Midfield Mobile Home Park

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Isn't that an issue that is shared by every mobile home owner who does not own the land their home rests on?

Will the City need to rescue them as well should their land owners decide not to renew leases?

The City has to be very aware of any precedent set dealing with the Midland folks.

I think it's a different conversation if the city hadn't given them false hope regarding a replacement mobile park.

[Ducay]

False hope =/= legal obligation

As many have mentioned, if there was an obligation (contractual or constructive) you would have filed some kind of lawsuit by now.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Fair enough, but you're still asking low income residents to find a way to ante up $55,000.00 per pad to do that. or add about $5000.00 per year to their bottom line living expenses.

Of course its going to be rejected, and I don't doubt that the city knew it would be rejected before they presented it.

I live in a neighbourhood adjacent to this park. Not including any discussion at all about property taxes, the letter to the residents about another trailer park, ect.

You do realize that $55,000 per lot on that property is an absolute steal, right? My home, the lot alone is worth $3-400,000.00 today. If their lots are one third the size (which it appears from google maps), then these people were offered their lots at least half off. In all likelihood, these lots are worth on the order of 200,000 each right now - especially if they were bought all together. If these people had merely bought the land for the same price, then sold it themselves to a developer, they would have made off handsomely. Even just owning their own land, they would have had a massive windfall in terms of equity. Most people don't buy land cash, so it would have been a loan they would have needed in order to keep their homes.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Knalus

I live in a neighbourhood adjacent to this park. Not including any discussion at all about property taxes, the letter to the residents about another trailer park, ect.

You do realize that $55,000 per lot on that property is an absolute steal, right? My home, the lot alone is worth $3-400,000.00 today. If their lots are one third the size (which it appears from google maps), then these people were offered their lots at least half off. In all likelihood, these lots are worth on the order of 200,000 each right now - especially if they were bought all together. If these people had merely bought the land for the same price, then sold it themselves to a developer, they would have made off handsomely. Even just owning their own land, they would have had a massive windfall in terms of equity. Most people don't buy land cash, so it would have been a loan they would have needed in order to keep their homes.

I'm not sure that's a real comparison though. Whatever they might pay for their lot, it would have to include shares of the common lands in and around the park. That's going to require a condo corp with shares that they'd be required to purchase and maintain. Whereas your house is its own entity, these lots are not and that brings up significant differences.

The difference between a lot where you live and a much smaller lot in that park is huge. You can never build a house on the exact lot someone would theoretically buy for 55k. You'd need about three of them to amount to anything of any value for any developer. You can see this occasionally in Calgary neighborhood where a house is 25-50% less than the other houses in the area and then you look at the lot. It's chopped up and totally impossible to do anything with.

Financing for a serviced lot is much different than financing a developed lot with a house. The infrastructure in the park is in no way adequate for a development to take place so you'd essentially be financing bare land. The down payment might be 35% though more likely 50% and the rates might be prime plus 3%. Your house is essentially 100% liquid.

And similar to the really out to lunch argument that someone would have begun a law suit if there were anything illegal going on here, asking people who can afford to own and live in a mobile home to come up with tens of thousands to buy something that would require a significant and sophisticated further investment is kind of dumb. Try rounding up ten of your favorite neighbors and start talking about development. Or sit in on a condo board meeting.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

The difference between a lot where you live and a much smaller lot in that park is huge. You can never build a house on the exact lot someone would theoretically buy for 55k. You'd need about three of them to amount to anything of any value for any developer. You can see this occasionally in Calgary neighborhood where a house is 25-50% less than the other houses in the area and then you look at the lot. It's chopped up and totally impossible to do anything with.

Impossible to do anything with- other than place a manufactured home on it. Given a price of $100-150K for a brand new manufactured home; being able to have something that is inner city for $150-200K is an exceptionally good value. So much so that I would think if they had gone that route, when it came to resale they would have been able to command a much higher price. Or lived comfortably on a piece of land that they now own.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I'm not sure that's a real comparison though. Whatever they might pay for their lot, it would have to include shares of the common lands in and around the park. That's going to require a condo corp with shares that they'd be required to purchase and maintain. Whereas your house is its own entity, these lots are not and that brings up significant differences.

