Many of you may (or may not) be surprised, but there are quite a few locations along this project where Metrolinx is offering a "fair market value" of $1 to property owners. I wont name the sites as the proceedings are in progress, but yeah I wouldnt trust Metrolinx and their "fair market value" claims.
 
There's an extensive piece in Today's Star. It's the main story on the front page, and also covers half of Page 6. But I can't see it on their website yet.

We'll see if Metrolinx changes their tune, now a lawyer is involved. I'd think they'd be liable for some good damages for the recently heavily-renovated daycare that opened a couple of weeks ago, after years of being told that it wouldn't be taken.
 
If indeed ML only just decided that the expropriation is necessary, then it’s a not insignificant hit on the project budget. Within contingency, no doubt…. But a project can only take so many of these hits and stay “on budget”.
I do wonder what was said by whom two years ago, and was any of it in writing. That would indeed make an interesting court case.
I have no problem with a deal that would let the owners buy their properties back when construction is over, at the price they were paid to vacate. In theory, letting ML reap a profit is good for the taxpayer, but it seems a bit harsh in this set of facts. And frankly, I don’t trust ML to play fair in any respect.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
If indeed ML only just decided that the expropriation is necessary, then it’s a not insignificant hit on the project budget
Click to expand...

Depending on the "market value" being offered, it's barely even a rounding error in the overall project budget.
 
It seems like if Metrolinx doesn't actually need the land for their construction and is just concerned about potential structural damage, there should be a compromise position found eventually? I get that ML doesn't want to bear the risk of a house collapsing and killing someone, but there is probably a solution that is cheaper and less disruptive than expropriating the entire block.

But no, "my husband had a dying wish" is not a good reason not to do that. In fact, it's completely irrelevant to whether they should expropriate that land.
 
evandyk said:
But no, "my husband had a dying wish" is not a good reason not to do that. In fact, it's completely irrelevant to whether they should expropriate that land.
Click to expand...

The Star excells at “sad person” stories where something significant happens and what gets reported is how somebody lost their cat.
This situation will be cost-neutral to ML if they reaell the properties, but the reversal in ML position and the idea that “we expropriated your house, but then we sold to the highest bidder” does not sit well.

- Paul
 
I definitely have sympathy for the residents of the stretch of Pape. You assumed that you didn't have to give up your property to Metrolinx, and now on top of all the construction going on in your front yard, Metrolinx comes back and says "whoops, yea, we need you to give up your property." I also read that a recently established daycare centre will be forced to close and/or relocate, in an area with a big shortage of childcare spaces.

What are the odds that residents will take Metrolinx to the courts?
 
I know this whole forum is very pro development and what's best for the good of the whole, but my God, telling someone you're taking their home and that they're going to have find somewhere else to live is about the most extreme thing the state can do other than drafting them for military service, or putting them in jail, or taking away their kids.

It's a HUGE deal.

Of course it has to be done. Of course it's for the greater good. But it's still absolutely awful for the people affected.

I would have thought the home owners should be getting much more compensation than just market value. At the very least there are also going to be moving costs.

I would have thought if a home is getting appropriated it wouldn't just be "Here, your house is worth $2.1M." It would be, "Your house is worth $2.1M. Because we are forcing you to 'sell it' against your will here is $3M." Or something along those lines.

Who's to say these folks are even going to all be able to buy new homes the same as what they're being forced out of in the same area?

Again I understand why this has to be done. I'm not fighting that at all. I'm just saying given the severity of how this will upend someone's life the compensation should be more than just market value.
 
Homeowners usually do get above market value as the government has an incentive to settle out of court to avoid expensive lawyers. This usually means paying a bit above market.

Of course the problem is homeowners famously usually have very inflated ideas of the value of their property. So often it doesn’t feel above market to them.
 
The article does say that the homeowners are offered "relocation help" which is not defined. But covering reasonable costs incurred to move plus fair market value for the property is probably better than just inflating the FMV.

Presumably if they're offered a fair price and fair relocation assistance, they can find another place in Riverdale/Leslieville. Though I doubt that an offer that is "fair" objectively would feel "fair" to the person affected. I suspect the "It's a $30B project, surely they can find another half million to fairly compensate me for my very special house" feeling is strong.
 
evandyk said:
The article does say that the homeowners are offered "relocation help" which is not defined. But covering reasonable costs incurred to move plus fair market value for the property is probably better than just inflating the FMV.

Presumably if they're offered a fair price and fair relocation assistance, they can find another place in Riverdale/Leslieville. Though I doubt that an offer that is "fair" objectively would feel "fair" to the person affected. I suspect the "It's a $30B project, surely they can find another half million to fairly compensate me for my very special house" feeling is strong.
Click to expand...
MX should cover their therapy bills as well.
 
evandyk said:
It seems like if Metrolinx doesn't actually need the land for their construction and is just concerned about potential structural damage, there should be a compromise position found eventually? I get that ML doesn't want to bear the risk of a house collapsing and killing someone, but there is probably a solution that is cheaper and less disruptive than expropriating the entire block.
Click to expand...
Perhaps asking them to temporarily move out and live somewhere else (paid for by ML), and invite them to move back in once the work is complete and it's confirmed safe (no structural damage)?
 
christiesplits said:
I definitely have sympathy for the residents of the stretch of Pape. You assumed that you didn't have to give up your property to Metrolinx, and now on top of all the construction going on in your front yard, Metrolinx comes back and says "whoops, yea, we need you to give up your property." I
Click to expand...
The alternative is they tell you 5 years ago: "well you might need to move and you might not, we'll tell you in 5 years once we have a better idea and our contractor is acquired". Then they live in limbo for 5 years with anxiety growing not knowing if they can stay or not.
 
evandyk said:
The article does say that the homeowners are offered "relocation help" which is not defined. But covering reasonable costs incurred to move plus fair market value for the property is probably better than just inflating the FMV.

Presumably if they're offered a fair price and fair relocation assistance, they can find another place in Riverdale/Leslieville. Though I doubt that an offer that is "fair" objectively would feel "fair" to the person affected. I suspect the "It's a $30B project, surely they can find another half million to fairly compensate me for my very special house" feeling is strong.
Click to expand...
Some of us just don't have that much faith and trust in Metrolinx to do the right thing(s).
 
  • Like
Reactions: T3G
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top