Midfield mobile home park closure
 

Not the best kept secret - that is the closure of the Midfield mobile home park.

A number of news stories over the past few years regarding the aging underground infrastructure in the mobile home park but one has to wonder how much of this announcement has to do with the current value of this land plus how much more in tax monies the CoC could realize in having this land redeveloped. Sort of like McCall Lake golf course (city owned), Highland golf course (privately held), Shawnee Slops gold course (privately held) - all of which are going to or will soon be redeveloped into new communities/light industrial/warehousing that will generate more long term revenues (taxes) for the CoC than the current uses. The current owners also make some money as well.

The issue with Midfield is more troubling I suppose although no one held a gun to anyone who purchased a mobile home in that park and the writing has been on the wall for a number of years with respect to that park. Sucks though that a home owner there may not realize any gains because of potentially no where they can move their home and a mobile home that doesn't sit on a piece of rented or owned land is not worth much as the titled land (whether rented or owned) is what creates value in a mobile home.

Now I suppose the $20,000 is something that needs to be considered but what I find more amusing is the CoC musing that affordable housing would be developed on the Midfield site - somewhat to part of the original premise of Garrison Woods and we all know how affordable that area has remained. Now I'm not saying Midfield in it's redeveloped state will ever become another Garrison Woods, but a nicely designed inner-city locale will most likely quickly drive affordability out of the equation once reselling starts.

Wow! Why is the city spending $20K X 173 when this was all rented land / leased spaces?

A better question is why won't they spend the money to fix the water and sewer lines?

Or is the City planning on letting this land go fallow forever, because it's just "too expensive" to fix whatever's wrong?

What happens to my own SFH house in 40 years, and my water and sewer lines are old? Is there something unique with water and sewer lines for trailer parks that they can't be repaired?

looks to me that the original developer saw the project as a short -term proposal and cheaped out on the infrastructure back in 1968. Now it's a 10 million project to replace that infrastructure. (about $55,000 per home)

Complicate the matter with ongoing hassles to raise the pad rentals up to market rates -- a heated discussion btw midfield residents and city officials for about 15 years now.

They get repaired when required.

The main is a city utility that they will maintain and replace. The line on your property is your responsibility. Lucky for you, it's probably ~20' long, straight, and without any fittings beyond couplings. The problem with large private sites is that something comparable to the city main in your street is the property owners responsibility. So Calgary Housing would have to replace all the sewers on site instead of Calgary Water Works.

The site won't stay fallow for long.

Not that, that 20-40' section of pipe is a cheap thing to replace!

Bigger engineering nightmare: the original developer laid out the pipes... and put the rental pads on top of the pipes...

Many units will have to be moved to dig up pipes

So basically instead of what's being reported so poorly, the real issue is "trailer parks are freaking expensive to maintain in the long run".

I don't get why this is such a big issue, these people have 3 years to move!

Wow, that was some poor planning...:koko:

Yeah, I think the message got missed by most everyone. The press release should have started something like this:

"Instead of spending $xM on replacement of the pipes within the mobile home park the city has decided to spend $yM to provide for moving allowances for the current residents"

Where x is dramatically larger than y.

The longest notice I ever got to move when I was renting was a month...3 years is an eternity.

I'm pretty sure you're legally entitled to 90 days, no?

Which is still significantly less than 3 years

Not if your lease is up, then they technically don't need to give any notice.

In that sense absolutely. But mobile homes are a form of affordable housing - where else, exactly, can someone find a home for $50,000 in Calgary? At least that was the sort of pricing I remember seeing when I briefly looked into it.

I think it's the lack of alternatives that is making this an issue. Kinda like if we shut down a large senior's home with 3 years' notice, but had no replacement facility being built.

Whatever the circumstances of the site there is no excusing the city re-nagging on the new location. If there were even a debate over whether or not another form of city controlled affordable housing should be eliminated without replacement the mayor and council would be fighting their way to the cameras to name and shame the proponents of the policy. It would be called exclusionary and elitist. We would be reminded the city is for everyone.

In any event, pipes can be replaced under pads. It's called lateral pipebursting. It is pretty straight forward and not very expensive.

Three years or three days is sort of a moot point when your effectively being evicted from the city. "We don't want your kind" is sort of the vibe it gives off.

If there is demand for trailer parks, I'm sure someone will step up and provide space for one, even if the city wont. Gotta say though, I have 0 knowledge of how these places come into being...

A private firm has already said that they were holding off due to the city planning one. Now that, that proposal has been killed they are actively working towards a building one on one of their plots as well as looking at possibly purchasing the city's land and building one there.

By that logic shouldn't all the Calgary Housing Company properties be sold for redevelopment or privatized?

After all, if there is demand for affordable housing someone will step up.

I think part of the issue is the rents have been unintentionally subsidized for years and now the city had to make the choice, close or raise the rents. The second choice would be as unpalatable as the first is, but has the disadvantage that the land will generate zero property tax (unless the city is charging itself, and even then the amount would be dramatically less than if it was developed in a different form).

IMO I'm sorry to hear that these folks are losing their plots, but at the end of the day the landlord (the city) shouldn't be held to responsibilities no other landlord would be. I haven't heard of an out cry like this regarding a condo conversion, though it's likely that some cases have affected as many or more people. If the city had signed some sort of agreement to allow usage in perpetuity then there might be a case here, but if it's similar to any other rental/lease agreement it's unlikely that the residents can even have a reasonable expectation that they could stay or be provided alternative locations if their current location was closed for some reason.

As to the city re-nagging on the new location, was anything signed with the residents? This is a bit like expecting the Green line to be built before funding is secured or for that matter anything in the 10 year capital plan funded or unfunded. The city has the discretion to re-prioritize projects or cancel them altogether at anytime, even after construction has started and you as a citizen have no recourse against them. Lets put it this way, no resident of the park should have planned on the new location until it was ready for them.

P.S. Isn't this something that you preach when we discuss the NCLRT being on the books for years?