Wednesday, June 6, 2012

Oceanside MHome Citizen Advocates WIN Election!

We have won !  It is a great morning, and a new day in Oceanside politics, and for all of us living in manufactured housing communities.   We can sigh a bit of relief for now, we have earned it.  But tomorrow?  Tomorrow we plan for November.
Working together we have proven that people, not money, win elections.  How we use this opportunity is going to be the key.   Below are a few of the notes from others and the newspaper articles and photos.
We owe thanks to everyone of the volunteers that helped in calling, walking, talking to the community.  To the leaders from OMHA, GSMOL, ACTION, Save Oceanside, Unitied4Oside, and all of the folks that voted in this election.   There are lots of heroes this morning



In a message dated 6/6/2012 4:04:36 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, writes:

Congratulations to you on a hard fought win for all mobilehome owners!
And to all who signed petitions, held signs, contributed time or money or both.
I'm so happy that E was defeated. Now the next step is resident ownership
of all mobilehome parks!!!
Frank A. Wodley
Mobilehome Magazine
P.O. Box 3774
Chatsworth, Ca. 91313
I'm so thankful for all you're doing! Praying for you! Linda

The homeowners in Oceanside, and all over the state, appear headed for a victory, if the final results show that Prop E failed. This is Citizenship 101; democracy works, after all! Just shows what can happen when people get together in a common cause.
The Country MHP
Santa Rosa CA

You have expressed my exact thoughts, Linda, and have done it beautifully. Yes, whatever today's outcome, we all know that there will not be an end to our efforts as long as our council is polluted with the unconscionable greed that will enact destructive change for Oceanside. Prop E was their strike against mobile home owners and they will most certainly come after us again if we don't stop them in November. Prop F is their strike against everyone, in every neighborhood, and their plan to keep us from stopping them. We can't let that happen. Meanwhile, I would also like to extend my appreciation to everyone for their gallant efforts. Thank you. Bonnie

In a message dated 6/5/2012 12:16:58 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time

I just wanted to say thanks to everyone who's been a part of this effort. When Kern, Feller and Felien targeted the manufactured home communities, they must have thought we were just a defenseless group of senior citizens. They forgot these are men and women who've fought wars against much bigger enemies and WON. They forgot that these communities are made up of lawyers, doctors, pharmacists, engineers, computer techs, writers, artists, business men and women, CEO's, teachers, nurses, mothers and fathers, all of whom are the fabric and strength of this community. They did us a favor by introducing us all to each other and reminding us what we can accomplish when we join forces and put our heads together.

I've seen some remarkable things happen during the course of this struggle. What an honor to get to know the veterans to whom we owe so much. I've seen people with severe illnesses, in wheelchairs, with walkers and canes, stand up for their rights and come out to rallies and Council meetings and spend hours on phone banks. I've seen people from other areas of our community join us to support what's moral and just and speak for those who are too frail to participate. We've gotten to know everyone from the Mayor to the Mailman and everyone in between. We've met neighbors and made friendships we would have never experienced. It is an honor to know each and every one of you.

Regardless of the election outcome, our opposition won't "go away quietly," (i.e., Wednesday's "Circulation Element" Council meeting that will affect us all). We must stand together, continue the momentum of this fight through November to CHANGE THIS COUNCIL! When we have done that, the City will be able to enforce our existing laws and effect change for the better. Our victory begins with today's WIN at the polls as we move forward to TAKE BACK OCEANSIDE!

Hope to see everyone tonight at RSLR!


