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!

Mobile-Home Residents Make Buy-out Offer, Laguna Beach

http://www.lagunabeachindependent.com/2011/09/16/mobile-home-residents-buy-out/

Belt Boyce, right, along with another resident, for years have tried to organize a buyout of the park.

Residents of a 130-unit mobile home park have for the first time made a formal offer of $41 million to buy the property when and if it’s sold.

The potential sale of Laguna Terrace Mobile Home Park at 30802 South Coast Highway has percolated for years, delayed by litigation and contested decisions.

Sean Schlueter, a 10-year resident spearheading the purchase offer, sent park neighbors a copy of the letter of intent, which was agreed upon and signed by Boyce Belt, the park association president. Seventy-three residents supported submitting the letter to the park’s owner, Stephen Esslinger; 18 opposed.

“This is a letter of intent to see if we have a willing seller,” said Schlueter. “The interest rates are as low now as they’re ever going to be. We’ll never know unless we ask. At least our hat’s in the ring.”

The offer is good until Oct. 6, Schlueter said, who added that he and the nearly 400 park residents expect a written response.

Schlueter owns his mobile home on the hill across Coast Highway from Treasure Island beach park and would like to buy the lot beneath its wheels. So do 54 percent of the park’s other residents. Schlueter was a founding member of the park’s association, which he said was established to purchase the mobile home park and convert it to a nonprofit, resident-owned property. Park residents agreed to the idea four years ago. This is the first time a formal offer has been made to Esslinger because earlier ownership was in contention among family members.

Esslinger, whose grandfather developed the park, has proposed subdividing the property for individual purchase, but that plan has been stymied by the California Coastal Commission due to a question over lot lines and natural waterways.

The purchase price is based on a 2007 appraisal of the property, according to documents. Schlueter said all leases will be protected and lot purchase is not required to continue renting at the mobile home park.

Belt said he expects a response from Esslinger or his attorney, Boyd Hill, within the next two weeks. Esslinger and Hill did not return phone calls seeking comment nor did the park’s general manager, James Lawson.