Facts

The City approved and oversaw the construction of 23 River Run homes on prime downtown waterfront land. Unlike other nearby developments, River Run remained a low-density residential area. Some original homeowners moved in as early as 1995, with the most recent arriving in 2017

The City informed River Run families that their homes might be destroyed as part of the Green Line project. The City met with River Run families and assured them the City had no intention to expropriate River Run, which families later realized meant the City was avoiding its legal obligations under expropriation laws. This left families uncertain about their homes’ future. Around the same time, the City erected construction fencing near River Run, marking the beginning of years of disruptive construction.

The City sent a vague letter stating that the Green Line project “may impact” River Run, offering no clarity on how or when.

River Run families sent questions to the City, highlighting the land’s high redevelopment potential. The City’s response confirmed River Run would be demolished but provided no clarity on land use. The City insisted on private negotiations with homeowners, refusing to acknowledge expropriation principles or provide resources for independent legal advice.

Councillor Druh Farrell published a Green Line update, stating that River Run’s destruction was “unfortunate” but would allow for expanded public space and facilitate Harvard Development’s multi-tower project at Eau Claire Market. This reinforced the perception that River Run’s demolition was to benefit private development. 

City Council approved a new Green Line alignment running through River Run. The City continued pressuring families to sell while publicly depicting River Run’s destruction.

Counsel for River Run families wrote to the City stating that:

• The City was acquiring River Run homes through an involuntary process under threat of expropriation.
• Owners were entitled to expropriation rights, including fair compensation.
• Owners were prepared to negotiate but only if the City acknowledged their legal rights.
• Owners had organized a single point of contact to reduce costs and facilitate discussions. 

The City responded, insisting that it intended to acquire River Run homes through voluntary negotiations and again referenced its appraisal report on “highest and best use.”

Counsel for River Run families wrote to the City stating that:

• This was not a voluntary transaction and was subject to expropriation laws.
• Alberta law requires the government to fully compensate landowners, not acquire property at the lowest price.
• The City’s refusal to reimburse owners’ costs was unfair and in bad faith.
• The City was creating an imbalance of bargaining power by refusing to acknowledge legal protections. 

The City’s legal counsel formally rejected the notion that River Run families were entitled to expropriation compensation, stating that if owners continued to insist on such rights, negotiations would end. The City also cited a consultant’s “independent” report on River Run’s highest and best use, though families later determined that the City had misled the consultant about development restrictions. 

Homeowners’ counsel sent another letter condemning the City’s unfair tactics and refusal to acknowledge expropriation rights. 

The River Run Board wrote to the Green Line Committee, urging the City to cover residents’ legal and appraisal costs so they could engage in fair negotiations. The letter highlighted the emotional and financial toll of years of uncertainty. 

The City provided an appraisal for one unit, which River Run families viewed as unreliable, as it was based on outdated or non-comparable properties. The owners of this unit attempted to negotiate but could not secure a price that would allow them to buy a comparable home in Eau Claire.

Several River Run families had a video call with the City, hoping to present their concerns. However, the City team stated they were only there to provide information about the flood barrier and would leave the call if owners raised concerns about the City’s conduct

The City’s land acquisition leader sent an email to the Board informing them about drilling scheduled for 7:00 AM the next morning. This was unusual, as the City had not typically informed River Run residents about construction activities immediately beside their homes. The email also included yet another image of a train running through River Run, which many families perceived as another intimidation tactic to push them into unfair acquisition discussions.

The Board sent a letter to Councillor Wong, again raising concerns about the City’s conduct and reiterating that River Run families were willing to negotiate if the City respected their expropriation rights. The letter included the following:

River Run

We love our unique acre of downtown, waterfront property. The phrase “location, location, location” is apt for the central, riverfront, park-adjacent location of River Run. City administration and elected officials have both publicly referred to River Run and its adjacent lands as the ‘crown jewel of downtown Calgary on the banks of the river,’ in news articles and City publications.

We have no interest in selling our homes. However, with the City telling us since March 2020 that our homes will be destroyed, and with the City publishing its intention to acquire or expropriate our homes in May 2020, we continue to be willing to have discussions.