2012-06-05T23:45:00Z2012-06-06T01:21:01ZOCEANSIDE: Voters opting to keep rent control and reject election changesBy RAY HUARD rhuard@nctimes.comNorth County Times
In election returns updated early Wednesday morning, Oceanside voters appeared to be rejecting an ordinance that would phase out rent control in the city's 17 mobile-home parks, and also rejecting a plan to change the way the city elects its officials.
Proposition E ---- the measure that would gradually eliminate rent control ---- was failing with 65.2 percent of the voters saying no and 34.8 percent voting yes.
Proposition F, which would require city officials to be elected by a majority of votes cast, also was failing with 56.5 percent saying no and 43.5 percent yes.
Mobile-home resident Chris Gow said she Tuesday night was "just ecstatic" over the vote on Proposition E.
"I'm really not sure why people are voting the way they are except that they're tired of the way the three councilmen run this city," said Gow, president of the Oceanside Manufactured Homeowners Alliance.
Proposition E was backed by councilmen Jerry Kern, Gary Felien and Jack Feller.
"We're sure that some other issue about mobile-home residency will come up again so we can't let our guard down," Gow said Tuesday. "From what I understand, (the council majority) have a check list and they're just going down the list. We don't know what's next on that list, but we will be ready for them."
Kern, who championed the so-called decontrol measure that became Proposition E, said he's convinced that most people oppose rent control but "we just couldn't get people to the polls."
"Reform is hard," Kern said. "When you let people vote themselves a subsidy, they're going to vote themselves a subsidy. They have a financial interest."
Kern predicted that as long as rent control remains, there's no incentive for park owners to stay in the mobile-home business.
"Within the next 10 or 15 years, those mobile-home parks will either close or become condos because the system is unsustainable," Kern said.
Park owners aren't giving up despite the failure of Proposition E, said Amy Epsten, whose family owns two Oceanside mobile-home parks.
"We will regroup. One thing you definitely can count on is we will always continue fighting for our property rights," Epsten said. "I promise, we will get our property rights back."
Kern and Epsten blamed the no vote on Proposition E on low voter turnout.
The issue "resonates with a lot of property owners and Republicans but you can't make people vote," Epsten said.
Proposition F, also put on the ballot by the three-member council majority, was likely failing as fallout from the no vote on Proposition E, Kern said.
"People didn't read it," Kern said. Many of those who voted no on Proposition E just went down the ballot and voted no for F, Kern said.
Under Prop. E, rent control would stay in place for people already living in rent-controlled spaces but would be removed when they move or sell their homes.
Proposition F requires that the mayor, City Council members, city clerk and city treasurer be elected by a majority vote rather than a plurality.
If no one running for a specific seat gets more than 50 percent of the vote, there would be a runoff election.
Candidates for mayor and City Council will continue to run at-large citywide but they would run for numbered seats.
Before the election, some of those campaigning against Proposition E predicted that it would have repercussions in the November election, when Kern is running for mayor against incumbent Jim Wood and council members Esther Sanchez and Jack Feller are running for re-election.
"This whole rent control issue has gotten a lot of attention," said Dana Corso, president of the Alliance of Citizens to Improve Oceanside Neighborhoods.
Corso said the issue has united voters with disparate interests who are upset by some council actions, such as a push to resurrect a proposed Highway 78 interchange at Rancho Del Oro Road and completion of a segment of Melrose Drive to provide a new link between Highway 78 and Highway 76.
Kern, who led the drive on the City Council to eliminate rent control, said that by November, most voters will have forgotten about the rent control fight.
"I don't think it's going to be an indicator because the turnout is so low," Kern said. "In November, the issues are going to be a lot different."
Oceanside's mobile-home parks have been covered by rent control since 1984 but in May 2011, Kern led the council majority in voting 3-2 for the decontrol ordinance to phase it out.
Voting with Kern for a gradual end to rent control were Councilmen Jack Feller and Gary Felien. Wood and Sanchez voted against the decontrol ordinance and have campaigned against Proposition E.
Mobile-home residents and their allies stopped the ordinance from taking effect by collecting petitions signed by more than 15,000 people demanding that the council repeal the ordinance or put it on the ballot.
By another 3-2 vote, the council voted in August to put it on the ballot.
Kern and mobile-home park owners contended that rent control unfairly limited the return property owners could earn on their investments.
Mobile-home residents, most of whom own their coaches but rent the land on which they're located, argued that park owners are guaranteed a reasonable profit under rent control.
Many mobile-home residents are senior citizens or veterans, and they fear that they would lose the investment they have in their homes because no one would pay much for them if park owners could raise rents without limit, as they could with decontrol.
Under the 1984 ordinance, mobile-home rents could be raised annually by an amount equal to 75 percent of any increase in the regional consumer price index, which measures the costs of goods and services.
Park owners who wanted a greater increase can appeal to a city rent control board.
Proposition F was put on the ballot by the council majority at the urging of Felien, who contended that requiring candidates to win by a majority vote would result in a government more representative of the community at large.
Felien said voters may have been confused by the numbered seat provision in Proposition F, thinking it meant a switch from at-large to district elections.
With council members and the mayor now elected by a plurality, Felien said that a determined bloc of special interest voters could elect someone aligned with them.
No matter how many candidates run, the person with the most votes wins now.
Among those fighting against Proposition F, Sanchez said it would it would be a costly change for the city because Oceanside would have to pay for two elections instead of one ---- a primary and a runoff.
Sanchez and Wood also argued that Proposition F would disenfranchise many potential candidates because only those backed by special interests with deep pockets could afford to finance a primary and runoff campaign......At 12:30 am:
PROP E - CITY OF OCEANSIDE Rent Control Precincts: 75
Counted: 49
Percentage: 65.3%

