Barrhaven LRT | Proposed

[GeoNerd]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

One plan called for the eviction & permanent "destruction" of 120 units of "affordable" housing likely within the next decade and that is the path the city just took and the one your defending.

The other path, involved the expropriation (into the cities control) and eventual demolition of the units. A demolition which at this rate could be a decade away. During that time the tenants would have a home under city control that will NOT have any rent increase and would not evict them. Which should have give the city enough to to rehome anyone who wants to be into other OCH units.

It would also allow in the end for the city to have a very large site (almost the same size as 555 March Rd) to redevelop into OCH housing. That is a lot of affordable housing that the city didn't even consider...

That’s completely delusional. One, you have zero ability to predetermine what the rent will be for the renovated units, or when the renovations will occur to the remaining units, or whether they will remain affordable or not. Two, your wild idea is that the city pays to expropriate the residents, then pays to build an OCH building as replacement, then also pays to subsidize everyone’s rent indefinitely isn’t based in reality. Do you have any idea how many people are on the waiting list for OCH units? Over 10,000. I wish we lived in that world, but unfortunately that is wildly unrealistic. Whether these are affordable or not, losing 120 rental units during a housing emergency is problematic. If these were single family homes we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. But they aren’t, so people can whine and moan and pretend like it’s the low income families they’re worrying about, when in reality it’s completely about saving a few bucks by bulldozing all their homes.

[originalmuffins]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

Funny how nobody made a fuss when we spent countless millions extra to bury the line along the parkway so it wouldn’t partially obstruct the view of the river for a handful of Westboro residents. Yet all of a sudden avoiding demolition of some lower income homes during a housing emergency is outrageous. Very telling.

What do you expect, it's very obvious how some align. It's ridiculous. All this complaining and moaning for Stage 3 as if the provincial government and federal government are clamoring to provide us an alternative project. It's very clear if we don't get Stage 3, we aren't getting a better alternative either. Stage 3 brings us connectivity to a majority of the city and major hubs, it's going to benefit Ottawa far more than not. BUT BARRHAVEN AND KANATA BAD! Instead, Stage 3 looks to help improve those areas with better fixes along those new stations.. but no one wants to have that conversation.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I remember, they were applauding, just as costs were escalating at a tremendous pace. Meanwhile, we value engineer on things that are important to the user, such as badly designed transfer stations.

I remember as well.

[rakerman]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

#4 LOL

from Ottawa 2009 Rail System Selection

[rakerman]

The third public consultation is online.

There was a presentation on February 8 from 6pm to 8:30pm.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by originalmuffins

What do you expect, it's very obvious how some align. It's ridiculous.

My only ban on SSP ever was somebody getting hot under the collar when I said short term rentals should be prohibited in Ottawa, because of the impact on housing affordability. That should tell you everything you need to know about this subforum.

[originalmuffins]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

My only ban on SSP ever was somebody getting hot under the collar when I said short term rentals should be prohibited in Ottawa, because of the impact on housing affordability. That should tell you everything you need to know about this subforum.

Ridiculous.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

One plan involves evicting 35 units that will be renovated. The rent will almost certainly go up when completed likely putting them out of reach financially for current residents. The remaining units will eventually all be renovated over time as well, which does suck for current residents.

The other plan called for the eviction and permanent destruction of 120 units. Big difference.

If I understand this correctly, this really has nothing to do with retaining affordable units because the landlord will renovate and jack up the rent on all the units anyways?

So we're going to spend many millions extra to preserve a measly 120 market rate units, all while creating inefficient track geometry that will result in more wear and tear on the flimsy trains, and place Knoxdale station 110 m away from the intersection, making the station less accessible overall and bus-LRT transfers that much less practical?

If we're going to spend the extra money, why not spend those extra millions to subsidize affordable housing elsewhere? I don't get the rationale.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

If we're going to spend the extra money, why not spend those extra millions to subsidize affordable housing elsewhere? I don't get the rationale.

Because that doesn't work for the people getting booted. You're right, we could build them new housing now and move them in anticipation of eventual approval. Could also strike a deal to make sure they have adequate rent protection.

But fundamentally the only thing governments have been more incompetent at than transit, is housing. So nobody trust governments to not make them homeless.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Because that doesn't work for the people getting booted. You're right, we could build them new housing now and move them in anticipation of eventual approval. Could also strike a deal to make sure they have adequate rent protection.

But fundamentally the only thing governments have been more incompetent at than transit, is housing. So nobody trust governments to not make them homeless.

Ya, can't argue with that. The funny thing is, there's a ton of unused prime real estate beside LRT stations owned by the City and feds that would be perfect for development that incorporates mixed income housing, like Tunneys, Westboro, St. Laurent, Trim and Place d'Orleans.

What's stopping them from selling those lands to developers at a below market rate with the condition that X percent of units be affordable? Seems like a relatively easy way to subsidize much needed affordable units.

[Truenorth00]

^ The reason transit advocates lose these debates is because they abstract everything. Those are just units to transit advocates. But they are homes to the people who live there. To somebody living there, an equivalent number of units being built is irrelevant. They, personally, may not have access to them. They could end up with worse housing and/or higher prices.

Want to reduce resistance? Make those specific tenants whole. And that means more than just finding them an apartment. A huge part of the problem is how people are compensated in these situations. Give them $25k (or whatever equivalent to a year's rent of same accommodations at current rates) + moving expenses and you won't see much resistance. But out of some bizarre principle, we'll refuse to pay renters generously to move. And then we wonder why there's so much resistance.

