It would be nice if we lived in a world where the same amount of hand-wringing was extended to renters who are evicted because their landlord wants to renovate or because the landlord's "family member" is moving in... for some reason homeowners are afforded more public sympathy. Wonder why.

These evictions definitely pass the Greater Good test for expropriation. I hope they take their ample compensation and find a home they love.
 
I'm not sure this needs to be made into an either or situation. Being unexpectedly evicted from your home is an incredibly drastic experience, whether you are a renter or a homeowner. Being a homeowner doesn't certify that you will be able to find a home in the neighbourhood, which could cause trickle down inconveniences: commute time could be extended, kids would be forced to relocate schools. If you have invested significant money into the property, that's money and labour you also won't get back. It's a mess, and my utmost sympathy goes out to anyone dealing with such a situation, renter or homeowner.

I'm not sure it does pass the Greater Good test. In the hands of a competent agency, sure, but I wouldn't trust Metrolinx to supervise a pencil for me, and I have zero faith that they will do the right thing in this instance, either. I echo the posts on previous pages that the only acceptable solutions to this problem are either to offer compensation well above market value for the immense inconvenience they are posing, or to rehouse them temporarily on ML's dime until the structural integrity of the house can be verified. If they kick them out now, and sell the homes that are structurally intact to someone else after the fact, that would be a big slap in the face, too.
 
It would be nice if we lived in a world where the same amount of hand-wringing was extended to renters who are evicted because their landlord wants to renovate or because the landlord's "family member" is moving in... for some reason homeowners are afforded more public sympathy. Wonder why.

These evictions definitely pass the Greater Good test for expropriation. I hope they take their ample compensation and find a home they love.

I don't agree that this discussion displays a lack of concern (or hand-wringing, if you like) for renter-landlord issues. Some of us care just as much about that situation, but that isn't what's at play here. (Perhaps the Star reporter could have tried a little harder, as I'm betting some of those houses have flats or are rented, so there are likely renters being displaced here also, and their stories are likely just as compelling thanks to the expropriation).

This isn't property being reclaimed for the greater good, it's really just being borrowed. Seems to me that is not a vanilla application of the intent of the expropriation process. A more creative solution should be considered as a matter of greater fairness .....the parallel is landlords sometimes offering temporary or permanent relocation during an apartment reno, and some of us certainly support that requirement. Maybe there is a saw-off where people retain first refusal on their property with some balanced financial arrangement short of buy back at an inflated market price.

- Paul
 
PS - If I were running things, my solution would be to apply the same kind of logic that applies to homes on Toronto Island, and to homes on rented land eg cottagers who rent lots from First Nations. Namely, I would treat ownership of the land separately from ownership of the structures.

The need for the residents to vacate, as a matter of safety, in unquestionable. The wisdom of not attempting to "coccoon" or protect the condition of the properties during the construction seems reasonable... beyond potential impacts from the digging, vacant homes are generally susceptible to animals, vagrants, mould, etc . It would be unreasonable to demand that ML maintain physical security, fire watch, etc on vacant structures throughout construction. Any post-construction haggling over the end building condition will just be messy and unsatisfactory to all. So demolishing the homes may be defensible as the safest and most expedient way for ML to get things done. So, let ML buy the homes from the occupants but leave ownership of the land itself with the current owners.

Any range of options - from paying only for the determined scrap value of the home, to the replacement value, to some form of rental support or living allowance for those evicted (renters and/or owners) - can be worked out. I won't take an exact position.

The point being, the current owners are given the opportunity to sell the land now, later, or to rebuild (which may take their own investment beyond what they are paid, or not, again, I'm flexible). And maybe current renters have some rights of refusal afterwards. Or not.

The point again being, while the need for vacating the homes is not in question, this is not a "vanilla" expropriation (where the state seizes the property to build something of public good on it, and the property thereafter is part of that something). So a non-vanilla solution is fairer.

