Midfield Mobile Home Park

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

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

They have had years and years to make alternative arrangements, they have chosen not to. If they had an agreement with the city, it would have been carried out, since the park is closing, they obviously don't have one. It seems that the plan all along for some of these people was to do nothing and then try to guilt the city into taking care of them by using the media.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

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.

What would you suggest the city should do?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

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.

But what about ones on acreages and farms? I know a young couple who bought a quarter section, got a (nice) mobile home and plopped it down there. That would have not have even shown up on your search, and I don't think it's exceedingly rare, unless I'm missing something about why these homes would not be able to do so like the "manufactured" homes that you see on a lot of acreages.

Besides, with 80% already having moved or indicating they plan to move, it wouldn't need to be hundreds. It needs to be dozens.

[Ducay]

Crunch - no one is arguing it is ####ty for these people, but they've had ample notice and have chosen to live in a outdated and riskier type of housing.

We can't just pay off to ensure everyone gets to live the way they want in perpetuity for no legal reason.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

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.

Well, I'm not sure I would feel bad for a tenant that bolted down his furniture and then had it destroyed by the landlord after he was given sufficient time to move. Maybe we should stop with the analogy at this point...

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

But what about ones on acreages and farms? I know a young couple who bought a quarter section, got a (nice) mobile home and plopped it down there. That would have not have even shown up on your search, and I don't think it's exceedingly rare, unless I'm missing something about why these homes would not be able to do so like the "manufactured" homes that you see on a lot of acreages.

Besides, with 80% already having moved or indicating they plan to move, it wouldn't need to be hundreds. It needs to be dozens.

Oh yeah. I wonder if anyone mentioned to these guys they could just buy a
1/4 section and live a nice, pastoral life in the country.

It's kind of important to remember why this is happening in the first place. Repairing the utilities underground was estimated at 6 million for repairs and maintenance, 10 million for a complete replacement. Really nothing in the big picture. If they'd done it in 2006 it would be paid for by now with lot fees and property taxes.

And it's important to remember what's going to happen to the land...it's going to be developed to its highest and best use. It's going to generate millions in capital sales and millions in property tax.

It's fairly reasonable to suggest the tenants who have contributed to this property for over 40 years should at least benefit from some of this gain.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

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.

Couldn't they sell it?
Looks like there's lots of double wides on Kijij. Presumably if people are selling them there's a market to buy them. No need to bolt your furniture to the ground.
https://www.kijiji.ca/b-house-for-sa...mes/k0c35l9003

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

It's fairly reasonable to suggest the tenants who have contributed to this property for over 40 years should at least benefit from some of this gain.

That's not even close to reasonable.

What you are basically saying is that paying rent should entitle a tenant to share in the gains when a property owner sells their property, despite having taken none of the risk in the investment.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Oh yeah. I wonder if anyone mentioned to these guys they could just buy a
1/4 section and live a nice, pastoral life in the country.

We're talking about selling their homes. We're talking about the value loss, if they can sell their homes, get compensation to move their homes to the new owners location, and additional $10,000 to cover other costs, there isn't much room to argue that they are making pennies on the dollars. I don't get the snarky attitude.

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

It's fairly reasonable to suggest the tenants who have contributed to this property for over 40 years should at least benefit from some of this gain.

They did. For fourty years they had prime location in inner city Calgary while paying $600 in rent (or less) for the land they were on, while receiving water and electricity.

[Nufy]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Oh yeah. I wonder if anyone mentioned to these guys they could just buy a
1/4 section and live a nice, pastoral life in the country.

It's kind of important to remember why this is happening in the first place. Repairing the utilities underground was estimated at 6 million for repairs and maintenance, 10 million for a complete replacement. Really nothing in the big picture. If they'd done it in 2006 it would be paid for by now with lot fees and property taxes.

And it's important to remember what's going to happen to the land...it's going to be developed to its highest and best use. It's going to generate millions in capital sales and millions in property tax.

It's fairly reasonable to suggest the tenants who have contributed to this property for over 40 years should at least benefit from some of this gain.

I believe the city has $$$$ in their eyes and will take whatever PR hit comes their way in order to get this done.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

They did. For fourty years they had prime location in inner city Calgary while paying $600 in rent (or less) for the land they were on, while receiving water and electricity.

Great. Then since they actually did not own property in the taxable sense, they should then get their property tax refunded. Lot fees cover services and utilities. If these tenants were just tenants, why did they pay property tax?

Real estate is broken down into two parts. The land is the real estate. The house is the improvement. We tax both. We compensate for both when required. This is just a weird situation where now, we're only interested in making as much money as we can.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Great. Then since they actually did not own property in the taxable sense, they should then get their property tax refunded. Lot fees cover services and utilities. If these tenants were just tenants, why did they pay property tax?

So what's your argument. Are you going to suggest that the other 10 mobile home parks in Calgary should not be required to pay property tax, in fact be refunded for it, and the residents renting land should never have to face the chance of having to move either?