Conflict of Interest

As a land developer that wants to acquire our homes, the City has put itself in an obvious, direct, and ongoing conflict of interest. The City is directly adverse in interest regarding the value of River Run. To appropriately manage this conflict created by the City, most reasonable organizations would adopt safeguards, such as ensuring that we have independent advice. The City has gone in a different direction and has refused to reimburse owners for independent advice.

…The City continues to pressure owners to participate in an unfair process. We have repeatedly set out our reasonable concerns, and the City has deliberately avoided any meaningful discussion. Instead, every response from the City is a direction for us to participate in an unfair process.

The families of River Run are organized and, for years, have been willing to participate in acquisition discussions. However, we are not going to enter into the most significant financial discussions of our lives without first being reasonably informed, and it is unfair for the City to continue to pressure us to do so.

We again request that the City agree to reimburse our reasonable costs to have fair, informed discussions where our rights are respected.

Councillor Wong’s assistant replied via email, stating she had reviewed the letter with Councillor Wong and provided a link to the City’s whistle-blower policy. Councillor Wong did not personally respond. Later, at the 2023 Eau Claire Community Association AGM, some River Run families asked Wong why he had not responded to their letters. He blamed his assistant for failing to provide them to him.

The City held an open house for its land use redesignation application with Harvard Developments, again depicting River Run as no longer existing. Despite the project being planned literally on River Run’s doorstep, the City provided no clarity on how it would impact River Run families and continued to claim that it had no intention of expropriating River Run.

• At the event, the City and Harvard displayed a “right to light” document, which suggested that a 16-story tower could be built on River Run land. 

• This conflicted with the City’s “highest and best use” appraisal, which previously stated that River Run’s redevelopment potential was limited to three stories.
• River Run families pointed out the contradiction to the City, but the City did not respond.

The Board wrote to City Council and copied the City’s land acquisition and Eau Claire teams. The letter raised serious concerns about the City’s misuse of expropriation power:

The City has the enormous power to take citizens’ homes without consent. To try to prevent abuse of this power, laws exist to ensure fair compensation, including reimbursement for legal and appraisal costs.

Even if the City’s actions are technically legal, ethically, why wouldn’t the City want to ensure that citizens have access to independent advice? Independent advice is a hallmark of a fair process.

The City’s refusal to reimburse owners for independent advice suggests that it is attempting to suppress fair negotiations. The City continues to avoid meaningful discussion and instead pressures us to participate in an unfair process.

 As with prior letters, no one from the City responded.

The City provided an undated letter to all River Run owners regarding its and Harvard’s land use redesignation application. However, the application contained no clear details about how River Run would be affected.

In response to the City’s application, the River Run Board submitted feedback through the City’s online form, stating:

In response to the City’s application, the River Run Board submitted feedback through the City’s online form, stating: 

The River Run Board of Directors, on behalf of all families of River Run, requests to be reasonably informed about the City’s plans for our homes and property. Our questions include:

• Does the City intend to destroy our homes?
• If so, what does the City plan to build on our property?
• If not, what will be constructed immediately beside our homes, and how will we be impacted?

River Run families also submitted a formal letter raising similar concerns. 

A River Run owner responded to the City’s latest land acquisition outreach, stating: 

We are now in the fifth calendar year of the City threatening to destroy our homes while pressuring us to sell.

The City has repeatedly depicted our homes as destroyed while simultaneously claiming that it has no intention of expropriating our homes.

For years, this uncertainty has prevented us from knowing how to maintain our homes, whether to renovate, or how to manage our reserve fund. This uncertainty is causing real harm.

As with previous communications, the City did not respond.

City Announces Expropriation Intent:

The City removed Councillor Farrell’s comments about River Run being purchased or expropriated from the City’s website. No one from the City responded to the Board’s letter.

Concerns About the Green Line’s Feasibility:

Many River Run families expressed concern, as there was ongoing speculation in the media and among experts that the Green Line could be financially unviable or may never be constructed. This uncertainty further complicated the situation for residents unsure about the fate of their properties.