- Paul
 
It would be nice if we lived in a world where the same amount of hand-wringing was extended to renters who are evicted because their landlord wants to renovate or because the landlord's "family member" is moving in... for some reason homeowners are afforded more public sympathy. Wonder why.
I've heard quite the opposite, that it's the tenants who get most sympathy and legal protection, to the point where homeowners are not allowed to evict them even when it's actually justified/necessary (i.e. tenants invited all their "family members" to move in without the owner's permission, or are simply behaving unacceptably).
 
Future West Don bridge, by the archery range south of the (now shuttered) Science Centre. The bridge footing/caissons are coming along. From this afternoon.
1000022042.jpg
1000022041.jpg
 
the Bloor subway was built in less than 4 years between Keele and Woodbine. It wouldn't have been possible without property expropriation along the majority of that route just north of Bloor.

I want to see these homeowners properly compensated, but I’m not empathetic to them having to move or being displaced. This is not a major city in Canada, it’s the major city in Canada and it’s infinitely more important to build proper transit than save a row of houses along a major street. No reasonable person should expect their individual needs to trump those of millions.
 
There isn't anyone in this thread suggesting that. We all agree Ontario Line has to be built. We're just seeing these poor bastards should be fairly compensated.
Sure I agree. They aren’t really poor bastards, they’re home owners in Toronto. Framing it like they’re victims is ridiculous.

Basically what I’m saying is this is a non issue. Pay them fairly and do so more often so that we can build infrastructure projects quickly and at the lowest cost possible.

They can replace the single family homes with mid rises that are more suitable for a major street like Pape and kill two birds with one stone. There shouldn’t even be sfh on any major street south of Eglinton in my opinion in 2024.
 
What's "fairly"?

It seems obvious to me that a fair price for someone who wants to sell their home is categorically different to a fair price for someone who does not want to sell it. Yet it appears this is not at all obvious to a lot of people posting here.

There are things I own that I would never agree to sell for what a "fair market" would pay for them. Their value to me, for reasons of personal connection, memories, sentimentality, uniqueness, or a host of other reasons, means I prefer to have them than any money someone else would pay.

If someone is to force me to give them up, giving me the "fair" price that Value Village would slap on them in exchange is not acceptable. The loss to me is greater than that.

Maybe the people we are discussing in this thread are rich pricks who won the lottery on property values. I don't think it's right to engage in that sort of judgment. This is property they own, and they don't want to sell. If they are to be stripped of it, they deserve at the very least the "fair market value", plus an "unwilling seller" markup (IMO at least 20%), plus all relocation costs (including taxes and legal fees for purchasing a replacement property), plus costs for personal aggravation and distress (IMO at least $10K-$15K). Then we may be in the ballpark of something "fair".

A forced sale is an infringement upon individual rights. In a fair and just society, that cannot be done lightly or without compensation, not just for the property, but for the infringement itself. I'll gladly allow the rich to "win" a little more to protect this principle for everyone.
 
They can replace the single family homes with mid rises that are more suitable for a major street like Pape and kill two birds with one stone. There shouldn’t even be sfh on any major street south of Eglinton in my opinion in 2024.
Agreed. Finally something sensible. Never liked the architecture of houses throughout old Toronto anyway, always preferred buildings or houses in the suburbs.
 
What's "fairly"? A forced sale is an infringement upon individual rights. In a fair and just society, that cannot be done lightly or without compensation, not just for the property, but for the infringement itself. I'll gladly allow the rich to "win" a little more to protect this principle for everyone.

This.
 
Sure I agree. They aren’t really poor bastards, they’re home owners in Toronto. Framing it like they’re victims is ridiculous.
They've been promised for a decade that there homes weren't going to be touched or taken.

And now they haven't been offered any extra compensation for this gross incompetence and inconvenience.

Had Metrolinx had the competency on day one to have told them the truth - it's a fair point.

Given Metrolinx's history of trying to cut corners on cost, one needs to find out more if this is actually a case that the vibrational damage is more severe than predicted, of if there's been some change in the construction technique to perhaps save money. Almost anything can be mitigated for a cost. Have they chosen to screw these neighbours to save money - or are they just technically incompetent?

It's ridiculous and degrading to suggest that they haven't been victimized by that grossly incompetent and overpaid agency.
 

Back
Top