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!

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.

[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.

Affordable Housing in California-Manufactured Homes?

It’s clear that more education is needed for an understanding of the term Affordable Housing.
The term “Affordable Housing”, what is it and what does it mean to us?

Can Warren Buffet be wrong? He purchased ‘Clayton Homes’ Manufacturing.
Manufactured housing, or so-called mobile homes, are less expensive by far in the past, now, and probably long into the future, per the construction and appraisal experts. Here is a sample of manufactured housing building costs compared to stick-built homes, 2 bdrm./2bath:

Manufactured Homes ----approximately $25-$45 per square foot to build.
Stick-built Homes --------approximately $75-$200 per square foot to build.

Housing Cost Comparison
Manufactured: Approximately $300/mo. to $1200/mo. space rent
Apartment: Approximately $900/mo. to $2200/mo.+
Condo: Approximately $900/mo. to $2200/mo. - plus HOA fees
Residential: Approximately $1200/mo. to $3000/mo.+

Value in Marketplace
Manufactured: Approximately $50,000 to $100,000
Apartment: Approximately $90,000 to $220,000
Condo: Approximately $100,000 to $300,000
Residential: Approximately $150,000 to $400,000

These numbers will vary from City to City, Park to Park, etc. The next area is where “who you work for” provides a different viewpoint, depending on who is asked. According to HCD people in Sacramento, when asked the question “Is an existing manufactured home counted as affordable housing as part of the 5-yr. housing plan?” Answer, “Yes, but.......” (Don’t you just hate “Yes, but” answers!)

What came out was the following:

a) Cities have probably more than one plan, i.e., State, City, County, Re-development.

b) Whichever plan(s) is/are spoken of, there is the referral to ‘Law’ that only new homes to be built are counted toward the purposes of meeting increased demand for affordable housing.

c) The law, contained in more than one publication, is very clear. “Affordable Housing cost is 30% of income.”

d) The law, also has a number of formulas that start with the ‘median income’ of the area. This is where the homeowner, retired, living on Social Security, home paid for, and ‘in-place’ for the duration, could not come within a country mile of that formula -- even the 50% of income, etc. Do the math yourself.

(e) The intrusion of government is seen again here. Although counted as “Affordable Housing” now and in the past, the government views our existing homes as needing re-hab, etc., so that the need for New Affordable Housing can be increased --- justifying construction of higher cost, higher density, higher tax revenue, higher City Re-development activity.

By any measure, our manufactured homes are the epitome of AFFORDABLE HOUSING. Our homes are counted, now, in the past, and for the foreseeable future as Affordable Housing. The use of taxpayers’ money to ‘subsidize’ the over-built government waste called ‘new affordable housing’ is not necessary. In a short time, the subsidy could buy and/or re-hab many of our manufactured homes.

Better yet, build more Parks! Ones where the home and land are one. We all know there is a HUGE STORM coming with Baby Boomers retiring. I just don’t get why the Cities, Counties, and State entities don’t get it. They know we are here!! They don’t seem to even count existing seniors and Veterans. What’s up with that??

Capitola ends rent control for Mobile Home Residents

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_19112595#.TphST3m8XS0.email

By TOVIN LAPAN - Santa Cruz Sentinel

Posted: 10/14/2011 07:22:16 AM PDT

CAPITOLA — After 32 years on the books, rent control for mobile home parks met its demise Thurs­day night as the City Council voted 3-2 to repeal the ordinance.

Mayor Dennis Norton and Coun­cilmen Kirby Nicol and Sam Storey voted for repeal, while Councilman Mike Termini and Councilwoman Stephanie Harlan voted against.

The council must vote twice to repeal, and the first vote came in August. The repeal will take effect in 30 days.

The repeal was the culmination of a process that started in March, when the City Council first voted to amend the ordinance to settle two lawsuits.

“The city has been bullied, we’ve been litigated and beaten down,” Sto­rey said. “I’d like to point out that the council and staff have an obligation to the entire city and have to look­out for the well-being of the entire city. When faced with a half-million dollars in legal expenses year after year, you are forced to look for solu­tions.”

Residents pleaded with the coun­cil to wait until the next meeting in two weeks to make a decision so the residents would have more time to secure leases before the repeal took effect.

Harlan was in favor of a delay, while Termini said he would not vote for repeal because, while he thought it might be the best thing for the city, his principles would not allow it.

With Capitola’s other mobile home parks either city, nonprofit or resident-owned, Surf and Sand residents felt the most vulnerable.

are moving too quickly,” said Margaret Dixon, who owns a home in Surf and Sand Mobile Home Park. “We can’t get a good number on who has leases. [Surf and Sand owner] Ron Reed does not respond to our calls. Please wait a couple of weeks and see how things shake out.”

In March, the city amended its ordinance with the purpose of reaching a settlement agreement with Reed, who had two active lawsuits against the city.

