Why my deep concern about manufactured/mobile home living environments? Keep reading. I will bring to mind the idea that MANY of our country’s citizens are headed toward retirement. How are we going to house them?
As a BabyBoomer, I know that living on a lowered income because my retirement portfolio took a dive is inevitable; social security is not enough to keep this countries retired population going, and affordable housing is in such high demand that we cannot possibly keep up with it. Even the statistics of extremely low, low, and moderate income households cannot possibly have been gathered quickly enough to keep up with current reality.
In my youth, we talked about the benefits of living in communes. Many people in the 1960’s did so. Now, in 2011 and beyond, I think we MUST consider revising these ideas but maintaining the central concept...community living. I live in a senior Mobile Home Community. As you all may know, my home is NOT mobile. It cannot be moved without destroying it. It’s a senior park with many veterans. I am VERY fortunate to be living in one of the very few parks left in the state where the park owners still live here...the owner is 97 years old and we are all extended family to her. I wish I could say the same for other parks in the state and our nation.
Mobile home owners are seeing very alarming things happen. First, mobile home parks were purchased by large corporations throughout the last 10-15 years. They want the highest returns possible on their investments to continue as it did before our economic collapse. With absolutely NO regulation except weak rent control ordinances in some areas of the state, most of which are being legally challenged, especially in our coastal areas, seniors and veterans are being economically evicted from their homes right now. Where are they to go? What part of our society is responsible for them...soon to be us?
Mobile home owner groups have sought to understand the mandates for affordable housing in our state. Of course, nothing is ever as simple as we want it to be. But we are all in agreement that resident ownership of the land under our homes is the only real solution to the “monopoly” we live under. Our research has uncovered some very interesting facts that I am compelled to share.
Interestingly, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a ruling on the use of eminent domain by local governments to take private property for public use. Although the ruling was made in 1984, last year, 2010, the State of California’s Legislative Counsel upheld the ruling in a letter to a legislator stating, “..we are of the opinion that the acquisition of a mobile home park through the use of eminent domain is a permissible for the purposes of increasing the supply of low and moderate income housing would constitute a permissible public use for purposes of the California Constitution and The Eminent Domain Law.”
We are struggling as to how we can implement this Supreme Court ruling to save ourselves. Who can we turn to? When I asked for help from our statewide MHOwner groups, they don’t know what to do either. Can anyone from HCD, HUD, or any other agency or private party help us by answering the questions we have about saving ourselves, our seniors, our veterans...and even low income families who can still afford a mobile or manufactured home as long as their payments are affordable? Where can we turn to enforce this Supreme Court ruling?
ANY and ALL assistance that can be provided will be greatly appreciated and shared with mobile home owners throughout the state. We are organizing. We are a grassroots movement. We need the help of people who are in positions to serve the public at large and not special interests. We need solid information and direction. Thank you to anyone willing to provide same.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Thursday, September 29, 2011
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??
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??
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Friday, September 23, 2011
Calimesa City Council revisits Mobile Home Rent Control Stabilization program with capacity crowd
http://www.newsmirror.net/articles/2011/09/23/news/doc4e7a6179b9b76110192929.txt
By RACHAEL M. GUSTUSON Staff Reporter In a well-attended public hearing at Calimesa City Hall on Monday, Sept. 19, city council held its regularly scheduled meeting, with two agenda items regarding adoption of an annual rent control fee for mobile home parks and proposed amendments to the Calimesa Municipal Code of mobile home rent stabilization ordinance.
The first item included a public hearing and consideration of adoption of resolution 2011-13, establishing an annual registration fee on regulated mobile home parks to fund the administration and enforcement of the city’s Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance. Making the total monthly amount from each mobile-home space, $3.59, of which $1.79 would be paid for by the park owner and $1.79 to be paid for by the mobile home owner, as discussed at the meeting on Aug. 15, which was held at Mesa View Middle School.
“The goal of this meeting is to hear from you,” said Mayor Ella Zanowic. “There are some ground rules. Please keep it civil and on point.”
Assistant City Attorney Amy Greyson began by reminding council they directed staff to set a public hearing and to impose an annual registration fee of per mobile-home space. The annual amount of $43.08 per mobile home space was calculated in the recommendation. The fee would be paid for by the park owner who would in turn collect from each individual mobile home resident.
In the background information in the staff report, it indicated there are eight mobile home parks in Calimesa and 1,286 mobile-home spaces — 987 of those spaces may be subject to the ordinance.
Based on 2011 registrations, there were 699 spaces under the ordinance. The remaining 288 spaces are currently exempt from rent control provisions because they are on long-term leases.
The council then heard from the public, primarily park owners who were objecting to the ordinance.
In part of his objections, Big Oak Garden MHP owner Dennis Sullivan said, “Park owners receive no benefits from this ordinance. How are we gonna collect it? Monthly installments instead of one payment at the beginning of the year (would be better).”
