents have agreed to a buyout with the city that would shut down the neighbourhood, which has a clear-out deadline of Sept. 30, said Nenshi.

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.”

Area Coun. Gian-Carlo Carra said he’s worked hard to satisfy the residents but added the holdouts shouldn’t be given a sweetened deal.

“I’m not willing to give the people who didn’t want to work with the city a better deal than those who did work with the city,” he said.

“I’ve encouraged everyone to work with the city to avail themselves of the resources every individual there is entitled to.”

Sounds like the unhappy campers are more interested in gaining sympathy from media than actually finding a solution.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Leaky condos suck and are one of the reasons I won't buy a condo ever again.

I can do that too!

Not owning the land my home sits on and no legal rights should the landowner not renew my lease is why I won't buy a home in a mobile home lot or on aboriginal lands.

No sympathy for this poor woman who believed she could rely on the City to enforce building codes but ........

You've just outed yourself in being completed uninterested in the principle of 'fairness' and you're only arguing because of your family relationships.

[northcrunk]

The city should do a better job enforcing building codes

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

I can do that too!

Not owning the land my home sits on and no legal rights should the landowner not renew my lease is why I won't buy a home in a mobile home lot or on aboriginal lands.

No sympathy for this poor woman who believed she could rely on the City to enforce building codes but ........

You've just outed yourself in being completed uninterested in the principle of 'fairness' and you're only arguing because of your family relationships.

Look dude I'm sorry you don't understand how city inspections work. But the issues you're talking about aren't the City's fault. It's the builder's fault.

I owned a condo that was compromised by an abandoned building excavation behind it. The builder was definitely responsible but they went out of business. The city now requires a massive deposit from developers to cover off any liability with abandoned excavations. But we had absolutely no recourse with the city at all. If the city improves inspections some day that is the best you can hope for. We tried legally for years to get the city to pay for the damage but ultimately it was not their fault even though they completely changed the process to ensure that it never happens again.

What family relationships? You're clueless if you think this is about anything other than fairness.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

longsuffering do you work for the city?

Since you have claimed a few times to have inside info, can you comment on why not one of the 180-ish residents have consulted with a lawyer to make the city honour the deal they believe was made?

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I think another reason, besides the expense of fighting the City of Calgary, is that the outcome hasn't been resolved yet. Your losses haven't been realized yet. There's probably nothing to sue for at this point. At the very least you'd have a stronger case once the outcome is realized.

Also, in regards to a small claim being under 50k, I don't know if this would qualify for other reasons. Not every issue is applicable to small claims even if it is under 50k. I suspect this would be queen's bench.

This is a pretty weak argument. It isn't purely a civil damages matter, so no, waiting until the dust settles isn't a valid reason action hasn't been started if there were indeed any sort of leg to stand on. If they had a case they would be petitioning the court for all sorts of relief (getting a stay on any kind of eviction until it gets settled).


Edit: We go from strawman argument to strawman argument. Property taxes, to inspections, to leaky stucco - when these arguments have nothing to do with the heart of the issue. Can someone on the trailer side acknowledge any sort of legal standing they have and why nothing has been actioned if they have been wronged?

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Since you have claimed a few times to have inside info, can you comment on why not one of the 180-ish residents have consulted with a lawyer to make the city honour the deal they believe was made?

The collective I believe has spoken to someone but I cannot confirm. Have heard funds are tight and they are having issues. The guy who heads up the collective is 80 years old and isn't the quickest legal mind. Danielle Smith will be talking to a lawyer about retaining them pro-bono this week.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Look dude I'm sorry you don't understand how city inspections work. But the issues you're talking about aren't the City's fault. It's the builder's fault.

I owned a condo that was compromised by an abandoned building excavation behind it. The builder was definitely responsible but they went out of business. The city now requires a massive deposit from developers to cover off any liability with abandoned excavations. But we had absolutely no recourse with the city at all. If the city improves inspections some day that is the best you can hope for. We tried legally for years to get the city to pay for the damage but ultimately it was not their fault even though they completely changed the process to ensure that it never happens again.

What family relationships? You're clueless if you think this is about anything other than fairness.

If I mistook you for the poster having in-laws in the park I apologize. It's tough to keep everyone's agenda straight.

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

If I mistook you for the poster having in-laws in the park I apologize. It's tough to keep everyone's agenda straight.

How would that change anything? Because someone has family in the park their opinion is not valid in your eyes?

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

How would that change anything? Because someone has family in the park their opinion is not valid in your eyes?

Their opinion has to be considered a biased one. It's natural that individuals with a personal or family tie to this problem would see events through a different lens.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Ducay

This is a pretty weak argument. It isn't purely a civil damages matter, so no, waiting until the dust settles isn't a valid reason action hasn't been started if there were indeed any sort of leg to stand on. If they had a case they would be petitioning the court for all sorts of relief (getting a stay on any kind of eviction until it gets settled).


Edit: We go from strawman argument to strawman argument. Property taxes, to inspections, to leaky stucco - when these arguments have nothing to do with the heart of the issue. Can someone on the trailer side acknowledge any sort of legal standing they have and why nothing has been actioned if they have been wronged?

Why are you asking non lawyers lawyer questions? You're just setting people up so you can knock them down. The answer is more than likely because when you walk into a lawyer's office and tell them you want to sue the city the first question they are going to ask is do you have about a 100k and five years to kill? And ultimately it doesn't matter to the point I'm trying to make. You've seen the letter. How about you answer my question. Is that a fair way to treat people in the city?

[iggy_oi]

Did the city ever say how much the new park would have cost to build?