Vote for: 1







PROP F - CITY OF OCEANSIDE Ch. Amd. Est. June Elections
Precincts: 75
Counted: 49
Percentage: 65.3%

Vote for: 1







MiraMar Community Home Owners Association
900 N Cleveland St, sp 159
Oceanside, CA 92054

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Mobile Home Park Economic Eviction

Op/Ed: Mobile Home Owners Need Help

A Santa Cruz County Mobile Home/Manufactured Commissioner advocates for homeowner protections.


Lauri Beamish

6:22am on Monday, November 7, 2011

First let me say that I am so sorry for anyone else going through this, an example of "bullying" at it's finest. Capitola didn't spend 2 million to defend it's rent control. Over 10 yrs. the City spent approx. what amounts to $70,000. per year. The residents paid approx. $400,000. over a 6 yr. period, and in the end it still wasn't enough. Some of us will definitely be attending from Capitola to show our support and do whatever we can to help keep more from going through what we are now at the hands of the heartless park owners.

Op/Ed: Mobile Home Owners Need Help

Op/Ed: Mobile Home Owners Need Help

A Santa Cruz County Mobile Home/Manufactured Commissioner advocates for homeowner protections.

&nbps;1 Comment

By William Neighbors

Mobile/manufactured homeowner disputes and mobile home park issues are on the rise in Santa Cruz County.

I have had several phone calls from mobile home residents in Watsonville regarding Capitola’s rent control. Watsonville's Mobile Home Rent Control was enacted by the voters, not like Capitola where it was an ordinance and the city council had unilateral control to repeal rent control. Watsonville mobile home residents pay a very small amount for rent control, about $1 per month. This is not a lot of money for legal fees.

The city of Watsonville and the residents have to fight park owners who want
higher profits, so they repeatedly challenge rent control laws. Capitola spent over $2 million in legal fees on rent control.

So, what do we need to do? First we need to build a legal fund so when something happens to us we are ready to take it on. Park owners are challenging rent control laws in three mobile home parks right now that are creating legal fees for the city. I have spoken to two attorneys who represent park residents and they say the same thing: we must build a legal fund.

The county is proposing raising the yearly fee to help with their legal expenses defending rent control. It will be implemented in January 2012 for county residents, only not homes in the city limits.

I think we need to pass a city ordinance to collect a small amount from each mobile home owner per month to build this legal fund. I know these are hard times and people don't like fees or taxes, but we are facing litigation in two parks challenging rent control where park owners are proposing to dramatically double
monthly rents in addition to eliminating existing services in Watsonville.

We need to stop this from continuing throughout Watsonville and believe me it will continue just like it has in Capitola.

Owners of mobile homes and manufactured homes have a lot invested in their homes. Let’s all work together and solve these problems that are occurring. It is up to us, the homeowners, to protect our investments. Everyone should get together at their park association meetings and talk about it. I would be happy to attend your meeting.

William Neighbors is a mobile home owner in Watsonville and a commissioner on the Santa Cruz County Mobile Home/Manufactured Commission.

NOTE: A discussion of rent control and tenant rights will be held at Capitola City Hall on Nov. 12 at 10 a.m. It is open to all mobile home owners.

Thursday, November 3, 2011

What is in the BEST INTEREST of California Manufactured Home Owners?

"What are the problems -- what are the best answers for manufactured home owners, in California's (or any other state) so-called Mobile Home Parks, aka Manufactured Home Communities?

[What are the most important threats to our housing?]
(1) Monthly out-of-pocket housing cost.
(2) Financing options to us and the next buyer.
(3) Estate planning.....Reverse Mortgage capability.

[What solves #1-3 above?]
(1) Eliminate ground rent and the increase due to cost of living -- an absolute must!!
(2) Own something that is financable. Note: Unless you own the land under your home, it is considered the same as a 'used car'!!...and is financed as such, if at all, in today's times.

[What solves the above?]
(1) Own the land under your home.
[How to own the land under your home]
(1) Buy the entire facility.

[Ok -- let's stop for a moment!!]
Resident advocacy organizations, large and small, local and statewide, have agendas that range from 'harassment' to 'rent control'/'de-control'.

