Excellent newsletter. Totally agree. Those are such flimsy reasons for not allowing a development. I have lost faith in several on council but I expect more out of Brian.
Great points. We are in a housing crisis. Building mansions in university heights isn’t the answer. We need housing at all levels. I bought my house in 2021 under 350,000 and today would never be able to buy the same house. This doesn’t give younger generations any hope to the future.
Couldn't agree more - my wife and I bought our house in 2021 as well in the same range and it is now evaluated at $550,000 with interest rates doubled. We completely lucked into this place and that window is just closing more and more on folks in our age range and income bracket.
Darrin - you are 100% correct - every time someone who has been renting is able to buy, they have improved their long-term financial stability and provided an opportunity for another family to find a place to rent. Did you send this essay to our Mayor and Council or do they all follow you?
A good portion of Council are subscribed but I wouldn't force this newsletter down anyone's throat if they're not choosing it hahah. That said, readers are welcome to send it wherever they choose!
I find it rich that Simon Yu made comments about the placement of the a ‘trailer park’ too close to ‘high value’ properties, considering his neighbours having to look at several lovely piles of structural steel beams and girders lying about in his own front yard for years now. Never mind his derelict business property still looking like a pile of junk at 3rd and Dominion. There was a bit of tidying done when he was criticized after being elected, but it still is one of the eyesore collection downtown.
Otherwise, I heartily agree with the idea that the modular homes of today are better designed and built, meaning they are an acceptable form of housing for those who are looking for a moderate price range to get into the market. This plan should be allowed to proceed once and for all.
I agree it seems like a no brainer. I think permanent structure modular homes on foundation with strata will be a great choice for starter homes and downsizing seniors.
The covenant forcing modular homes I do think was important. From my understanding modular homes are structurally identical (if not stronger) then stick built. Promoting more long-term structures seems wise.
Your entire article is based on some incorrect assumptions. Good journalism would require further research than using Edmonton based prices (location location location), and removing your BIAS. Are you paid by the developer? Or your friend at the citizen? Why are you so intent on this project in particular?
If you had contacted the developer to see how much these would sell for you would know they will be in the $350,000 range. Plus $500 monthly pad rental puts these homes in the reach of households that will need to make 80k minimum. The people purchasing these homes will be forever paying land rent to a landlord of 159+ other properties. Affordable housing is so important, but the cost of these will be nearly the cost of the existing homes in the area if you include the pad rental in your math.
There is a term called Mobile Home Park Millionaires. Why not own a park and benefit from squeezing money out of people who are just getting by? The rich stay rich and the poor stay poor if this type of development is continually allowed.
But hey, you do you. Use your platforms to help strengthen the divide of wealth. Pat yourself on the back at the end of the day, knowing you’re supporting future generations of people struggling to get ahead.
I really struggle taking criticism seriously from someone writing anonymously under the name "Do Better Please" but I'll bite.
That screenshot is taken from a PG modular home listing, I was just saying I cross checked it with Edmonton properties of similar size/shape in similar outlying hamlets - I'm pretty open to being wrong on my assessment there but I'd love to see your source on $350,000.00 per unit.
I grew up in a trailer park in Terrace. My parents owned it until a few years ago when they sold to move into a small townhouse and cleared their debts. Is pad rental an annoying aspect of modular home parks - yes - but it still allowed my blue collar working parents to buy a home, build equity over 25 years and be a healthy part of their retirement strategy when buying a "normal" single family dwelling was not an option for their income levels.
Paying $6000/yr in pad rent to a landlord is really annoying while paying $15-20,000 in to your mortgage is a good thing. Paying $27,000 in rent to a landlord for a 2br suite while paying $0 to a mortgage is way more annoying.
The homes on Thimbleberry Dr., using BC Assessment clock from $550-650K from me just plopping in 7 houses in a row so no - even at your un-sourced assessment of $350K are these in the same ballpark of costs, even with a $500 pad rent.
We live under capitalism - I cannot change that with a newsletter. I do not see many proposals coming in to City Hall that are going to help the working class more than adding this quantity of affordable housing.
Resources I trust like Strong Towns, and The Better Cities Project, as well as books like The Death and Life of Great American Cities regularly use modular/manufactured homes as an option to defeating the housing supply crisis we are living through.
Anyways - there's a second newsletter for you - hopefully you can trust that I'm not paid for by the newspaper that I have absolutely dumped on in this newsletter for 1.5 years or the development company that I otherwise know nothing about. Cheers!
Thanks for explaining your bias, your parents sound like good honest people. The figures quoted came directly from this developer and the post is anonymous for security reasons.
