These are low income folks. Not high wealth investors who made a bad bet. They had promises from the city (who you should believe). Whether they broke the law or not how the city has treated them is shameful. I hope they sleep well at night because their Karma is coming.
The stakes and consequences are the same, they have already been treated with kid gloves compared to how this would be approached with the general population.
These are low income folks. Not high wealth investors who made a bad bet. They had promises from the city (who you should believe). Whether they broke the law or not how the city has treated them is shameful. I hope they sleep well at night because their Karma is coming.
You keep towing this line like it makes any difference whatsoever. Clearly, they DID NOT have actionable promises from the City. We've asked for proof of these "promises" time and time and time again, and all we ever get is "They had a letter!"
Do you have a copy of this letter? Is there a scan of it anywhere we can look at it? Does the Sun have a copy they could print to show? This "Letter! Promises!" thing was taken to court and soundly defeated.
It appears that the tenants misconstrued what they were told from the City. That's understandable (and unfortunate, really)...but this is getting to be a very tired line of "But...but" when nothing has ever been shown of this nigh-mythical letter yet apparently everything rests on it. If it was so almighty important...why can't anyone see a copy of it?
Location: Close enough to make a beer run during a TV timeout
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteTiger
Do you have a copy of this letter? Is there a scan of it anywhere we can look at it? Does the Sun have a copy they could print to show? This "Letter! Promises!" thing was taken to court and soundly defeated.
Having read that, I have a smidge more sympathy, but still not a lot. When it came out that the other park could't be built and the residents were informed of that, I still don't see that as the City's fault and I sure wouldn't have read that as a binding promise on the City that would forever after obligate them. I'd even be generous and start the one year 'eviction clock' from that time period...which would have ended 2 years ago.
The real reason you guys should be upset about this has just been totally missed. It's obvious a group of elected officials need to be held to a higher standard than that which is applied to private landlords.
When you need to get elected you're the good cop, the guy who fights for every man and who looks after the little guy. Then you get elected and your priority is keeping your job which means not raising taxes which means the 6 million bucks it would have taken to buy out these residents ten years ago looks a lot better in your bank than in the people's pockets you promised when you were trying to get elected.
Some vomit inducing words from Nenshi...
Even worse from Carra...
So you go back and forth with this good cop bad cop garbage and it winds up costing ten years and a way larger amount of money than it would have in the first place.
Carra said it best. To paraphrase, If the city is going to make lots of money of this development we should take care of these people so no one has to take a hit in order for the rest of the city to benefit.
You just can't really argue with that can you?
I also think the law regarding mobile homes should be changed to reflect the fact that mobile homes are not actually mobile. In a lot of cases it's actually cheaper and easier to chop a house of a foundation and move it. When I worked for a mobile home park in Calgary the owner was trying his best to sell all the homes his company owned in the park just for the simple fact that his infrastructure was also failing and he knew he'd be punting all the tenants at some point. So you've got these savy owner with insider information selling trailers to admittedly less sophisticated people. There is more there to recon with than the law reflects.
Last edited by OMG!WTF!; 12-19-2017 at 05:02 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to OMG!WTF! For This Useful Post:
These are low income folks. Not high wealth investors who made a bad bet. They had promises from the city (who you should believe). Whether they broke the law or not how the city has treated them is shameful. I hope they sleep well at night because their Karma is coming.
So you believe there should be one set of laws for low income people and another set for those with more income? The city has provided them with substantially more than they are entitled to in any interpretation of the leases.
It is also clear they never did have any agreement with the city. If they had, the court would have told the city to honour these supposed obligations.
Those videos of Nenshi and Carra on this issue explain why many people disrespect politicians. That disrespect is earned, not given.
The disgrace here is how much the residents were misled into believing the city would do something more. No contracts were signed but the politicians pumped the residents full with sunshine.
