The city has given essentially a decade’s worth of notice. They have had their rent frozen and paying below market rates for years. The city exceeded their obligations as landlord by providing tens of thousands in compensation and now the courts have said they have no legal basis to stay.
Should we just set a precedent that a tenant in Alberta doesn’t need to follow the law and the leases that they willingly sign? We get that you have a connection to this, but there is a point where enough is enough and that point is long passed.
The city has given essentially a decade’s worth of notice. They have had their rent frozen and paying below market rates for years. The city exceeded their obligations as landlord by providing tens of thousands in compensation and now the courts have said they have no legal basis to stay.
Should we just set a precedent that a tenant in Alberta doesn’t need to follow the law and the leases that they willingly sign? We get that you have a connection to this, but there is a point where enough is enough and that point is long passed.
The best thing would have been to honor the promise to move. Secondly there is tons of empty space at Mountain View park and they could have developed space there.
They have nowhere to put their homes in Calgary. Anywhere would be great. Failing that the city should pay for the trailers and demolish them. City hall is fine with spending millions to study the Olympics and terrible art but can't do a little something to make it right with the Midfield residents.
Calgary has really changed for the worst since 2000.
Failing that the city should pay for the trailers and demolish them.
I think that this is the thing most folks have a problem with. The City making it 'right' for these folks would set some interesting precedents for landlord/tenancy issues in the future. After all, if I can put something I own on a landlord's property, and now it's that landlords responsibility to pay for it if they decide to cancel my lease...that opens a huge can on worms on responsibility.
The tenants are out of luck here, as their property is on someone else's property. The person who's property their stuff is not is not obligated to help them get their stuff off it and go. It's their responsibility.
This has dragged on for 8 years too long already. Thank god it's finally over and done with.
The Following User Says Thank You to WhiteTiger For This Useful Post:
The best thing would have been to honor the promise to move. Secondly there is tons of empty space at Mountain View park and they could have developed space there.
They could have, but should they have. It would have cost millions to develop that area, and you want to do so just to move a handful of people. Why should the city fork out this money to do that? If a private company is willing to cover the expenses, I'm sure the city would have donated some land, or again leased it. I'm willing to bet though that adding the infrastructure wasn't viable, and both the developer and city didn't want to pay for it.
The situation sucks for everyone, but lets be honest here... Due diligence is everything, and I'm still shocked the banks moved forward on a somewhat vague letter. That's some high level risk that even others should have seen coming (the risk that is). Promises from politicians? Boy, that's one thing I learned as a kid to never rely on.
I think that this is the thing most folks have a problem with. The City making it 'right' for these folks would set some interesting precedents for landlord/tenancy issues in the future. After all, if I can put something I own on a landlord's property, and now it's that landlords responsibility to pay for it if they decide to cancel my lease...that opens a huge can on worms on responsibility.
The tenants are out of luck here, as their property is on someone else's property. The person who's property their stuff is not is not obligated to help them get their stuff off it and go. It's their responsibility.
This has dragged on for 8 years too long already. Thank god it's finally over and done with.
The city already forced a private developer to move an existing park to put in a Safeway but won't hold themselves to the same standard. These people just want a spot to move to and not have to move from the city they were born and raised in. I don't think that's too much. The bullies in City hall seem to think so though.
The city already forced a private developer to move an existing park to put in a Safeway but won't hold themselves to the same standard. These people just want a spot to move to and not have to move from the city they were born and raised in. I don't think that's too much. The bullies in City hall seem to think so though.
Calgary is not a communist regime, being born here doesn't give one the right to be a burden on taxpayers. Taking a mortgage on a property/asset for which you don't own the land it sits on, is a risky proposition at best, that poor decision is on them (and the banks who will likely have to eat the default). The city shouldn't be obligated to bail them out.
Should there be a native uprising, and the good people of Redwood Meadows are blockaded from their homes, do you thing they would be approaching the MD or developer with their hands out to cover their mortgage? Do you think they would be justified in doing so? They know the risks of the land arrangement, and receive a property at well below market rates for being willing to accept this risk.
Last edited by Flacker; 12-19-2017 at 02:33 PM.
Reason: Added Redwood Meadows scenario.
Location: Close enough to make a beer run during a TV timeout
Exp:
I also question what all we haven't seen for evidence; aside from "the letter." There was obviously more, as a court found in favour of the city. For example, I know that the residents were not keen on moving to the place east of Forest Lawn. Was there notification for residents who wanted to move there to officially indicate their interest? Did the residents; not wanting to move there, fail to express interest?
One of the reason why living in a mobile home is affordable is that most people prefer not to. And I know one of the reasons I would prefer not to is the lack of certainty. The problem here is that people lived there with that lack of certainty for decades, to the point where that lack of certainty not only eroded- it turned into confidence.
I'm not saying it's not unfortunate for the residents, it certainly is. I just don't see a better solution; and apparently neither did the courts.
The city already forced a private developer to move an existing park to put in a Safeway but won't hold themselves to the same standard. These people just want a spot to move to and not have to move from the city they were born and raised in. I don't think that's too much. The bullies in City hall seem to think so though.
Why should they receive an exemption to the tenancy laws? Especially since the city has already greatly exceeded their duties.
Prior conditions attached to an unrelated DP are not binding precedent and “keeping someone in Calgary” is certainly not reason they should be granted additional rights.
I also question what all we haven't seen for evidence; aside from "the letter." There was obviously more, as a court found in favour of the city. For example, I know that the residents were not keen on moving to the place east of Forest Lawn. Was there notification for residents who wanted to move there to officially indicate their interest? Did the residents; not wanting to move there, fail to express interest?
One of the reason why living in a mobile home is affordable is that most people prefer not to. And I know one of the reasons I would prefer not to is the lack of certainty. The problem here is that people lived there with that lack of certainty for decades, to the point where that lack of certainty not only eroded- it turned into confidence.
I'm not saying it's not unfortunate for the residents, it certainly is. I just don't see a better solution; and apparently neither did the courts.
They were given a form asking what they like about living in the trailer community. They results were they like the community feel and the city spun that into "they don't want to move to East Hills". It was a cynical political move and worked.
Location: Close enough to make a beer run during a TV timeout
Exp:
The city cannot spin something and have it hold up in a court of law. The residents have a letter making specific promises. The city would have had to present something that counters the letter.
True. Aside from the few that have offered support nobody in this city gives a crap as well as 85-90% of this board.
I think it's more that 85-90% (or maybe even 95% of people) don't see why these folks, who lived in a risky situation in a low-certainly style of housing, rate special treatment and care.
They bought a thing
They put that thing on land that doesn't belong to them
The owner of that land has told them to move that thing (and given them a DECADE to do it in...)
They say "I can't"
You think that this is the landowners problem
85-95% people of think that it's the 'thing owners' problem...
These are low income folks. Not high wealth investors who made a bad bet. They had promises from the city (who you should believe). Whether they broke the law or not how the city has treated them is shameful. I hope they sleep well at night because their Karma is coming.