Under the settlement, lower income residents were offered 34-year leases with a monthly rent of $475 after an income-verification process. Higher income full-time residents were offered leases that increased rents to market rate during eight years. Rents for part-time residents, and residents who own other residential property, could immediately rise to market rate.

Three 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. That case was settled earlier this week, and under the agreement the residents would be offered 34-year leases as long as the city repeals rent control and the residents involved in the lawsuit do not attempt to stop the repeal. If there had been no repeal, Reed could have changed the lease term to 13 months.

Surf and Sand resident Bill Newman, 86, who was part of the settlement, said he agreed because he trusted his lawyer, Phil Crawford, and simply wants to lock in a rent he can afford in the park he has lived in for 23 years.

“I gave up my freedom of speech because I had to trust someone,” he said earlier Thursday.

A third, active lawsuit challenges Reed’s determination of fair market rent for those residents who did not qualify for low-income leases.

Some of those who have not qualified for low-income status have seen rents escalate from as little as $285 per month to as high as $2,800 per month, a figure residents argue is higher than market rate.

Most of the residents own their home, but rent the land. If the rent is too high, they fear they will never be able to sell.

Thecityhasspentcloseto$1.5 million during the past decade defending its rent control ordinance from legal challenges, with approximately a third of that money coming from a legal-defense fee to which park residents contribute.

Help the mobile home park residents

http://napavalleyregister.com/calistogan/news/opinion/mailbag/help-the-mobile-home-park-residents/article_02ffbe56-f51b-11e0-9bd1-001cc4c002e0.html

Gold is discovered in Calistoga, California.

Our first claim for this gold is by a Mr. Wang and his company on the backs of seniors of Chateau Calistoga Mobile Home Park. Our next claim for this gold is by Mr. Moser and his company on the backs of seniors of Rancho de Calistoga.

The gold I am talking about is the unbelievable rent increase recently made on the residents of these mobile home parks. Mind you, this is only for a dirt lot. Not an apartment building, not a house, not any sort of real property. All that some of these seniors own are the mobile homes they live in. They have always paid a basic rent of, say, $450 per month for their lot with annually adjusted rent increase. They have lived for years under a rent ordinance, which was drafted to be fair to both parties. The formula was based on the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco Bay Area. And that formula dictated regular rent increases which were manageable for the residents and provided reasonable profit increases for the owners. Now, using fear as a tactic, the owners have levied these exorbitant rent increases.

The people affected are seniors who have paid their debt to society and who should be able to enjoy the years they have left without fear of losing what little they own. They thought the rent stabilization ordinance was sufficient to protect them, but it is not so.

We presently have two cases of dispute: 1) the so-called mediation case, and 2) the so-called arbitration case. In both cases, the park owners told these seniors they wanted over $100 a month in rent increases. Fear gripped these seniors, many of whom live solely on fixed incomes, and they felt they had to accede to the owners’ demands or lose their homes.

So one group originally went for an approximately $27-a-month increase. Now the owner of this park (Chateau Calistoga) wants them to sign an eight-year agreement increasing their rent $27 a month for the next eight years, telling them how lucky they are that the increase is so modest. However, if you go back eight years, there is no way this comes close to what the Consumer Price Index increases would have been. What a sham. There is no mention in the rent ordinance of any so-called eight-year agreement. So does this negate the rent ordinance protection?

Let us now talk about the other mobile home park, which is Rancho de Calistoga. Rancho owners have received a “gift” of a judicial arbitration of a $60-a-month increase, which added to a base of, say, $450, raises the monthly base rent to $510. This is bad enough, but the owners also want $540 in retroactive rent increase fees. With their so-called “compassion” for seniors, they will let some of them pay $54 a month to make up the $540 they owe. In November, there will be $16 more tacked on to the monthly rent: the Consumer Price Index–allowed increase. What we have here is a monthly increase of $76 to the base rent. Now we’re up to $526, and when you add in the $540 payback amount, we’re talking about $580 monthly rent for 10 months. Talk about greed! There is no compassion here at all. These owners have no respect for our seniors, and by seniors I mean our mothers, fathers, grandparents, the veterans of three wars, and the widows of those veterans.

The park owners have come out with a rent credit program. But in order to be eligible for this credit, the owners are asking to see the monthly incomes of those seniors requesting the credit. This is the information they are requiring: Wages, salaries, tips; interest; dividends; alimony received; business income; capital gains; other gains; IRA distributions; pensions and annuities; rental real estate; partnerships and corporations; trusts’ unemployment compensation; Social Security benefits; government benefits, Section 8; any other income; any other property.

This, mind you, for a break to pay off your rent increases. What a disgrace for these seniors and what an invasion of their privacy. I thought only the IRS could ask these questions. Surely this is overkill for seniors who only rent.