The difference between a lot where you live and a much smaller lot in that park is huge. You can never build a house on the exact lot someone would theoretically buy for 55k. You'd need about three of them to amount to anything of any value for any developer. You can see this occasionally in Calgary neighborhood where a house is 25-50% less than the other houses in the area and then you look at the lot. It's chopped up and totally impossible to do anything with.

Financing for a serviced lot is much different than financing a developed lot with a house. The infrastructure in the park is in no way adequate for a development to take place so you'd essentially be financing bare land. The down payment might be 35% though more likely 50% and the rates might be prime plus 3%. Your house is essentially 100% liquid.

And similar to the really out to lunch argument that someone would have begun a law suit if there were anything illegal going on here, asking people who can afford to own and live in a mobile home to come up with tens of thousands to buy something that would require a significant and sophisticated further investment is kind of dumb. Try rounding up ten of your favorite neighbors and start talking about development. Or sit in on a condo board meeting.

You never address the difficult questions but I'll ask them anyway.

Addressing your last paragraph, was any effort made to hire a lawyer on a contingency basis? Contingency cases are quite commonplace these days.

Furthermore, of the banks who allegedly lent money against the City's so-called guarantee that a new park will be built, why have none of them taken action against the City? Banks aren't known to shy away from protecting their legal interests.



.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I'm not sure that's a real comparison though. Whatever they might pay for their lot, it would have to include shares of the common lands in and around the park. That's going to require a condo corp with shares that they'd be required to purchase and maintain. Whereas your house is its own entity, these lots are not and that brings up significant differences.

The difference between a lot where you live and a much smaller lot in that park is huge. You can never build a house on the exact lot someone would theoretically buy for 55k. You'd need about three of them to amount to anything of any value for any developer. You can see this occasionally in Calgary neighborhood where a house is 25-50% less than the other houses in the area and then you look at the lot. It's chopped up and totally impossible to do anything with.

Financing for a serviced lot is much different than financing a developed lot with a house. The infrastructure in the park is in no way adequate for a development to take place so you'd essentially be financing bare land. The down payment might be 35% though more likely 50% and the rates might be prime plus 3%. Your house is essentially 100% liquid.

And similar to the really out to lunch argument that someone would have begun a law suit if there were anything illegal going on here, asking people who can afford to own and live in a mobile home to come up with tens of thousands to buy something that would require a significant and sophisticated further investment is kind of dumb. Try rounding up ten of your favorite neighbors and start talking about development. Or sit in on a condo board meeting.

Some of what you are talking about is fair - except that one. The lots in the park are pretty close to the minimum lot size in the rest of the city - 25 feet wide, check it out. Lot depth is also fairly similar to the rest of the city, especially in the inner city, which is comparable in location to the Midfield park. At most, you would need two lots to build one house. That's 110k, plus 70k for infrastructure, to buy a lot worth 300k, minimum. Sounds like a great deal to me. Even if you needed 4 lots to buy one house, now all of a sudden you are dealing with a MUCH larger lot, and therefore a much larger house, and a much larger value. With the view on the North and East end, there isn't a scenario I could imagine where if these people were able to buy the land themselves, it wouldn't still become at minimum high end housing in 5-20 years. It's just too lucrative. Heck, that corner lot that is currently being used to store small trailers is alone worth a cool million, if it wasn't in a trailer park.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Impossible to do anything with- other than place a manufactured home on it. Given a price of $100-150K for a brand new manufactured home; being able to have something that is inner city for $150-200K is an exceptionally good value. So much so that I would think if they had gone that route, when it came to resale they would have been able to command a much higher price. Or lived comfortably on a piece of land that they now own.

Sure but you're talking about a very sophisticated investment for people, some of whom, are in subsidized housing. And other who are in no way financially able to do these things. That 55k is going to be pretty tough for a lot of people especially at elevated financing requirements.

