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
effective.

(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.

[Summation]

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

Oceanside

Read more: http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/letters/article_5b0e0812-61d8-57f8-b82a-ac038faf0be7.html#ixzz1chXpk1a0

Tools to mitigate mobile home park closure, Santa Maria

http://santamariatimes.com/news/opinion/editorial/commentary/tools-to-mitigate-mobile-home-park-closure/article_da457a7e-0117-11e1-a4f9-001cc4c03286.html

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 faas@verizon.net. Looking Forward runs every Friday, providing a progressive viewpoint on local issues.

Mobile Home Parks in California: Economically Evicting Seniors & Veterans from their Homes

I live in a mobile home park in California. We are fighting many battles with park owners who are economically evicting seniors, Veterans, low income families alike. They seem to want to redevelop their land to some other use, especially at ocean side locations.

We have several statewide mobile home owner groups and the question regarding what the Federal mandates regarding "Affordable Housing" in the cities of California seem to come up frequently. Would you please tell me how to access what those statistics are? We hear the term "Affordable Housing" tossed around by park owners and city officials, too, but the real facts and numbers remain a mystery to us.

MANY mobile/manufactured home parks & communities have been purchased by big corporations (like ELS, Sam Zell, on the "big board" stock market) and continue to legally challenge the areas of our state that passed rent control laws in the past. These legal challenges are costing the Cities so much money in legal fees that they are beginning to cave in and rescind their rent stabilization laws...referring to this as de-control. What can we do in California, and nationwide, to preserve mobile/manufactured home living?

Our homes are definitely NOT mobile. That is a term out of the past. With Baby Boomer retiring, and will continue to do so, aren't mobile/manufactured home communities a great place to provide affordable housing? How can we get MORE of this kind of community built and avoid the predatory owners who are economically evicting us??

Coastal Mobile & Manufactured Home Parks at Risk...

According to a recent phone conference Manufactured Home Owners Forum members participated in, there are over 700,000 Manufactured homeowners in California. Our central question is always, "What is BEST for Mobile Home Residents?" The answers to that question are what guide us. We have no ulterior motives since we are all in the same boat!

Our MHOF group has been discussing coastal MHParks for some time, including the situation at Oceanside. The recent comments from the staff from the City of Oceanside, must be taken very seriously by all of us. The following are facts that need to be laid before all mobile home owners in Oceanside, especially in Laguna Vista, as well as MHResidents throughout the state. Supporting facts and documents are available on request.

1) The U.S. Supreme Court issued some decisions that support Cities using their ‘taking powers’, when necessary, to move the ground beneath mobile homes into the ownership of the homeowners/Residents.

2) The State of California Legislative Counsel issued an Opinion in Feb-2010: “…we are of the opinion that acquisition of a mobile home park through the use of eminent domain for the purpose of increasing (preserving) the supply of low-end and moderate-income housing would constitute a permissible public use…”

3) Various State Codes support mobile home parks going into Resident Ownership, i.e., Government Code 65583 – Housing element (7) (c) (4): “…shall…” “Conserve the existing affordable housing stock.

Based on our research, here are some of our determinations:

(A) The State mandates preserving affordable housing.
(B) With the land purchased by residents, housing costs before and after will remain nearly the same.
(C) The City does not have a choice as to the above, per the Supreme Court Ruling referred to above
(D) The voters must go to the elected Council members, and the press, not to city employees such as the City Attorney or City Manager. Educate Council members as to what the homeowners now know and demand the City follow the law.
(E) Members of MHOF are aware of various laws that allow homeowners to pay all cash to the Seller (no Bonds), enjoy no re-assessment of the real estate taxes, offer the owner of the ground tax benefits only that Residents can provide.
(F) Benefits go to all parties:
Homeowners:
(i) Eliminate ‘cost of living’ of housing cost.
(ii) Eliminate Predatory Financing, i.e., 5% v. 15%.
(iii) Enjoy Peace of Mind – no threat of owner eviction by subdivision or de-control.
City:
(i) Get out of the controversial/litigious Rent Control situation.
(ii) Comply with the mandated ‘preserve affordable housing’.
(iii) Use, if they wish, the 20% set-aside funds for affordable housing without an exposure to a long-term subsidy situation.
Seller:
(i) Receive a ‘fair price’ for their property. Certainly equal to or probably better than an investor would pay.
(ii) Enjoy a tax benefit.
(iii) Move into an investment that is without controversy/litigation.
State:
(i)Compliance with State Law.
(ii)Eliminate the expense to the taxpayer to subsidize low-cost housing.
Federal:
(i) Compliance with Federal Law.
(ii) (same as (ii) above.)

We view this situation as a war. We want Residents to win the war! The “win” is our ownership of the land. Anything else is a divergent activity, or just a ‘battle’. We don’t need to waste our time, money, and energy on battles when we can win the war. It appears to us that you folks at Oceanside can win a battle (at Laguna Vista) and help Oceanside and others in the State Win this War!

