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.
I don't know how the city can be viewed in the wrong here. Certainly, the situation sucks, and the right/best thing to do might still be for the city to give more money.
But let's review:
-The city has Been intending to close the park for over a decade.
-The city presented a plan to build a park on the east side of the city, a plan which was disliked by the residents at the time
-Infrastructure upgrades required to the park were extensive to the point to make them difficult, and likely not a good idea.
-The city abondoned the plan for a city owned park, and gave residents 3 years to vacate, much more then what is required.
-The city offered cash to residents, none was required
-No private company stepped up to build a new park, as the city expected to happen
I don't see anything that puts the city "clearly in the wrong". It made sense for the city to want to redevelop the land. The city made a plan to relocate, which the residents generally didn't want. The city then offered compensation which should have been enough to make the residents whole. Then for reasons beyond the city's control, taking the compensation was mostly impossible for some residents.
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.
I think that most folks empathy dried up around the 5-8 year mark. I mean...they knew it was coming 10 years ago, and 3 years ago, they knew that things were hitting the fan and that they should likely start trying to take their future in their own hands instead of depending on someone else to do it for them.
If they can't figure out, in THREE YEARS, some kind of accommodation or other action or other plan or anything...then, really, what is there to be done for them. The city can't bend over for them forever waiting for them to eventually maybe figure something out, and has been more than plenty patient with/for them so far.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to WhiteTiger For This Useful Post:
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.
Can you recap for me all the things that the City has done wrong?
Can you recap for me all the things that the City has done wrong?
Start in 2006 when this saga started please.
There isn't much, in my view. Curious if "promising/proposing the East park" makes the list. If the city made no such mention, would they somehow be viewed in a better light? It was/is a sucky situation, but I think the intentions were good and the City did pretty much all that they could. (Short of a terrible economic deal that many of the same posters would rightfully crucify).
__________________
From HFBoard oiler fan, in analyzing MacT's management:
O.K. there has been a lot of talk on whether or not MacTavish has actually done a good job for us, most fans on this board are very basic in their analysis and I feel would change their opinion entirely if the team was successful.
Whether or not the city did anything wrong, that there are 80 year olds having to restart their lives because their trailer park is being bulldozed will plague Nenshi this election campaign.
__________________
"OOOOOOHHHHHHH those Russians" - Boney M
Whether or not the city did anything wrong, that there are 80 year olds having to restart their lives because their trailer park is being bulldozed will plague Nenshi this election campaign.
Well, we want our politicians to make difficult decisions that are in the interests of the greater good versus their personal political careers. Great job to the City for doing the right thing here instead of the easy thing to appease the predictable angry mob.
It's also apparent they aimed to do this thoughtfully, with empathy, and by being more generous than was required. Excellent work, and thank you.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Sliver For This Useful Post:
Whether or not the city did anything wrong, that there are 80 year olds having to restart their lives because their trailer park is being bulldozed will plague Nenshi this election campaign.
Whether or not the city did anything wrong, that there are 80 year olds having to restart their lives because their trailer park is being bulldozed will plague Nenshi this election campaign.
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.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to llwhiteoutll For This Useful Post:
Whether or not the city did anything wrong, that there are 80 year olds having to restart their lives because their trailer park is being bulldozed will plague Nenshi this election campaign.
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.
There have also been multiple deaths of seniors and suicides which have thinned the trailers too.
Well, we want our politicians to make difficult decisions that are in the interests of the greater good versus their personal political careers. Great job to the City for doing the right thing here instead of the easy thing to appease the predictable angry mob.
It's also apparent they aimed to do this thoughtfully, with empathy, and by being more generous than was required. Excellent work, and thank you.
hahaha maybe from the outside looking in but the city has not treated them with empathy at all. I guess spending $500,000 on a stupid ugly statue is more important than not destroying citizens lives.
Curious if "promising/proposing the East park" makes the list. If the city made no such mention, would they somehow be viewed in a better light?
