Midfield Mobile Home Park

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

This is actually really dumb and has nothing to do with the discussion at all. And I didn't know that your friends landlord was a level of government that bears some responsibility to the well being of its citizens.

Do you seriously not understand the difference between expropriation and simply telling a tenant that when the lease is up, you will not be renewing it?

It is dumb to think that the City owes its tenants more than a regular landlord does. The City has already gone above and beyond in giving them THREE years notice.

Seriously, do you believe to that the government has a duty to help someone move? Because that's all this is. People were renting space for their trailer. The city gave them 3 years notice that the lease will not be renewed. They had THREE YEARS to find somewhere else to move the trailer.

I've moved 6 times in/out and around Calgary, and the City has never helped me. Maybe I should send Nenshi a twitter message next time and offer beer and pizza.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Amethyst

If their trailer is paid off and worth more than $10 000, I can see them being upset that their possession gets trashed and they get only a fraction of its worth.

Not a rhetorical question: How can it be worth more than $10,000 and not be worth it to move though? Especially when the City is willing to pay $10,000 to move, which a quick google search suggests is a reasonable ballpark estimate.

Sure, there might not be room in Calgary, but there is room in the province. If you have a $50,000 trailer, what was stopping you from having someone, say from Olds, purchasing it for $50,000 and then shipping it to Olds for even say $15,000? With the additional (up to) $10,000 that the City offered, and even accounting for mortgage interest, it doesn't quite make sense for anyone to be leaving trailers of any value at the park to me.

If you can't get "full value" for your mobile home after years of it on the market, that's not its true value. Let's cut them some slack and realize it was a bad time for selling homes, but I don't see how people are losing out on tons of value here. Some, sure, but the pennies on the dollar that has been mentioned by residents doesn't quite make sense to me.

[CaptainCrunch]

I completely understand, do you clearly understand that the city basically told these people that there would be another site to move to and then yanked the blanket out from under them.

do you understand that the city by doing that is actually causing people to lose an asset (literally their home) that they have paid for or are in the process of paying for?

I mean thanks for being a hero with your "moving story" but your life and what the city is doing is in no way similar on any level.

What the city is doing would be equivalent to your landlord destroying your own assets in your home or garage when he expired your lease.

On top of it, it would be equivalent to your landlord saying I'm expiring your lease, but I have another place to go. And then pretty much saying, F you forget about that alternate home and I'm going to destroy your living room furniture on they way.

I would also guess that your probably not low income, so you have little understanding on what the city's actions of promising then pulling an alternate site for their trailer is actually doing to them

On top of that, your dealing with a private company, they're dealing with a city that talks relentlessly about the need for low income housing and helping low income people, and then they turn around and screw with low income people and seniors.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

On top of it, it would be equivalent to your landlord saying I'm expiring your lease, but I have another place to go. And then pretty much saying, F you forget about that alternate home and I'm going to destroy your living room furniture on the way if you can't find a new place in 3 years, also here's $20,000 to find that new place.

I get what you're saying CaptainCrunch, and you're not wrong and I agree that the city screwed up by trying to find them an alternate and then yanking it out from them, but the edit (bolded) wouldn't be entirely inaccurate either.

[Fuzz]

I keep hearing "the city promised", but did they? Or did they just say they planned on East Hills, then decided not to? Was their anything in writing?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Not a rhetorical question: How can it be worth more than $10,000 and not be worth it to move though? Especially when the City is willing to pay $10,000 to move, which a quick google search suggests is a reasonable ballpark estimate.

Sure, there might not be room in Calgary, but there is room in the province. If you have a $50,000 trailer, what was stopping you from having someone, say from Olds, purchasing it for $50,000 and then shipping it to Olds for even say $15,000? With the additional (up to) $10,000 that the City offered, and even accounting for mortgage interest, it doesn't quite make sense for anyone to be leaving trailers of any value at the park to me.

If you can't get "full value" for your mobile home after years of it on the market, that's not its true value. Let's cut them some slack and realize it was a bad time for selling homes, but I don't see how people are losing out on tons of value here. Some, sure, but the pennies on the dollar that has been mentioned by residents doesn't quite make sense to me.

Its not exactly a great time on the market in this province. I would also assume that trailers aren't in super high demand anymore.

Is it ok to put people in a position to lose money when its the city that pretty much caused the problem in the first place by offering alternative space and then not coming through with that?

Is it ok, to promise people space for example so they can move their "Home" or even on a broader sense their "Asset". And then make a decision that forces people to sell their home or asset or even see it destroyed?

Its not ok.

This to me is entirely different from the standard apartment rental scenario where a lease is terminated and a person is evicted from an apartment, though I would expect that if the city was involved and evicting low income tenants that they would do a more humane job then throwing them in the streets.

The trailer on the lot that they rented, they bought that they have a mortgage on that its an asset, a piece of equity, for some seniors that are stuck, its their last home. The city made a decision that forced them to either sell it or destroy it.

If they can't find space for the trailer and have to destroy it they get $10,000 dollars or pretty much pennies on the dollar. If they have to sell it, thanks to the city's decision, are they taking a loss? The only way that this stupid plan works is if they can find space to move their trailer and they get a nice financial piece of compensation, but that's pretty rare.



