Residents are continuing to fight, but it looks like the days of Harriston’s 12-unit trailer park are numbered.
Then again, it is not something happening overnight; residents are being given a decade to get their affairs in order.
The decision comes just months into council’s new term, but the matter has been on the books for a few years. The previous council wrestled with the needs of park residents and the spectre of increased flood risk and liability at the site adjacent to the Maitland River in Harriston.
On March 9, Minto councillors heard from the Harriston Trailer Park residents again.
While much of the Harriston community is in the floodway, the park is particularly susceptible.
The recommendation under review by council states all current trailer park lessees will be permitted to remain on their current sites for a period of up to 10 years, provided their rental payments remain in good standing and lessees are reminded periodically about the town’s concern regarding potential flooding and about emergency procedures in the event of a flood.
But the town will no longer approve assignment or subletting of current leases – or approve any new leases.
Minto would also offer current tenants a grant of up to $3,000 towards the cost of relocating a mobile home. It would be responsible for the cost of disconnecting services to the site as well as restoration of it.
The report to council stated, “Advice and experience confirms that the flood risk to the trailer park residents is real.”
The town’s emergency services committee brought the risk and the town’s responsibility to council’s attention, so council is required to act.
The town’s solicitor also made the town’s liability abundantly clear, stating, “Taking no action is not a viable option for the town.”
The report said, “The status quo cannot continue and the risk must be abated. Removal of the trailers (as opposed to watercourse engineering) is the only effective and financially feasible way to do so.”
There was recognition the decision affects people of limited means and advancing age who have lived there for many years.
“While they have enjoyed very inexpensive accommodation for many years, their options to relocate may be limited.”
The legal advice was to remove all trailers from the park as soon as possible.
Council hoped a more moderate course would give residents notice, but provide a long notice period.
That, they hoped, would ensure the park becomes vacant in a reasonable period of time without undue disruption to the lives of residents. Current leases are on a month-to-month basis at $135 per month.
There was also recognition that ending the lease will have a negative impact on the value of the trailers.
But the report argued, “Town taxpayers at large should not be expected to compensate trailer park residents for a benefit that taxpayers at large created in the first place.”
Minto also cannot absolve itself of responsibility by selling the land. The risk is known and real, so in the event of loss of life or property, the town could not claim it sold the land without knowing the jeopardy in which purchasers would be placed.
Further, if a subdivision were applied for, it would not be approved “because the land is in the floodway of the Maitland River, not just the flood fringe.”
Many of the residents or representatives were at the meeting.
None want to move.
Trevor Quigley, on behalf of Esther Smith, said according to his figures “You guys are losing $205,092 over a 10 year period to throw us out of our trailer park. Why?”
Bridge said the amount cited is the rent over a ten year period.
“You’re throwing us out, just like that?” Quigley asked.
Bridge said the reasons were listed in the report. He noted there was a prior meeting with residents.
“We’re not throwing you out, but there are reasons why we have to solve the trailer park situation.”
Quigley contended it is the municipality that will lose as a result of this action. “If you throw us out, who’s going to pay the taxes? You’re throwing everyone out – and it’s wrong.”
Quigley said this has nothing to do with the river.
Bridge pointed out residents have the option of remaining for the next 10 years.
Quigley said “Ten years – and then we’re thrown out.” He asked what would happen with the land after the 10 years.
Bridge said it will be nothing other than parkland.
Quigley asked if the town intends to build on the site.
“We can’t.” Bridge stated.
Quigley said $3,000 to move the trailer “doesn’t cut the cookie. I’ll drop it off out here and you guys can deal with it.”
Park resident Trudy Reimer said, “We are just finding it difficult and we don’t want to leave – because we’re losing everything.”
With her voice cracking with emotion, she said, “We just don’t think it’s fair.” She asked if having cement foundations under the trailers would make a difference.
Bridge said what is being proposed “is not a perfect solution, but we’re willing to take the risk for another 10 years.”
Reimer contended, “It’s not an answer for us.”
Bridge said he understood, “but there’s no win-win here.”
Reimer said she has been told residents should try to get out of the park “but to buy an empty lot, it’s $39,000 plus the mortgage, which I have on the trailer. Where does it put us? “I’m sure if someone came to your door and said for some reason or whatever, you have to let your house go for $3,000 – you wouldn’t move. Is there no solution to solve this so I can stay?”
Bridge said council has explored the issue, “I don’t think there is a solution other than what we’ve offered. This isn’t something that we’ve taken lightly. This council has talked about this since it first came into existence. We feel at this time we must put closure to the issue.”
Bridge said he realizes residents have spent the past two years not knowing if they would be allowed to stay.
“All we can offer at this point is closure in knowing that you have up to 10 years to move. If you want to move out before that, we’ve made some provisions. We’ll try to work with you.”
Reimer’s response was, “It’s heartbreaking.”
Ross Clark, on behalf of his 83-year-old uncle who lives in the park, said there are concerns for the timing of the March 9 meeting. He asked if council had considered selling individual lots to residents.
Minto Fire Chief Chris Harrow said the advice given to the town is that it cannot sell property it knows is in a floodway.
Clark said because of all this, another home currently for sale in the trailer park, is now listed at only $11,900 as is.
“At that price, and because of the situation,” Clark said it has decreased the resale value of other trailers. Even if the trailers are sold, they have to be removed from the park.
He asked if the trailer could be moved onto another property in Minto.
Building Inspector Terry Kuipers said the majority of property zones in Minto do not allow mobile homes – on a foundation or not. The only places they are allowed is as secondary dwellings on farm properties.
He said prefabricated residences, such as those by Royal Homes, are classified differently.
He said that it has nothing to do with the roof style, but a different method of construction.
Clark said many park residents felt the issue is cut and dried.
Deputy-clerk Bill Winegard said the proposal is council’s attempt to deal with the issue, which has gone on for a few years. He said there is a history of flooding and evacuation of residents.
Winegard added projections indicate the 100-year-flood level risk is a river rise of seven feet. To date, flooding has reached only two and a half feet, he said.
“It’s not a question of if there will be a far worse flood – but when.”
Winegard added there is also recognition there are people who have lived there for a good number of years. He said the recommendation tries to strike a balance between what council was advised to do by its insurers and its solicitor, who advised it is something to deal with as quickly as possible.
Instead, a 10 year period is being proposed.
“It’s impossible to find the perfect balance in a situation such as this, but we are advising council that this is a situation which must be dealt with.”
Winegard said the issue cannot be dealt with if it allowed for an extension or transfer of leases – even though council acknowledges it has an impact on the value of the trailers.
Planning and legal advice was sought on potential sale of the property.
Winegard said the law is such that because the town knows of the risk, selling would not get the town off the hook for liability.
“There does not seem to be a satisfactory alternative other than what is being proposed.”
Councillor Ron Elliott said some asked why the municipality could not just leave the people there.
“That turned out not to be an option,” he said.
Several options were looked at – and rejected.
While it may not seem the best, “We are moving with the option we have to. It’s difficult and I’m not overly happy with our decision.”
Councillor Ronald Faulkner said in discussion with many communities that had almost identical situations, the municipalities were forced to ask the people to relocate. “I want to assure everyone that we don’t take this lightly. In my opinion, the town has been placed in a huge liability situation.”
He said if one trailer gets washed away and blocks the water further, it becomes a greater liability.
In calling for a vote Bridge said he was voting for the motion because he felt it was important to show his support.
Councillors Dave Turton and Rick Hembly were absent.
Council passed the resolution to adopt the proposal.