Monterey County: Marina City Wins approval for Rent Control; Awaits final Vote on Oct. 4, 2011l

http://www.montereyherald.com/local/ci_18951738

Some mobile home residents have sought measure since early 1990s

By LARRY PARSONS
Herald Staff Writer

Posted: 09/22/2011 01:29:42 AM PDT

Updated: 09/22/2011 01:29:43 AM PDT

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.

HEMET: Firefighters provide 'invaluable' assistance with alarms to Mobile Home Owners

http://www.pe.com/localnews/hemet/stories/PE_News_Local_D_efire21.3f1d6a4.html

10:00 PM PDT on Tuesday, September 20, 2011

BY KEVIN PEARSON
STAFF WRITER
kpearson@pe.com

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."

Manufactured Home Communities: Affordable Housing for Baby Boomer Retirees?

How is this country going to provide affordable housing for the millions of Baby Boomers getting ready to retire? Many people no longer count on the retirement funds they paid into. The economic melt down changed everything for most of us. But, there are still Federal mandates for affordable housing in every community in every state. How is California going to meet these requirements?

Many California residents in mobile/manufactured home communities are being economically evicted from their homes by predatory park owners, many of which are anonymous LLC Corporations, owned by multiple other corporations, etc., etc. One of the largest companies with the WORST reputation for treating their residents and their communities in the most heinous ways is publicly held with investors earning dividends from seniors and Veterans trying to survive on Social Security and miiltary pensions. Why? Where are they to go? When tracking down motivations one might conclude the underlying basis is greed, plain and simple. How much is enough?

The land many of these parks are located on was purchased in the 1960's and 70's for their serene surroundings for retirement and recreation. Now, ocean side property, mountain property, outlying areas of cities and communities are in high demand by those who want to re-develop the properties for higher revenue projects. Again, where are residents to go? And, how much is enough?

Our mobile and manufactured homes are NOT mobile. Our homes are our investment in our futures, just like stick built homes. Now that more and more people are in need of affordable housing, and those numbers will continue to grow, perhaps our cities will think more seriously about helping mobile home residents purchase the land their homes reside on.

Right now, more and more affordable housing communities are needed to provide safe housing for retirees as well as families. Local cities, counties, and even the State, should be ready to help residents by standing up with us against blatant corporate greed and help us purchase the land under our homes. This is the only REAL solution in sight.

New manufactured home parks and communities need to be developed to meet affordable housing needs. It's time for all of us to wake up to the reality we are already living in. We need affordable housing. Mobile home parks and manufactured home communities seem like such a good answer to California's needs. Let's share our ideas with our state legislators, our County Supervsiors, Mayors, City Councils, our friends, and our neighbors!

OCEANSIDE Mobile Home Parks: Truth in government

What is truth? Truth, as defined, the true or actual state of a matter, conformity with fact or reality, a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle or the like: These are commonly accepted meanings of the word "truth" with all the values that pertain to it.
With all the political-speak lately, it seems the truth has eluded some and has been thrown away by many in our city government. The elected should be required (by law if necessary) to only present and speak the truth. Not the truths that their sponsors provide, but the truth as to what is really being done. The council majority would probably not recognize the truth, and if it did not serve their interests, their lips would not allow it to come forth.
In the next months, there will be much in the media about the truths of vacancy decontrol, ie. Rent DeControl. Do not accept that Oceanside City Council Members, Jerry Kern, Jack Feller, and Gary Felien speak the truth. They speak for the benefit of a very small minority of folks who live mostly elsewhere.
Bob Ryan
Oceanside

If you care - then share in the load. Help fight DeControl, sign up at info@neighborhoods4oceanside.org

www.http://miramar-hoa.com/
www.neighborhoods4oceanside.org

MURRIETA: City puts age limit on manufactured homes

http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/murrieta/article_132a82df-ed56-5353-a1b6-373db2e2dc24.html

Thanks to a new Murrieta ordinance, bars and senior citizen communities won't be the only establishments to enforce an age limit.

Members of the City Council unanimously decided earlier this month to ban mobile or manufactured homes 10 years or older from moving into Murrieta.

Per the new ordinance, which was approved during the Sept. 6 council meeting, a mobile home owner wishing to relocate to Murrieta could not bring the home if it is 10 years or older on the moving date. The ordinance, however, won't affect homes that are already in the city.

In her report discussing the issue, City Planner Cynthia Kinser said the new ordinance will ensure that neighborhoods remain appealing and that the homes are safe for residents.

"The city now desires to limit the age of manufactured or mobile homes," Kinser wrote, "to promote and ensure the aesthetic quality of neighborhoods, to minimize the devaluation of communities due to upkeep and repair, and to maintain safe building standards for occupancy of manufactured homes."

City Building and Safety Director Allen Brock said that although the city does not inspect the interior of manufactured homes ---- mobile homes are inspected by the state ---- the building standards typically are not as stringent as the latest standards imposed on conventional homes. He said the more lax standards for manufactured homes could jeopardize safety.

