Note: At the east end of Blairmore along the river there are a number of lots (15) owned by the Municipality, these are occupied by single wide trailers. Which in some cases have been there prior to the Municipality being formed (1979).
Tuesday night at the G+P meeting a motion was made by Councilor Londsbury to give notice to the residents that they have 6 years to remove their homes. In the event that they sell prior to that time they will be required to remove them immediately, if there is a problem with the water line under the trailers they will be required to move them immediately.
Mayor Decoux made a friendly amendment to the motion to change the notice period to four years. This was accepted by the mover, the motion was passed by a vote of 5-2 with Councilors Gail and Gallant opposed. The motion will now go to regular council next Tuesday (May 17th) to be debated again by the same seven people.
What’s the significance of this motion?
Where do they go?
Several things it was noted by the Municipal assessor that there is nowhere for these trailers to go, the Trailer Court is full and people in R1 areas do not want trailers in there neighborhoods, especially older ones.
How do they sell there homes?
By this action Council as rendered these homes as next to worthless, who is going to purchase one knowing they have to move it immediately and have nowhere to move it.
Does the municipality have a better use for the land?
It was stated at the meeting that there is “no” plans for that land at this time.
Maybe there is somebody waiting to seize what would be a great development opportunity?
It’s a prime piece of land next to the river, would be very attractive to somebody with a few dollars to slap six or seven high end homes in there.
Didn’t this happen previously with another trailer court?
Yes, roughly ten years ago the Kananaskis Trailer Court next to the arena in Coleman was closed it was touted as providing land for possible expansion of the recreational facility down the road. For those that don’t live here it is vacant and full of weeds today with no plans for it on the books.
Isn’t there a water line that runs underneath those homes?
Yes there is and I’m sure that will become a big part of the justification to move these homes, but keep in mind some of those homes have been there for 30+ years, the water line as never been a significant issue.
Is there anything we can do?
Politicians react to public pressure, call the municipality ask for a councilors phone number call them voice your opinion.
35 comments:
There is no way that these councilors could have enough information to vote on this if this was the first time it was brought up.Everything is being decided behind closed doors.
I think that at the very least the municapality should buy these properties at fair market value.Forcing people to sell drives the price down.I also think they should tell us why this is being done.There is no way that water line could run through more than a few of those trailers,so that should not be their excuse.
So far I can barely stomach this council.Utility bills are up, property taxes are up, no word on the Bridgecreek mess, no word on improving our local economy, no word on the Crowsnest Centre, no word on a Rec centre, obvious backroom deals etc...Where is that open and accountable government that we were promised.
Everyone wanted change, I wonder how happy everyone is now.
I wonder if the newspapers will say anything about this council kicking out these poor people. I don`t think Lisa got the balls to take them on. That`s the way I see it.
Jack
I live very close to that property there will be a lot of money made one day on those lots.
I could never understand why they built the municipal shop along the river. That is a waste of prime real estate. Especially when you look at how much space is available in the Frank Industrial park.
Council "No" more secrets tell us why these people are being made to move.
Anne
Dean:
Do you remember Ray telling us about that water line. He stated at the time to change the water line I think to the back ally and have it looped around to front of the properties. To kick these people out is not the answer because
the water line will still have be put in the street after the people are evicted. So leave the people alone and put the new water line where it is suppose to go. Secret meetings I think so but I guess it is OK for this Council.
Choppy
Thank goodness your back Dean.
I was scared that people were not going to get the opportunity to know about this insane idea.
Who are they getting that land ready for?
Maybe its part of the Task Force report.
Recommendation #12
Eliminate all low cost housing that pays lessor amounts of taxation. Replace with high end, high density units that pay high taxation levels.
Instant Tax Base.
The motion seems to have come out of the blue!
Why are these leased lots even on anyone's radar? They are pretty tidy and well-kept. If council wants to "gentrify" some neighbourhood, why not enforce the Community Standards Bylaw at properties that are junkyards?
The optics here are very bad.
Dean it appears my original comment was lost while you were down. Doesnt this council learn from the past. Why was it nessecary to move the people out of the trailer park in Coleman.Those lots now sit empty and now they are going to disrupt another group of people and evict them from municipal land. I understand there is a main waterline running under their homes but has that been a problem. If they absolutely have to be moved then we should help them out and offer the coleman trailer park as a solution. If they are being forced to move simply because this council has "other plans" for that area than we need to take a stand here. Lets see a real solution to low income housing instead of lip service.
I think it is wonderful if council has figured out someone else is steering the ship and takes action to correct it. It will take some time to work through the dysfunctional power structure the bureaucrats are accustom to in this town. Maybe some will have to go if they can not get the idea council (which represents the people) run things. What concerns me is the obvious discussions taking place outside chambers which are not open to the public. This coupled with Jodi MacFarlane editorial drawing attention to a councillors’ irritation with a issue being discussed after it was sent to the policy committee, is somewhat disconcerting to me. If the changes being implemented by this new council can not withstand the scrutiny of public comment I question their validity. If councils ideas are progressive and need to be implemented they withstand a minority who will try to sabotage the advancement of change.
They will not have the balls to follow through on this Tuesday night. Watch the willingness to take a "new look" at the issue (public pressure)
If only there was a real reason to do this. Or at least one that can be shared with the taxpayers
Council does it again! The mobile homes are neat and tidy and the people obviously have pride of owning their homes there. They should be spending their time getting Irwin to clean up his eyesore.
I agree with that last statement, please don't let him just move the crap to another one of his properties.
Drove around the Pass today, there must be a 100 lots available. If there is 10 new homes a year being built here I would be amazed.
