Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 08-23-2017, 02:54 PM   #21
longsuffering
First Line Centre
 
longsuffering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
No one is taking their trailers though. They are basically getting $20 000 to move their trailers elsewhere. I don't think they ever owned the land, did they? Does $20 000 sound fair for that? I dunno. Does the city have any obligation at all to them?
Edit - Already covered by other posters.

Last edited by longsuffering; 08-23-2017 at 02:57 PM.
longsuffering is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2017, 03:12 PM   #22
Slava
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF! View Post
Trailer parks are exceptionally profitable. It costs $1250 to rent a lot at the RedCarpet, there are 347 lots there and it's in Penbrooke. The problem is that in larger cities there are higher and better uses for land. In BC trailers on rented land cost upwards of 200k simply because they exist close to where people want to be.

And it is a little unfair to say "It is not, and should not be, a landlords responsibility to find another rental property for tenants whose leases are ending" when that landlord is collecting property taxes from you for forty years.
If they were exceptionally profitable as you describe then I find it hard to believe that we have nowhere for these people to go, and no other options. Surely if it was as profitable as you make it out to be then there would be other options and investors would be clamouring to get in on that action?
Slava is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2017, 03:14 PM   #23
Zarley
First Line Centre
 
Zarley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen View Post
I'm going to sound insensitive, but it's been over a decade since it became public that the tenants would have to vacate the property.

They don't own the land, they are renters and they've had 10 years to plan their move. It's a mobile home park, if you're making your homes immobile on land you don't own, that you have no contract for, and you can't figure something out in a decade? I feel about as much compassion for these people as anyone in a ####ty situation, but this isn't the city's fault or Nenshi's, it's theirs.

The East Hills Estates cancellation was probably a mistake, but that doesn't seem to the biggest issue with most people still there.
I used to share your viewpoint, but I have since changed it after thinking a little more about the whole situation. This is not a typical landlord / tenant scenario where the landlord holds title to the land and the improvements while the lessee holds the right to occupy. In this case, the lessee holds title to the improvements, the value of which is almost entirely reliant upon the supply of serviced sites within a reasonable distance.

In 2010, the City told these residents that a new trailer park would be built for them to move into upon the closure of Midfield. Until May 2014, these residents had every reason to believe that the City was acting in good faith. Any person who bought a mobile home or made upgrades to their property between 2010 and 2014 did so believing there would be places to move these assets to upon the closure of the park. By cancelling the replacement park plan, the City rendered a whole bunch of people's property effectively worthless. That's not right and the City should make these people whole.
Zarley is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Zarley For This Useful Post:
Old 08-23-2017, 03:17 PM   #24
Fighting Banana Slug
#1 Goaltender
 
Fighting Banana Slug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarley View Post
I used to share your viewpoint, but I have since changed it after thinking a little more about the whole situation. This is not a typical landlord / tenant scenario where the landlord holds title to the land and the improvements while the lessee holds the right to occupy. In this case, the lessee holds title to the improvements, the value of which is almost entirely reliant upon the supply of serviced sites within a reasonable distance.

In 2010, the City told these residents that a new trailer park would be built for them to move into upon the closure of Midfield. Until May 2014, these residents had every reason to believe that the City was acting in good faith. Any person who bought a mobile home or made upgrades to their property between 2010 and 2014 did so believing there would be places to move these assets to upon the closure of the park. By cancelling the replacement park plan, the City rendered a whole bunch of people's property effectively worthless. That's not right and the City should make these people whole.
I do have sympathy for those that bought or made improvements between 2010 and 2014. Perhaps a case could be made for negligent misstatement. I am not so sure that many of those left in the park fit that description though (based on the linked article).
__________________
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.
Fighting Banana Slug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2017, 03:19 PM   #25
4X4
One of the Nine
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF! View Post
As a bit of a trailer connoisseur myself, I think this really sucks...

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...ing-citys-help

10k is, I'm sure, fair for some of the junker trailers. But I'm just as sure it is piddly compensation for others, especially when, for example, someone's trailer is assessed at 66k and that person has been paying property taxes based on that amount. And literally none of that person's money went towards fixing the infrastructure that is now failing them. And further more, the original promise was to move the park to a new city property. You can't sell these trailers, can't move some of them, and can't even get rid of them without a relatively large cost. Anyone else whose property gets purchased by the city gets tax assessed value plus.

My last job was actually trailer park supervisor at a really old park in the city. The infrastructure was always failing but as long as the cable stayed on people were happy. And it was always very cost effective to fix the problems and continue collecting lot rents.

