Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 08-28-2017, 04:26 PM   #261
longsuffering
First Line Centre
 
longsuffering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF! View Post
These people own their homes. It's like saying why not just buy the land people own and then give them 10k to throw their houses away because we really don't need the house. The owners can still own it. They just have to move it.

In addition the city pays for business value when they buy land with commercial concerns on it. They had to pay The Brick a wack of money not only for the land and the building but also for the business value. That seems like another incident when the city goes above and beyond what is needed to treat people fairly.

When you look at some of the past city issues with expropriation of land, they generally employ the same tactics...wait while the properties lose value due to impending development and then offer at the revised down assessed value. Then lock it up in court forever and settle when there is no other choice.

It's actually amazing how all this would change on a dime if it happened to anyone of CP's finest.
Please address Oling_Roachinen's post above.
longsuffering is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2017, 04:35 PM   #262
BlackArcher101
Such a pretty girl!
 
BlackArcher101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

So looking into all the area development plans, etc which include the Belvedere area (where they wanted to put the park), it appears to develop that park and any other major residential area east of Stoney, they are limited by the sanitary sewer infrastructure.

It notes developing that land will trigger significant upgrades downstream. Now, they upgraded one of the trunk lines from Chestermere last year I think, but whether they included development of this area in those numbers is unknown.

Regardless, there seems to be more to the story here and I hate how it was all in camera. Development of this area, after their east hills estates plan was completed, likely was deemed uneconomical at the time until the remainder of the area is close to be developed. To install and also upgrade the infrastructure for an early installation of the park may not have been on the cards. Would REALLY like to get a hold of that plan.

This letter is dated Feb of 2012, and the Belvedere development plan was released on May 2013 and has no mention at all regarding a mobile home park or low income housing. Then in April 2014 they officially advise residents that it's no longer in the plan to build a new park. This plan took way too long to be reviewed by council, very abnormal. Something has to be up with this whole deal, it could be the land may even be stuck in a lawsuit? Who knows!
__________________

Last edited by BlackArcher101; 08-28-2017 at 04:41 PM.
BlackArcher101 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to BlackArcher101 For This Useful Post:
Old 08-28-2017, 04:57 PM   #263
getbak
Franchise Player
 
getbak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Exp:
Default

There used to be a trailer park east of Macleod Trail, south of Anderson. It was removed prior to the construction of the Macleod-Anderson interchange. There are now car dealerships and a condo complex where it used to be.

Does anyone know what kind of compensation the residents there received?
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
getbak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2017, 05:49 PM   #264
OMG!WTF!
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by getbak View Post
There used to be a trailer park east of Macleod Trail, south of Anderson. It was removed prior to the construction of the Macleod-Anderson interchange. There are now car dealerships and a condo complex where it used to be.

Does anyone know what kind of compensation the residents there received?
That was Chateau Estates. It was privately owned but the city bought the land and subsequently moved the residents to the current location on 84th st ne. The residents didn't want to move but were happy with the deal ultimately. All moving expenses were covered. I think it's privately owned but not sure. I suppose that may have been a good point to make regarding precedents.
OMG!WTF! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2017, 09:04 AM   #265
iggy_oi
Franchise Player
 
iggy_oi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Exp:
Default

Looks like the evictions could be delayed further

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/c...wyer-1.4305174
iggy_oi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2017, 09:09 AM   #266
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF! View Post
That was Chateau Estates. It was privately owned but the city bought the land and subsequently moved the residents to the current location on 84th st ne. The residents didn't want to move but were happy with the deal ultimately. All moving expenses were covered. I think it's privately owned but not sure. I suppose that may have been a good point to make regarding precedents.
It was privately owned, but there was a place for them to move to at the time so they got moving expenses.

I lived right across the street from that park, I remember that at one point there were two parks there.

I lost a lot of my best friends when they moved, they were absolutely vicious road hockey players as well, it wasn't unusual for us to have these massive bench clearing brawls just for the hell of it.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2017, 09:12 AM   #267
llwhiteoutll
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Exp:
Default

Pretty obvious what's happening and hopefully the people still there don't mind being pawns for the anti-Nenshi crowd. Anyone who really cared about these people had years to act, but would have lost the political impact that is gained by waiting until now, this wouldn't be going to court if the election wasn't happening in a few weeks
llwhiteoutll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2017, 09:13 AM   #268
Canehdianman
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi View Post
Looks like the evictions could be delayed further

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/c...wyer-1.4305174
Interesting read. I don't agree with the lawyers argument that it is contrary to the Charter, but we will find out I suppose.