It will be a long time before those lots are needed, why in heavens name would the municipality want to compete with the private sector selling lots.
Kathy
move the water line, leave the taxpayers alone!
The arguement the way I hear it is the water line has been there for a long time and may well cause us a problem one day.
Could you not make that statement about 75% of the water lines in the Pass?
Jack
Maybe they will take the money from these lots to pay for their equipment replacement program.
Dean where will that money come from because they did not put any money into reserves this year?
If the taxpayers have to pay that cost how much will it impact us?
The way I see it (and I could be wrong here. I mean I've only been wrong on the last federal election, and on my own in recent memory. :-) But here's how I see it.
If anything is ever going to come from the slack pile River Run development (whether with the group that broke away or with the remainder) servicing and municipal cooperation (including the land the trailers sit on) will probably be critical for any future success.
Just my thoughts...
John
It seems like there is a little bit of confusion here.
This is NOT the trailer court at the East end of the 52 acres. Those are privatly owned.
This is the group of trailers at the far end of Blairmore just behind Vandee's restaurant.
Absolutly no bearing on the river run property.
Thanks for the heads-up but where the hell is Vandee's? :-)
The Chinese restaurant Rivers Ridge by the bridge at the east end of Blairmore (Sorry John I assumed everybody knew Vandee)
The trailers start just a little ways west of there.
If you are proceeding on Hwy 3 west they are between the restaurant and the old BMX track.
I am not so much against these trailers being moved as I am about the process.Tell us why this needs to be done and also what your plan is for the land.If you have really good answers then it should not be a problem, however if you do not have good answers then it stinks and somebody is a little dirty.6 months in and the power is already going to their heads, or are they being led by one or two.
Dean
Doesn't Councillor Saindon live in a Trailer Court? I wonder how he would feel if his land lord gave him notice and told him the minute he sold his trailer it had to be moved. What would that do to his selling price?
Anne
Does Council have a policy on evicting tenants from Municipal property?
if not are we putting the cart before the horse?
The plan for the land?
Who's getting it?
Will the municipality go into the development business?
Does the municipality really want to compete with local developers?
Will this land be sold as individual lots, or one piece?
Is there a developer already lined up?
If not will it be sold on a first come first serve basis?
Will it be auctioned off to the highest bidder?
So many questions with no answers at this point, (maybe).
Why give notice now?
There are 30 some lots available in Bellevue, number of lots in Kananaskis Wilds, Ironstone, Sawback ridge, River Run????.
Back in 2003 the Municipality spent $300,000 of taxpayers money to purchase the Kananaskis Trailer Court.
We were told at that time what a great purchase it was. How it would allow for future expansion of our recreational facilities.
Well I had a friend that lived in that trailer court. One whose humble home became worthless overnight. It was not pretty by most peoples standards but it was her home. It was too old to be moved to Hillcrest, nobody would buy it because it had to be moved.
It was a sad story at the time and its a sad story today, eight years later nothing on the land but weeds. Municipality you need land for development there is 20 lots right next to your arena.
Future expansion of recreation facilities you are dreaming when they ran the minor hockey pictures in the paper I think I counted about 50 kids.
Council wake up admit you jumped too fast on this issue, you always have the option of throwing those trailers out down the road. When you really need the land.
Dean, went by and took a look at the trailers that I never knew were sitting on municipal land (how many more of these trailer parks does the municipality have, I wonder?) and saw at least two residents coming out of their homes whom I know.
Sure begs the question of why these folks are soon to be forced out of their homes? Serious lack of communication on the part of the munciplaity and those they have been entrusted to serve.
Others before me have also raised some good questions that demand answers and some accountability.
John
You sold real estate here barring a major change in the demand, how long before those lots will be needed?
Were you as impressed as I was by how well the trailers and the area as been looked after by the residents?
There are a number of our residents that could learn a thing or two from them
Dean I think your idea of the land being sold for high end development sounds bang on given the travesty of Bridgecreek. Didn't you recently report that an area developer was at a council meeting that had Land 'In Camera' on the agenda?
PS - We need to find you an 'H' for your keyboard ;) Take care.
Dean,
Totally agree with you.
Mayor and council need to come forward as to the reasoning for this move as this affects people’s lives. People have a right to know? Especially those directly affected, as well as the rest of us who may well be their (our) friends and neighbours, and certainly fellow taxpayers.
This isn't like buying a piece of equipment, and as you know, we already have an example (Colemen Trailer Court) that we should have learned from, if we are about to make the same callous mistake.
Coming to your July Policy Committee Meeting.
Municipal Tenant Eviction Policy
1. Evicting Trailers
2. Instantly making property worthless
3. Don't whine your increasing our tax base
4. What if the Infrastructure needs to be worked on.
5. Its all part of making our Task Force plan work
6. Its four years down the road we only have 2 1/2 years left
7. Hopefully the media will not make a big deal about this.
Mayor + Council
Just give us one good reason why you want that land.
"There are 30 some lots available in Bellevue, number of lots in Kananaskis Wilds, Ironstone, Sawback ridge, River Run????."
Canmore has 165 vacant serviced residential lots and 71 unserviced, according to their 2010 Assessment Roll.
I'll count you the numbers for CNP if you get me the Assessment Roll. We're legally entitled to it, but "Good luck with that", as they say here on the mushroom farm.
So Dean looking forward to hearing if they flip flopped on the Trailer issue.
Is this a council that will govern based on "Policy and Procedure" or one that will be manipulated by public pressure?
Can't wait for your answer.
Jack
Post a Comment