The Historic District

There haven't been any statements about things like whether the city will pay her for the expropriated land, if the city will pay for the lot across the street, and the house moving charges, etc.. (No clue how expropriation typically works).

All things considered, if the city will pay for the house moving, etc. then it is probably the best she can hope for. Some of the garden could be saved and moved. It would be psychologically painful to see your 30 year old garden plowed down and turned into a road, though. I hope the lot they are offering is of a similar size.

Her house is great, but is not a super unique style in London.

I would hate to be in her situation. I'll bet she feels like she has been under siege for the last year.

Vala wrote:I would take the offer to move. A garden can be replaced, a historic home cannot.

Depends on the exact laws up there of course but I can foresee this coming to a conclusion of the house being forcibly bought and moved then sold to a different owner

a lot of the time houses like this can be moved to a new location and put on top of a foundation which supports a full height basement suite leaving enough room for two families and an income for the owner. That might be a win/win.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/heritage-home-to-relocate-on-wharncliffe-1.4523939

This the best offer she is going to get, I think.

Willa wrote:http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/heritage-home-to-relocate-on-wharncliffe-1.4523939

This the best offer she is going to get, I think.

I fear at this point if she refuses to take them up on their offer to move it she may find herself in the position of having it bought from under her and demolished (the cheapest option for the city)

Mick_VT wrote:I fear at this point if she refuses to take them up on their offer to move it she may find herself in the position of having it bought from under her and demolished (the cheapest option for the city)

I hope she has good legal counsel. The proposed option saves the house, keeps her in the same community, and does the least evil over all.

If they left her house, then the alternate plan would be to demolish 13 properties on the other side of the street, several of which are heritage buildings, too, which would cost the city much more.

She will lose her garden, including mature trees, but I imagine that many plants could be successfully transplanted.

A situation like this is bad city planning, that is a bandaid on traffic congestion.

Can there be anything more selfish than refusing a fair compromise while condemning the compromise as "unfair" and "lack[ing] respect and consideration"?

I think the City's willingness to spend $600,000 to move the house to a lot across the street is fair, respectful, and considerate. When faced with the State's power of eminent domain (expropriation), one should be immediately grateful for any reasonable offer of considerate accommodation. She could have received a check for "fair market value" and a court order to vacate.

I too believe this is the best she is going to get. Every thing from here on will be just tilting against windmills.

I worry that if she doesn't accept the offer to move her house that the city will just write her a cheque for the fair market value of her property and bulldoze away.

From what I've read, it's not clear if the city will pay for the house moving and reinstallation, which would include sewer, etc., and that this plus the new lot is considered a payment/trade or if she will be compensated as well as the house being moved ?