City’s Response to Queries:

The City responded to inquiries from River Run’s Board, but the communication left many River Run families dissatisfied:

• The City refused to provide funds for independent advice for the residents.
• The City insisted that acquisition discussions could only happen individually with owners, isolating them.
• The City rejected expropriation principles, such as “home for a home” and “highest and best use.”

Pressure from Councillor Wong:

The owner of Unit 28 reported a conversation with Councillor Wong, during which Wong indirectly pressured the owner to sell their home through the City’s process. Despite repeated requests for direct engagement, Councillor Wong did not have meaningful discussions with River Run families.
Unit 28 ended up moving out of the complex in December 2023 and received approximately 40% more than other River Run families.

Additionally, it should be noted that we were required to sign a rental agreement with the City to rent our own home from February 22, 2024, to May 31, 2024. This arrangement was imposed as part of the ongoing negotiations related to the property.

Objections & Public Inquiry:

Owners of 20 of the 23 River Run homes formally objected to the expropriation, prompting the Province to appoint an independent Inquiry Officer to investigate the City’s actions.

City Appraiser Visit & Report:

An appraiser, chosen by the City, visited River Run. The appraiser clarified that the valuation was based solely on market value and did not take into account expropriation principles, such as the high cost of replacement homes or the “home for a home” principle.

Public Inquiry & Report 

A Public Inquiry was held, with the Inquiry Officer issuing a scathing report on the City’s conduct:

• Failure to Communicate Transparently: The City was found to have failed in its communication with River Run owners, showing a lack of transparency and good faith.
• Unfair Process: The report criticized the City’s approach, highlighting undue prejudice against owners and excessive delays, which created a “limbo” for residents.
• Power Imbalance: The City was found to have acted in a way that reinforced an unequal bargaining position, disadvantaging River Run owners.

River Run’s Appeal for Fair Negotiations

The River Run Board wrote to the Mayor and Councillor Wong, referencing the Inquiry Report and calling for good faith discussions on fair compensation. The letter emphasized that the City’s conduct, as outlined in the report, was prejudicial and unfair. The City did not respond to this request.

City Council’s Closed-Door Meeting:

Despite the Inquiry Report’s findings and multiple letters from River Run families, City Council discussed the expropriation of River Run properties behind closed doors. The Council voted to proceed with the expropriation without holding meaningful discussions with River Run families.

City Takes Legal Ownership of River Run:

The City took legal ownership of 21 out of 23 River Run homes. River Run families learned of this action not from the City but by checking land titles themselves. No payment was made for these properties until January 2024.

Payment and Appraisal Issues:

In January 2024, the City made payments to River Run families based on appraisals it had selected and privately engaged with. These appraisals did not consider expropriation principles, such as “home for a home,” or the highest and best use of the properties.

Issues with Property Maintenance After Expropriation:

After legal ownership was transferred, the City failed to respond to the owner of unit 48, who had offered to meet and provide keys. The City subsequently changed the locks and did not address concerns about maintaining the property. In January 2024, water pipes in unit 48 froze, causing extensive damage, which the City had to manage at taxpayers’ expense

River Run Families’ Letter to City Council

River Run families sent a detailed letter to City Council, outlining their ongoing concerns with the expropriation process. The letter argued that the City did not need to destroy their homes for the Green Line and cited previous planning decisions that had harmed citizens, such as the Eau Claire Market’s failure. They expressed frustration with the City’s refusal to engage in meaningful conversations and emphasized that the City’s conduct continued to be unfair.

River Run families provided the City with detailed information regarding fair compensation, including:

• A summary of River Run and surrounding properties 

• A draft report on River Run’s value using multiple valuation approaches.
• A CMS report on sold and listed larger properties in Eau Claire and Watermark 

Key observations on fair compensation:

The City expropriated River Run homes claiming it was for the Green Line, but it remains uncertain whether the land will actually be used for the project.

The City may not have the budget to extend the Green Line as far north as River Run, even if contingent provincial funding is secured.

The expropriation will significantly increase the value of Harvard’s nearby multi-tower development, potentially leading to a windfall profit of around $100M.

If market forces were allowed to operate freely, Harvard might have negotiated directly with River Run families, potentially leading to a fair purchase price of approximately $2M per home—without taxpayers covering the cost.