I don't see how they wouldn't be. The narrative that City council pulled the rug out from under them by promising them a new park only to remove it has been a huge sticking point. And it absolutely screwed over some people who took the City's word at face-value and purchased trailers believing they would have a new home in the deep east.
Of course, the residents still fighting aren't bringing up the fact that the location was pretty universally condemned by the residents at the time it was announced.
If all they had done since it was announced in 2007 that the park would be closing was to offer upwards of $20,000 to each residence, I don't see how anyone could really complain. Except for maybe people bringing up Spenshi wasting tax dollars on people who legally didn't deserve a dime.
I mean, even the argument that it's removing low-income housing makes little sense. There was no requirement to be low-income in that park, of course a mobile park attracts certain income demographics more than others. Spending $90,000 per lot (forgetting about the actual home on the park), when they could use the money in more fiscal responsible ways to achieve affordable housing, is not how I would want my council to act.
Again, I have compassion for anyone in the situation. It's hard to argue that they weren't in a bad situation when you have suicides taking place. But the blames doesn't fall squarely on the City.
The Following User Says Thank You to Oling_Roachinen For This Useful Post:
I guess spending $500,000 on a stupid ugly statue is more important than not destroying citizens lives.
Oh come on, seriously? Yes, mandated spending on art instead of a completely unrelated budget of trailer park maintance is totally the same thing. Reminds me of when people complain that the traffic division of CPS should be solving real crimes instead of giving out speeding tickets.
Destroying lives... people committing suicide... (apparently, nothing to back that up) you sure are taking this to the extreme.
__________________
Last edited by BlackArcher101; 08-25-2017 at 10:31 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to BlackArcher101 For This Useful Post:
hahaha maybe from the outside looking in but the city has not treated them with empathy at all. I guess spending $500,000 on a stupid ugly statue is more important than not destroying citizens lives.
They have been treated fairly. If they had a legal case based of the supposed promise from the city, it would have been resolved in their favour by now. If the city was in contravention of the Mobile Homes Sites Act, then they would have been forced to change their approach.
Since no one can actually show the city is breaching a contract or the Act, it's pretty safe to say that no factual argument exists and the argument is solely based on emotion and an expectation of special treatment.
It boils down to a tenancy dispute where the tenant has no factual basis for their claims.
Last edited by llwhiteoutll; 08-25-2017 at 10:34 AM.
I don't know how the city can be viewed in the wrong here. Certainly, the situation sucks, and the right/best thing to do might still be for the city to give more money.
But let's review:
-The city has Been intending to close the park for over a decade.
-The city presented a plan to build a park on the east side of the city, a plan which was disliked by the residents at the time
-Infrastructure upgrades required to the park were extensive to the point to make them difficult, and likely not a good idea.
-The city abondoned the plan for a city owned park, and gave residents 3 years to vacate, much more then what is required.
-The city offered cash to residents, none was required -No private company stepped up to build a new park, as the city expected to happen
I don't see anything that puts the city "clearly in the wrong". It made sense for the city to want to redevelop the land. The city made a plan to relocate, which the residents generally didn't want. The city then offered compensation which should have been enough to make the residents whole. Then for reasons beyond the city's control, taking the compensation was mostly impossible for some residents.
I think that was mostly to the density and development requirements set up the city that made it too expensive to develop. I cannot remember where I read/heard that. Could be total BS too.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to Mccree For This Useful Post:
They have been treated fairly. If they had a legal case based of the supposed promise from the city, it would have been resolved in their favour by now. If the city was in contravention of the Mobile Homes Sites Act, then they would have been forced to change their approach.
Since no one can actually show the city is breaching a contract or the Act, it's pretty safe to say that no factual argument exists and the argument is solely based on emotion and an expectation of special treatment.
It boils down to a tenancy dispute where the tenant has no factual basis for their claims.
See comment from Post Media Bryan Pass. The media does not report on suicides.
"I was told rumours"
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.