Park owner Marilyn Green was also against the ordinance and the payment collection.
“The fee should be paid 100 percent by the residents and directly to the city,” said Green. “Why should the burden be on us to pay your fee?”
Other park owners voiced similar concerns.
“I don’t live in a park but our city is a great place to live,” said Calimesa resident Linda Molina. “A lot of people are affected by the rent control. They really don’t have any other place to go. I’m glad we have the ordinance. We have to consider the number of people who can not afford to live somewhere else.”
One speaker said the registration fees would protect the park residents. City Attorney Kevin Ennis addressed the council, “In our experience registration fees are very common. In terms of collection, that is your decision.”
Also discussed was potential late fees for the mobile home owner.
Councilwoman Joyce McIntire said she is whole heartedly against the late fee imposed on a mobile park owner. She referred to the $1.70 fee as buying a loaf of bread, and the residents need that money.
“As Kevin mentioned, the late fee is a policy decision,” said Greyson. “You can direct us to modify the language.”
Ennis added in terms of the one time annual payment to the city, it would streamline the payment.
Council Member Jim Hyatt asked if the parks collected the fees and the city could do monthly installments versus the yearly payment as indicated in the report.
“Because we’re telling a private owner how to collect their fees,” said Hyatt.
Council member Jeff Hyatt said he would agree to monthly installments and “some sort of penalty so it keeps people on time with payment.”
After much discussion about late fees, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Davis made a motion to accept as written with the addition that it is collected on a monthly basis by the park owner, with no additional late fees.
The motion passed unanimously and it will go forward to staff who will amend and bring back the issue at the next meeting.
The final item on the rent stabilization issue was on proposed amendments to the code in which city staff recommended that city council.
Ennis said it was primarily to update the language and to do so resulted in lengthening both ordinances.
Plantation on the Lakes owner Ron Hanson was against the amendments.
“We’ve been here 25 years as one of the premiere living communities. Why is this being done — 56 pages of regulations? I know it’s too complicated for you to understand. I hope that you have the leadership to do the right thing.”
Other upset park owners spoke against the amendments.
City Clerk Darlene Gerdes said, “We held a workshop in February with park owners and residents, also in June. They have been included in this process.”
“The problem is that we have two sides,” said Hewitt. “It’s not as simple as it seems. We can’t pull out any miracles here. We have threats on both sides.”
McIntire motioned to adopt the ordinances with a few changes. It was passed, four to zero, with Hewitt voting No.
The revised ordinance will also come back at the next meeting.
By RACHAEL M. GUSTUSON Staff Reporter In a well-attended public hearing at Calimesa City Hall on Monday, Sept. 19, city council held its regularly scheduled meeting, with two agenda items regarding adoption of an annual rent control fee for mobile home parks and proposed amendments to the Calimesa Municipal Code of mobile home rent stabilization ordinance.
The first item included a public hearing and consideration of adoption of resolution 2011-13, establishing an annual registration fee on regulated mobile home parks to fund the administration and enforcement of the city’s Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance. Making the total monthly amount from each mobile-home space, $3.59, of which $1.79 would be paid for by the park owner and $1.79 to be paid for by the mobile home owner, as discussed at the meeting on Aug. 15, which was held at Mesa View Middle School.
“The goal of this meeting is to hear from you,” said Mayor Ella Zanowic. “There are some ground rules. Please keep it civil and on point.”
Assistant City Attorney Amy Greyson began by reminding council they directed staff to set a public hearing and to impose an annual registration fee of per mobile-home space. The annual amount of $43.08 per mobile home space was calculated in the recommendation. The fee would be paid for by the park owner who would in turn collect from each individual mobile home resident.
In the background information in the staff report, it indicated there are eight mobile home parks in Calimesa and 1,286 mobile-home spaces — 987 of those spaces may be subject to the ordinance.
Based on 2011 registrations, there were 699 spaces under the ordinance. The remaining 288 spaces are currently exempt from rent control provisions because they are on long-term leases.
The council then heard from the public, primarily park owners who were objecting to the ordinance.
In part of his objections, Big Oak Garden MHP owner Dennis Sullivan said, “Park owners receive no benefits from this ordinance. How are we gonna collect it? Monthly installments instead of one payment at the beginning of the year (would be better).”
Park owner Marilyn Green was also against the ordinance and the payment collection.
“The fee should be paid 100 percent by the residents and directly to the city,” said Green. “Why should the burden be on us to pay your fee?”
Other park owners voiced similar concerns.
“I don’t live in a park but our city is a great place to live,” said Calimesa resident Linda Molina. “A lot of people are affected by the rent control. They really don’t have any other place to go. I’m glad we have the ordinance. We have to consider the number of people who can not afford to live somewhere else.”