Property valuation considerations:

• The draft report estimated River Run’s value at $99M based on a 4.0 FAR tower.
• Estimated construction costs for such a tower range from $250–$400 per square foot, implying potential compensation of $2M–$3M per home, adjusted for net present value (NPV).
• The “home for a home” principle should be evaluated by comparing average prices of 3+ bedroom waterfront homes in Eau Claire and Waterfront over the past two years.
• The critical factors for River Run families include location, size (four floors with a loft and basement), and the unique character of their small, low-density community.
• The attached CMS report (using Patrick and Jane’s home as an example) identified an average property value of $1.94M 
• A nearby property, 507, 600 Princeton Way, recently sold for $3M ($993/sqft).

Specific “home for a home” comparisons:

$2.4M for Patrick and Jane – The only comparable large-dog-friendly properties downtown (River Run and Princeton) currently have listings at $2.35M–$2.45M.

• $2.45M for Gordon – Based on his purchase price and renovation costs.
• Around $2M on average – Based on comparable properties and necessary renovation costs.

Fair compensation is highly subjective, and given the City’s past conduct, River Run families expect that a Tribunal would likely set compensation at the high end of the range.

The above information was provided to facilitate discussions, but River Run families did not specify a fixed number or range they would accept.

• Since the City has not provided any information about fair expropriation compensation, the information prepared by River Run families is the only relevant data exchanged.
• Despite initially agreeing to meet and discuss compensation, after receiving this information, the City reversed its decision and refused to meet.
• The City has had this information for several months and has not commented on it.

At the Eau Claire Community Association AGM, Councillor Wong stated that due to a limited budget, the Green Line may not extend to Eau Claire and that the River Run homes may be “repurposed.”

• At this time, most River Run families were still living in their homes but were soon to be evicted.

The City demanded that River Run families vacate their homes by the end of the day. By this date, River Run was completely vacant, despite ongoing uncertainty about whether the Green Line would ever be built on the site.

• The City Manager responsible for Green Line property acquisitions confirmed that the City would not meet to discuss fair compensation. Instead, he stated:
  • Any future discussions must be conducted on an individual basis (directly between the City and each former homeowner or their lawyer).
  • Discussions would be limited only to the value of the individual unit—not broader fair compensation principles.

Response from River Run families:

• Expressed disappointment that the City refused to have a conversation about fair compensation.
• Requested the contact information of the Manager’s supervisor to discuss procedural fairness concerns.
• The Manager refused twice to provide this information and instead directed all future communications through legal counsel—while at the same time, the City continued delaying and minimizing reimbursement for legal costs already incurred.

Next Steps

• Former owners of 21 of 23 River Run homes plan to apply to the Tribunal to determine fair compensation, but they are waiting for the City to reimburse their legal costs for the Inquiry (which the City was directed to pay in July 2023).
• To date, the City has not reimbursed any of these costs.
• River Run families remain open to discussions if the City is finally willing to engage in a fair conversation.

The City forced River Run families from their homes, despite uncertainty over whether the land was needed for the Green Line or any public purpose. The $4.5 billion budget for the Green Line, approved in 2020, had been widely criticized as unrealistic, with concerns over downtown tunnel costs and potential project scope reductions.

Prior to Expropriation:

• Public commentary consistently highlighted that the City’s budget was insufficient.
• Experts and reports dating back to 2019 warned of a $2+ billion funding shortfall.
• The Province repeatedly expressed concerns about the financial risks of underground tunnels to Eau Claire.

A federal government letter to the City confirmed that due to the changes in the Green Line project scope, the City must reapply for federal funding. However, the application can only proceed if the Province first approves the City’s business case. The letter stated that once the Province submits the approved business case, the federal government will assess the changes and consult with the Federal Treasury Board Secretariat to determine whether Treasury Board approval is required. The initial assessment suggested that such approval would indeed be necessary. 

A provincial government letter to the City outlined the conditions required for provincial funding to be available for any new Green Line alignment. The letter also stated that under the Public Transit and Green Infrastructure Project Act, the Province is legally required to review the details of the scope change before deciding whether to approve provincial funding. 