I agree that, in this case, the city's offer is a total rip off. "Working with the city" shouldn't mean absorbing a 40k loss and living in a homeless shelter....for free.
Really? Were you part of the International Association of Trailer Parks, Trailer Park Supervisors, and Assistant Trailer Park Supervisors (IATPTPSATPS)?
4X4 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to 4X4 For This Useful Post:
Old 08-23-2017, 03:36 PM   #26
OMG!WTF!
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14 View Post
Why should that matter? Those property taxes were part of the deal to stay on that land during the time they were collected. That doesn't create an obligation for the future, particularly given how much notice was offered.
I think it does though because it considers the value of the chattel or improvement worthless. If that were true why does the city compensate people based on the tax assessed value of their property when it gets annexed? It would be fair enough the to just compensate people for their land only value and give them 10k to move their house somewhere. I don't see why mobile homes should be different.

Also the one excuse for decommissioning this park is failing infrastructure. That's what property taxes pay for.

A few trailers in that park are newer...1990 era units worth 80-90k. Some double sided are pushing 100k. A few banks will mortgage them in a slightly different way. The 40k mortgage I used as an example was a guy calling into the Danielle Smith radio show.
OMG!WTF! is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to OMG!WTF! For This Useful Post:
Old 08-23-2017, 03:51 PM   #27
Sliver
evil of fart
 
Sliver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF! View Post
I think it does though because it considers the value of the chattel or improvement worthless. If that were true why does the city compensate people based on the tax assessed value of their property when it gets annexed? It would be fair enough the to just compensate people for their land only value and give them 10k to move their house somewhere. I don't see why mobile homes should be different.

Also the one excuse for decommissioning this park is failing infrastructure. That's what property taxes pay for.

A few trailers in that park are newer...1990 era units worth 80-90k. Some double sided are pushing 100k. A few banks will mortgage them in a slightly different way. The 40k mortgage I used as an example was a guy calling into the Danielle Smith radio show.
Did you make that up?

This brand new 2017 home sold out of Red Deer prices out at $133,000. You can find them even cheaper. I find it super hard to believe a 27 year-old trailer home would be worth $90k. Do you have a link to support what you claimed?
Sliver is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Sliver For This Useful Post:
Old 08-23-2017, 03:54 PM   #28
Oling_Roachinen
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarley View Post
In 2010, the City told these residents that a new trailer park would be built for them to move into upon the closure of Midfield. Until May 2014, these residents had every reason to believe that the City was acting in good faith. Any person who bought a mobile home or made upgrades to their property between 2010 and 2014 did so believing there would be places to move these assets to upon the closure of the park. By cancelling the replacement park plan, the City rendered a whole bunch of people's property effectively worthless.
I completely see where you're coming from, and I far from completely disagree. It's certainly a ####ty situation, potentially made worse by a council blunder. But isn't that part of the $10,000, trying to make whole? Another $10,000 for relocating the trailer.

That's a potential $20,000 per residence, when really, a more heartless council wouldn't really have to offer anything legally? Again, as far as I'm aware, no contract or protection in place. They rent the land, the landowner has the right to do as they please. That includes legal eviction. Is there some nuance I'm missing with this situation other than the residents thinking "it won't actually happen to me."? Were the residents lucky in that the City owned the land and pushing people out of their home with 0 compensation would have looked bad, but a private company able to do so?

I get that not everyone here was in the same position. With an older community, some might have taken the chance to just take the cash and move into a retirement facility while letting their trailer depreciated over the last decade+. Others may have been putting in cash for improvements expecting to move to East Hills Estates and that sucks for sure, and like I said a mistake on the council but really, they've been fighting this thing since 2000. No one should have been super surprised that they would be forced to move their trailers at this point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF! View Post
It would be fair enough the to just compensate people for their land only value and give them 10k to move their house somewhere. I don't see why mobile homes should be different.
Well, there's the fact that people owning the land they live on is not at all the same as renting, like that right there ends any type of comparable regardless of how long you want to reach. Also the mobile home part somewhat suggests it would be more readily available to be moved.
Oling_Roachinen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2017, 04:07 PM   #29
Regulator75
Franchise Player
 
Regulator75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Behind Nikkor Glass
Exp:
Default

__________________

More photos on Flickr
Regulator75 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Regulator75 For This Useful Post:
Old 08-23-2017, 04:20 PM   #30
Bring_Back_Shantz
Franchise Player
 
Bring_Back_Shantz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF! View Post
I think it does though because it considers the value of the chattel or improvement worthless. If that were true why does the city compensate people based on the tax assessed value of their property when it gets annexed? It would be fair enough the to just compensate people for their land only value and give them 10k to move their house somewhere. I don't see why mobile homes should be different.

