Midfield Mobile Home Park

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

My sister and brother in law will be on facebook live with Danielle smith at 2pm to talk about the situation. They only purchased their home there because of the cities assurance to move into east hills. They didn't mind the park was moving and have letters from the city stating the land was bought and plans were in place.

Did they talk to a lawyer during the purchase process or after about the supposed assurance from the city? Seems like it would be an easy thing to clear up and if it was binding, the city could be held to it.

It sounds more like a "this is the current plan" letter and the plan changed, not an actual guarantee that can be enforced

I'm not really expecting an answer from you though, it's been asked twice here and on Reddit as well, but the question is always conveniently "missed"

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Anyway, I maintain that the city has a fiduciary duty to its clients and no one citizen should be penalized. We're going to get a massive payout from developing this land. It would cost roughly one bike lane and a couple art projects to not screw these people.

Oh right, lets pull in some other unpopular uses to money to rationalize another terrible use of money.

It is very simple. Barring any unknown legal agreement or constructive obligation on East Hills, the city has done what it needs to do as landlord and then some. I hope these hold outs do not gain any traction, otherwise you're setting a ridiculous precedent.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

The city collected property tax from the residents. It is not just a simple landlord tenant agreement. The property taxes were supposed to fix the infrastructure. The city acted in poor faith and didn't fix the infrastructure. The city then used the crumbling infrastructure to justify closing the park.

No, the property taxes they paid were in exchange for services they received. They got exactly what they paid for.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Sliver

No, the property taxes they paid were in exchange for services they received. They got exactly what they paid for.

No. The lots fees they paid were in exchange for services. Property taxes are for lots of other things but not services, not rental of the land, not utilities.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

No. The lots fees they paid were in exchange for services. Property taxes are for lots of other things but not services, not rental of the land, not utilities.

Really? So they didn't receive police protection, ems, fire department, etc?

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

My sister and brother in law will be on facebook live with Danielle smith at 2pm to talk about the situation. They only purchased their home there because of the cities assurance to move into east hills. They didn't mind the park was moving and have letters from the city stating the land was bought and plans were in place.

This is literally the only valid argument, and lawyers can determine if the documentation available makes it legally binding.

You'd have thought that this process would've been started when the east hills plan was scrapped 3 years ago and not 30 days from eviction though. If it was started long ago, I'd be interested to see where the court case is at.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Too bad they're not MOBILE homes. They're MANUFACTURED homes. After 1976 the standards for them changed and they are were much less mobile than before. Some homes in that park are older than that but most are not. Wikipedia says only 5% of double wide homes are ever moved. Take it or leave it. But the fact is these are not trailers, they're not mobile. We have those sort of products now and they're much different. Moving these units basically requires a rebuild.

Anyway, I maintain that the city has a fiduciary duty to its clients and no one citizen should be penalized. We're going to get a massive payout from developing this land. It would cost roughly one bike lane and a couple art projects to not screw these people.

Well okay this is a weird argument. Like it's a weird position to say that the City should have helped move the buildings to East Hills Estate while at the same time trying to argue that the buildings aren't movable homes. It's also a weird position to argue that paying property taxes somehow gives them annexation rights, which was never even a thought by anyone.

I get your initial argument, and I think we can all agree it's a ####ty situation, but now I feel like you're just throwing stuff out to see what sticks. Property tax, annexation, the inability to move from a mobile park...none of those are at all real arguments in my opinion.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Really? So they didn't receive police protection, ems, fire department, etc?

Of course. It didn't include maintenance of service infrastructure....something all other homeowners get. And that's really the reason they have to move so....

Oh, and I don't think it included garbage removal or snow maintenance either.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Of course. It didn't include maintenance of service infrastructure....something all other homeowners get. And that's really the reason they have to move so....

Oh, and I don't think it included garbage removal or snow maintenance either.

See bolded part you keep typing but still forgetting isn't what we're talking about in this case.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Ducay

See bolded part you keep typing but still forgetting isn't what we're talking about in this case.

Fine. Then refund property taxes. You can't say these "non homeowners" have to pay property tax. If they don't own homes then don't charge them as if they did. Pretty simple really.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Fine. Then refund property taxes. You can't say these "non homeowners" have to pay property tax. If they don't own homes then don't charge them as if they did. Pretty simple really.

Yes you can, because they agreed to do it. They've been using police services, roads, transit, the infrastructure they did have, same as everybody else paying property taxes. They didn't pay property taxes on the land because they didn't own it, so they aren't being charged as if they own 'homes'.

http://www.calgary.ca/CA/fs/Pages/Pr...red-Homes.aspx

At no point does it say that it gives them any rights to owning the actual property and staying indefinitely regardless of the owners intention.