[Ok -- Be honest!!]
(a) Would any of those agendas do away with Cost of Living? Answer: No, No, No.
(b) Would any one of those agendas put the ownership of your lot in your name? Answer: No, No, No.
(c) Would 'harassment', 'rent control'/'de-control become a non-issue if you owned your lot? Answer: YES, YES, YES.

Ok -- Please understand, those of you in an agenda group that may feel challenged, this information is to educate everyone so that we are all on the same transparent page as to where each of us may want to go.

If one wishes to pursue other issues, whatever they may be, you are certainly free to do so with organized groups.
Sooo- let's move on to: "What are the Resident's tools with which to purchase?? A Very Good Question.

[Tools to Purchase]
(1) We're California voters.
(2) Federal and State decisions (law) supporting "Affordable Housing".
(3) Quick method, i.e., 90-120 days.
(4) Cost to each Homeowner = about same or maybe less than existing rent - but no more increases.

[Explanation of Tools]
(1) As California voters, collectively, Residents/Mobile Home Owners number about 450,000+.
(2) The U.S. Supreme Court down to our State Legislative Counsel provide long time support of Cities and Counties absolute right to move land from the Investor to the Homeowner.
(3) Read the material provided by the State for Mobile Home Owners on "How to Purchase your Park". Note: The exemption under the Business and Profession Code allows a 'fast track'. It is known as the
"Mitchell Method:, named after the author and supporting firm that brought it into use.
(4) Costs, looked into and approved by the State Dept. of Corporations, are compared to existing housing
costs before the permit is issued to proceed with the purchase.

[Use of Tools to Purchase]
(1) (a) As a voter group, the Mayor and Council must listen if they want to stay in office.
(b) The State and Federal Agencies - i.e., Auditor's Office, Attorney General, IRS, etc. - do not respond to individuals. They want the most 'bang' for their time and effort; thus, a group presentation is far more
(2) The "Law" is very clear. As "Affordable Housing", the Law of the U.S., down to the State and Local levels- --we are supported.
(3) Our research found a 'Team' that:
(a) can create a Planned Unit Development (a form of Subdivision) so that you have a Deed to your home and land in 90-120 days+.
(b) From that, normal single family financing is available -- for example, today in the 4%+ area.
(c) Cost of Living of ground rent is eliminated!!
(d) If necessary, through another "Mitchell Method" law change, a third party can step into the escrow, and close ---- all cash --- in the necessary time period.
(4) [Costs]: Using the home and lot as security for a loan to cover the purchase of the land, the total cost is composed of (i) loan payment, (ii) HOA Fee. This is the measuring device the "Mitchell Method" uses --- and the State supports. The total cost of (i) and (ii) is probably less than your current rent.

Sitting on your duff waiting for the harassment and de-control efforts to solve the purchase effort is like the self-denial group who was the last one off the Titanic and into the water.

If your park is already owned by a City or a 501-c-3, stay tuned and we will get something started right away.

We've just heard that the IRS would look favorably on a sale transaction that would be equal to nothing more than paying off the Principal of the Bond. In other words, since the Resident Home Owners were the ones paying, the increased value or equity belongs to them -- not the City, not the 501-c-3.

In closing --- some other interesting information ---the State is investigating the workings of a Redevelopment/City Mobile Home Park purchase using Bonds!

A doomsday scenario for mobile home owners: Rent DeControl

A scenario for January 2013: The other day, I was evicted from my mobile home because rent control was eliminated and my rent space was raised without limit. Decontrol was implemented, so no one would buy my home because of the high rent.

So last night, I stayed with friends whose home was in foreclosure. The home next door was burned down. We don't know the cause of the fire, because the one Fire Department we have was on another call. Two people were badly burned and the privatized ambulance service that was to respond was not familiar with our location in Oceanside. We tried to call the staff of only eight sheriffs we have to patrol our city, and they were elsewhere.

So this morning, I went to the only library we have and I was told I had to buy a cup of coffee from the concession stand to be able to read a book. But since I live in the city of "Kern" (formerly known as the city of Oceanside in California), I have to believe that Jerry Kern, Jack Feller and Gary Felien had my best interests at heart.

Your true believer and homeless advocate.

DeeDee Dana


The VERY BEST way to help Manufactured Home Park Owners/Mobilehome Park Residents

Although the economic times are indeed tough, they bring solutions. In the case of MHP’s, the Residents have a need, but, so do the City and the Park owners. All are centered on Financing. Interestingly, the Cities benefit from the Residents buying, thus, a win-win-win. Here is how it works – along with some supporting law

[Financing = Cornerstone of Happiness]

(1) Until 2003, Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae would buy loans on homes on leased ground [Ex. # 1]. Since then, VA, FHA, HUD, and banks are looking at a lease situation as a – No Deal.

