Based on expert advice, Parkbridge has concluded that there is risk to the physical safety of the residents at Meneset who occupy 20 sites exposed to instability and on-going, environmental erosion of the bluff.

The escarpment is a natural area subject to a number of complex factors impacting the shoreline above and below the water’s surface and the escarpment face up and down its slope. Experts retained by Parkbridge to consider remedial action clearly established that there are no practical means to remediate the bluff and assure the residents safety.

We don’t know exactly, and no one can forecast the pace or scale of erosion, but the Maitland Valley Conservation Authority and our geo-technical engineers have identified that these mobile homes are in the hazard area.

When we purchased the community in 2008 we were made aware that there had been some localized slope failure in the mid 1980’s. We first observed localized erosion failure that required the removal of a mobile home off of the bluff in 2011 and we have been monitoring the bluff ever since.

In July 2011, we held a meeting with the then 24 affected homeowners about the risk to their houses, and we have been in contact with them since that time.

There remain 20 houses affected with more than 30 residents.

Yes, most of the residents are seniors.

We are proposing the houses be relocated to land that is within the existing Meneset community so they can continue to live amongst the friends they have made.

No, unfortunately, the only lands we have available do not have sightlines to water.

In their current location, the mobile homes have little value. If they move to the new location, these houses should see value returned and stabilized. In fact, we’re taking steps to protect their investment insofar as possible by providing a safe location (at our cost) for their home.

Yes. It is common on properties that are not on municipal services to have septic systems. This is not unique to Meneset, land lease communities or other rural residential properties.

Parkbridge will not purchase the home or re-lease the site. Parkbridge cannot provide new long-term leases or consent to the reassignment of existing leases while the houses remain on the bluff as any and all of that continues to place residents of the houses at risk. Once the houses have been relocated to a safe site, then long-term leases and reassignment of leases would be normal course and allow for the sale of the houses.

The first right of a refusal is a mechanism that allows a landlord to purchase older houses at fair market value that are at end of life and whose existence in the community adversely affects the marketability of the community and houses within it, bringing down the value of other houses in the community to the detriment of the landlord’s other homeowners. That is not the case here.

Parkbridge is not providing direct compensation to residents to move; rather, Parkbridge is willing to invest more than $1 million to create replacement sites for residents on adjacent land. We will not recover any portion of this through rent increases (Above Guideline Increases), so we will recoup none of this capital cost. We will therefore see no return on this investment to build and service new sites, an investment that we are fully willing to make to see the residents on stable ground.

No, Parkbridge will not be covering the costs of moving. Land lease is a form of equity partnership. We own the land, the residents own their mobile homes and there is a division of responsibilities that both parties need to meet. We are willing to invest more than $1 million to build and service new sites for the residents; the residents would then cover the cost of moving their mobile home. Neither Parkbridge nor the residents caused this problem, but we need to work together on the solution. Parkbridge is certainly willing to assist the homeowners in finding a qualified contractor capable of doing the work required to move their mobile homes.

The land will be converted as hazard lands to greenspace and additional clean-up and landscaping will be required, at Parkbridge’s expense, as part of the approvals process to allow for the replacement sites.

Through the recent Landlord and Tenant Board hearing, it was established that different land uses have different risk profiles and that “passive recreation” has a lower risk and requires a lower factor of safety than residential occupancies. The area as greenspace has a lower-risk profile. However, after further consultation with our geo-technical engineer, we have moved the benches back from the edge of the bluff a more appropriate location and we will be erecting warning signs in the hazard area.

The reality is that there is no way to know what a triggering event might be, when it might occur or how large a slope failure might be and how much time, if any, there might be to react. What we do know – from investigations completed and the recent decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board – is that the slope has had different size failures in the past and that in relation to the houses there now, there is an insufficient factor of safety based on accepted geotechnical standards. This puts the houses – and by extension, the residents – in peril now, which is not acceptable to Parkbridge.

Eviction or refusal to assign leases is always a last resort for Parkbridge and only comes after all other potential solutions have been exhausted. In this case, the safety of our residents is our primary concern, and it is important that the houses be moved from the identified hazard area as soon as possible.