"Mitchell Method:, named after the author and supporting firm that brought it into use.
effective.
WORKING TO PRESERVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING: We are here to establish a presence for over 350,000 Residents/Voters of California Manufactured Home Communities; to stay informed of the issues facing our style of living; to gain the knowledge and experience needed to educate ourselves and our state legislators.
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
Oceanside
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.
[Summation]
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.
[Conclusion]
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.
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 faas@verizon.net. Looking Forward runs every Friday, providing a progressive viewpoint on local issues.
Despite the blustering of Mayor Joe Carchio and council members Don Hansen and Matthew Harper, the City Council voted to preserve the current configuration of the Mobile Home Advisory Board (MHAB) at the Oct. 3 council meeting ("Council maintains board," Oct. 6). Perhaps it was the presence of Julie Paule from the Western Manufactured Housing Communities Assn. (WMA), a front group for mobile home park owners, that inspired such political theater.
The WMA and Manufactured Housing Educational Trust (MHET), another park owner front group, have plied campaign contributions and support upon the opponents of the MHAB (especially Harper) for some time, so maybe these council members were giving their political benefactors their money's worth. Paule brazenly called for the dissolution of the MHAB in public comments. Overall, it was an embarrassing display of special-interest pressure to deny civic communication and representation to thousands of citizens in the city's 18 mobile home parks.
Kudos to council members Devin Dwyer and Keith Bohr for joining mobile home resident supporters Connie Boardman and Joe Shaw in saving the MHAB. It must have been doubly embarrassing to Dwyer and Bohr to see their erstwhile council majority colleagues go off the deep end like this. This, after the same council minority (Carchio, Hansen, Harper) lost a vote to prevent an environmental impact report from going forward to do something about the single-use plastic bag pollution problem.
The MHAB vote clearly showed which council members supported community interests and which ones remain totally beholden to their outside special-interest contributors. It is hoped that future meetings shaping the role and future of the MHAB will be more constructive in their deliberations.
Tim Geddes
Huntington Beach
By a bare majority late Tuesday, the Marina City Council gave a long-sought victory to activists seeking rent control in the city's five mobile home parks.
A majority made up of Mayor Bruce Delgado and Councilmen Frank O'Connell and David Brown voted to give a preliminary OK to the "Mobile Home Rental Stabilization Ordinance" after a two-hour hearing.
Council members Nancy Amadeo and Jim Ford opposed the measure, maintaining the stance they have had since the city began putting together the proposed ordinance this summer.
Some Marina mobile home residents have been asking the city to enact rent control since the early 1990s, but their efforts previously came up short.
"It's been a lot of years," Delgado said immediately after the vote. He said he believed the proposed ordinance would be fair both to mobile home residents and park owners.
But Manuel Vieira, a representative of the Marina mobile home parks, blasted the measure as being "fiscally irresponsible" and "a special interest pet project" pushed by the council majority.
In an email shortly after the vote, Doug Johnson, regional representative of the Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association, said, "It's too bad Marina taxpayers will have to foot the bill for this type of incompetence and fiscal mismanagement."
However, several mobile home residents urged the council to pass the measure, saying it was time for the city to enact protection for mobile home residents.
"Thank you for having the courage to even look at this," said Patty Cramer, one of the leaders in the rent-control campaign.
A final vote to adopt the ordinance is scheduled for Oct. 4, and if it wins approval, it would take effect 30 days later.
Consultant's advice
During Tuesday's hearing, much of the dialogue was between council members and city-hired consultant Kenneth Baar over fine-tuning portions of the 25-page rent-control measure.
At Baar's recommendation, the council agreed to raise the allowable annual rent increase park owners could charge from 80 percent to 100 percent of increases in the Consumer Price Index.
That would make the measure stronger from possible legal challenge, Baar said.
The measure would impose a fee on mobile home residents under rent control to pay costs associated with administering the program, which would put disputes before an arbitrator.
At first, Brown suggested a $10 monthly fee, but several mobile home residents said that would be too high. And since possible costs associated with the program aren't nailed down, the council decided to leave the fee amounts to a follow-up measure.
Baar estimated it would cost about $10,000 a year to administer the rent control program, and an arbitration hearing over contested rental rates would likely cost $10,000. Litigation costs would be far more, but he said most of the 90 California cities and counties with mobile home rent control have faced little litigation.
