HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Calgary Issues, Business, Politics & the Economy


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted May 30, 2014, 12:59 AM
freeweed's Avatar
freeweed freeweed is offline
Home of Hyperchange
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Dynamic City, Alberta
Posts: 17,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Full Mountain View Post
Was this ever intended as affordable housing?
No, because the concept really didn't exist back when this park (and pretty much all trailer parks) was built.

Part of the reason we even HAVE the concept of needing to build affordable housing is that we've slowly choked off things like this, with very little complaint from the public. But anyone who doesn't see that trailer parks are affordable housing hasn't done much real estate shopping in their lives. By some measures they're the most affordable housing in existence. Seriously, not that many years ago you could buy one for under $50,000 - find me ANYTHING within 50km of Calgary for that cheap. Unless the rent is $10,000/month on the land, they blow the pants of any condo/townhouse/whatever "official" affordable housing the City is constructing.
__________________
Suburbs are the friends with benefits of the housing world.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted May 30, 2014, 3:24 AM
Full Mountain's Avatar
Full Mountain Full Mountain is offline
YIMBY
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeweed View Post
No, because the concept really didn't exist back when this park (and pretty much all trailer parks) was built.

Part of the reason we even HAVE the concept of needing to build affordable housing is that we've slowly choked off things like this, with very little complaint from the public. But anyone who doesn't see that trailer parks are affordable housing hasn't done much real estate shopping in their lives. By some measures they're the most affordable housing in existence. Seriously, not that many years ago you could buy one for under $50,000 - find me ANYTHING within 50km of Calgary for that cheap. Unless the rent is $10,000/month on the land, they blow the pants of any condo/townhouse/whatever "official" affordable housing the City is constructing.
Cost to the resident yes, but what about cost to the city, maintenance on the park is clearly an issue.
__________________
Incremental Photo - @PhotogX_1

Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are my own not those of any affiliated organizations.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted May 30, 2014, 3:37 AM
Full Mountain's Avatar
Full Mountain Full Mountain is offline
YIMBY
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker View Post
Thrown up by Markusoff of the Herald, a video by Jon Lord.

Big issue all along is that residents and the city can't even agree on facts, and that has been true for a decade or more. Not even on the need to do infrastructure repairs. Also, on a replacement property, I'd bet it was judged non viable because few residents said they wished to move there if given the option.

From the City News Release:

Given the pace of development along 16th Ave, I don't really think there is a case for invoking conspiracy in this situation.
Not sure I really trust a layman's opinion of the state of the infrastructure beneath their feet. Also it seems that if council could have done something to keep the people there they would have given the controversy that this has created over the years.
__________________
Incremental Photo - @PhotogX_1

Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are my own not those of any affiliated organizations.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted May 30, 2014, 4:40 AM
Wooster's Avatar
Wooster Wooster is offline
Round Head
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelS View Post
It is owned/operated by the Calgary Housing Corporation, the City's affordable housing group.
Yes, but only 22 of the residents are actually CHC low income subsidized "clients".

All residents however will receive compensation and resources have been put in place for one-on-one consultation to assist with relocation needs.

I don't think people realize how bad the infrastructure situation is there, and how difficult it is to fix while a mobile home is operating.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted May 30, 2014, 5:03 AM
YYCguys YYCguys is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,520
The City claims to not want to put the cart before the horse, ie: not want to consider future land use of the property before it assists the residents in finding them new homes. But didn't we hear in recent months/years that there was a developer interested in the land? Makes sense then that the City is in a position to serve notice on these folks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted May 30, 2014, 5:33 AM
YYCguys YYCguys is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,520
Also, did a drive by the former RCMP site next to Midfield. Why not have an affordable housing project built there? Or is that not financially viable either?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted May 30, 2014, 5:37 AM
Policy Wonk's Avatar
Policy Wonk Policy Wonk is offline
Inflatable Hippo
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Suburban Las Vegas
Posts: 4,015
Wow, launching right into a trailer trash joke. It's nice to know exactly where you're coming from.

There is a difference in how a private sector landlord and a public sector housing agency might reasonably be expected to operate. if you are going to feign ignorance to the not so nuanced differences between the private and public sector, I have better things to do than pretend to rehash Grade 6 Social Studies to you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby View Post
Jeez, Bubbles. Where were you, Ricky and Julian over the past decade when over 7000 rental apartments were turned into condominiums, all with City approval? Especially since most of them involved less than 3 years notice and $20,000 compensation. But now 173 trailers have to move, that's the real catastrophe. It's unfortunate for the residents, no doubt. But they're better off than thousands of other low-income households forced out of their homes over the years.
__________________
Public Administration 101: Keep your mouth shut until obligated otherwise and don't get in public debates with housewives.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted May 30, 2014, 2:54 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by YYCguys View Post
The City claims to not want to put the cart before the horse, ie: not want to consider future land use of the property before it assists the residents in finding them new homes. But didn't we hear in recent months/years that there was a developer interested in the land? Makes sense then that the City is in a position to serve notice on these folks.
The only people I have seen say that is park residents, who have used the line for a decade. That is a pretty patient interested party when there are lots of sites in the 'Mr. Sub' class along 16th.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted May 30, 2014, 2:59 PM
MichaelS's Avatar
MichaelS MichaelS is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wooster View Post
Yes, but only 22 of the residents are actually CHC low income subsidized "clients".

All residents however will receive compensation and resources have been put in place for one-on-one consultation to assist with relocation needs.

I don't think people realize how bad the infrastructure situation is there, and how difficult it is to fix while a mobile home is operating.
Thanks for the clarification.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Calgary Issues, Business, Politics & the Economy
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:22 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.