Also the one excuse for decommissioning this park is failing infrastructure. That's what property taxes pay for.

A few trailers in that park are newer...1990 era units worth 80-90k. Some double sided are pushing 100k. A few banks will mortgage them in a slightly different way. The 40k mortgage I used as an example was a guy calling into the Danielle Smith radio show.
That would be a fair argument if the two situations were at all comparable, but there are 2 very major differences:

1) The city isn't annexing the land, the city already owns the land. The city is simply not renewing leases

2) When the city annexes land the houses typically aren't movable. Hence the city has to pay for the house as well.
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN.
<-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
Bring_Back_Shantz is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bring_Back_Shantz For This Useful Post:
Old 08-23-2017, 04:33 PM   #31
northcrunk
#1 Goaltender
 
northcrunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver View Post
What percentage of people that live/lived there have accepted the city's terms and vacated already? Are we hearing from anybody for whom this process went smoothly?

I imagine whatever the terms, you're going to have a vocal group crying foul in a situation like this. To have 3-10 years notice to move and not take any action seems like the behaviour of a struggler of the highest order.
The people with junk trailers have demolished them. There have been a number of deaths during the past year (Seniors from higher stress and multiple suicides). The park is not majority empty now. They have nowhere to go other than the mustard seed.

My sister and brother in law bought a place there. They were given assurances and approved by the city to purchase the trailer. They even have letters from the city manager in 2012 outlining the plan to move them to east hills and stated the city paid $20 million for the land. Then Nenshi is elected. That's where this all goes downhill. It didn't help that he would refuse to come to public information sessions because he didn't think it was worth his time to hear criticism of his plan. It seems like he is horny for the land just so he can either sell it to condo developers or use the land for the green line.

If you go to the Reddit thread the pamplet the residents got from the city is posted there.
northcrunk is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to northcrunk For This Useful Post:
Old 08-23-2017, 04:35 PM   #32
northcrunk
#1 Goaltender
 
northcrunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver View Post
No kidding. Did they have water, sewer, roads, police/fire protection, etc. during the time they lived there? That's what they were paying for and I assume what they received.
Except the city refused to fix the infrastructure (sewer, roads, water) and then used that as a reason to close the park. "Crumbling infrastructure". These people paid property tax to the city and didn't get anything back but a slap in the face.
northcrunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2017, 04:37 PM   #33
northcrunk
#1 Goaltender
 
northcrunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug View Post
I do have sympathy for those that bought or made improvements between 2010 and 2014. Perhaps a case could be made for negligent misstatement. I am not so sure that many of those left in the park fit that description though (based on the linked article).
There are quite a few like that. And they had to be approved by the city to but the trailer. One young couple found out the city changed their minds on the day they moved in.
northcrunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2017, 05:00 PM   #34
Amethyst
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Originally the city said it was closing the park and people could move to the East Hills park. People bought trailers and all of a sudden, East Hills is cancelled. What I've heard from various news stories is that there is no room in any other trailer parks in the city. So people need to get out with their trailers, but there is nowhere they can move them.

If people made changes to their trailers so they couldn't be moved or the East Hills option was available, but people didn't want it, I wouldn't have much sympathy for those situations. But people bought trailers in the park, with the understanding that East Hills was going to be available and then a few years ago, suddenly it's not. If there are not available lots within the Calgary area, those people got ripped off by the city and, I feel, deserve more than a $10 000 take it or leave it and directions to a homeless shelter.
Amethyst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2017, 05:04 PM   #35
Bring_Back_Shantz
Franchise Player
 
Bring_Back_Shantz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by northcrunk View Post
The people with junk trailers have demolished them. There have been a number of deaths during the past year (Seniors from higher stress and multiple suicides). The park is not majority empty now. They have nowhere to go other than the mustard seed.

My sister and brother in law bought a place there. They were given assurances and approved by the city to purchase the trailer. They even have letters from the city manager in 2012 outlining the plan to move them to east hills and stated the city paid $20 million for the land. Then Nenshi is elected. That's where this all goes downhill. It didn't help that he would refuse to come to public information sessions because he didn't think it was worth his time to hear criticism of his plan. It seems like he is horny for the land just so he can either sell it to condo developers or use the land for the green line.