The people who support the City in this matter would do themselves a favour not to exaggerate their claims. Residents were not told a decade ago that they would need to move with nowhere to go. Originally they were told that they would be allowed to move to East Hills. It was only in the last few years that that changed. They were not given tens of thousands of dollars. If they walked away, they got $10 000. They got $20 000 if they moved their trailer away, which many people were hard pressed to do if there is no space in Calgary.
The letter does exist and was posted here earlier. To me it sounds like the City made them a promise, but I'm not a lawyer. Clearly it was not sufficient or there was something else that cancelled it out, since they lost in court. Obviously the City had the legal right to do what they did, but I'm not a fan of the move and I'm glad the residents at least got their day in court. And I'm not a fan of this, "Haha, you lost, get out," sentiment some people have. They've already lost, they don't need an extra kick while they're down.
The real reason you guys should be upset about this has just been totally missed. It's obvious a group of elected officials need to be held to a higher standard than that which is applied to private landlords.
When you need to get elected you're the good cop, the guy who fights for every man and who looks after the little guy. Then you get elected and your priority is keeping your job which means not raising taxes which means the 6 million bucks it would have taken to buy out these residents ten years ago looks a lot better in your bank than in the people's pockets you promised when you were trying to get elected.
I still fail to see what makes these people special. They are far from the only low income househoulds in the city. Yet here they are, wanting low rent on prime land for decades.
The land that Midfield sits on can easily be turned into better, more dense, low income housing supporting more families or use the money the City gets from the land and put it towards additional more efficient low income housing. Better alternative than continuing to heavily subsidize the residents there and especially when they would need to spend a fortune upgrading the infrastructure.
I still fail to see what makes these people special. They are far from the only low income househoulds in the city. Yet here they are, wanting low rent on prime land for decades.
The land that Midfield sits on can easily be turned into better, more dense, low income housing supporting more families or use the money the City gets from the land and put it towards additional more efficient low income housing. Better alternative than continuing to heavily subsidize the residents there and especially when they would need to spend a fortune upgrading the infrastructure.
I totally agree. 100%. They're not special. For ten million bucks we could have treated these people fairly and gotten on with development twelve years ago. I only asked that they be given fair market value as other property owners would. Instead we hold popularity contests.
The lot fees weren't heavily subsidized. They were about 10%-20% lower than other parks with similar utilities and services.
I totally agree. 100%. They're not special. For ten million bucks we could have treated these people fairly and gotten on with development twelve years ago. I only asked that they be given fair market value as other property owners would.
This is the part that I have a problem with. These folks are NOT property owners. They own a house that they have put on SOMEONE ELSE'S property. The entity who owns that property has decided to do something else with it. This is not the problem of the actual property owner.
If I took a mobile home, plopped it down beside 'your' house on 'your' property...is it now your responsibility to "treat me fairly" and "give me fair market value" if you don't want my mobile home there? No? Why is this any different?
That's my issue with this situation. If the people owned the property that their trailers sat on...yup, if someone wants it, they have to pay fair market value for it. But they DON'T OWN THE LAND and took a gamble...that's not worked out for them. It sucks for them...but that's life.
Last edited by WhiteTiger; 12-19-2017 at 07:22 PM.
I only asked that they be given fair market value as other property owners would.
And that'll open the City to lawsuit after lawsuit from the people that followed the instructions and left properly with all the notifications that they received over the years. It'll also set the precedent for the future to allow people to disregard similar situations (maybe even squat) and instructions from the city for payouts.
This is the part that I have a problem with. These folks are NOT property owners. They own a house that they have put on SOMEONE ELSE'S property. The entity who owns that property has decided to do something else with it. This is not the problem of the actual property owner.