"Do we really want a really old mobile being moved into the city that may present a hazard?" Brock said. "Not just for the occupants, but for the neighbors. If they're moving into the Spring Knolls community where we have a lot of mobile homes that could be disastrous."

Ritch Purcell, former president of the Spring Knolls Homeowners Association, which is the largest mobile home park in the city, said the ordinance would benefit Murrieta mobile homeowners.

"It is a good idea; it really is," Purcell said in a telephone interview Thursday. "The value of a neighborhood is determined, in part, by the average age of the home in the neighborhood. If people were allowed to bring in a home that was over 10 years old, it just reduces the value of the community."

Purcell said this is another move by the City Council that has greatly benefited the homeowners in the three Knolls communities: Spring Knolls, which has 384 homes, Warm Spring Knolls, which has 215 homes, and Golf Knolls, where 512 mobile homes are situated.

In 2009, the City Council approved waiving a $10,000 fee charged to residents who wanted to replace their mobile homes with models even a foot larger than the digs they had outgrown. Now mobile homeowners are allowed to replace their homes with models that are up to 720 square feet larger without being charged the fee.

And earlier this year, Purcell said, a visit from Councilman Rick Gibbs resulted in the city repaving a gnarled street at the west entrance to the three communities that had been tearing up the tire tread of the Knolls residents' tires.

"They came out a couple of months ago and tore the whole thing up and put brand new cement and didn't charge the association anything," the 15-year Knolls resident said. "We get real good response when we get a hold of the City Council."

Rent Control/deControl Controversy in Coastal California Cities Continues

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_18857456

Capitola Council delays decision on rent control repeal, again

By TOVIN LAPAN -- Santa Cruz Sentinel

Posted: 09/08/2011 09:38:05 PM PDT

CAPITOLA - The saga continues.

On Thursday, for the second time in two weeks, the City Council was scheduled to vote on a repeal of the city's rent control ordinance but chose to remove the item from the agenda and delay action.

Councilman Mike Termini, without offering a reason, moved to delay the second vote on repealing rent control, which would finalize the decision, "indefinitely."

The rest of the council voted to approve the delay except for Councilman Kirby Nicol, who has previously stated his support for the repeal.

Nonetheless, the council chambers were packed to capacity in anticipation of the public hearing. More than a dozen people spoke in favor of keeping the ordinance, even with the amendments added in March that initially sparked a battle between the city, park owners and residents.

"Thank you for the reprieve, however long it will last," said Surf and Sand Mobile Home Park resident Laurie Beamish. "No one is happy with [the amended] ordinance, but repeal would've had mass destructive consequences."

In March, the city offered to amend its rent control ordinance in order to settle two lawsuits with the owner of Surf and Sand, Ron Reed, regarding the mobile home park rent stabilization ordinance.

In return, low-income residents were to be offered long-term leases, but the residents have complained that the terms of the lease are excessively onerous.

Two lawsuits resulted from the amendments. One lawsuit against the city challenging a provision that exempted those with any other residential property from rent control was rejected by a county court judge Aug. 30. Another lawsuit was filed by several residents against Reed, challenging various terms of the lease.

City Attorney John Barisone said Thursday that Reed has filed to include the city as a cross-defendant in the case.

Councilman Sam Storey, a lawyer, said that he understands that emotions are running high and offered to sit down with anyone who would like to discuss sensible solutions.

"There are a lot of practical issues we need to deal with, and it would be helpful for me to see practical solutions coming from you," Storey said addressing rent-control advocates. "It takes understanding of the state of the city, its funding, and its burdens A bankrupt city cannot help anyone."

The city has spent about $1.5 million in the last decade to defend the ordinance from litigation, approximately a third of which came from mobile home park residents through a legal-defense fund.

Publicly, the council offered no insight into what led to its decision to indefinitely hold off on the vote.

During a short recess Mayor Dennis Norton said with the ongoing lawsuit the council members wanted more time to evaluate their options and said a decision on whether or not to proceed with the repeal process would be made within the next two months.

Oceanside: Let's DEFEAT DeRent Control...

Friends and Neighbors,

Kern, Felien and Feller tell us to move on, take our homes and go somewhere else. Forget the fact that our home is not mobile. Now there are more challenges for those of us that have chosen to downsize our world, as we move to retirement and a community of close knit friends.

With insensitive and politically polarized word bites coming from our local Oceanside Council members, FFK, it is difficult to read what is happening to those in similar communities now face, like in the story below.

If we do not Defeat DeControl in June, and cannot win the hearts and minds of our Oceanside neighbors, then the future for our golden years is dark indeed. Rather than give up, it is now the time to work together, to bring our friends and neighbors into the fight. Together we can make this a victory. We need to confirm that old folks count; That Old Folks Vote; and that we have influence in our community. Oceanside homeowners have a voice, and we can make ourselves heard.