Whether or not a municipal government has the right to do something or not and whether or not they should is two completely different discussions. To pull back affordable housing under their control, in any form, as Calgary persists in a permanent housing crisis is just an act of cruelty.
The city isn't a REIT, they should absolutely be held to a different standard as a landlord.
If this was a mostly vacant wasteland with only a handful of old geezers stubbornly hanging on, or it were dilapidated and overrun with crime, I could see an argument for shutting it down. But this is a living community of people that is fulfilling a need for desperately needed housing. Many of these people just won't have anywhere to go.
Although news video of the police forcibly evicting the extremely elderly from their homes two weeks before an election that will probably be fought over housing affordability should be interesting. And I am pretty sure come 2017 some decisions will have been made regarding the redevelopment the site that will make the optics even worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Full Mountain
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?
|
Prev
Linear Mode
