Mobile Home Park eviction

[JagXKR]

I am very dubious about the whole deal specifically in regards to the neighbors to the south of the park. Maybe I'm seeing a conspiracy type theory here but just recently there was a change in operations/ownership of Barefoot and then soon after, there is the announcement of the eviction. Maybe they thought if they waited long enough there would be no one connecting the dots or maybe I'm just crazy and guessing the worst in people. Either way I see smoke.

I refer to the Castanet article and these words

“The idea is not going to die, the resort is going to keep growing and be a staple in the community for a long time to come,” he said.

https://www.castanet.net/news/Penticton ... oot-shares

[rustled]

The story in the Western mentioned high infrastructure costs to keep the park running. It's an aging park, and one can imagine the infrastructure must need replacing. Seems likely the owner may be in a position where he has to invest a significant amount of money.

The rentals have been affordable previously, which means the owner would have no option but substantial rent increases (read: unaffordable (and unacceptable to those who are passionate about tenants' rights)), to cover his investment cost. The reporter noted several renters in the park have "problem" properties which will cost the landowner to clean up on closure. Those costs (tipping fees, etc.) are only likely to grow in future. IMO, he has probably weighed his options and decided the return won't be worth the combined investment and risks.

People here who are passionate about affordable housing need to consider the bigger picture when looking at the legislation Horgan has proposed. Land owners don't rent out their property as a charitable act. If they are unlikely to see any profit, why would they take the escalating risks associated with renting it out?

[JagXKR]

PIB Locatee owner. Different in oh so many ways. What expenses? Taxes? Initial cost of the land?
How many times have landlords exaggerated or even outright lied about all the problems they've been having in order to justify the simple fact of greed? (rhetorical)
The whole clan that owns the land to the west of the airport is the same as the "don't tell us what to do with our land" group that resulted in Boondoggle. I have no faith in any of their business dealings.
I do not have an issue with a land owner changing their minds and wanting to do something else with their property but the optics of this deal is muddy at best. Although some in the park have very mobile type dwellings there are others that have been there 20+years, have very nice properties that are way above average in upkeep and who cannot move in the short time frame. Especially when the summer season is upon us.
I still think there is more to this than what has been made public.

[CTF]

As for the penticon council how about fast tracking housing for the families of this eviction notice before you give it the the ones that don't deserve it !!!!!!

I do not understand this statement. How is that people who have mobile homes that made the choice to invest in a high risk location, should come before those who may have no homes at all? Trying to understand your logic why one group should come before the other and why you consider one group un-deserving.

[rustled]

PIB Locatee owner. Different in oh so many ways. What expenses? Taxes? Initial cost of the land?
How many times have landlords exaggerated or even outright lied about all the problems they've been having in order to justify the simple fact of greed? (rhetorical)
The whole clan that owns the land to the west of the airport is the same as the "don't tell us what to do with our land" group that resulted in Boondoggle. I have no faith in any of their business dealings.
I do not have an issue with a land owner changing their minds and wanting to do something else with their property but the optics of this deal is muddy at best. Although some in the park have very mobile type dwellings there are others that have been there 20+years, have very nice properties that are way above average in upkeep and who cannot move in the short time frame. Especially when the summer season is upon us.
I still think there is more to this than what has been made public.

"What expenses?" I don't think you read my post. Here:

The story in the Western mentioned high infrastructure costs to keep the park running. It's an aging park, and one can imagine the infrastructure must need replacing. Seems likely the owner may be in a position where he has to invest a significant amount of money.

How much do you think it would cost to upgrade the water supply system alone? The sewer system? The electrical delivery?

If the locatee owner has a big infrastructure expenditure coming up, and it's unlikely he'll recoup that in rent, why would he not choose to close the park or redevelop it in a way that will cover whatever expenditures are associated with the new development?

Whether it's locatee land or any other land, landowners who rent their properties out are not operating charities. Perhaps locatee landowners do not have to pay tipping fees when they clean up derelict properties? I don't know, but I'd think it likely. There's certainly a cost to haul the vehicles and old mobile homes and holiday trailers somewhere.

Yes, the optics are muddy. Is the locatee owner under a time restriction? One wonders. Or, one simply presumes it's yet another case of evil greedy landlord heartlessly evicting tenants.

Isn't it interesting that people have more enthusiasm for pillory than pragmatism.

[alanjh595]

Just like any other landlord. They make improvements and raise the rent for the new tenants.

[whatthehonk]

There has been some speculation raised here that the property may need infrastructure repair or update which may require a large capital outlay. This may, given the age of the property, be a valid comment. However, given that the location has been an ongoing business for many years and given that the locatee has engaged the services of a professional property manager, is it not logical to assume that, if the locatee's aim was to continue that business over time, ongoing maintenance of the property would be regularly undertaken or that a contingency fund would have been established to deal with the inevitable upgrades required over time? Along the same line: would it not be logical to assume that the locatee or the property management company would have been assumed to have addressed the issue of sub-standard buildings and clean-up as a part of their regular duties?

It would seem that the locatee or the property management company would be eager to address this issue, along with the unreasonably tight eviction timeline and the planned future use of the property to put an end to speculation and to at least attempt to deal with what will almost inevitably be a flood of negative publicity.