(2) #1 above means that without land, Resident Homeowners are forced to deal in the ‘Predatory Loan Market’, i.e., own the land = 4 ½% interest+ vs. leased = up to 15% interest+.

(3) For comparison:

(a) own the land - loan payments on a $60,000 loan, 4 ½% - 30 yrs. = $305.00/mo.

(b) leased land – loan payments on a $60,000 loan, 15% - 12 yrs. = $923.00/mo.

[Ground rent/Rent control/Housing Cost]

(1) There is a built-in cost conflict with Home ownership divided between Home and Land.

(2) U.S. Supreme Court decisions support “Preserving Affordable Housing”.

(3) #2 above is well covered by a Legislative Counsel Opinion. [Ex. #2]

(4) Using #1-3 above, the waste and uselessness of voters’ money for any legal action is clear --- Buy the Land. Please note the many examples where millions have been spent on attorney fees in a ‘battle’, when the battle and the war have already been won – see0 #2 & 3 above.

[How to Buy the Land under your Home – History]

(1) [Note]: Before we go any further, it is understood that there are several ways for Resident Homeowners to acquire ownership of the land under their homes. For lending purposes, control is not the same as ownership, i.e., co-op, condo, etc.

(2) The age, size, layout, location, condition of utilities, and amenities all have a substantial influence on what is the best path to take to ownership.

(3) An extreme example of one end of #2 above would be a 1960 20-unit trailer park owned collectively as a co-op. The other end would be a 1976 350-unit 5 star park – see (D) following.

(4) Even though a true trailer park had small, pull-behind units with wheels still attached and the tow hitch still in place, and might have been considered “Affordable Housing”, it is certainly not what today's manufactured homes are...definitely NOT mobile!

(5) There is no question that in the beginning of this industry it was understood by landowner and trailer owner – the give and take of the marketplace. In fact, it was a useful, co-beneficial situation.

(6) When things slowly morphed into a problem situation was when enhancement of the pull-behind trailer to the ‘single-wide’, which in turn went on up to the double and triple wide units. By the nature of this improvement, the installation became permanent and the die was cast – Rent Control was a substitute for mobility.

(7) The above bit of history is helpful in keeping a ‘Big Picture’ aspect in lining up the ‘Intent of the Legislature” that will show a consistency from bill to bill as the State gets more and more involved. Also Opinion of AG. [Ex. #3].

(8) The ‘Intent of the Legislature’ and State Agencies was, and is, to comply with Federal Law, the betterment, support, and protection of ‘Affordable Housing’. This is further represented by HCD and State construction guidelines that came out in 1971. Interestingly, the HUD construction guidelines that came out in 1976 were a copy-cat of the 1971 California Law.

(9) One last observation regarding Home and Land. Regardless of its beauty to the eye of one and not to another; regardless of the fact it long ago lost the ‘Mobile Home’ aspect, it is still considered “Affordable Housing”. The law of the land, starting at the U.S. Supreme Court level (“Preserve Affordable Housing”) is recognized in statement, or, implied in all the California bills dealing with this area. A few examples:

(a) B&P Code 11010.8 (b) Revenue &Tax Code 62.2 (c) Health & Safety Codes 18555, 50780, 33449 regarding holding. [Ex. #4 to #8]

(D Soooo – [How to buy the Land to “Preserve Affordable Housing”]

[Note]: Based upon the History above, the following will outline a Park Purchase:

(1) Using the code sections in C (9) above, the Resident Homeowners can subdivide, finance, and close escrow in 90-120 days.

Note: These code sections all have common purposes:

(a) To Preserve Affordable Housing.

(b) To be fast, proficient, and less costly.

(c) To qualify for the best financing.

(2) One of the largest parks in the State, “The Groves” with 535 spaces in Irvine – closed escrow in 90 days, all cash, in the manner described above.


The practice of a City floating a Bond issue to cover:

(1) Overpaying the value of the park,

(2) Funding substantial accounts not necessary in normal ownership,

(3) Imposing annual increases in the ground rent.

(4) Withholding ownership of the lot under their home, forcing a Predatory Lending situation on the Residents.

(5) Increasing the monthly housing cost immediately to cover the 150% to 190% Loan to Value of the Bond.