That to me is so wrong.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I get what you're saying CaptainCrunch, and you're not wrong and I agree that the city screwed up by trying to find them an alternate and then yanking it out from them, but the edit (bolded) wouldn't be entirely inaccurate either.

Only if you can move that furniture though. In this point they can't move their home/trailer so the city is only going to give them 10k.

[Mccree]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I keep hearing "the city promised", but did they? Or did they just say they planned on East Hills, then decided not to? Was their anything in writing?

This is what I want to know.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I keep hearing "the city promised", but did they? Or did they just say they planned on East Hills, then decided not to? Was their anything in writing?

They told the tenants that East Hills was part of the plan.

I don't know if it was in writing or not, that's a question that the city is going to have to answer.

[Oling_Roachinen]

It's also important to note that East Hills Estate was not exactly a welcomed location by really anyone from the park. It was going to be East of the Ringroad, out of town pretty much. For inner city residents, that was not happy news and they opposed it as well (and many had said they would fight the move all the same). It's one of the reasons the City used in making their decision to not develop the area.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Not a rhetorical question: How can it be worth more than $10,000 and not be worth it to move though? Especially when the City is willing to pay $10,000 to move, which a quick google search suggests is a reasonable ballpark estimate.

Sure, there might not be room in Calgary, but there is room in the province. If you have a $50,000 trailer, what was stopping you from having someone, say from Olds, purchasing it for $50,000 and then shipping it to Olds for even say $15,000? With the additional (up to) $10,000 that the City offered, and even accounting for mortgage interest, it doesn't quite make sense for anyone to be leaving trailers of any value at the park to me.

If you can't get "full value" for your mobile home after years of it on the market, that's not its true value. Let's cut them some slack and realize it was a bad time for selling homes, but I don't see how people are losing out on tons of value here. Some, sure, but the pennies on the dollar that has been mentioned by residents doesn't quite make sense to me.

There are not hundreds of vacant lots in Alberta. I did very extensive market research 15 years ago and there were usually around a dozen lots sprinkled around the province. I just did a quick check and found a few lots around Edmonton, a couple in Vulcan and one in Kindersly. There were several in High River because of the flood but those have been repaired and filled. I'm sure there are a few more here and there but there are certainly not more than 20. And definitely not hundreds.

Mobiles sell all the time in Alberta. There is a market for them and it's not unreasonable to think that these tenants deserve market values. Banks lend on mobile homes. Appraisers appraise mobile homes. This isn't a new thing. When you guys say things like well I guess the value is zero dollars and zero cents then, it's just completely ignorant.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Mobiles sell all the time in Alberta. There is a market for them and it's not unreasonable to think that these tenants deserve market values. Banks lend on mobile homes. Appraisers appraise mobile homes. This isn't a new thing. When you guys say things like well I guess the value is zero dollars and zero cents then, it's just completely ignorant.

So if mobile homes are so valuable why does the city have to make them whole? Can't they just sell their mobile home to somebody that wants to live in an Edmonton trailer park?

The value of the sale + 20k (for leaving + clearing the lot) seems like it would make up their mortgage.

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Not a rhetorical question: How can it be worth more than $10,000 and not be worth it to move though? Especially when the City is willing to pay $10,000 to move, which a quick google search suggests is a reasonable ballpark estimate.

Sure, there might not be room in Calgary, but there is room in the province. If you have a $50,000 trailer, what was stopping you from having someone, say from Olds, purchasing it for $50,000 and then shipping it to Olds for even say $15,000? With the additional (up to) $10,000 that the City offered, and even accounting for mortgage interest, it doesn't quite make sense for anyone to be leaving trailers of any value at the park to me.

If you can't get "full value" for your mobile home after years of it on the market, that's not its true value. Let's cut them some slack and realize it was a bad time for selling homes, but I don't see how people are losing out on tons of value here. Some, sure, but the pennies on the dollar that has been mentioned by residents doesn't quite make sense to me.

Sure, it's possible to sell it and move it somewhere else, but that's not necessarily an easy thing to do if you're a senior on a limited income without family around, or someone who is barely getting by and spending all their time working to pay the bills. Then you have to find another place to live.

My biggest issue with this situation isn't so much the dollar figure, as the fact that the city one day said they would develop a new park and then changed that plan, especially since there is no vacancy at any other parks. Someone here mentioned that private developers wanted to open a new park and they were turned down.

This isn't like a landlord evicting a tenant where there's another apartment across town. It's more like a landlord evicting a tenant in a remote community where there are no other homes and the person is forced to leave behind all the furniture they bought, because they have to leave town on a Greyhound bus. The landlord has offered $100 to "cover" the cost, but you still have the $1000 credit card bill from buying the stuff. Only in this case, the "landlord" is the City who supposedly has a goal of ending homelessness.

[Ducay]

They don't deserve market value. They are tenants and can take their belongings (trailer) with them that they brought to the rented space. Heck, they're even being paid to do so.

Do not equate this to titled property being expropriated just because these people chose a housing option with higher risk (rental land).

