Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Slumlords, Sustainable Development, and the neighbourhoods that pay the consequences

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    ^ as usual, you have no clue what you're talking about
    Over promise and under deliver. It’s the most Edmonton thing you can do.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by 240GLT View Post
      ^ as usual, you have no clue what you're talking about
      In other words, "I can't think up intelligent counterpoints, so I'll do a pathetic personal attack", what a useles contribution. Same with CBC article, "I don't agree, so thats all I need to write". Got it, landlords who provide low income housing that's badly needed = evil if in my backyard and if they were once convicted of something.
      Last edited by moahunter; 08-08-2015, 02:00 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by 240GLT View Post
        Poor Carmen

        Wow, what a terrible, lazy article. It's no wonder the CBC is circling the drain
        Poor guy getting rode by the public and the media and all he did was commit $30million in mortgage fraud. Can't a guy catch a break?

        Comment


        • #34
          ^^
          Awesome. The guy who rails against secondary suites and slum trains thinks the guy is practcally Robin Hood. Maybe you should invite him to your neighborhood.

          Comment


          • #35
            Honestly moahunter you really have no idea how extremely bad his properties are. I would love to see you or any critic live beside of one of these houses.

            these neighbours that are driven to mental health problems are not sensitive people, they are not racist or give a damn about Carmen being convicted of fraud charges, and about 30 million. It comes down to being on guard 24hrs a day ( even without being home there is a weight on these people's shoulders). Houses that were 2 or 2.5 story homes converted into rooming houses sometimes with 6 or more bedrooms( not exaggerating, I know of houses in central edmonton with 10&11 rooms in 2000sq ft of space. Only $750 a month rent typically is the norm. These are not safe houses in our inner city even for tenants themselves

            Comment


            • #36
              ^sure, but where should these people live then? I realize it would suck to be beside such, but what is the alternative? If everyone of these properties was shut down, would the people inside all disappear, or not cause problems anymore? It's like a game of whack a mole, remove them here, oh they show up there now...

              Comment


              • #37
                I don't know where they'd live but the conditions are only homelessness in a different form. They are not safe, and to anyone who didn't know better, it appears like the properties are overrun with squatters.

                Also i'll choose my words carefully here but take what he says himself with a good dose of salt. Maybe start by questioning how a convicted fraudster still owns 100 properties.

                Comment


                • #38
                  ^i think fraud is despicable, but then, a lot of people make mistakes, and rebuild their lives. He makes a compelling case in the article.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Your right on that, we as a city and province weneed to respect bylaws,and create tougher legislation ( which I know for a fact bylaws are not followed on dozens of properties). Also we need to assist change by encouraging properly run facilities like YMCA on 95st. A shoebox for $750 is not a fair rent in a run down shack with unhealthy environments

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      ^ guidelines need to be changed but the city also needs to work with the tools they have

                      In this case they had the tools to stop this permit, and they chose not to use them
                      Over promise and under deliver. It’s the most Edmonton thing you can do.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Swillv8 View Post
                        Houses that were 2 or 2.5 story homes converted into rooming houses sometimes with 6 or more bedrooms( not exaggerating, I know of houses in central edmonton with 10&11 rooms in 2000sq ft of space. Only $750 a month rent typically is the norm. These are not safe houses in our inner city even for tenants themselves
                        This is the biggest problem with slumlords - they slap together a building bordering on disrepair just so they can make a quick buck. Very little regard for proper permits, security, or safe construction. Nobody who has the choice would settle for those conditions. The only people who rent those places sadly are people who are already in a desperate situation (recently incarcerated, battling drug addiction, etc.), and unlike non-profit or government agencies that provide low-income housing, these slum houses do not come with social support to assist these people, and the landlords don't enforce visitors, so often these houses get overcrowded with transient "friends" of the renters.

                        So in effect, the renters are in a dodgy home that exacerbates their problems, and the neighbors are the ones who have to clean up the messes left by junkies, drug dealers, transients, and frequent break-ins. Meanwhile the slumlord stays far away, collects his cash, and leaves his properties unkempt and unmaintained, and tries to paint himself as a martyr.
                        Last edited by MrOilers; 08-08-2015, 08:37 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          ^ that is exactly it MrO.

                          The folks that are being forced into Carmen's houses need support, and they're getting the exact opposite, and everyone suffers. Except Carmen who's collecting the rent and living far away from the problems in his house in Terwillegar.

                          This is not about fighting non- market housing. This is about a negligent landlord who profits from his tenants and his neighbours misery
                          Over promise and under deliver. It’s the most Edmonton thing you can do.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            IMO from the limited knowledge I have. the DO did everything right. If it was to be denied it was the SDAB who should have denied it.

                            Even in that case however Planning deals with land use... not anything else. Building codes and other such regulations are in the power of enforcement not in the powders of planning. If a secondary suite actually causes undo harm to the community (AND was issued under a discretionary permit) they could nullify the permit with substantial evidence that the secondary suite is the issue.

                            (imo that would mean the neighbors would need to prove that the secondary suite causes a material problem on their own property. {which is probaly easy} but also that the landowner would need to show intent of not doing anything about it){if he evics people causeing problems.. he IS doing something about it}

                            It doesn't matter of the landowner is Carmen Pervez or Don Ivison himself, the same regulations and Burden of proof (to that specific property) apply.

                            Personally we would not have so many of these problems if rent was lower in the rest of the city.. but the city does not want that.. they fight tooth and nail against any form of densification with an end product of forcing the "undesirables" to live in conditions in the slums above. Let the market do the work, eliminate minimum housing sizes. Merge R1-R6 districting, let us in general lower the cost of housing to spread these undesirable in the city in decent housing instead of relying on slumlords to provide housing for them.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              ^ this is not about what the DO did "right"

                              Did the community prove that the addition of the suite would cause material interference with the use, enjoyment and value of neighbouring properties ? Yes.

                              Did the community prove that allowing the suite will cause harm to the community ? Yes

                              In a discretionary decision the city had the ability... And in this case I'd say the responsibility to consider these matters when considering the permit

                              They did not, yet I can name many cases, such as the Crazy Horse strip club, Norwood liquor store, or the Salvation Army Community Church that all had permits denied for the exact same reason

                              The real problem is a lack of clarity in the MGA, and the lack of training or DO's and SDAB board members
                              Over promise and under deliver. It’s the most Edmonton thing you can do.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                I don't think the community proved the detriment to community enough. I think we should get the hundreds of people that are affected together and lobby against this crap. More video, more documentation in general, also how much eps visit his properties? Let's expose the real Carmen

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X