Quote:
Originally Posted by Policy Wonk
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.
|
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?