Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 08-23-2017, 01:04 PM   #1
OMG!WTF!
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Exp:
Default Midfield Mobile Home Park

As a bit of a trailer connoisseur myself, I think this really sucks...

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...ing-citys-help

10k is, I'm sure, fair for some of the junker trailers. But I'm just as sure it is piddly compensation for others, especially when, for example, someone's trailer is assessed at 66k and that person has been paying property taxes based on that amount. And literally none of that person's money went towards fixing the infrastructure that is now failing them. And further more, the original promise was to move the park to a new city property. You can't sell these trailers, can't move some of them, and can't even get rid of them without a relatively large cost. Anyone else whose property gets purchased by the city gets tax assessed value plus.

My last job was actually trailer park supervisor at a really old park in the city. The infrastructure was always failing but as long as the cable stayed on people were happy. And it was always very cost effective to fix the problems and continue collecting lot rents.

I agree that, in this case, the city's offer is a total rip off. "Working with the city" shouldn't mean absorbing a 40k loss and living in a homeless shelter....for free.
OMG!WTF! is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to OMG!WTF! For This Useful Post:
Old 08-23-2017, 01:08 PM   #2
JFK
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Exp:
Default

Mentioned this in the Gear Grinding thread recently but the way the city has handled this has been borderline shameful, and that's as a Nenshi supporter.
JFK is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to JFK For This Useful Post:
Old 08-23-2017, 01:11 PM   #3
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

A lot of people are getting 10k for their trailers, have no place to take them and are being forced to demolish them and they're going to end up paying a mortgage on a trailer they no longer have.

Plus in one recent story they were given information packages about where they can go and it listed homeless shelters. If you think your putting people into a homeless shelter, you're doing it wrong.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Old 08-23-2017, 01:12 PM   #4
Mass_nerder
Franchise Player
 
Mass_nerder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Barthelona
Exp:
Default

Without looking too far into it, the city should be offering something close to the appraised value from the last tax assessment. I can understand why residents would be upset with the offer when the city valued their property at x for tax purposes, but only 30% of x when they want to buy them out (although I'm sure this is at the extreme end of the spectrum of values).
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by snipetype View Post
k im just not going to respond to your #### anymore because i have better things to do like #### my model girlfriend rather then try to convince people like you of commonly held hockey knowledge.
Mass_nerder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2017, 01:13 PM   #5
BlackArcher101
Such a pretty girl!
 
BlackArcher101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Is there a place to get the actual hard facts? Every time I hear the story of what is happening, there always seems to be a change or contradiction on both sides.
__________________
BlackArcher101 is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to BlackArcher101 For This Useful Post:
Old 08-23-2017, 01:18 PM   #6
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mass_nerder View Post
Without looking too far into it, the city should be offering something close to the appraised value from the last tax assessment. I can understand why residents would be upset with the offer when the city valued their property at x for tax purposes, but only 30% of x when they want to buy them out (although I'm sure this is at the extreme end of the spectrum of values).
No one is taking their trailers though. They are basically getting $20 000 to move their trailers elsewhere. I don't think they ever owned the land, did they? Does $20 000 sound fair for that? I dunno. Does the city have any obligation at all to them?
Fuzz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2017, 01:24 PM   #7
OMG!WTF!
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackArcher101 View Post
Is there a place to get the actual hard facts? Every time I hear the story of what is happening, there always seems to be a change or contradiction on both sides.
Yes. I should have posted this first. The midfield park website has about ten years of news stories regarding this issue...

http://www.midfieldpark.ca/news.html

I was going to quote a few of the articles but there are so many. You can get a good idea of what's really going on by reading some of the 2014 articles where Nenshi is promising they have three years to find an acceptable solution for people and that no one should be worried about being kicked out of their home without compensation. There's also basic fact sheets about what you need to do to get your 10k plus 10k and how to get rid of your trailers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
No one is taking their trailers though. They are basically getting $20 000 to move their trailers elsewhere. I don't think they ever owned the land, did they? Does $20 000 sound fair for that? I dunno. Does the city have any obligation at all to them?
It's not really fair. The first 10k is for the value of the trailer. The second 10k is for providing a clean and vacant lot. Some of the double wides would cost more than 10k just to get rid of. And also some of the trailers are still fairly expensive. People have 40k mortgages outstanding on them so the banks are willing to lend on that value. The catch is there is really no vacancy in parks around Calgary even if you could move them.

Last edited by OMG!WTF!; 08-23-2017 at 01:27 PM.
OMG!WTF! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2017, 01:25 PM   #8
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
No one is taking their trailers though. They are basically getting $20 000 to move their trailers elsewhere. I don't think they ever owned the land, did they? Does $20 000 sound fair for that? I dunno. Does the city have any obligation at all to them?
I think it was 10k but I could be wrong. But the problem is that there aren't places to move the trailers. The people don't own the land they rent the lot.

