Midfield mobile home park closure

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

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.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by freeweed

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.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

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.

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

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.

[YYCguys]

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.

[YYCguys]

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?

[Policy Wonk]

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.

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

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.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by YYCguys

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.

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by Wooster

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.