One speaker said the registration fees would protect the park residents. City Attorney Kevin Ennis addressed the council, “In our experience registration fees are very common. In terms of collection, that is your decision.”
Also discussed was potential late fees for the mobile home owner.
Councilwoman Joyce McIntire said she is whole heartedly against the late fee imposed on a mobile park owner. She referred to the $1.70 fee as buying a loaf of bread, and the residents need that money.
“As Kevin mentioned, the late fee is a policy decision,” said Greyson. “You can direct us to modify the language.”
Ennis added in terms of the one time annual payment to the city, it would streamline the payment.
Council Member Jim Hyatt asked if the parks collected the fees and the city could do monthly installments versus the yearly payment as indicated in the report.
“Because we’re telling a private owner how to collect their fees,” said Hyatt.
Council member Jeff Hyatt said he would agree to monthly installments and “some sort of penalty so it keeps people on time with payment.”
After much discussion about late fees, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Davis made a motion to accept as written with the addition that it is collected on a monthly basis by the park owner, with no additional late fees.
The motion passed unanimously and it will go forward to staff who will amend and bring back the issue at the next meeting.
The final item on the rent stabilization issue was on proposed amendments to the code in which city staff recommended that city council.
Ennis said it was primarily to update the language and to do so resulted in lengthening both ordinances.
Plantation on the Lakes owner Ron Hanson was against the amendments.
“We’ve been here 25 years as one of the premiere living communities. Why is this being done — 56 pages of regulations? I know it’s too complicated for you to understand. I hope that you have the leadership to do the right thing.”
Other upset park owners spoke against the amendments.
City Clerk Darlene Gerdes said, “We held a workshop in February with park owners and residents, also in June. They have been included in this process.”
“The problem is that we have two sides,” said Hewitt. “It’s not as simple as it seems. We can’t pull out any miracles here. We have threats on both sides.”
McIntire motioned to adopt the ordinances with a few changes. It was passed, four to zero, with Hewitt voting No.
The revised ordinance will also come back at the next meeting.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
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
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.
Trailer Parks as Models for Affordable Housing
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/design/2011/09/trailer-park-new-model-affordable-housing/160/
“Trailer” is to “rural” what “McMansion” is to “suburb.” But in Santa Monica, trailers are being transformed into something decidedly urban.
“Trailer” is to “rural” what “McMansion” is to “suburb.” But in Santa Monica, trailers are being transformed into something decidedly urban.
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.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Contra Costa Coungy OKs emergency waterline to Marsh Creek Road mobile home park
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_18937980
Posted: 09/20/2011 02:12:42 PM PDT
Updated: 09/20/2011 05:21:23 PM PDT
The owner of a remote mobile home park on Marsh Creek Road outside Clayton cannot be compelled to hook up the homes of a dozen landowners along the route of its emergency water pipeline.
The Contra Costa Board of Supervisors on Tuesday unanimously rejected a lower panel's demand that a water district upsize a line to accommodate the residents who live between the end of the existing pipe and the Clayton Regency Mobile Home Park and require park owner, General Electric, to foot the bill.
In 2007, county health inspectors declared a public health emergency at the mobile home park after a series of failures of its water system.
In what was supposed to be a temporary fix, the park began trucking in water daily for its 280 residents.
Contra Costa Public Health Director Wendel Brunner, who ruled four years ago that the use of trucked water leaves open the chance of contamination during transport, warned supervisors that he will be forced to shut the park and evict the residents unless he sees substantial progress toward construction of a permanent source of clean water.
The supervisors' vote clears the path toward the installation of a 4-inch, 3-mile pipeline for the sole use of the mobile home park.
The intervening landowners along Marsh Creek Road who have been denied access to a pipeline that will be constructed in front of their properties expressed frustration and anger.
"We are not rolling over and we are not
going away," said Harry Williamson, a Marsh Creek resident since 1973."You have to realize that General Electric ... has very deep pockets," added homeowner Walter Molina. "They can afford to put in a larger pipe. They can afford to put in fire hydrants. They can afford to make peace along that stretch. They can afford it, and I don't understand why you aren't sticking it to them a little bit and making them pay."
Supervisors were sympathetic to the residents' plight but said they could not force General Electric to pay the extra costs associated with a bigger pipeline.
"All of you have the right and ability to pursue (and apply to) the Contra Costa Water District ... to obtain your service," Supervisor Mary Nejedly Piepho told the residents. "I get that it is expensive. I understand that. But it's not General Electric's responsibility to be Robin Hood."
The board was acting on an appeal of a July decision by the county Planning Commission, whose members ordered the construction, at General Electric's cost, of a pipe large enough for all possible uses, including the intervening landowners and fire hydrants.
County planning and legal staff said the bigger pipe would trigger a costly and lengthy full-scale environmental analysis, attract significant environmental opposition and lead to the delay, or the possible rejection, of the emergency waterline to the park.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)