Editor: Re: Banff buys Credit Union building, published in the March 31 edition of the RMO.
For a number of reasons I do not support the Town’s proposed purchase of the Credit Union (CU) building located at 221 Beaver Street. This property is designated Public Service.
Currently this building houses the Roam offices on the ground floor. There is one residential apartment (three bedrooms and a den which could be used as a bedroom) upstairs.
There is a possibility that this apartment will be converted to two two-bedroom apartments. Even after renovations there will be the same number of bedrooms. There will be the same number of parking stalls.
The Outlook reported last week that the housing unit will be vacant by May 1. The tenant just returned from an out-of-country vacation and learned of her possible eviction when she read that same Outlook article. She has, as of Monday, April 4, received no written notification of eviction from either the Town, or the Credit Union. On Monday the tenant informed Diana Waltmann, Town of Banff Communications Officer, of that fact.
Eviction of tenants in this case appears to be almost identical to the situation that occurred when the Town bought the then Whyte-owned apartments above Nester’s – those tenants were evicted (although I believe that they had approximately one year to vacate) so that new owners could occupy, or rent to other tenants, the apartments that the Town was selling.
The Town intends to “borrow $670,000 and to fund the rest of the purchase through reserves ($305,000)...”
That $305,000 would be better spent on the Deer Street below-market housing project that will increase the housing stock. We should not be borrowing money to fund a purchase that does not increase the housing stock.
The Town then rented the ground-level floor in order to house the Roam offices, perhaps to appease the Credit Union as the CU would probably have had a difficult time renting it for non-commercial purposes.
It seems to me (and a former Town employee who has also worked in an administrative capacity for other municipalities) that the CU received bad advice from the Town which might have prompted the CU to sue the Town. Purchase of the Credit Union-owned building might be the result of negotiation in order to avoid a Credit Union-initiated lawsuit.
Bottom line – it makes no sense for the Town to buy real estate that does not add to the housing stock. Furthermore, the Town should not be buying residential real estate with the intent of becoming landlords and rental agents. The only exception should be when housing is required to accommodate Town employees.
Hopefully, council will vote to not proceed with this purchase.
Jon Whelan,
Banff
