Midfield Mobile Home Park

[monkeyman]

Maybe the residents should declare their trailers art. Nenshi and the rest of council will be falling all over themselves dishing out money and support to these people.
Seriously though, it's disgusting the way the city is treating these people.

[longsuffering]

Asked but not answered:

Why haven't the residents of Midfield taken the City to court if the case is a slam dunk the way you say?

Before you say "they couldn't afford it", let us know if they even checked. I'd find it hard to believe that no one would take the case pro-bono or on a contingency basis.

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by tvp2003

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).

My understanding is that there is no vacancy in Calgary. I'm not sure how far you need to go to find somewhere.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

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.

When should the City act as a private company then? Should Enmax be giving free electricity to low-income housing and have the rest of the population pay the difference?

[Canehdianman]

Sounds like they should move them to Kelowna. Instant $200k increase is value.

I don't see any reason why the city has any liability to people who were renting land from it. The city gave them at least 3 years notice and a pocket full of cash.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

When should the City act as a private company then? Should Enmax be giving free electricity to low-income housing and have the rest of the population pay the difference?

It wouldn't be the worst idea in the world. The Mayor and city council are elected to serve all Calgary residents/tax payers, while there are business decisions that need to be made there also humanitarian ones, a city council that operates in a strictly business manner that turns its people into numbers is not likely to last very long.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

When should the City act as a private company then? Should Enmax be giving free electricity to low-income housing and have the rest of the population pay the difference?

I don't know. Should the city quit subsidizing housing, a program that costs 10-20 million in city funds every year plus a truck load of federal funding? Should we have not paid people out during floods and fires? It's a weird point you make. Even Enmax isn't allowed to cut you off in the winter.

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

Sounds like they should move them to Kelowna. Instant $200k increase is value.

I don't see any reason why the city has any liability to people who were renting land from it. The city gave them at least 3 years notice and a pocket full of cash.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

A pocket full of cash? I suppose if you live in a box under a bridge 10k would be pretty good.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

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.

They get to keep their property. If it is worth less because it is no longer on the land that they don't own then it isn't legitimately worth anything.

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I don't know. Should the city quit subsidizing housing, a program that costs 10-20 million in city funds every year plus a truck load of federal funding? Should we have not paid people out during floods and fires? It's a weird point you make. Even Enmax isn't allowed to cut you off in the winter.



A pocket full of cash? I suppose if you live in a box under a bridge 10k would be pretty good.

It is $10,000 more than they are entitled to.

[Amethyst]

People who buy trailer homes likely don't have a lot of resources to deal with moving it. You can't exactly pick up a trailer and put it in a suitcase. The City told these people they could move to another location and then changed their minds. I don't know what the legal situation is/was, but it was not a nice way to treat people. I think the City should be treating its citizens better, regardless of whether they have to or not.

My thoughts on the matter would be different if the City had gone ahead and opened the other park or even allowed private developers to do so (as others have mentioned in this thread companies wanted to but weren't approved).

The City offered the $10 000 hoping people would go quietly and this wouldn't become a big news story, because it doesn't look good for the City to drag people out of their homes, regardless of circumstances.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

Sounds like they should move them to Kelowna. Instant $200k increase is value.

I don't see any reason why the city has any liability to people who were renting land from it. The city gave them at least 3 years notice and a pocket full of cash.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

Me too. This is nucking futs.

Why is everybody acting like they have to continue living in their trailer and if that's not feasible there are no other options and the city is super mean for giving them $20k and three years' notice that they'll have to vacate?

I just searched rentfaster.ca for 2 bedroom places between $1000 and $1500 and 1093 places turned up (and that's with me excluding shared accommodation!). There is no shortage whatsoever of places for these people to move.

Just for fun, here are 392 listings for a $500 - $999 budget.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

It's a weird point you make. Even Enmax isn't allowed to cut you off in the winter

Sorry but in the post you quoted you said that the City should not operate as a private company would in this 'private' venture. You used this as a reason as to why, even though the City was willing to give up to 20,000 per residence and a decades worth of notice, it wasn't enough. Despite a private company would have - in your words - given little notice and no compensation. Enmax is owned by the City, should it also not operate as a private company would? Why or why not?