People ask what can be done about this abuse of our seniors. I believe the fight will start in this small town and spread throughout the country. First the politicians have to stop telling seniors how they love and care for them when they don’t fight to protect them. I call upon these politicians to appoint a government agency to make an in-depth audit of these park owners and require them to produce the same detailed financial information they are requiring of their renters. Let the public know just how much of a profit they are making on their investment.

This article is being written to make you, the public, aware of what is going on in this little town of Calistoga. This is only the beginning of this fight. There will be more, believe me.

Before I close, there are park owners who have discovered that people come first and how they should be treated. The new park owner of Calistoga Springs told the residents that for their first two years of ownership, all the rent money was being put back into the park to make it a place we could be proud to call home and to make it a desirable and pleasant place to live. What a lesson for the other two park owners.

Editor’s note: Bill Daly lives in Calistoga Springs Mobile Home Park.

HELP! Mobile & Manufactured Home Owners need ANSWERS!

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.

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!

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.

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.

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!

Mobile-home rent hike request rouses Santee

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/sep/15/mobile-home-rent-hike-request-rouses-santee/

Park owner says it’s needed, renters say they can’t afford it

SANTEE — With 12 mobile home parks providing housing for some of its 55,000 residents, Santee seems to be a welcome place for those looking to live in a manufactured home.

The city has specific rent-control guidelines that it adopted in 1994 to protect residents who own mobile homes and rent the land beneath them and to safeguard owners of the properties as well.

Santee Mayor Randy Voepel, who has long been a champion for people who rent spaces in local mobile-home parks, now finds himself in the unusual position of defending Cameron’s Mobile Estates on North Magnolia Avenue, which wants to raise rents significantly.

“The Cameron family has kept their rents low for many, many years,” Voepel said. “If the rent is too low and the formula allows, they may well be able to raise it.”

Diane Mead, who lives in a manufactured home in Cameron’s, moved to Santee 5½ years ago, “because rents were going out of control” in San Diego.

Mead is president of the homeowners association in Cameron’s and one of many in the 303-home park who are concerned about a letter they recently received from a law firm representing Cameron’s Mobile Estates noting that the owners are seeking a rent increase that would go into effect Jan. 1.

Nearly 100 residents gathered at a scheduled homeowners meeting the night of the blackout in San Diego County to figure out to respond to the letter, which states that the Cameron family is submitting an application to the city of Santee for an adjustment in rent, “to receive a just and reasonable return on the park property and prevent an illegal taking under the state and federal Constitution.”

According to a spreadsheet provided by the city, residents of Cameron’s Mobile Estates pay an average of just more than $357 per month for a space on the property. That is the lowest rate in Santee, according to city figures.

Cameron’s application to the city asks for an average rent increase of $557.64 “to maintain the net operating income earned by the park in the 1989 base year, adjustment.” The net operating income is tabulated to cover utilities, insurance, water and sewer, grounds maintenance and other costs.

“Alternatively,” the application to the city notes, “an increase, on average of $422.19 to bring space rents for all spaces within the park to $750 per month, per space for all spaces of the park.”

In a prepared statement, the mobile park’s chief executive officer, A. James Moxham, said the Cameron family “(is) a long standing Santee family that (has) built their homes, businesses and live here and remain a very private family today. Their desire for privacy has resulted in their unwillingness in the past to seek a rent adjustment, which would allow them a fair return on their investment over time as contemplated by the Santee ordinance.

“The continued deterioration of Cameron’s Mobile Estates (Park) financial position necessitates the request... The family does not seek any repayment of the millions of dollars in lost rent over the last 21 years.”

Tom Romstad, mobile home rent control administrator for the city, said Santee’s ordinance is designed to protect people from unreasonable increases from year to year. He said the city permitted a rent increase of slightly less than 1 percent at Cameron’s earlier this year.

“The ordinance has built into it a safety valve for park owners,” he said. “Its purpose is the city not restrict them in their rents to such a degree that it constitutes a violation of their constitutional rights for property.”

Voepel said the city has spent more than $1.1 million over the last 15 years defending mobile-home residents from rate increases.

Mead says residents, many of them in failing health and most with limited, fixed incomes see just one thing: “a 170 percent increase.”

“Residents here are frightened, they’re angry,” Mead said. “Numerous people would not be able to afford even a $25 or $50 dollar increase. These seniors don’t know what to do or where to turn. I understand this is a business but to have 170 percent more profit affects all the seniors. They’ll lose their homes, or they’ll have to sell their homes. A modest increase is understandable, but not this.”

Rents at other parks in Santee range from an average of $445 at Town & Country Manufactured Housing Estates to $715 at Greenbrier Gardens Mobile Estates.