If you would like to do some research on the developer involved in this proposal, look up North Bay Trailer Park in Saskatchewan and you can read about how he evicted an entire park in 2019 with minimal notice after failing to manage the sewage properly and not getting his way with a cheap lagoon fix. The park was eventually purchased by another company and sewage installed, but it led to homelessness for some people and a major life upheaval for many others.
If a landlord would rather evict an entire park than pay for a slightly more expensive sewage fix, what does that tell you?
No, but when it’s the same landlord/developer in our town I‘d like to see caution taken to prevent people in our town going through the same thing, or anything similar where the money matters more to the owner than the people their actions affect.
Just would like to point out, that you need to do a thorough analysis of regulations for manufactured home park management and maintenance between two different jurisdictions, before using an example like this to argue your point.
I have a health authority covenant on the title of my hill-billy 1971 rural house and property which prevents any additional expansion of the house, because the lagoon isn't sufficient for additional growth. So I would have to upgrade the lagoon before I could get any building permits.
I'm guessing that SK rural municipality and/or health agency legislation didn't include that kind of language in the 1960s on the title, when they allowed that manufactured home park to be built with an undersized sewage system. Reading some more, it seems that the Water Authority just extended the permit from 1993 onwards to operate with an undersized system, through various owners, rather than requiring plans and actions for upgrades at others points almost 30 years. In fact, the original eviction notice came two years earlier but the Water Authority looked at Wankel's plans, considered them viable and sufficient, and extended the sewage permit again for two years while the rural municipality could review and decide.
However, there also seems to be some friction between the rural municipality, the water authority and the city of Prince Albert on sewage management and that was a factor in the denial of the plan to upgrade the lagoon.
It also seems that SK currently does not protect tenants under legislation nearly as well as BC, which updated its Manufactured Home Park and tenancy regulations last year.
In summary, this doesn't seem to be just an WestCan issue of booting out tenants. There is a long history of government likely not acting sooner rather than later, as well as weak legislation to protect tenants.
So there are all of those things to consider, not just the who the landlord is.
I think your misrepresenting the proposal a bit here. These are modular homes. Modular homes are as permanent as stick built single family homes. They can be built on basements, crawl spaces, normal foundations etc. It's literally a normal home that just has sections pre built off site. Yes, for simple ones the layout is basic but it is just a regular house. Modular homes are approved for RS2 as well so really the change in zoning here is essentially just a density change and allowing for the ability to collect strata.
Excellent newsletter. Totally agree. Those are such flimsy reasons for not allowing a development. I have lost faith in several on council but I expect more out of Brian.
Great points. We are in a housing crisis. Building mansions in university heights isn’t the answer. We need housing at all levels. I bought my house in 2021 under 350,000 and today would never be able to buy the same house. This doesn’t give younger generations any hope to the future.
Couldn't agree more - my wife and I bought our house in 2021 as well in the same range and it is now evaluated at $550,000 with interest rates doubled. We completely lucked into this place and that window is just closing more and more on folks in our age range and income bracket.
Darrin - you are 100% correct - every time someone who has been renting is able to buy, they have improved their long-term financial stability and provided an opportunity for another family to find a place to rent. Did you send this essay to our Mayor and Council or do they all follow you?
A good portion of Council are subscribed but I wouldn't force this newsletter down anyone's throat if they're not choosing it hahah. That said, readers are welcome to send it wherever they choose!
I find it rich that Simon Yu made comments about the placement of the a ‘trailer park’ too close to ‘high value’ properties, considering his neighbours having to look at several lovely piles of structural steel beams and girders lying about in his own front yard for years now. Never mind his derelict business property still looking like a pile of junk at 3rd and Dominion. There was a bit of tidying done when he was criticized after being elected, but it still is one of the eyesore collection downtown.
Otherwise, I heartily agree with the idea that the modular homes of today are better designed and built, meaning they are an acceptable form of housing for those who are looking for a moderate price range to get into the market. This plan should be allowed to proceed once and for all.
I agree it seems like a no brainer. I think permanent structure modular homes on foundation with strata will be a great choice for starter homes and downsizing seniors.
The covenant forcing modular homes I do think was important. From my understanding modular homes are structurally identical (if not stronger) then stick built. Promoting more long-term structures seems wise.
Your entire article is based on some incorrect assumptions. Good journalism would require further research than using Edmonton based prices (location location location), and removing your BIAS. Are you paid by the developer? Or your friend at the citizen? Why are you so intent on this project in particular?
If you had contacted the developer to see how much these would sell for you would know they will be in the $350,000 range. Plus $500 monthly pad rental puts these homes in the reach of households that will need to make 80k minimum. The people purchasing these homes will be forever paying land rent to a landlord of 159+ other properties. Affordable housing is so important, but the cost of these will be nearly the cost of the existing homes in the area if you include the pad rental in your math.
