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