[Hybrid247]

I think what people have an issue with, transit advocates or not, is that the alternative to expropriation is a significantly more expensive option that will still result in those tenants being renovicted, which pretty much neutralizes the whole rationale.

Want to reduce resistance? Make those specific tenants whole. And that means more than just finding them an apartment. A huge part of the problem is how people are compensated in these situations. Give them $25k (or whatever equivalent to a year's rent of same accommodations at current rates) + moving expenses and you won't see much resistance. But out of some bizarre principle, we'll refuse to pay renters generously to move. And then we wonder why there's so much resistance.

I would think this is more likely to happen under the previous plan to expropriate than the current one. To my knowledge, the landlord has no obligation to provide compensation. The City on the other hand would perhaps be more likely to provide compensation given the delicate situation.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

I would think this is more likely to happen under the previous plan to expropriate than the current one. To my knowledge, the landlord has no obligation to provide compensation. The City on the other hand would perhaps be more likely to provide compensation given the delicate situation.

Disagree. Expropriation in this case is treated as a loss to the property owner. They'll be compensated. The renters will not be. That's the problem.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

If I understand this correctly, this really has nothing to do with retaining affordable units because the landlord will renovate and jack up the rent on all the units anyways?

So we're going to spend many millions extra to preserve a measly 120 market rate units, all while creating inefficient track geometry that will result in more wear and tear on the flimsy trains, and place Knoxdale station 110 m away from the intersection, making the station less accessible overall and bus-LRT transfers that much less practical?

If we're going to spend the extra money, why not spend those extra millions to subsidize affordable housing elsewhere? I don't get the rationale.

I've also heard that this new track geometry will also take longer to build....a whole year or two longer....

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

I've also heard that this new track geometry will also take longer to build....a whole year or two longer....

Yes, but the landlord gets to keep the homes and evict the tenants so that they can change more rent. That should make the now homeless tenants happy.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Disagree. Expropriation in this case is treated as a loss to the property owner. They'll be compensated. The renters will not be. That's the problem.

The landlords will be compensated market value for the property, as required by the Expropriation Act. That doesn't mean the City couldn't also voluntarily compensate tenants.

Speculation aside, I think we can say with a high degree of certainty that the tenants will still lose in the latest plan to spare the units, as they will still be evicted without compensation. The only party that really seems to benefit in this new scenario is the landlord.

[PHrenetic]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

..........

Speculation aside, I think we can say with a high degree of certainty that the tenants will still lose in the latest plan to spare the units, as they will still be evicted without compensation. The only party that really seems to benefit in this new scenario is the landlord.

Good Day.

Yup.

It is also that City gets off the public hook for displacing the tenants, and the resultant firestorm of complaints, no matter the plan to alleviate the damage.
For City, this is the best of no-win scenarios. At a cost - to us.

[BlackRedGold]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

If I understand this correctly, this really has nothing to do with retaining affordable units because the landlord will renovate and jack up the rent on all the units anyways?

So we're going to spend many millions extra to preserve a measly 120 market rate units, all while creating inefficient track geometry that will result in more wear and tear on the flimsy trains, and place Knoxdale station 110 m away from the intersection, making the station less accessible overall and bus-LRT transfers that much less practical?

If we're going to spend the extra money, why not spend those extra millions to subsidize affordable housing elsewhere? I don't get the rationale.

Not to mention that the only reason these shithole units haven't been bulldozed and rebuilt is that there have been plans for decades to expropriate them for transit purposes. That's why nothing else has been built on that side of Woodroffe from them all the way north to Baseline Station.

Now that the city is changing its mind about the expropriation, the owners are going to rebuild because that land is too valuable to keep those crumbling units around.

[GeoNerd]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

”So we're going to spend many millions extra to preserve a measly 120 market rate units, all while creating inefficient track geometry”

Oh man, quote of the month! This forum does gets me belly laughing at times!

What is a measly 120 units. Well worth avoiding a slight curve in the track. Lol! Imagine suggesting we bulldoze 120 single family homes. The utter outrage.

[OTownandDown]

I still don't understand why an 8-or-so storey tower can't be built at the Nepean Sportsplex, given to OCH or better yet CCOC for $1, with the caveat that these unfortunate townhouse people move in there for now, and if they move out the organization can continue using the property for their purposes. The site is essentially attached to the new transit station, people have housing certainty, and OCH gains 150-200 new units. ...The lawn bowling club might take a hit, though. Prime real estate.

We're going to need some sort of reason for the sportsplex station to be built, besides the tens of people who will use this station every week.

If we can figure the effort to expropriate a landlord and/or spend 150 million on a curvy track, we can surely wrangle the real-estate office at the City to jump through a few hoops.

I know there are 10,000 people on the wait list for housing. But these people are being directly or indirectly expropriated now, and it continues to increase stock of affordable housing.

[BlackRedGold]

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

I still don't understand why an 8-or-so storey tower can't be built at the Nepean Sportsplex, given to OCH or better yet CCOC for $1, with the caveat that these unfortunate townhouse people move in there for now, and if they move out the organization can continue using the property for their purposes. The site is essentially attached to the new transit station, people have housing certainty, and OCH gains 150-200 new units. ...The lawn bowling club might take a hit, though. Prime real estate.

Better idea is to build it on the site of the former Confederation High School. None of the land around it seems to be used for much.