Doing anything as ownership group would have made it a syndicated investment corp which brings in massive legal requirements. Not to sound snotty but I'm pretty sure no one in that park is an accredited investor capable of that sort of project.

I've been thinking about the infrastructure. It's not impossible to fix. You leave the old stuff buried under the trailers, install new stuff under the roads and add new trenchless lines to the houses. Or trench lines to the house. They're not attached to the ground. There's 2 feet of space under them. Infrastructure is not the issue.

The real issue as Carra, Nenshi, Ceci, Chabot et all were talking about ten years ago is that the highest and best use is much much greater than 6 units per acre. The city will benefit hugely from greater tax revenue so the residents should at the very least, not have to pay out of pocket for our benefit. All those guys are quoted saying that exact thing. All these councilors agreed we should move these people ten years ago. What's changed?

Originally Posted by longsuffering

You never address the difficult questions but I'll ask them anyway.

Addressing your last paragraph, was any effort made to hire a lawyer on a contingency basis? Contingency cases are quite commonplace these days.

Furthermore, of the banks who allegedly lent money against the City's so-called guarantee that a new park will be built, why have none of them taken action against the City? Banks aren't known to shy away from protecting their legal interests

Contingency? You're talking about a few grand in most cases or a few million in a class action against the city. I would doubt there is a lawyer you could pay up front who'd want to sue the city on either scale much less do it for free. There's no money there after years and years of that sort of litigation. And I think it's a total myth that lawyers will take on cases pro bono at the drop of a hat. There was no upside here until the media started really getting into it this month.

But my general answer to your question regarding legality is...there are a million different ways to legally rob you blind. Because this might be completely legal, doesn't mean it's less devastating than fraud. It doesn't mean it's smart, beneficial to anyone or a good thing to have happened. It's none of those. I don't care if it's legally fraud or just actually fraud.

Originally Posted by Knalus

Some of what you are talking about is fair - except that one. The lots in the park are pretty close to the minimum lot size in the rest of the city - 25 feet wide, check it out. Lot depth is also fairly similar to the rest of the city, especially in the inner city, which is comparable in location to the Midfield park.

Good point but it sort of doesn't really matter because houses wouldn't be going on the lots as defined by the existing trailers. If sold as a parcel the whole thing would be reworked to maximize views, add commercial possibly or parks. So it's not a viable investment as a buy, hold, build a house sort of thing. It's a whole sale land play which complicates it all very much.

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by BigNumbers

If that letter said in it's entirety what was posted without context, there would be a legal case proceeding against the city. The fact that there isn't means the letter has nothing of substance to it in it's entirety.

These people got more notice than any other tenant would get. Why should they get special treatment just because their landlord happens to be the City of Calgary?

Here is the letter:

http://imgur.com/VIAi738

http://imgur.com/UHmfhB1

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

Here is the letter:

http://imgur.com/VIAi738

http://imgur.com/UHmfhB1

Wow. To this point I hadn't read any portion of the letter but had heard a lot of hearsay. What reason did the city give for why they changed their plans?

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Wow. To this point I hadn't read any portion of the letter but had heard a lot of hearsay. What reason did the city give for why they changed their plans?

They didn't give one. They just got a letter on the door one day saying the park is closed.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

They didn't give one. They just got a letter on the door one day saying the park is closed.

You conveniently forgot to mention that the residents of Midfield all but rejected the proposed site of the new park. Seems even then they seemed entitled to a "better" location and a better deal.





Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

You conveniently forgot to mention that the residents of Midfield all but rejected the proposed site of the new park. Seems even then they seemed entitled to a "better" location and a better deal.

The location is irrelevant. The fact remains that people made investments based on a written commitment from the City to supply new serviced lands for a trailer park and they are out of pocket because of it.

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

You conveniently forgot to mention that the residents of Midfield all but rejected the proposed site of the new park. Seems even then they seemed entitled to a "better" location and a better deal.





Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Where is this info outside of your statement and Nenshi's? They residents didn't vote on anything regarding the park closing.

[Red Potato Standing By]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

You never address the difficult questions but I'll ask them anyway.