(6) Add insult to injury – the Residents are solely responsible for the Bond payments and operation funds for the park.


Every item in 1-6 Summation above is an established fact.

Any one of those items would be totally out of step with helping Resident Homeowners. But there are 6, strongly impacted by # 3 & 4. Being held captive in a City or 501-c-3 situation is not the American Way, not the “intent of the Legislature”, and, as well-stated by an Appellate Judge (Craig vs. City of Poway, “33334.2 Legislative history – ‘improve’ means to make available less expensive or make already inexpensive less expensive.” [Ex. #9]

There are thousands of MHP Resident Homeowners in this situation (City or 501-c3). This is so easy. There are no “Investors/Landowners, i.e., WMA. The City must support, and thus earn Resident Voter approval. The City will be in compliance with the State mandated plan.

The City or 501-c-3 entity will be carrying out their duties in compliance with IRS and State rules, confirmed with IRS.

The Residents will enjoy for the first time an elimination of the ever-increasing housing cost of ground rent. The Residents will now be able to sell and buy their homes in the normal finance market.

The State will enjoy Cities and Counties complying with the rules --- no cost to anyone!!!

This is a joyous win-win-win-win situation for all…comments on (C) (9) a, b, c are welcome.

Friday, October 28, 2011

Tools to mitigate mobile home park closure, Santa Maria

Tools to mitigate mobile home park closure

Ron Faas/Looking Forward | Posted: Friday, October 28, 2011 12:00 am | (0) Comments

Further delay in the county’s release of the draft mobile home park closure conversion ordinance provides an opportunity to review the history of such ordinances, and to highlight relocation assistance as a mitigation measure.

First, a closure conversion to another land use is different from a condo/subdivision conversion changing ownership of individual spaces. State law treats each differently in what standards local jurisdictions are allowed to adopt.

The county can only require a proposed condo/subdivision conversion conform to state law, and cannot apply more stringent local standards. On the other hand, the applicable state requirements for closure conversions allow for additional regulation at the local level.

With inadequate protection from current state law, several jurisdictions worked with the Golden State Manufactured-home Owners League (GSMOL) during 2000-04 to more adequately protect mobile home residents from park closure by adopting clear, specific requirements for mitigating negative impacts on displaced residents.

In trying to create a model closure conversion ordinance that was air tight and defensible in court, Huntington Beach and Seal Beach faced the most scrutiny. Several years of extensive research in the development of the ordinance adopted by San Luis Obispo County in 2008 found key components common in these and other ordinances.

These components are grouped under two major categories — conversion impact report, and relocation assistance.

Relocation assistance components include a relocation plan, relocation specialist, comparable replacement housing, notice period to move, pay relocation costs, cover higher space rent in new park and buy in-place market value. Each of these key components is in ordinances adopted by Huntington Beach (GSMOL model ordinance), Seal Beach, San Juan Capistrano and San Luis Obispo, as well as San Luis Obispo County.

San Juan Capistrano has been going through a closure conversion for which a relocation impact report required by the ordinance was professionally prepared in 2008, and updated this past May. The mitigation measures proposed in the report illustrate the kind of relocation assistance required by these ordinances.

These include payment of the cost of physically moving the mobile home and movable improvements; payment of first and last months’ rent and security deposit at the new mobile home park; and payment of a rental differential to compensate for the difference in rent, if any, at the old and new mobile home parks during the first year of tenancy.

Also, payment of all reasonable moving expenses incurred in moving to a new location up to 50 miles; and for homeowners who are unable to reasonably relocate their mobile homes, payment of fair market value for their mobile home.

During this closure conversion process, the city of San Juan Capistrano apparently felt sufficiently confident to add more stringent requirements in amending its ordinance in 2010, as did Seal Beach. It is significant that while amending and strengthening their ordinances, both cities kept the in-place market values component.

It is important to note there have been almost no closures in jurisdictions that have adopted closure conversion ordinances with the key components found in the SLO County ordinance presented to Santa Barbara County as a model.

One exception is Monterey Park, which, under a redevelopment plan, completed a full impact report, closed a mobile home park, following to the letter the state code, and moved residents, in stages, into wonderful new affordable housing units, equivalent or better than the mobile homes they were living in before.

Ron Faas is legislative action team coordinator for the Northern Santa Barbara County Manufactured Homeowners Team, and a resident of Sunnyhills Mobile Home Park. He can be reached at Looking Forward runs every Friday, providing a progressive viewpoint on local issues.