Let's say if someone, really through no fault of their own, bought a house with a high mortgage before the bubble burst while they had a good job. During the downturn they lost their job, and now can't quite pay for mortgage and power, should the City (through Enmax) just give them free electricity if it meant keeping their home?

And no company is allowed to cut you off in the winter, so not exactly sure what you're getting at there.

In my opinion, the City should have separate business and subsidy programs. This was business, these residents were not on any special program or subsidize, as far as I'm aware. They need to make the right business decisions, and really based on what you've said, they've gone incredibly further than any private business would. For those who now face hard times because of the business decision, there are programs offered to them by the City that may help - including the subsidized housing programs. But if you start saying that these 50 residences who refuse to move Midfield should just have the city bend overbackwards to make sure they get to keep their homes and have a nice cushy place to live...why not the other thousands of people who have been forced out of their houses because of the downturn?

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

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.

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, man. Part of the value of those is because they have a place where they can be parked. The other part of the value is somebody just dumped $50k into the Okotoks one. If a Midfield trailer home had been renovated last year, it would have value and somebody would buy it. Typical 27 year-old trailers without renovations sitting on a plot of land that needs to be vacated are going to be valueless. I think it's nice the city has offered them some money, but if they're going to be ungrateful I think we should try to scoop it back.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Me too. This is nucking futs.

Why is everybody acting like they have to continue living in their trailer and if that's not feasible there are no other options and the city is super mean for giving them $20k and three years' notice that they'll have to vacate?

I just searched rentfaster.ca for 2 bedroom places between $1000 and $1500 and 1093 places turned up (and that's with me excluding shared accommodation!). There is no shortage whatsoever of places for these people to move.

Just for fun, here are 392 listings for a $500 - $999 budget.

That's swell and everything. But for the people that can't find space for their trailer and it gets demolished, and that's one of the primary complaints because the city basically told them that there would be a place for them and then pulled the carpet out. Its not just as simple as saying, oh well here's some rent money. Some of these people are going to have mortgages that have to be fullfulled, yet they won't have the trailer, so they'll be paying a mortgage payment and rent.

So lets say that a person with a trailer is paying $700 a bucks months mortgage and there's no spots in the city for their trailer, so it gets demolished, fantastic here's $20,000 which by the way they won't get all of that if they don't move their trailer but whatever, saying that the city gives them $20,000 sight unseen seems to make people feel better about themselves and what the city is doing. So they go and rent a place for $1000 plus play their $700 in their mortgage. In 10 months that money is gone and that person, senior, low income earner has to still probably come up with about $1000 to $2000 month in rent and mortgage. So I guess it was incredibly generous of the city to give out a pamphlet that has the addresses for homeless shelters.

For a city that beats the drum on more affordable housing, and working with lower income people, and helping out seniors, They certainly pulled a Snidley Whiplash on these people.

[Amethyst]

The $20 000 is only for those who take their trailers away. If they move into an apartment and leave the trailer behind, they only get $10 000.

If they have a mortgage on a trailer that no longer exists, they aren't going to be able to afford $1000 apartments for long (that $10 000 won't even cover a year of an apartment). People who live in trailer parks likely can't afford to pay for two homes every month. Most people can't handle that financial strain.

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.

Maybe they should have been prepared for this, owning a trailer on land that didn't belong to them? To me, it all comes down to how this situation was presented to them. It sounds like for quite awhile the City said it was shutting down the park but would have a replacement one and then they suddenly switched that plan. My biggest issue with the situation is the City made this switch, seemingly as if it was no big deal, ignoring the fact that it puts a lot of vulnerable people into a very difficult situation.

[Sliver]

Guys. If they have debt on a piece of property worth $0, then they own a bad investment. It's not up to the taxpayers to make them whole.

[Canehdianman]

I have a buddy who rents a house here in Calgary. Nice enough house, but the yard was terrible.

He asked me if I would help him build a raised cedar garden so he could have some herbs and flowers in the front yard (he's not very handy).

He has now had the garden for 4 years, and quite likes it. However, the landlord is retiring and moving to BC, so he's listing the house for sale. He was nice enough to let my friend know about this 2 years ago, but still, he has to find a new house to live in.

So naturally, my friend is absolutely livid that the landlord isn't willing to pay to have the garden transplanted across the city to his new house, nor is the landlord willing to reimburse him for the value of the garden that he built.