Addressing your last paragraph, was any effort made to hire a lawyer on a contingency basis? Contingency cases are quite commonplace these days.

Furthermore, of the banks who allegedly lent money against the City's so-called guarantee that a new park will be built, why have none of them taken action against the City? Banks aren't known to shy away from protecting their legal interests.



.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

I could be wrong but I don't think the bank would start anything now until a loan was actually defaulted on. And I think the onus would still be on the resident regardless. So if it is defaulted the banks wouldn't go after the city but after whoever took the loan out.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

Where is this info outside of your statement and Nenshi's? They residents didn't vote on anything regarding the park closing.

Based upon the two letters shown above, it seems clear that the city had made a promise to setup another trailer park prior to closing this one. Given that information, it seems reasonable that a lawsuit would be successful; as the city went back on their word. Residents could even take this to small claims court, as I believe the maximum is $50K.

So why wasn't this done? In a park with 100 trailers there isn't one resident who wants/has the means to do anything? Or did a lawyer upon running some preliminary work find that there was further documentation in the city's possession? It doesn't have to be a vote- if they asked people to express their intent to move to the new park by a certain date, and nobody did, then that might take the city off the hook.

I find the lack of legal action disturbing. As Troutman et al often say on this forum, there are resources to ask for legal help, and lawers as well as U of C students willing to help. Years ago when I had a small claims case I called up a random law firm (one of the partners had the same last name as me.) I received some excellent advice; well more than 30 minutes worth.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

The city may be legally correct, but morally, they come across like any slum lord, willing to sacrifice the weakest of society to build more profitable, higher density condos..

I don't know many slum lords that are building profitable higher density condos. Don't slum lords usually rent out crappy sub-par unsafe units? IE. Slums?

You might think they're being morally bankrupt but really, the city is being the opposite of a slum lord in this situation.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Good point but it sort of doesn't really matter because houses wouldn't be going on the lots as defined by the existing trailers. If sold as a parcel the whole thing would be reworked to maximize views, add commercial possibly or parks. So it's not a viable investment as a buy, hold, build a house sort of thing. It's a whole sale land play which complicates it all very much.

They would be if the residents had bought the land together - because they would have owned their lots, theoretically. A scenario where they wouldn't own their lot, but instead a portion of the trailer park, well that wouldn't make any financial sense to anyone.

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I've been thinking about the infrastructure. It's not impossible to fix. You leave the old stuff buried under the trailers, install new stuff under the roads and add new trenchless lines to the houses. Or trench lines to the house. They're not attached to the ground. There's 2 feet of space under them. Infrastructure is not the issue.

Yup. That's the scenario where the infrastructure ONLY costs the amount previously listed. How much do you think these things normally cost?

Just for hookup to an existing main, the City of Edmonton gives a pretty basic cost outlay here:
https://www.edmonton.ca/programs_ser...ion%20Fees.pdf

Additional costs to actually install the mains for storm, water, sewer, as well as the hookups to the City system, and that $70,000 sounds like a relatively decent, to conservative estimate. The chances of going ahead, and then actually paying as little as $70k after the fact, is probably the same as any city project. ~60% of the time, the costs are higher than expected.

And this is WITH every trailer sitting on top of old, rotting sewer lines leaking into the soil and possibly backing up in the event of a storm. Now these lots that could potentially erect a nice house onto, have a massive liability for each owner. That would be a really tough financial pill to swallow.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

You conveniently forgot to mention that the residents of Midfield all but rejected the proposed site of the new park. Seems even then they seemed entitled to a "better" location and a better deal.

Who wouldn't grip about moving to a cow pasture on the city's edge after living in basically the inner city?

I think you conveniently forget that lives are being distressed and some even destroyed over greed.

And Nenshi is a snake

[longsuffering]

I think I've changed my mind. The City should totally bail out these people.

While we're at it, let's also bail out the hundreds, if not thousands of condo owners who have been forced to pay special assessments in the thousands and tens of thousands of dollars for repair of faulty construction (usually due to water leaks) in newer buildings that had been inspected and approved by the City as meeting all Building Codes. We pay taxes too!

Where does it end?