Arianna B. sent along these glad tidings from Ottawa:
… A year ago, the seniors and young families who own trailer homes in
the Bellwood Mobile Home park in Nepean learned that the property that
they rent was going up for sale, and residents would likely face
eviction. By law, they would receive as compensation either $3,000 for
their trailer home or one year of free rent.
Serge St-Jacques, who lives at the park near Moodie Drive and
Robertson Road with his wife Sheila, said that was scary news for many
of residents, especially the majority who are seniors.
"It's their life savings. They're afraid they're going to end up on
the street or something — it's pretty scary for older people, you know."
But the residents formed an association and managed to work out a
way to buy the property from Bellwood Mobile Home Parks Ltd. … They will make an offer for the property during the first week
of January. …
watches out for everybody. My children are safe. I feel safe here."
The homeowners association won't disclose the details of the
purchase plan or the offer, but said the association itself would end
up as the owner of the land, and homeowners would each pay about the
same amount as they are currently paying in rent.
The Ottawa Citizen offers a few additional details:
to buy the land their trailer park sits on in Bells Corners. If the
offer is accepted, the well-established community will not be uprooted
and displaced as feared. …
About a year ago, the families who live in Bellwood … learned that the property
they rent was up for sale to a developer. …
They
decided to band together to save their community. Residents own the
tidy, well-cared for homes but lease the lots for about $400 a month.
Many of them wanted to buy the land they lived on but individual lots
were not for sale. At a general meeting earlier this month, the
association formed a corporation representing the park’s 250 units.
“We’ve been at it for a long time,” said [Brian Law, a member of the Bellwood Community Homeowners Association’s board of directors]. “Until this thing is
nailed down, well, it’s not nailed down. We’ve been up and down like a
roller coaster but we’ve got our act very much together, I think. We’re hoping to get the financing arranged, if the offer is approved.”
So there were two possible outcomes here. The sale of this land could have resulted in 250 families losing their homes, their life savings, their neighbors and their community ties. Or — if the homeowners association's offer is accepted — it could result in the Bellwood residents living with increased security and independence.
The latter outcome is vastly preferable, not just for those residents, but for the entire city and region. Ensuring that this happens, rather than the mass-displacement, isn't all that complicated. Residents just need the first right of refusal — meaning they get dibs on bidding to buy the land and can't be turned down if their offer is reasonable. And they need some source of financing.
Note that this financing is a no-brainer. There is nothing speculative or risky or "subprime" about making the loan the Bellwood homeowners association needs. It would be fully collateralized, and the people borrowing this money have an established track record dating back years of paying $100,000 in rent every month. If I had the money, I'd make this loan myself. If I could buy shares in this loan, I'd gladly invest most of my 401(k) in such a safe, steady and stable income machine.
Loans of this size, unfortunately, have become the province of financial dinosaurs incapable or unwilling to acknowledge such elementary arithmetic. Their shareholders demand higher-risk and higher-return investments, and they've abdicated all of their decision-making in such matters to the mystical metrics of Equifax, Experian and Transunion. So the financing for something like the Bellwood community's loan may need to come from public money or public guarantees of private money. If that's what it takes, then this becomes a public policy no-brainer.
So here we have a situation in which the contrast between possible outcomes is vast. The actions needed to produce the more favorable outcome are straightforward, noncontroversial, non-ideological, nonpartisan and not just inexpensive, but profitable. Yet in most cases like this we end up with the less desirable result — families are displaced and financially ruined and a stable community is replaced with a new development that likely won't live up to its investors' inflated expectations.
Stories like this one about Bellwood shouldn't be rare, but they are. Is this just because of the stigma and the marginal status of the powerless and easily ignored "trailer park" residents? Or is it because of kickbacks and corruption on the part of developers and politicians? Honestly, I just don't get it.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In