I get that. And maybe I'm wrong. But they were paying "property tax" on their "property". While property rights are not ensured in the charter, I believe they should be. When the city expropriates land, they don't want or need the houses that are sitting on the land. Real estate has two valuations. The actual land...and the improvements on the land. The city pays people for both. Some houses are just as mobile as mobile homes. The others? Oh well. 10k would cover putting a two story house in a dumpster just as easy as a double wide mobile home. Obviously people think this is a stupid argument but ultimately the result for the actual people is exactly the same...stress, and trauma and an unfair position in life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chemgear
And that'll open the City to lawsuit after lawsuit from the people that followed the instructions and left properly with all the notifications that they received over the years. It'll also set the precedent for the future to allow people to disregard similar situations (maybe even squat) and instructions from the city for payouts.
It wouldn't be a legally binding decision. There would be no precedent or tort at all. In fact the city has already mandated compensation from developers for redeveloping an occupied trailer park. Obviously no precedent resulted from that. And honestly, a lot of people in that park got fair market value for their homes. 10k is the going rate around town for a junker. But yeah, the city would have to write a lot of checks to make people whole. And that would have been the deal of the century for the city had they done it 12 years ago.
The letter does exist and was posted here earlier. To me it sounds like the City made them a promise, but I'm not a lawyer. Clearly it was not sufficient or there was something else that cancelled it out, since they lost in court. Obviously the City had the legal right to do what they did, but I'm not a fan of the move and I'm glad the residents at least got their day in court. And I'm not a fan of this, "Haha, you lost, get out," sentiment some people have. They've already lost, they don't need an extra kick while they're down.
Contracts generally require each parties to offer consideration or something of value to be binding. Also you need a way to prove that an agreement was made.
And that'll open the City to lawsuit after lawsuit from the people that followed the instructions and left properly with all the notifications that they received over the years.
What would they sue over? They accepted the city’s offer of settlement.
Quote:
It'll also set the precedent for the future to allow people to disregard similar situations (maybe even squat) and instructions from the city for payouts.
It would not allow for anything, these people fought as long as they could and are being removed. And people ignoring instructions and challenging city hall on these types of issues is nothing new and unlikely to change.
I get that. And maybe I'm wrong. But they were paying "property tax" on their "property". While property rights are not ensured in the charter, I believe they should be. When the city expropriates land, they don't want or need the houses that are sitting on the land. Real estate has two valuations. The actual land...and the improvements on the land. The city pays people for both. Some houses are just as mobile as mobile homes. The others? Oh well. 10k would cover putting a two story house in a dumpster just as easy as a double wide mobile home. Obviously people think this is a stupid argument but ultimately the result for the actual people is exactly the same...stress, and trauma and an unfair position in life.
It wouldn't be a legally binding decision. There would be no precedent or tort at all. In fact the city has already mandated compensation from developers for redeveloping an occupied trailer park. Obviously no precedent resulted from that. And honestly, a lot of people in that park got fair market value for their homes. 10k is the going rate around town for a junker. But yeah, the city would have to write a lot of checks to make people whole. And that would have been the deal of the century for the city had they done it 12 years ago.
I have to agree that they should not have had to pay property tax as they don't own property and they could have just hid this tax in the lot fees. The landlord pays the taxes and chooses to recover them if they see fit.
Maybe they could recover past property tax but I assume someone with more knowledge on this then my none can explain why that isn't possible.
Not much new there. One interesting exchange. Rob Breakenridge asked- How much would this have cost? (To make things "right.")
Jeromy Farkas' reply- Keep in mind this isn't coming from property taxes, but from the future sale of the property.
So not only did Farkas not have an answer, but somehow thinks that the renters are entitled to something from the sale of the property that they were renting. And that taking money from the city does not have an impact on taxpayers.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ken0042 For This Useful Post:
Despite a failed court battle, the remaining residents of the Midfield Mobile Home Park in northeast Calgary are still seeking the money they feel is owed to them for the place they’ve called home for decades.
Sperling says she will abide by the decision to leave Midfield when it comes.
“I don’t want to end up prison and if it comes down to it and the sheriffs are going to be coming, I’ll be out of there. I’m not stupid. I’ve been making the arrangements to comply.”
She says $100,000 would be a better amount for her home.