[llwhiteoutll]

But there is no responsibility on the part of the city to keep them in town. You don't have some engrained right to live in Calgary and if you can't find suitable accommodations here, you might need to move. People do it all the time on their own dime, no reason to think that it can't be done when the city is paying a huge chunk (if not all) of your costs

[Fuzz]

The thing is though, they were given over 3 years warning after they were told East Hills would not go ahead. People talk like the rug is being pulled form under them, but 3 years is a long time to figure something out.

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

It's also important to note that East Hills Estate was not exactly a welcomed location by really anyone from the park. It was going to be East of the Ringroad, out of town pretty much. For inner city residents, that was not happy news and they opposed it as well (and many had said they would fight the move all the same). It's one of the reasons the City used in making their decision to not develop the area.

And if that was what had happened, my opinion would be different. If people could move their trailers somewhere within City limits (that was served by transit) I would not have any concerns.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

But there is no responsibility on the part of the city to keep them in town. You don't have some engrained right to live in Calgary and if you can't find suitable accommodations here, you might need to move. People do it all the time on their own dime, no reason to think that it can't be done when the city is paying a huge chunk (if not all) of your costs

That's awesome, lets on top of everything else make them quit jobs.

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I completely understand, do you clearly understand that the city basically told these people that there would be another site to move to and then yanked the blanket out from under them.

Yes, I do. I also think that it was unfortunate. But the fact remains that these people knew TEN years ago that they had to move their trailers, and for the past THREE years they knew that they were going to have to find a place on their own. It's a really long blanket that takes 3 years to pull out from someone.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

do you understand that the city by doing that is actually causing people to lose an asset (literally their home) that they have paid for or are in the process of paying for?

If the trailer-owners lose their property, it is 100% through their own choice. The City is not taking their trailers (the property in question); it is simply requiring them to remove the property from City-owned land when the lease expires.

The City has offered them each $20,000 if they remove their trailers by the deadline. That is more than any landlord is required to do under the law.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I mean thanks for being a hero with your "moving story" but your life and what the city is doing is in no way similar on any level.

You are welcome, I suppose. I was hoping that you would understand that it is exactly the same thing, but you have to meet me halfway...

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

What the city is doing would be equivalent to your landlord destroying your own assets in your home or garage when he expired your lease.

Now I'm starting to think that you are just trolling? I mean, most of your posts are fairly logical, but there is literally nothing in this sentence that is accurate.

1) The City is not destroying anyone's assets. In fact, they are providing $20,000 to each trailer-owner to help the trailer-owner ensure that their asset is not destroyed.

2) The City is ESPECIALLY not destroying anyone's assets in their home or garage. I like the imagery of jack-booted thugs breaking into trailers and smashing stuff as much as the next tinfoil-hatted guy, but the City is only concerned with the land (which is OWNED by the City), they want nothing to do with the contents or the trailer itself. In fact, as mentioned a few times in this thread, the City is giving them $20,000 to help them protect their assets.

3) The City didn't "expire their lease". It ended, and the infrastructure is in such a poor state of repair that the park has to be closed.

If you are looking for an accurate equivalency, I'll point you back up to my friends' story.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

On top of it, it would be equivalent to your landlord saying I'm expiring your lease, but I have another place to go. And then pretty much saying, F you forget about that alternate home and I'm going to destroy your living room furniture on they way.

Why stop there? If we are fabricating facts, then you might as well say that the City is evicting them because of their skin colour, or ethnicity as well. Think of all the faux outrage you can generate if you say the City is basically Adolf Hitler.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I would also guess that your probably not low income, so you have little understanding on what the city's actions of promising then pulling an alternate site for their trailer is actually doing to them

You are correct, I am not low income. Each tenant has known for THREE years that they had to move. Plus they get $20,000 for moving.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

On top of that, your dealing with a private company, they're dealing with a city that talks relentlessly about the need for low income housing and helping low income people, and then they turn around and screw with low income people and seniors.

The duty owed to mobile home tenants is the same whether your landlord is Joe Average or the Queen of England.

Notwithstanding this, the City is STILL helping these people out more than they are required to, so your argument falls even flatter.

By the way, here is a link to the Mobile Home Sites Tenancy Act (Alberta). You might find it a useful read if you think the City is not meeting its legal requirements as a landlord.

Heck, I'll buy you a case of beer if you can show:

A) that the City's notice period should have been longer than 3 years. The longest notice period in the Act is when the site is being re-developed into something else (like the condo complex or Green Line that people referenced), and that is only 365 days. For a normal yearly tenancy, the notice period is 60 days before expiry of the current year lease;

B) Any language that indicates that the City would have a different standard of care than a regular landlord; or

C) any language that indicates that the $20,000 that the City is offering is not sufficient.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

The thing is though, they were given over 3 years warning after they were told East Hills would not go ahead. People talk like the rug is being pulled form under them, but 3 years is a long time to figure something out.

there's not enough lot availability. On top of that the people in that park that bought wider trailers were told that most of the parks don't accept them.

I'm sure that there are people in that part that for whatever reason didn't plan this well. But there are also people in there that couldn't find lots, that couldn't get their home accepted somewhere else.