Midfield Mobile Home Park

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Did the city ever say how much the new park would have cost to build?

According to Chabot this morning the cost would be offset by the sale of the 16th ave land and increased property taxes. The city has already spent $20 million on the land.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Why are you asking non lawyers lawyer questions? You're just setting people up so you can knock them down. The answer is more than likely because when you walk into a lawyer's office and tell them you want to sue the city the first question they are going to ask is do you have about a 100k and five years to kill? And ultimately it doesn't matter to the point I'm trying to make. You've seen the letter. How about you answer my question. Is that a fair way to treat people in the city?

Not to mention that it's hard to use "It's not fair" as a legal argument.

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

According to Chabot this morning the cost would be offset by the sale of the 16th ave land and increased property taxes. The city has already spent $20 million on the land.

Do we know for sure if they actually bought the land? They said they did... but we know what else they said they would do too.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Not to mention that it's hard to use "It's not fair" as a legal argument.

No one is trying to use "not fair" as a valid legal argument.

The general consensus in here seems to be either:
a) The residents don't have any legal argument here so tough luck for them, or
b) The residents don't have any legal argument here but it was poor form (i.e. not fair) for the city to promise them an alternative and then withdraw it.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Why are you asking non lawyers lawyer questions? You're just setting people up so you can knock them down. The answer is more than likely because when you walk into a lawyer's office and tell them you want to sue the city the first question they are going to ask is do you have about a 100k and five years to kill? And ultimately it doesn't matter to the point I'm trying to make. You've seen the letter. How about you answer my question. Is that a fair way to treat people in the city?

It isn't a lawyer question really (or didn't intent it); it isn't a matter of 5 years and $100k, while a prolonged civil action could take that long, I am talking more about fast injunctive type actions that would stop the city or force their hand in the eviction process. I'm no lawyer, but somewhere along the lines you would expect an action would be proceeding in some manner if there was a case to be made given this has been an ongoing issue with local attention and a number of interested parties.

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

Do we know for sure if they actually bought the land? They said they did... but we know what else they said they would do too.

They did buy they land. Right now there is a Wal-Mart, Sportschek, Costco, Smitty's, bed bath and beyond, ect on it. They are building a Cineplex too.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

No one is trying to use "not fair" as a valid legal argument.

The general consensus in here seems to be either:
a) The residents don't have any legal argument here so tough luck for them, or
b) The residents don't have any legal argument here but it was poor form (i.e. not fair) for the city to promise them an alternative and then withdraw it.

If the argument is really down to "tough luck" or "poor form", there isn't much to talk about. I thought the issue was whether the city should (further) compensate. I don't think poor form comes close to that.

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

They did buy they land. Right now there is a Wal-Mart, Sportschek, Costco, Smitty's, bed bath and beyond, ect on it. They are building a Cineplex too.

That's not the land listed in the letter (800 84st NE), that development is south of that parcel of land and was likely owned by a developer not the city.

According to the city land use map, property 800 84st NE is the parcel of land immediately SE of of 8ave and 84st.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

If the argument is really down to "tough luck" or "poor form", there isn't much to talk about. I thought the issue was whether the city should (further) compensate. I don't think poor form comes close to that.

To me it does come down to what's fair. What I think " CP's intellectual A team" is missing is the difference between the city of Calgary and any other landlord. The city does in fact have a duty to treat people fairly. If you look at the contracts counsilors are required to sign it says exactly that.

The city can at its whim, decide to increase taxes, charge people for any number of things, deny services for any reason and otherwise accomplish havoc in people's lives. The results will be a net benefit to the city. They generally don't. But this time they are and for no other reason than it will put 3-5 million dollars in the pot.

By proxy that means they don't have to increase taxes to cover that 3-5 million. Do that enough times while only offending a few people along the way and pretty soon you can lower taxes and the majority of the people will love you and vote for you and you will have a very secure, relatively well paying job for life.

So it's pretty obvious to me that when two hundred people with zero political influence get screwed it should matter to everyone else if not simply for the precedent it sets.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

To me it does come down to what's fair. What I think " CP's intellectual A team" is missing is the difference between the city of Calgary and any other landlord. The city does in fact have a duty to treat people fairly.
...
So it's pretty obvious to me that when two hundred people with zero political influence get screwed it should matter to everyone else if not simply for the precedent it sets.

What precedent?

What about the inverse? If the City of Calgary provided these two hundred people with even more compensation than they were legally not entitled to in order to help find them a living space, why does Joe Blow renter down the street not deserve $50,000 to help him buy his first home? Just because the City of Calgary was not his landlord? How is that fair?

If the City of Calgary fixes the infrastructure under the 'private' Mobile Home Park at the expense of several million dollars, why did it not have property tax money fix the plumbing for literally the thousands of land owners required to do it this year?


You want the City to treat these people differently to everyone else because the City happened to be their landlords. You can't talk about fairness in the same sentence.

[northcrunk]

The city paid over and above market value when they kicked everyone out of Vic Park.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

To me it does come down to what's fair. What I think " CP's intellectual A team" is missing is the difference between the city of Calgary and any other landlord. The city does in fact have a duty to treat people fairly. If you look at the contracts counsilors are required to sign it says exactly that.