The city was banking on another park opening up but that didn't happen, and people that have double wide trailers are losing their homes because a lot of the newer parks don't accept double wide.

There are basically a bunch of people in that park that are having to have their trailers demolished because there's nowhere to go, and they're going to end up playing rent and continuing to pay their mortgage.

It was a badly thought out program by the city where someone didn't do their due diligence and people got totally hosed because of it.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Old 08-23-2017, 01:28 PM   #9
Mass_nerder
Franchise Player
 
Mass_nerder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Barthelona
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
No one is taking their trailers though. They are basically getting $20 000 to move their trailers elsewhere. I don't think they ever owned the land, did they? Does $20 000 sound fair for that? I dunno. Does the city have any obligation at all to them?
I would imagine that in many cases, these trailers have been in place for years, and have lost their ability to actually be moved without falling apart.
Even the trailers that can be moved need a home, and as far as I know, there aren't many mobile trailer parks around Calgary; even if there are a few, I would imagine they don't have the ability to absorb more than a few trailers at best.

Perhaps the city should be looking at a different piece of land to offer up for use as a trailer park.

I don't know. Like I said originally, I haven't looked into the story closely.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by snipetype View Post
k im just not going to respond to your #### anymore because i have better things to do like #### my model girlfriend rather then try to convince people like you of commonly held hockey knowledge.
Mass_nerder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2017, 01:33 PM   #10
Oling_Roachinen
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Exp:
Default

I'm going to sound insensitive, but it's been over a decade since it became public that the tenants would have to vacate the property.

They don't own the land, they are renters and they've had 10 years to plan their move. It's a mobile home park, if you're making your homes immobile on land you don't own, that you have no contract for, and you can't figure something out in a decade? I feel about as much compassion for these people as anyone in a ####ty situation, but this isn't the city's fault or Nenshi's, it's theirs.

The East Hills Estates cancellation was probably a mistake, but that doesn't seem to the biggest issue with most people still there.
Oling_Roachinen is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to Oling_Roachinen For This Useful Post:
Old 08-23-2017, 01:43 PM   #11
OMG!WTF!
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen View Post
I'm going to sound insensitive, but it's been over a decade since it became public that the tenants would have to vacate the property.

They don't own the land, they are renters and they've had 10 years to plan their move. It's a mobile home park, if you're making your homes immobile on land you don't own, that you have no contract for, and you can't figure something out in a decade? I feel about as much compassion for these people as anyone in a ####ty situation, but this isn't the city's fault or Nenshi's, it's theirs.

The East Hills Estates cancellation was probably a mistake, but that doesn't seem to the biggest issue with most people still there.
I definitely get that line of thinking and for that reason I would never buy anything on native land, on rented land or even deeded parcels. It's unwise at best. However if you look at almost all of the articles on this issue the number one theme is without any question and beyond any shadow of anyone's doubt is that the city with look after these people. Nenshi et al are very clear in stating many times that the city will make sure these people have a place to go. Several homes were bought and sold in the last decade in that park based on this sort of promise from the city. That's the unfair part. Even in 2011 Nenshi was stating the owners will have a place to go...I guess he should have clarified that he meant the drop in center.

OMG!WTF! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2017, 01:58 PM   #12
llwhiteoutll
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Exp:
Default

It really boils down to a tenancy issue. The tenants were told with 2.5 years notice that they would have to vacate, they were informed of a compensation structure and have had ample time to challenge the city in court. Since a court hasn't ruled on it, it would seem that the letter saying that East Hills would be opened before Midfield has no binding impact on the city. Everyone there have always known that they don't own the land and are renters, the end of a lease, especially with so much notice, should not be a shock.

It is not, and should not be, a landlords responsibility to find another rental property for tenants whose leases are ending. Essentially if finding them a place means entering into a money losing venture. If trailer parks were profitable, private development would be taking place.
llwhiteoutll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2017, 02:16 PM   #13
OMG!WTF!
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll View Post
It really boils down to a tenancy issue. The tenants were told with 2.5 years notice that they would have to vacate, they were informed of a compensation structure and have had ample time to challenge the city in court. Since a court hasn't ruled on it, it would seem that the letter saying that East Hills would be opened before Midfield has no binding impact on the city. Everyone there have always known that they don't own the land and are renters, the end of a lease, especially with so much notice, should not be a shock.

It is not, and should not be, a landlords responsibility to find another rental property for tenants whose leases are ending. Essentially if finding them a place means entering into a money losing venture. If trailer parks were profitable, private development would be taking place.
Trailer parks are exceptionally profitable. It costs $1250 to rent a lot at the RedCarpet, there are 347 lots there and it's in Penbrooke. The problem is that in larger cities there are higher and better uses for land. In BC trailers on rented land cost upwards of 200k simply because they exist close to where people want to be.