Testimony from residents
Mobile home residents offered divided testimony in earlier hearings. Many argued that mobile home owners, many of them seniors and others living on fixed incomes, are at the mercy of park owners.
Others contend the measure would only affect about 100 of the 399 spaces in Marina mobile home parks because the majority of residents now have separate leases setting rental rates.
But advocates argued that some of those residents were forced into the rental agreements, and when their leases expire, those residents, too, would be protected against large rent increases.
Fears of increases
Amadeo said she heard from two mobile home residents, deeply afraid of rent increases, who encouraged her to support the measure. She pointed out with the annual allowable CPI-based rent increases and monthly fees, the ordinance wouldn't prevent rents from going up.
Baar said the courts would throw out any measure that simply freezes rents. Park owners are entitled to a fair return, he said.
Larry Parsons can be reached at 646-4379 or lparsons@montereyherald.com.
A well-designed trailer park might seem an oxymoron, but the much-maligned building typology has a lot of potential for an appealing alternative to more conventional low income housing. No surprise to see this happening in the particularly enlightened City of Santa Monica—the work it has done with resource conservation should be a model for any resource-challenged city—which purchased the Mountain View Mobile Home Park to preserve it for affordable housing a decade ago. Los Angeles-based Marmol Radziner Prefab won the contract to transform the park’s aging trailers and mobile homes into stylish and sustainable homes.
In collaboration with manufacturer Golden West Homes, Marmol Radziner recently completed half of 20 planned mobile homes in the Santa Monica trailer park. The low-income rental units (available to those who earn 80 percent or less of Los Angeles County’s median income) show how good design and manufacturing can co-exist—and be sustainable, too. Dispelling preconceived notions about trailer homes, these modest yet attractive models are constructed with formaldehyde-free wood products and come equipped with renewable energy sources such as a 2kW solar photovoltaic array that sends energy back to the grid. In April, the first residents moved in to the transformed neighborhood.
Better known for its high-end architectural modernism in Southern California, Marmol Radziner enjoyed the challenge of designing with constraints—of which there are many. Designing a series of homes rather than the one-off typical of most modern prefab helps bring down costs through economies of scale. But that scale brings its own challenges: Land zoned for mobile home parks is typically limited in its capacity to support high density, mixed-use communities, since the parks have designated spaces for units and often do not allow multi-unit or multi-story housing. But there is still hope for the urban trailer park, as firm principal Ron Radziner explains. “The best model for new development is to repurpose existing mobile home parks that may be in good locations, but have low quality, out-of-date homes, and upgrade them to modern, green homes,” he says. The firm is currently exploring new markets and opportunities with its partner Clayton Homes.
The first mobile home that Hemet fire Capt. Bill Herder entered Tuesday morning had a smoke detector that was 40-something years old, had no battery system and was hard-wired into the home's electrical system.
In a matter of weeks, the Hemet Fire Department will replace that unit, and others, at no cost to residents.
On Tuesday, nearly two dozen members of the department, most off duty, visited the Hemet West Mobile Home Park and inspected 83 homes in the 771-unit park, checking for working smoke detectors. Every resident who signed up for the service got the batteries replaced for free, and those with faulty units will get a new device paid for, and installed, by the department.
The funds will come from the Hemet Firefighters Association's charity account, not from the city.
Tuesday's event was part of what the department hopes will be an ongoing tour through the city's numerous mobile home parks, where many of the residents are seniors and are physically unable to fix the devices.
"I think the citizens see a tremendous value in it and appreciate it," Hemet fire Capt. Steve Sandefer said. "This is part of what we do."
Five mobile homes have caught fire this year, according to department call logs.
Firefighters on Tuesday said mobile homes tend to burn quickly and, because they often are close to one another, fire can spread fast. Since older residents may not be able to flee a structure quickly, every second of notice given by a smoke alarm is important.
"It's a mobile home park; they tend to go 'poof!' and you have less than three minutes per house," said Larry Graves, the Hemet West homeowners association president, who helped organize the event. "And we don't want blue-haired ladies on stepladders trying to change batteries."
The department hopes to tie its tour to the months around the spring and fall daylight-saving time changes, which is when many officials recommend changing smoke alarm batteries.
Hemet West resident Sue Howard said one of her detectors was working, but was too quiet to be heard throughout her home. The department will soon replace it, and she is grateful.
"I think this is wonderful," she said. "This is invaluable."