I mean, who does this landlord think he is? Taking advantage of a single father, working on a fixed income! It isn't fair that the landlord can just do WHATEVER he wants with his own property! He only gave my friend 2 years notice that he would have to move!! Why didn't he give him the notice 4 years ago, when my friend wanted to build the garden!!

Spoiler!

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Sliver

OMG, man. Part of the value of those is because they have a place where they can be parked. The other part of the value is somebody just dumped $50k into the Okotoks one. If a Midfield trailer home had been renovated last year, it would have value and somebody would buy it. Typical 27 year-old trailers without renovations sitting on a plot of land that needs to be vacated are going to be valueless. I think it's nice the city has offered them some money, but if they're going to be ungrateful I think we should try to scoop it back.

Well yeah. That's the whole point. The city provided that place and then promised a new place and has subsequently taken that away. It's idiotic to say there's no value in these trailers because there's no where to put them. Banks determined there was value in these chattels and loaned money based on these conditions. There was a place. After ten years of promising to respect people's equity, we took it away. Some people were ok with 10k. Others have legitimate concerns that their units are worth way more than 10k.

Typical 27 year old trailers are worth 0-250k depending on where they are. There are dozens of listings in and around Calgary showing you exactly what the values are. Some are renovated, some are not.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3691757/ca...p-was-offered/

Kok said residents have had to leave the city, with some moving to British Columbia or Saskatchewan and others heading to High River or Okotoks.

So another issue I have is that the option we're giving these people is basically to leave the city. There are no lots available in Calgary. If you want to live in your trailer and preserve your equity you actually have to leave the city. It's a relatively small piece of business but not totally insignificant. So it's kind of ironic saying these residents made bad business decisions.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Guys. If they have debt on a piece of property worth $0, then they own a bad investment. It's not up to the taxpayers to make them whole.

Its not up to the city to make a promise on a alternate spot, and yank it away with zero contingency plan.

Oh here's some money to move your trailer somewhere else. Well there's nowhere else.

I'm not saying that the city has to make their mortgages whole.

Some of you are saying that private companies would bounce people out of their rental properties, but first of all this isn't a private company, this is a level of government, one that continually talks about affordable housing to help low income earners, and they turn around and basically f$$$ over low income earners.

And also while the city absolutely owns the land, its completely different in that the asset on the land is owned by those people, and through the cities tremendous stupidity on not (A) making a alternate site available as promised, (B) not taking into account that most lots aren't taking things like double wide trailers anymore. Have pretty much ensured the destruction of these assets that people are still paying for, or were equity for them.

What this is equivalent to is a private company evicting people from their apartments and destroying their cars and personal property.

I'm pretty sure if most of you were paying for lets say a car or some other asset, and any level of government through some action deemed that they didn't give a crap and your car was destroyed, and they gave you lets say $2000.00 and said that you were on the hook to finish paying for that car while buying a new one and paying for that, your rage would know no limits.

You can bet that during the city election we're going to be seeing a lot of video's of trailers being demolished and tearful tenants talking about this.

The city had to know that this was going to happen as soon as they killed the alternative site. They looked at the ledger and basically decided they didn't give two craps about the people that they weren't going to screw over completely.

So they made a brochure that had addresses for the Mustard Seed and other shelters.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

I have a buddy who rents a house here in Calgary. Nice enough house, but the yard was terrible.

He asked me if I would help him build a raised cedar garden so he could have some herbs and flowers in the front yard (he's not very handy).

He has now had the garden for 4 years, and quite likes it. However, the landlord is retiring and moving to BC, so he's listing the house for sale. He was nice enough to let my friend know about this 2 years ago, but still, he has to find a new house to live in.

So naturally, my friend is absolutely livid that the landlord isn't willing to pay to have the garden transplanted across the city to his new house, nor is the landlord willing to reimburse him for the value of the garden that he built.

I mean, who does this landlord think he is? Taking advantage of a single father, working on a fixed income! It isn't fair that the landlord can just do WHATEVER he wants with his own property! He only gave my friend 2 years notice that he would have to move!! Why didn't he give him the notice 4 years ago, when my friend wanted to build the garden!!

Spoiler!

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.