Art Hallman, who has lived in the Cameron’s park for 12 years, is a part-time real estate agent who said he has sold 10 mobile homes in the park over the last seven months. He noted with disappointment that his most recent near-sale fell through because of the current situation. He said he sees more of the same ahead.

“This is a scenario that totally defeats rent control,” Hallman said. “If we lose this battle, we’ve lost rent control.”

The City Council is expected to take up the matter before the end of the year.

Public turns out for Comments on Rent Increase at Yucaipa City Council meeting

http://www.newsmirror.net/articles/2011/09/16/news/doc4e7103e7eac54697682860.txt

By NOELLE KIELY
Staff Reporter

Published: Thursday, September 15, 2011 11:08 PM PDT

Two-and-a-half hours of public comment opened the city council meeting on Monday, Sept. 12 with a standing-room-only crowd.

One item of discussion was the recent approval of a rent increase for the property ow­ner of Yucaipa Village Mobile Home Park. Residents expres­sed their displeasure with the decision.

Resident Eric Lasser began, “The owner has received a sizable increase in rent. Please, whatever the rent commission does. Turn it back to them. It’s not the responsibility of the council.” Lasser also said the council has not received good direction from the city attorney stating, “In the last three years the counsel you’ve received has been wrong.”

Cheryl Barnett, of Yucaipa Village MHP said, “After we got notice of the rent increase we got threatening letters from the owner. We have toxic carpet in the clubhouse and nothing has been done to improve the conditions.”

Yucaipa Mobile Residents Association President Len Tyler spoke on the issue, “We had to pay $17,000 to defend our position and we have no money left to challenge the decision. You threw residents to walls when you approved the increase.”

Tyler continued, “The park owner failed to provide proof of improvements and it should have been denied. The park is in below average condition and I don’t know why that wasn’t taken into account.”

Resident Brian Lared spoke on the El Dorado Ranch project. “We are afraid it will open up the area to be a trash pit. The Mexican drug cartel has a marijuana ranch up there and we are concerned. Last week tractors started working on the job.”

Lared added, “All property owners including, Five Winds Ranch, Cherrycroft, Bear’s Den, Oak Glen Estates and Sample’s acres are voting no on the entire project including the bathrooms that just started last week. We are all adjoining ranches and we don’t want to see this project continue.”

Jan Leja also addressed the council on behalf of Betty Burkle. “Our main objection to this project is its proposed use. The agreement to eliminate overnight camping was a good compromise, but encouraged trail use will have undesirable impacts on our property including trespassing, damage to our property, lighting and lack of monitoring the restrooms and trails.”

A third item of discussion was opposition to the Wilson Creek Business Park and Basin Project. “We understand the city of Yucaipa wants manufacturing jobs and we also know there is a desire for the Wilson Creek Business Park. The problem is the city is trying to develop the property there for a private business (Ingen Technologies).”

Greg Harrington reported of internal problems at the business and criminal allegations by the company’s CEO. “It doesn’t make sense for the city to partner with a business with so many red flags,” and ended, “We do not want Wilson Creek development.”

Yucaipa Mayor Dick Riddell addressed the crowd at the conclusion of public comments. “The comments on all the is­sues tonight did not fall on deaf ears.”

In regards to the Wilson Creek Business Park objections, City Manager Ray Casey said, “The Second Street extension has been part of the plans when the county ran the area.” Additionally, the drainage component is necessary to get the Dunlap area out of the flood plain. “We could take another look alternative uses for the Institutional component,” Cas­ey said.

“In view of the concerns ex­pressed here tonight, it would be wise to address alternatives in the environmental study,” Riddell said to the applause from the audience and added, “In regards to the Second Street extension, that’s been part of the General Plan since incorporation, but we will look at alternatives for the Insti­tutional part.”

Riddell closed the public comment section with “Again, thank you for coming and just know your concerns have not fallen on deaf ears.”

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.

Resident purchase of Manufactured Home Parks in Oceanside

Not widely known, but well-documented, supported by the U.S. Supreme Court, California Legislative Counsel, and State Attorney General, is a win-win-win-win solution for Oceanside's Affordable Manufactured Housing.

The Residents can own the land under their homes at a housing cost no more than what it is today. Compensation for the owner of the land "must equal fair market value of the owner's leased Fee interest", per the U.S. Supreme Court. No financing is required from the City of Oceanside. The Citizens/Voters will not have to bear the threatened, unnecessary litigation.

The homeowners will enjoy a stabilized housing cost, with conventional financing. Being forced to pay for the 150% Gorilla of sub-prime loans through a Bond issue is eliminated. The City can do away with the litigation cost associated with Rent Control. It, for all practical purposes, will disappear.

The land owner will receive far more than if the 'so-called' subdivision process if pursued. The City Resident/Voter can enjoy a local government functioning as it should. This is all public information that our "Mobile Home Owners Forum" has compiled over the years. Why isn't it being used?