Council voted to allocate funds for a new 10km alignment from Eau Claire to Lynnwood, with an estimated cost of $6.248 billion. Both federal and provincial governments required new funding applications.

 The Provincial Minister of Transportation harshly criticized the City’s mismanagement of the Green Line budget.

The Province rejected the City’s revised business case, citing reduced benefits, increased costs, and potential legal exposure due to alleged prior commitments to developers.

The Province shared the AECOM expert report with the City, and most of it was released to the public on December 18, 2024. The report included images showing a potential Eau Claire station that did not require demolishing River Run, suggesting its destruction was unnecessary for the Green Line. 

Calgary’s former Mayor warned that failing to extend the Green Line to Eau Claire could result in major lawsuits from developers with financial interests in the area, indicating commitments were likely made in 2021 or earlier. That same day, Councillor Chabot suggested there were financial and contractual obligations related to the Green Line’s extension to Eau Claire but provided no further details. 

The River Run families committee wrote to their Councillor, highlighting how the City deliberately damaged River Run after forcing families out on June 1, 2024, despite uncertainty about its necessity for public use. The City allowed appliance removal, left homes unsecured, permitted film crews to use the site, and conducted fire and police drills that further deteriorated the homes, ensuring they could no longer be lived in and aligning with a private developer’s plans. 

The River Run families committee wrote to Council, stating the City’s negotiation team was deliberately obstructing fair compensation. The City failed to reimburse families for Inquiry costs, misrepresented appraisals as “independent,” provided misleading property valuations, ignored a compensation analysis submitted by families, and made an isolated settlement offer to one family rather than all. Meanwhile, the City continued destructive activities on-site and attempted to intimidate families by falsely claiming they owed money. 

 The City’s website stated that demolishing River Run would “fulfill contractual obligations,” implying prior commitments to developers for a five-tower project. However, Council’s 2020 approval of the Green Line did not authorize such agreements, and budget conditions required for expansion into River Run were never met. The City had claimed River Run was needed for construction staging, but alternative sites closer to Eau Claire station were available. 

The City began demolishing River Run homes. CBC reported that police and fire departments used the site for over 100 training exercises, including explosive drills, which resulted in noise complaints and further damage. The destruction occurred months after families were forced out, despite no confirmed public need for demolition, and multiple news reports confirmed the demolition was proceeding to meet contractual obligations. 

• Council voted to proceed with the Province’s proposed Green Line alignment, which extends from downtown Calgary (but not to Eau Claire) to Shepard. Under this alignment, the River Run lands are not needed for any public purpose. Following this vote, the City was required to update its federal ICIP business case to reflect the revised alignment, cost, and scope, which would be critical for securing previously committed provincial and federal funding.
  
  
• A two-alarm fire broke out in the remaining River Run homes. The City did not pause demolition for a meaningful investigation and instead resumed demolition the next day. Since the City forced River Run to remain vacant starting June 1, 2024, homeless individuals made use of the empty waterfront homes, which may have contributed to the fire.

The City completed and submitted its ICIP business case to the Province, which is expected to approve it before applying to the federal government. The deadline for federal submission is March 31, 2025, and it remains uncertain whether federal ICIP funds committed in 2015 for a different alignment will be available for the revised plan. Despite this uncertainty, there is no publicly available information about the City’s plans for the River Run property beyond fulfilling secret contractual obligations to a developer.

The City continues to refuse fair compensation discussions with River Run families based on expropriation principles. As a result, former owners of 20 of the 23 River Run homes have applied to the Tribunal to determine fair compensation. The City persists in its “deny, delay, depose” strategy: (i) denying families’ entitlement to expropriation compensation, (ii) delaying the process as much as possible, and (iii) forcing families into litigation to compel the City to comply with the law. Additionally, despite being ordered on July 31, 2023, to reimburse families for reasonable Inquiry costs, the City has not paid any amount.

Dear City Council,

As a follow up to our October 1, 2024 correspondence, which no one from the City responded to, attached please find a continuation of the summary of the City’s conduct towards River Run families.
The City could have taken our homes to enrich a developer without causing us so much harm for so long. If there is someone at the City who is finally willing to discuss fair compensation, we remain available.

–        River Run Families Committee