And it is a little unfair to say "It is not, and should not be, a landlords responsibility to find another rental property for tenants whose leases are ending" when that landlord is collecting property taxes from you for forty years.

Last edited by OMG!WTF!; 08-23-2017 at 02:26 PM.
OMG!WTF! is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to OMG!WTF! For This Useful Post:
Old 08-23-2017, 02:22 PM   #14
Sliver
evil of fart
 
Sliver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Exp:
Default

What percentage of people that live/lived there have accepted the city's terms and vacated already? Are we hearing from anybody for whom this process went smoothly?

I imagine whatever the terms, you're going to have a vocal group crying foul in a situation like this. To have 3-10 years notice to move and not take any action seems like the behaviour of a struggler of the highest order.
Sliver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2017, 02:23 PM   #15
Oling_Roachinen
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Exp:
Default

Over 80% accepted. How things went, or why they did it, I don't know.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...park-residents
Oling_Roachinen is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Oling_Roachinen For This Useful Post:
Old 08-23-2017, 02:33 PM   #16
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver View Post
What percentage of people that live/lived there have accepted the city's terms and vacated already? Are we hearing from anybody for whom this process went smoothly?

I imagine whatever the terms, you're going to have a vocal group crying foul in a situation like this. To have 3-10 years notice to move and not take any action seems like the behaviour of a struggler of the highest order.
The common comment is that

The promised park never came to be so there's a space shortage.

Some of these tenants had double wide trailers. Most of the parks won't take double wide trailers at all.

The city didn't do a great job of ensuring that there were actually places for these people to go.

A lot of those people that have left, ended up just selling their trailers. There were quite a few that basically walked away and had their homes demolished.

For some of them the bottom line is that they got 10k for destroying their homes because they couldn't move them and they still owe on their mortgage.

The city didn't do their proper diligence on this one.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Old 08-23-2017, 02:51 PM   #17
Sliver
evil of fart
 
Sliver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF! View Post
As a bit of a trailer connoisseur myself, I think this really sucks...

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...ing-citys-help

10k is, I'm sure, fair for some of the junker trailers. But I'm just as sure it is piddly compensation for others, especially when, for example, someone's trailer is assessed at 66k and that person has been paying property taxes based on that amount. And literally none of that person's money went towards fixing the infrastructure that is now failing them. And further more, the original promise was to move the park to a new city property. You can't sell these trailers, can't move some of them, and can't even get rid of them without a relatively large cost. Anyone else whose property gets purchased by the city gets tax assessed value plus.

My last job was actually trailer park supervisor at a really old park in the city. The infrastructure was always failing but as long as the cable stayed on people were happy. And it was always very cost effective to fix the problems and continue collecting lot rents.

I agree that, in this case, the city's offer is a total rip off. "Working with the city" shouldn't mean absorbing a 40k loss and living in a homeless shelter....for free.
I'm skeptical on this $40k-loss comment. If we as taxpayers are expected to zero out their mortgage, I'd like to see why their mortgage is so high. Trailer homes are depreciating assets. The physical building will devalue for a number of years until it becomes valueless. If you have a $40k mortgage on your trailer home (just the physical home; not the land, obviously), then you should have a very saleable trailer that is worth at least $40k. If you have a $40k mortgage on your trailer and your trailer is worth $0, then why should the taxpayers bail you out of your bad investment?
Sliver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2017, 02:51 PM   #18
Resolute 14
In the Sin Bin
 
Resolute 14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF! View Post
And it is a little unfair to say "It is not, and should not be, a landlords responsibility to find another rental property for tenants whose leases are ending" when that landlord is collecting property taxes from you for forty years.
Why should that matter? Those property taxes were part of the deal to stay on that land during the time they were collected. That doesn't create an obligation for the future, particularly given how much notice was offered.
Resolute 14 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Resolute 14 For This Useful Post:
Old 08-23-2017, 02:52 PM   #19
llwhiteoutll
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Exp:
Default

But it's not the city's responsibility to find them a new place to rent, if it was, then the residents would have taken the city to court and forced the city to open East Hills.
llwhiteoutll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2017, 02:53 PM   #20
Sliver
evil of fart
 
Sliver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14 View Post
Why should that matter? Those property taxes were part of the deal to stay on that land during the time they were collected. That doesn't create an obligation for the future, particularly given how much notice was offered.
No kidding. Did they have water, sewer, roads, police/fire protection, etc. during the time they lived there? That's what they were paying for and I assume what they received.
Sliver is offline   Reply With Quote
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 09:54 AM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




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