The city can at its whim, decide to increase taxes, charge people for any number of things, deny services for any reason and otherwise accomplish havoc in people's lives. The results will be a net benefit to the city. They generally don't. But this time they are and for no other reason than it will put 3-5 million dollars in the pot.

By proxy that means they don't have to increase taxes to cover that 3-5 million. Do that enough times while only offending a few people along the way and pretty soon you can lower taxes and the majority of the people will love you and vote for you and you will have a very secure, relatively well paying job for life.

So it's pretty obvious to me that when two hundred people with zero political influence get screwed it should matter to everyone else if not simply for the precedent it sets.

Let's follow your reasoning and say the City backtracks and gives these holdouts more than they are entitled do under law. What happens when the residents who've settled come back looking for more or when the next sad story comes to council? Does the City put the interests of a few above the interests of the rest of it's citizens?

Where do you draw the line?

Right here? Settle with these people then go back to making prudent financial decisions?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

The city paid over and above market value when they kicked everyone out of Vic Park.

They did in this case as well.

The residents market value for the land they owned was a total of $0. The City was willing to give upwards of $2,000,000 for it....

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

What precedent?

What about the inverse? If the City of Calgary provided these two hundred people with even more compensation than they were legally not entitled to in order to help find them a living space, why does Joe Blow renter down the street not deserve $50,000 to help him buy his first home? Just because the City of Calgary was not his landlord? How is that fair?

If the City of Calgary fixes the infrastructure under the 'private' Mobile Home Park at the expense of several million dollars, why did it not have property tax money fix the plumbing for literally the thousands of land owners required to do it this year?


You want the City to treat these people differently to everyone else because the City happened to be their landlords. You can't talk about fairness in the same sentence.

Because government is different than private. Not sure what's so hard about that to get. I'll spare you the myriad of obvious examples because it's really enough to say public and private is different.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

The city paid over and above market value when they kicked everyone out of Vic Park.

1. Please provide evidence to support that claim.
2. Those people owned the land their homes were situated on.

I'm not aware of the City paying to resettle renters who were affected by the land purchase.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Because government is different than private. Not sure what's so hard about that to get. I'll spare you the myriad of obvious examples because it's really enough to say public and private is different.

You make a convincing argument.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

To me it does come down to what's fair. What I think " CP's intellectual A team" is missing is the difference between the city of Calgary and any other landlord. The city does in fact have a duty to treat people fairly. If you look at the contracts counsilors are required to sign it says exactly that.

The city can at its whim, decide to increase taxes, charge people for any number of things, deny services for any reason and otherwise accomplish havoc in people's lives. The results will be a net benefit to the city. They generally don't. But this time they are and for no other reason than it will put 3-5 million dollars in the pot.

By proxy that means they don't have to increase taxes to cover that 3-5 million. Do that enough times while only offending a few people along the way and pretty soon you can lower taxes and the majority of the people will love you and vote for you and you will have a very secure, relatively well paying job for life.

So it's pretty obvious to me that when two hundred people with zero political influence get screwed it should matter to everyone else if not simply for the precedent it sets.

Fair to say I don't see it that way at all. The city needs to act as well as all other landlords, and I think they have provided much more than that. If you think the city should not be in the landlord game, I might agree with that, but probably for the opposite reasons you are giving.

[longsuffering]

It seems that there are 3 camps of posters supporting the residents of Midfield Park.

1. The well known Nenshi haters who are happy to jump on anything they can associate negatively with him - despite the fact he has but one vote in Council.

2. Friends and family of those impacted by the Park closure.

3. Those that view this issue through the lens of 'fairness'. They suggest that 'morally' the City needs to do more for these people. Unfortunately, for the most part, these folks can't be bothered to address the very valid points raised by posters against sweetening the pot.

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

What precedent?

What about the inverse? If the City of Calgary provided these two hundred people with even more compensation than they were legally not entitled to in order to help find them a living space, why does Joe Blow renter down the street not deserve $50,000 to help him buy his first home? Just because the City of Calgary was not his landlord? How is that fair?

If the City of Calgary fixes the infrastructure under the 'private' Mobile Home Park at the expense of several million dollars, why did it not have property tax money fix the plumbing for literally the thousands of land owners required to do it this year?

You want the City to treat these people differently to everyone else because the City happened to be their landlords. You can't talk about fairness in the same sentence.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

According to Chabot this morning the cost would be offset by the sale of the 16th ave land and increased property taxes. The city has already spent $20 million on the land.

If the purchase and set up costs could be fully offset by selling the current land and increasing rent at the new park, then that would be fine. But the city would be in the same spot, facing demands for money to pay for things they don't need to cover (moving fees and covering costs of dilapidated trailers that can't be moved).

The city should just make a clean break from the trailer park game after this, if there is demand and it is worth it, the private sector will be setting up parks.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

1. Please provide evidence to support that claim.
2. Those people owned the land their homes were situated on.

I'm not aware of the City paying to resettle renters who were affected by the land purchase.

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.