There is a term called Mobile Home Park Millionaires. Why not own a park and benefit from squeezing money out of people who are just getting by? The rich stay rich and the poor stay poor if this type of development is continually allowed.
But hey, you do you. Use your platforms to help strengthen the divide of wealth. Pat yourself on the back at the end of the day, knowing you’re supporting future generations of people struggling to get ahead.
I really struggle taking criticism seriously from someone writing anonymously under the name "Do Better Please" but I'll bite.
That screenshot is taken from a PG modular home listing, I was just saying I cross checked it with Edmonton properties of similar size/shape in similar outlying hamlets - I'm pretty open to being wrong on my assessment there but I'd love to see your source on $350,000.00 per unit.
I grew up in a trailer park in Terrace. My parents owned it until a few years ago when they sold to move into a small townhouse and cleared their debts. Is pad rental an annoying aspect of modular home parks - yes - but it still allowed my blue collar working parents to buy a home, build equity over 25 years and be a healthy part of their retirement strategy when buying a "normal" single family dwelling was not an option for their income levels.
Paying $6000/yr in pad rent to a landlord is really annoying while paying $15-20,000 in to your mortgage is a good thing. Paying $27,000 in rent to a landlord for a 2br suite while paying $0 to a mortgage is way more annoying.
The homes on Thimbleberry Dr., using BC Assessment clock from $550-650K from me just plopping in 7 houses in a row so no - even at your un-sourced assessment of $350K are these in the same ballpark of costs, even with a $500 pad rent.
We live under capitalism - I cannot change that with a newsletter. I do not see many proposals coming in to City Hall that are going to help the working class more than adding this quantity of affordable housing.
Resources I trust like Strong Towns, and The Better Cities Project, as well as books like The Death and Life of Great American Cities regularly use modular/manufactured homes as an option to defeating the housing supply crisis we are living through.
Anyways - there's a second newsletter for you - hopefully you can trust that I'm not paid for by the newspaper that I have absolutely dumped on in this newsletter for 1.5 years or the development company that I otherwise know nothing about. Cheers!
Thanks for explaining your bias, your parents sound like good honest people. The figures quoted came directly from this developer and the post is anonymous for security reasons.
If you would like to do some research on the developer involved in this proposal, look up North Bay Trailer Park in Saskatchewan and you can read about how he evicted an entire park in 2019 with minimal notice after failing to manage the sewage properly and not getting his way with a cheap lagoon fix. The park was eventually purchased by another company and sewage installed, but it led to homelessness for some people and a major life upheaval for many others.
If a landlord would rather evict an entire park than pay for a slightly more expensive sewage fix, what does that tell you?
Right - it tells me there was a shitty landlord in Saskatchewan named James Wankel who didn't do the right thing?
Are you saying that this example should be the sole case we study in whether Council okays modular home parks in Prince George?
No, but when it’s the same landlord/developer in our town I‘d like to see caution taken to prevent people in our town going through the same thing, or anything similar where the money matters more to the owner than the people their actions affect.
Just would like to point out, that you need to do a thorough analysis of regulations for manufactured home park management and maintenance between two different jurisdictions, before using an example like this to argue your point.
I have a health authority covenant on the title of my hill-billy 1971 rural house and property which prevents any additional expansion of the house, because the lagoon isn't sufficient for additional growth. So I would have to upgrade the lagoon before I could get any building permits.
I'm guessing that SK rural municipality and/or health agency legislation didn't include that kind of language in the 1960s on the title, when they allowed that manufactured home park to be built with an undersized sewage system. Reading some more, it seems that the Water Authority just extended the permit from 1993 onwards to operate with an undersized system, through various owners, rather than requiring plans and actions for upgrades at others points almost 30 years. In fact, the original eviction notice came two years earlier but the Water Authority looked at Wankel's plans, considered them viable and sufficient, and extended the sewage permit again for two years while the rural municipality could review and decide.
However, there also seems to be some friction between the rural municipality, the water authority and the city of Prince Albert on sewage management and that was a factor in the denial of the plan to upgrade the lagoon.
It also seems that SK currently does not protect tenants under legislation nearly as well as BC, which updated its Manufactured Home Park and tenancy regulations last year.
In summary, this doesn't seem to be just an WestCan issue of booting out tenants. There is a long history of government likely not acting sooner rather than later, as well as weak legislation to protect tenants.
So there are all of those things to consider, not just the who the landlord is.
I think your misrepresenting the proposal a bit here. These are modular homes. Modular homes are as permanent as stick built single family homes. They can be built on basements, crawl spaces, normal foundations etc. It's literally a normal home that just has sections pre built off site. Yes, for simple ones the layout is basic but it is just a regular house. Modular homes are approved for RS2 as well so really the change in zoning here is essentially just a density change and allowing for the ability to collect strata.
Are new 350k homes on strata really a bad thing?