Low-budget motels sold

[wisdom01]

https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-s ... htm#221237

Any guesses?

[Jflem1983]

They currently provide living space for the marginalized. I see fancy high end towers going in. Okanagan is quickly pushing the needy out the door.

[seewood]

Regardless of the proposal, I suspect there will be a bunch of ink saying these are low cost/ affordable housing and where will these people go if a developer builds accommodation that they cannot afford. Whoever it is, will build something that will give them a return on the $5 mil + purchase price and accompanying property taxes.

Then again, maybe a water slide will be built

[alanjh595]

Weren't these properties just offered as "up for sale" this morning?

[Anonymous123]

Weren't these properties just offered as "up for sale" this morning?

UPDATE 12:25 p.m.

Although the property was listed publicly less than a month ago, sources tell Castanet News the three motels have actually already been sold.

The sale for an unspecified amount to a Vancouver-based company closes on March 29.

It’s not known what the new ownership group’s plans for the motels are.

[wisdom01]

Excellent ... clean that area up

[twobits]

Excellent ... clean that area up

I would agree. But having said that, the reality is that it will displace 50 or more marginalized people. And having said that, is it the responsibility of the property owner to provide cheap housing? Lest anyone be judgmental on the property owners decision, ask yourself if you were the owner, would you continue to maintain these derelict buildings and also deal with the resident issues the occupants bring, or move to a higher value use? Society...(gov't)....could have purchased these properties as they have done in the past with the Hansel and Gretel property or the Super 8, or the Bel Aire. They didn't cuz the buildings are junk.
No asset value remaining in the structures.
And as a side note, I have heard a rumour, unconfirmed, that the Super 8 property will be closed very soon as well and may only be used as a cold weather shelter because of the problems with the residents. What that says to me is that we cannot just buy up or build cheap housing for the marginalized, for whatever reason they are classified as marginal, without some kind of strict supervision and some serious rules to abide by for such subsidized housing. We just can't warehouse these people in cheap digs and expect a positive outcome without monitored and strict rules for residency.

[fluffy]

What that says to me is that we cannot just buy up or build cheap housing for the marginalized, for whatever reason they are classified as marginal, without some kind of strict supervision and some serious rules to abide by for such subsidized housing.

Agree. With some, simply putting a cheap roof over their heads just enables the behavior that may be the root of their problems.

[wisdom01]

What that says to me is that we cannot just buy up or build cheap housing for the marginalized, for whatever reason they are classified as marginal, without some kind of strict supervision and some serious rules to abide by for such subsidized housing.

Agree. With some, simply putting a cheap roof over their heads just enables the behavior that may be the root of their problems.

Absolutely agree ... also lets not forget the soup kitchens, city councils and special interest groups that also enable this riffraff ... cut off the gravy train and there would be 20% of the problem left ... what would remain would be the true mental health cases that could then have focus of the resources rather than the 80% that are abusing the enabling systems.

[Anonymous123]

What that says to me is that we cannot just buy up or build cheap housing for the marginalized, for whatever reason they are classified as marginal, without some kind of strict supervision and some serious rules to abide by for such subsidized housing.

Agree. With some, simply putting a cheap roof over their heads just enables the behavior that may be the root of their problems.

You are correct Fluffy. Just take a trip to Kelowna and drive up Leon Ave. The cold weather shelter there(old A&B Sound building) has an anything goes policy. Bring your buggy, your dog and your drugs. This is not helping the marginalized citizens change their lifestyle. It's just giving them a warm place to continue that lifestyle.

[twobits]

You are correct Fluffy. Just take a trip to Kelowna and drive up Leon Ave. The cold weather shelter there(old A&B Sound building) has an anything goes policy. Bring your buggy, your dog and your drugs. This is not helping the marginalized citizens change their lifestyle. It's just giving them a warm place to continue that lifestyle.

And if anyone paid attention to crime rates that have skyrocketed between Cherry Lane and Yorkton Ave since the Bel Aire and Hansel and Gretel Motel conversions, they might be a little more informed as to where this "social" housing without supervision should be located. We have created a base of operations for these petty thieves that now work in coordinated groups rather than independently.
And now the RCMP are not going to respond to the vehicle break ins which are the major occurrence in this area along with garages and detached shops. RCMP now say "call us for statistics purposes and we will give a file number so you can just pay your insurance deductible".
Call me stupid but what the RCMP have done, IMO, is say if you are stupid enough to concentrate this type of housing, expect a bad outcome that cannot be controlled with the resources available.
Personally....I'd like to see the resources of all the officers doing seat belt stings and speed traps, moved to the afternoon and graveyard shifts to do patrols of neighbourhoods where these cretans are plying their trade to subsidize their drug and alcohol habits in unsupervised subsidized housings.

[the truth]

great points

[twobits]

great points

Thank you. And what seemingly altruistic members of our society seem to miss is that we are now paying the rent for housing to concentrate these individuals into neighbourhoods were they collaborate and create minor crime syndicates. It is a big fail and I think that the RCMP's edict to not respond with anything more than a police file number for your insurance company is a backhanded comment of "you have created a problem area that we don't have the resources to deal with". What follows is "we need 6 more 100k/yr officers".
Elvena Slump missed this backhanded way of the Province downloading costs onto City and Muni tax payers.

[fluffy]

Still though, Its not fair to paint all marginalized persons with the same brush. The puzzle here is how to deal with the nasties without penalizing those truly in need and deserving of help. The obvious solution would involve law enforcement but that's a can of worms in itself.

[twobits]

Still though, Its not fair to paint all marginalized persons with the same brush. The puzzle here is how to deal with the nasties without penalizing those truly in need and deserving of help. The obvious solution would involve law enforcement but that's a can of worms in itself.

I am not trying to paint them all with the same brush. But what I see happening here has plenty of empirical history to show that it is a failed social policy. One only has to look at the Metropolitan experiments of clustered social housing, often referred to as "The Projects", that have been or are being torn down because they decimated entire neighbourhoods.
Albeit on a smaller scale, we are duplicating this failed social policy and expecting a different result. Just one year in and I would suggest that the spike in property crimes concentrated in the areas where this housing is located, would indicate we are getting exactly the same end result.