If you go to the Reddit thread the pamplet the residents got from the city is posted there.
You realize Nenshi only gets 1 vote, just like any other councilor right?
He may be the one that came up with the idea, but anything he wants to do requires 7 councilors to agree with him.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm not even saying that things didn't change when Nenshi became mayor, but to blame it all on him is definitely missing the bigger picture.
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN.
<-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
Bring_Back_Shantz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2017, 05:05 PM   #36
llwhiteoutll
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Exp:
Default

Northcrunk, if they have the assurance from the city, why have they not forced the city to uphold their deal? If this supposed deal is as binding as the people trotting it out would have us believe, the matter would have been settled in an afternoon of court and the city would have been forced to build East Hills, despite their economic evaluation
llwhiteoutll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2017, 05:42 PM   #37
OMG!WTF!
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava View Post
If they were exceptionally profitable as you describe then I find it hard to believe that we have nowhere for these people to go, and no other options. Surely if it was as profitable as you make it out to be then there would be other options and investors would be clamouring to get in on that action?
I know what you're saying but it's not that easy. The company I worked for built a 500 million dollar empire on 18 trailer parks in Alberta and the millions in cash flow they squeezed out of them every month. We bought land on 84th st se, in Balzac and in Aldersyde all with the intent of building new parks. However at the DP phase all three were denied that use because they wanted commercial building. On those parcels, purchased in the 90's there now sits WalMarts, strip malls, and other commercial bricks and mortar development. All of them uses that generate way more property tax revenues for municipalities. The trick is finding a suitable piece of land where people actually want to be. Obviously if you own a lot in downtown Calgary you're going to build as high and wide as possible. So obviously it has to be outside of a development corridor and yet still close to a place people want to be. But rest assured there are people trying to build these things. The opportunities don't really exist. However if you find one, it is literally a gold mine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver View Post
Did you make that up?

This brand new 2017 home sold out of Red Deer prices out at $133,000. You can find them even cheaper. I find it super hard to believe a 27 year-old trailer home would be worth $90k. Do you have a link to support what you claimed?
Ah dude, you're talking to Mr. Double Wide here. You can take that price to the bank. It all depends where the trailer is though. Here's one in Okotoks for 86k...

https://www.realtor.ca/Residential/S...Alberta-T1S1M4

The same trailer in Kelowna is over 200k easily. That trailer in Midfield park is 0k. That's not fair. There are similar ones in and around Calgary for the same 80-90k range.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz View Post
That would be a fair argument if the two situations were at all comparable, but there are 2 very major differences:

1) The city isn't annexing the land, the city already owns the land. The city is simply not renewing leases

2) When the city annexes land the houses typically aren't movable. Hence the city has to pay for the house as well.
I think the other difference is that this is the city and not a private landlord. I would fully expect the company I worked for to boot residents from their park with as little notice as possible and zero compensation. That's life. But this is not, in my opinion, how a city should operate.

And for the record, it's not too hard to move houses. But it's really easy to pick them up and put them in dumpsters...kind of like what people have to do at Midfield.
OMG!WTF! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2017, 05:48 PM   #38
Resolute 14
In the Sin Bin
 
Resolute 14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF! View Post
I think the other difference is that this is the city and not a private landlord. I would fully expect the company I worked for to boot residents from their park with as little notice as possible and zero compensation. That's life. But this is not, in my opinion, how a city should operate.
Well it is a good thing the city is not operating that way, isn't it? They are basically offering $20k to move and gave three years noticed.

Also, I think you are being rather arbitrary in arguing the city has any greater responsibility beyond the end of the lease than any other land owner would beyond the end of a lease.
Resolute 14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2017, 05:59 PM   #39
OMG!WTF!
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14 View Post
Well it is a good thing the city is not operating that way, isn't it? They are basically offering $20k to move and gave three years noticed.

Also, I think you are being rather arbitrary in arguing the city has any greater responsibility beyond the end of the lease than any other land owner would beyond the end of a lease.
Three years is meaningless when there is no where to go. And 20k is meaningless when you only get to keep 10k and your property is legitimately worth way more. If there were actually alternative for these people I'd totally agree.

The whole reason its been three years, and in fact, closer to ten years in total, is because the city knows and agrees it has to act differently than a private landlord. If they said in 2006, "We're going to give you 10k and directions to the Mustard Seed in 2017, I guarantee you beyond any shadow of a doubt people would have responded accordingly and the city would have lost out on loads of revenue.
OMG!WTF! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2017, 06:08 PM   #40
tvp2003
Franchise Player
 
tvp2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

I must be missing something about the people who are "walking away" with mortgages still outstanding, and agreeing to let their security literally be demolished. Are these "mobile" homes unable to move? Or is it purely a matter of finding the space for them (even if they are doublewide). I have to think there are options available -- maybe not prime location in inner city Calgary, but somewhere that is habitable (if not you then someone else who may be willing to buy).
tvp2003 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:59 AM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021