[rustled]

He's running a business. It's not necessary for him to keep the public informed, and I doubt he's particularly concerned about those speculating about his intentions without knowing the facts, as we're all doing here.

The cost of everything has skyrocketed over the past few years (ask anyone who's been in a business related to developing or disposal). He'd have had to jack up rental prices to far more than what those passionate about tenants' rights would have deemed "affordable" in order to set aside enough of a contingency fund. That goes for everyone with a MH park. (I wasn't referring to the ongoing clean-up of derelict properties, but the final clean-up on closure of all properties, some of which are, apparently, currently derelict and probably not worth pushing the tenants to deal with under current circumstances. Those costs are only going to get higher.)

If what the Western suggested is correct, he's probably weighing his options as to whether or not to redevelop, and how. And you can bet there'll be people jumping all over him for whatever he does with his land, no matter what.

[twobits]

[
"What expenses?" I don't think you read my post. Here:

The story in the Western mentioned high infrastructure costs to keep the park running. It's an aging park, and one can imagine the infrastructure must need replacing. Seems likely the owner may be in a position where he has to invest a significant amount of money.

How much do you think it would cost to upgrade the water supply system alone? The sewer system? The electrical delivery?

And I think you missed the obvious here. The park owner has collected pad rent for 30 plus years and never invested dime one since the original construction in upkeep. What a great landlord!! And now, opportunity cost says it is not worth replacing infrastructure that has been ignored for 30 yrs as there is a tech billionaire owner that is going to take over the whole south end of PIB locatee land for a resort. Picton didn't choose to exit the business. He was told he was no longer needed.

[rustled]

And I think you missed the obvious here. The park owner has collected pad rent for 30 plus years and never invested dime one since the original construction in upkeep. What a great landlord!! And now, opportunity cost says it is not worth replacing infrastructure that has been ignored for 30 yrs as there is a tech billionaire owner that is going to take over the whole south end of PIB locatee land for a resort. Picton didn't choose to exit the business. He was told he was no longer needed.

Well, you obviously know a LOT more about this landlord's business dealings than I do.

Carry on, then.

[fluffy]

This is the former Driftwood park isn't it? I seem to remember that sewage issues threatened to close the park a number of years back.

[rustled]

I think that may have been part of the already-developed property?
http://www.oldphotos.ca/archivos/record ... D=96098101

A somewhat unconventional resort is taking shape in the south end of Penticton.

Several yurts being built for the Barefoot Beach Resort are nearing completion and more are underway on the site across from Wright’s Beach Campground.
...snip...
The first phase on the property, once home to the Happy Hour Campground and Driftwood Mobile Home Park, will include 11 rental yurts. There will be three others on the site as well, a check in office, caretakers suite and coffee shop on the beach front. Around 125 tent sites will also be available at the location.
https://www.castanet.net/news/Penticton ... -Penticton

[pentona]

This is the former Driftwood park isn't it? I seem to remember that sewage issues threatened to close the park a number of years back.

The Driftwood M.H. Park was located where the Yurts and some RV spots are now (to the South of the Delta Park). It was closed due to overloaded sewer system, which was blamed on the extra burden that the Delta had put on the park. (the Driftwood was established first; then the Delta years later). At the time, it made little sense that the Driftwood should have to close, yet the Delta was left intact. The Driftwood had 20 year leases (not month to month pad rentals) until the head lease holder failed to make his payments and the individual leases were cancelled. It was not a nice time to live there; I had relatives who owned a mobile in there; so I know what happened. Month to month Pad rental then came in for a few years until the sewer issues caused the evictions. My relatives had sold before that happened, luckily.

The Mobile homes in the Driftwood were full size ones; unlike the Delta which for the most part are smaller RV types with additions. When leases are not in place, the folks on Native lands don't have many rights, if any. Odd how the Federal Government controls some issues over Natives (ie: they aren't allowed to sell their land to non-natives) yet Rent Controls or other Govt regulations that most of us must comply with do not apply to Natives. So much for being equal Canadians.

The Happy Hour campground was out front by the highway, where a few businesses exist now. I can't recall why that one closed but it was mainly smaller RV's that were easily moved; not many additions that were built on, as was the case in the Driftwood and now the Delta.

I personally believe that the B@refoot has intentions to take over the land occupied by the Delta and only time will tell. Perhaps that is why Max P. is no longer associated with them; as this whole issue is going to leave a black mark on whoever takes over and he likely is hoping to get re-elected this Fall. Good luck, I say.

[twobits]

[Well, you obviously know a LOT more about this landlord's business dealings than I do.

Carry on, then.

Well enlighten us if you think this isn't a Barefoot Beach expansion that takes advantage of of the absence of Residential Tenancy Act required notices.
I am weary of laws that apply to most but not all.

[rustled]

[Well, you obviously know a LOT more about this landlord's business dealings than I do.

Carry on, then.

Well enlighten us if you think this isn't a Barefoot Beach expansion that takes advantage of of the absence of Residential Tenancy Act required notices.
I am weary of laws that apply to most but not all.

All I know is what I saw in the paper. From what you posted, I assumed you must know more about it than others who are speculating (as I am).