Comes across more as a ploy to allow the residents to stay a little longer.
Canehdianman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2017, 09:14 AM   #269
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Its a desperation shot, but its all these people really have.

However I thought that the city was going to build rich people condo's there. If the case is that they're just going to kick em out, pull the utilities and leave the land barren then it does read like something that should be decided by the courts.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2017, 09:25 AM   #270
Nufy
Franchise Player
 
Nufy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canehdianman View Post
Interesting read. I don't agree with the lawyers argument that it is contrary to the Charter, but we will find out I suppose.

Comes across more as a ploy to allow the residents to stay a little longer.
Maybe...

delay till the cold weather comes...

Then you cant evict seniors / low income / etc...people out in the freezing cold.

Should get them through to the spring...
__________________
Nufy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2017, 09:27 AM   #271
Canehdianman
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nufy View Post
Maybe...

delay till the cold weather comes...

Then you cant evict seniors / low income / etc...people out in the freezing cold.

Should get them through to the spring...
I think it is more likely to be a delay of a couple weeks, at most. If there was a valid Charter challenge here, it would have been made years ago.

I hope the lawyer isn't charging the people of the trailer park much.
Canehdianman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2017, 09:27 AM   #272
llwhiteoutll
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nufy View Post
Maybe...

delay till the cold weather comes...

Then you cant evict seniors / low income / etc...people out in the freezing cold.

Should get them through to the spring...
Leases can be terminated in the winter, you're probably thinking of the rules that say utilities can't be shut off from Oct to April
llwhiteoutll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2017, 09:39 AM   #273
Canehdianman
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll View Post
Leases can be terminated in the winter, you're probably thinking of the rules that say utilities can't be shut off from Oct to April
Yup, I think he is confused.

Also, they put a load limiter on your line if you don't pay. It allows enough juice to run your furnace fan, but that's it.
Canehdianman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2017, 10:23 AM   #274
northcrunk
#1 Goaltender
 
northcrunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canehdianman View Post
I think it is more likely to be a delay of a couple weeks, at most. If there was a valid Charter challenge here, it would have been made years ago.

I hope the lawyer isn't charging the people of the trailer park much.
Residents haven't had the money to pay for the lawyers. They have met with many who said they could give a free consultation but it would be very expensive to fight in court. I'm happy to see someone step up to help them. They were promised to be moved just like Chateau Estates and then screwed by the city all to sell the land off to condo developers. The lawyer is helping pro-bono. They are in court as we speak and should have news soon.
northcrunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2017, 11:18 AM   #275
northcrunk
#1 Goaltender
 
northcrunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Exp:
Default

Looks like the injunction has been granted till Nov 22 court date. Good news.
northcrunk is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to northcrunk For This Useful Post:
Old 09-25-2017, 07:13 PM   #276
Ducay
Franchise Player
 
Ducay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Exp:
Default

Good news! Now they get to move in the snow
Ducay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2017, 07:23 PM   #277
WhiteTiger
Franchise Player
 
WhiteTiger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducay View Post
Good news! Now they get to move in the snow
Eh, it's been 10+ years, what's another couple months?
WhiteTiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2017, 04:27 PM   #278
killer_carlson
Franchise Player
 
killer_carlson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Exp:
Default

Don Braid of the Herald chimes in:

http://calgaryherald.com/news/politi...-midfield-park

He draws a very compelling comparison to a Glenmore/Elbow interchange situation 10 years ago.
__________________
"OOOOOOHHHHHHH those Russians" - Boney M

Last edited by killer_carlson; 09-27-2017 at 04:36 PM.
killer_carlson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2017, 04:51 PM   #279
llwhiteoutll
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by killer_carlson View Post
Don Braid of the Herald chimes in:

http://calgaryherald.com/news/politi...-midfield-park

He draws a very compelling comparison to a Glenmore/Elbow interchange situation 10 years ago.
If they want market value, things such as current condition, age and ability to be moved and availability of spots to relocate to should be factored into the price as they all affect the value. It should not be just looking at outstanding mortgage and paying that out.

If you did an actual valuation on some of these places, I doubt they'd get more than the city's original offer.
llwhiteoutll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2017, 04:53 PM   #280
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by killer_carlson View Post
Don Braid of the Herald chimes in:

http://calgaryherald.com/news/politi...-midfield-park

He draws a very compelling comparison to a Glenmore/Elbow interchange situation 10 years ago.
It's not that compelling.

These people do not have a lease and do not own the land. Any comparison to a group of people who do own the land is not valid.

The argument to pay them out for the lost value of their home should be solely based on promises made by the city which influenced decision making and therefore cost people money.
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
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 11:18 PM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




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