Simple fact is, they agreed to as much when they started renting at Midfield. They knew they were renting, they didn't buy the land, they knew they would have to pay the property tax for the value of their assessed home on the land, they knew there was a chance that they would be required to move. If they didn't, they were ignorant, and that's on them. Again, I agree it sucks for those who were banking on East Hills Estates, but many people had just as much to complain about for that, and some are probably happy they got the $10,000 compensation instead of a lot in East Hills Estates. The City went out of their way to try and help them in a sucky situation. You've already admitted that the City went far above and beyond what any private company would have done - and acting as a private company really in this endeavor, the residents should be 'thankful'. A lot of people have been put in sucky situations over the years and not had the City do anything for them.

[Nyah]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Great. Then since they actually did not own property in the taxable sense, they should then get their property tax refunded. Lot fees cover services and utilities. If these tenants were just tenants, why did they pay property tax?

I'm pretty sure people who 'lease' property on Crown land have to pay property taxes. Why should it be different for a municipality who's providing utilities and services?

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

So what's your argument. Are you going to suggest that the other 10 mobile home parks in Calgary should not be required to pay property tax, in fact be refunded for it, and the residents renting land should never have to face the chance of having to move either?

Simple fact is, they agreed to as much when they started renting at Midfield. They knew they were renting, they didn't buy the land, they knew they would have to pay the property tax for the value of their assessed home on the land, they knew there was a chance that they would be required to move. If they didn't, they were ignorant, and that's on them. Again, I agree it sucks for those who were banking on East Hills Estates, but many people had just as much to complain about for that, and some are probably happy they got the $10,000 compensation instead of a lot in East Hills Estates. The City went out of their way to try and help them in a sucky situation. You've already admitted that the City went far above and beyond what any private company would have done - and acting as a private company really in this endeavor, the residents should be 'thankful'. A lot of people have been put in sucky situations over the years and not had the City do anything for them.

No, of course not. But private landlords and the city of Calgary are different in a lot of ways. The city is responsible for affordable housing, a benefit to all residences. They have a mandate to provide housing. The city is responsible for fair and equitable payouts to real estate owners in the event of annexation. No one else in the city is required to accept less than assessed value. The city has a reasonable fiduciary requirement to all citizens.

All private landlords need to do is make as much money while following the law.

The only thing that needs to happen is for the owners to be paid out based on the city assessed value of their home. The city itself said the trailers are worth this much. They charged taxes based on that much. Pay them out that much. It's not even going to be much more than they already are paying out.

Another word about mobile homes is that they are not mobile. They're actually called manufactured homes. They're not meant to move. They are meant to be cheap alternatives to expensive housing.

Another thing is the failing infrastructure. Those pipes are no different than any others in the city. Your property tax pays for them to be fixed literally all the time. Except in this park. Even requiring the tenants to assume a portion of the repair, the portion of pipes on their lot for example, is totally acceptable and fair.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

No, of course not. But private landlords and the city of Calgary are different in a lot of ways. The city is responsible for affordable housing, a benefit to all residences. The city is responsible for fair and equitable payouts to real estate owners in the event of annexation. No one else in the city is required to accept less than assessed value. The city has a reasonable fiduciary requirement to all citizens.

That's not what at all is happening in this situation. Surely you must understand the difference between annexation and what's happening in this situation. It makes no sense to bring annexation up...the City has owned the land before the park was built.

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

The only thing that needs to happen is for the owners to be paid out based on the city assessed value of their home.

No, the only thing that needed to happen was sufficient notice.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Another word about mobile homes is that they are not mobile. They're actually called manufactured homes. They're not meant to move. They are meant to be cheap alternatives to expensive housing.

Of course that's not the case, while manufactured homes are not built to travel the world, everyone knows they are exceedingly easier to move than your standard one. I mean it's literally called Midfield Mobile Park, but if that's the argument you want go down. Why should I, as a tax payer, even pay 1 dime for someone so stupid to put an immobile home on a mobile park, on land that they are renting that could have their lease not renewed at any time? Again, there was never ever at all any indication in the slightest that the people moving their homes here would have a permanent spot at the location, they all knew the risk. No one in that park was stupid enough to believe that they were purchasing the land in perpetuity, so please let's not insult them by suggesting they did.

The residents did get together and did discuss purchasing the land. They decided against it when they found out the price of purchasing the land and upgrading the lot would be 17M.

[Fuzz]

Replacing the infrastructure also isn't thee same as a normal residential street. In the park, they are under all the units, not down the streets. So they would probably have to move all these homes to do the work anyway, or find a way to work under them. I totally see the cities point that they shouldn't be running trailer parks in the first place, upgrades make no financial sense and that now is a good time to divest from it.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Of course that's not the case, while manufactured homes are not built to travel the world, everyone knows they are exceedingly easier to move than your standard one. I mean it's literally called Midfield Mobile Park, but if that's the argument you want go down. Why should I, as a tax payer, even pay 1 dime for someone so stupid to put an immobile home on a mobile park, on land that they are renting that could have their lease not renewed at any time? Again, there was never ever at all any indication in the slightest that the people moving their homes here would have a permanent spot at the location, they all knew the risk. No one in that park was stupid enough to believe that they were purchasing the land in perpetuity, so please let's not insult them by suggesting they did.

The residents did get together and did discuss purchasing the land. They decided against it when they found out the price of purchasing the land and upgrading the lot would be 17M.

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.

[northcrunk]

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.

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.

[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.