[Fuzz]

If they hadn't been paying property taxes, then they would have paid more for their lot fees to cover it, just like anyone who rents a home, condo, etc. One way or another, they would have paid. Your arguments, like the pipes below their trailers, don't hold much water.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

If they hadn't been paying property taxes, then they would have paid more for their lot fees to cover it, just like anyone who rents a home, condo, etc. One way or another, they would have paid. Your arguments, like the pipes below their trailers, don't hold much water.

You're right. But these people also pay lot fees which do cover the property taxes on the land....they do in every other privately owned park in the city so it's reasonable to assume they do here as well. Add that to the property tax the people pay on their homes and you have something along the line of what everyone else in the city pays. And yet they do not get the same level of service. Have they been receiving discounted lot fees is the question. In the past they've been in line with the other parks in the city.

[Fuzz]

Well they also don't pay similar property taxes. I assume their values are much lower than a home, which means they pay a lot less in taxes, but basically get the same general services as Calgarians. You mention snow clearing and garbage. I rarely get a plow on my street, and I pay for garbage on my utility bill. I assume they don't. Your property tax argument isn't making much sense.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Well they also don't pay similar property taxes. I assume their values are much lower than a home, which means they pay a lot less in taxes, but basically get the same general services as Calgarians. You mention snow clearing and garbage. I rarely get a plow on my street, and I pay for garbage on my utility bill. I assume they don't. Your property tax argument isn't making much sense.

Ok. But the amount of tax they pay is irrelevant. You don't pay as much property tax as the guy in the 25 million dollar house. Yet you still get the same stuff. The fact is they do pay a full tax roll via rent and via property tax on their equity. Therefore I think they're entitled to fair treatment on the equity they do pay against.

It's an odd situation. An easy one to fix and one that likely won't happen again.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Property tax is irrelevant. They've received the services they paid for. EMS, police, transit, roads, etc.

Property taxes do not go towards infrastructure on 'private' land. It's not the public community infrastructure that is poor, it's the park's pipes. If my pipe bursts on my property, it's my responsibility. If their pipes are poor, it's the owner responsibility (which granted is weird because it is the City in this case, but the lands are certainly not public). But property taxes should not, and do not, go towards private pipes. The owner does not want to pay the millions of dollars to repair the infrastructure when they could get rid of the park and sell the land in a money making endeavor.

http://www.calgary.ca/UEP/Water/Page...s-Calgary.aspx

They've already discussed the option to sell the land to the residents, have them pay for the infrastructure (as all private owners do) and make other necessary repair and upgrades. The residents did not want to pay the 17M it would take to do so.

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Did they talk to a lawyer during the purchase process or after about the supposed assurance from the city? Seems like it would be an easy thing to clear up and if it was binding, the city could be held to it.

It sounds more like a "this is the current plan" letter and the plan changed, not an actual guarantee that can be enforced

I'm not really expecting an answer from you though, it's been asked twice here and on Reddit as well, but the question is always conveniently "missed"

Anyone who purchased a trailer in the park had to be approved by the park management as well as the city. They have a letter from 2012 signed by the city manager stating the land had been purchased in East Hills and the plan is going forward to move the residents to East Hills. It wasn't until Nenshi was elected the plans changed.

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Really? So they didn't receive police protection, ems, fire department, etc?

Do renters who don't pay property tax get police protection?

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Property tax is irrelevant. They've received the services they paid for. EMS, police, transit, roads, etc.

Property taxes do not go towards infrastructure on 'private' land. It's not the public community infrastructure that is poor, it's the park's pipes. If my pipe bursts on my property, it's my responsibility. If their pipes are poor, it's the owner responsibility (which granted is weird because it is the City in this case, but the lands are certainly not public). But property taxes should not, and do not, go towards private pipes. The owner does not want to pay the millions of dollars to repair the infrastructure when they could get rid of the park and sell the land in a money making endeavor.

http://www.calgary.ca/UEP/Water/Page...s-Calgary.aspx

They've already discussed the option to sell the land to the residents, have them pay for the infrastructure (as all private owners do) and make other necessary repair and upgrades. The residents did not want to pay the 17M it would take to do so.

Except the park is city owned and it is not private land.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

Except the park is city owned and it is not private land.

It's owned by the City and is private land with respect to the infrastructure on the land.

I couldn't just pull up my trailer without getting charged with trespassing if I refused to leave.

The point is; no, under no uncertain terms, did them paying property tax require the city to fix the pipes. Those are not intertwined. If anything, it would be the rent that would have gone towards maintenance of the park.