Showing posts with label Rent Control. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rent Control. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Mobile Home Park Economic Eviction

http://capitola.patch.com/articles/op-ed-mobile-home-owners-need-help

Op/Ed: Mobile Home Owners Need Help

A Santa Cruz County Mobile Home/Manufactured Commissioner advocates for homeowner protections.

COMMENT

Lauri Beamish

6:22am on Monday, November 7, 2011

First let me say that I am so sorry for anyone else going through this, an example of "bullying" at it's finest. Capitola didn't spend 2 million to defend it's rent control. Over 10 yrs. the City spent approx. what amounts to $70,000. per year. The residents paid approx. $400,000. over a 6 yr. period, and in the end it still wasn't enough. Some of us will definitely be attending from Capitola to show our support and do whatever we can to help keep more from going through what we are now at the hands of the heartless park owners.

Op/Ed: Mobile Home Owners Need Help

http://capitola.patch.com/articles/op-ed-mobile-home-owners-need-help


Op/Ed: Mobile Home Owners Need Help

A Santa Cruz County Mobile Home/Manufactured Commissioner advocates for homeowner protections.

&nbps;1 Comment

By William Neighbors

Mobile/manufactured homeowner disputes and mobile home park issues are on the rise in Santa Cruz County.

I have had several phone calls from mobile home residents in Watsonville regarding Capitola’s rent control. Watsonville's Mobile Home Rent Control was enacted by the voters, not like Capitola where it was an ordinance and the city council had unilateral control to repeal rent control. Watsonville mobile home residents pay a very small amount for rent control, about $1 per month. This is not a lot of money for legal fees.

The city of Watsonville and the residents have to fight park owners who want
higher profits, so they repeatedly challenge rent control laws. Capitola spent over $2 million in legal fees on rent control.

So, what do we need to do? First we need to build a legal fund so when something happens to us we are ready to take it on. Park owners are challenging rent control laws in three mobile home parks right now that are creating legal fees for the city. I have spoken to two attorneys who represent park residents and they say the same thing: we must build a legal fund.

The county is proposing raising the yearly fee to help with their legal expenses defending rent control. It will be implemented in January 2012 for county residents, only not homes in the city limits.

I think we need to pass a city ordinance to collect a small amount from each mobile home owner per month to build this legal fund. I know these are hard times and people don't like fees or taxes, but we are facing litigation in two parks challenging rent control where park owners are proposing to dramatically double
monthly rents in addition to eliminating existing services in Watsonville.

We need to stop this from continuing throughout Watsonville and believe me it will continue just like it has in Capitola.

Owners of mobile homes and manufactured homes have a lot invested in their homes. Let’s all work together and solve these problems that are occurring. It is up to us, the homeowners, to protect our investments. Everyone should get together at their park association meetings and talk about it. I would be happy to attend your meeting.

William Neighbors is a mobile home owner in Watsonville and a commissioner on the Santa Cruz County Mobile Home/Manufactured Commission.

NOTE: A discussion of rent control and tenant rights will be held at Capitola City Hall on Nov. 12 at 10 a.m. It is open to all mobile home owners.

Thursday, November 3, 2011

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

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.

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
By LARRY PARSONS
Herald Staff Writer
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.

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Councilwoman angered by conditions, rent prices at El Monte mobile home park, San Gabriel Valley

http://www.sgvtribune.com/news/ci_18940412

EL MONTE - Councilwoman Norma Macias is speaking out against what she calls "shameful" conditions at a local mobile-home park.

Macias recently visited Brookside Mobile Country Club, next to Mountain View High School, after receiving complaints from some residents of deplorable conditions and exorbitant rents.

The councilwoman said she intends to do whatever she can, including raising the issue with her council colleagues, to support residents of the park.

"What is taking place here is nothing short of criminal, to take advantage and gouge these people," Macias said. "I, for certain, want to make an issue of what is going on here. We need to do our best to protect our residents."

Officials with Tatum-Kaplan Financial Group, which owns the park through its subsidiary Brookside Investments LTS, declined an interview request for this story. The park's management company, Mobile Community Management Co., a Santa-Ana based group also owned by Kaplan, responded with a fact sheet about the property and company.

Macias, who is considering running for the new 32nd Congressional District, said mobile- home residents are naturally placed in a tough situation when it comes to renting spaces for their homes. Despite the name, mobile homes are often difficult to move because they are damaged or a transfer is too costly. Park owners take advantage, Macias said.

"These people are stuck," she said. "The landlord knows these people are stuck. It really breaks my heart."

One resident, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation, said his family has lived in the community for more than 30 years and has seen their rent skyrocket.

When they first lived there, rent was $100. Now, it is $1,160 a month "just for the dirt," he said.

According to the U.S. Census American Community Survey, the median rent for apartments and homes in El Monte from 2005 to 2009 was $1,003.

The man said he would move from Brookside but doesn't have the money.

"It can cost $10,000 to move one of these," he said. "We live on a fixed income, and (the landlords) know it. It is all for the money."

Some people have moved away. Walking through the more than 400-space mobile home park at 12700 Elliot Ave., it is easy to tell the park has numerous vacancies. Bare, gray cement slabs are scattered throughout as homes have been removed or transferred. Other homes have been left behind, now boarded up to prevent transients from squatting.

"They have an astonishing rate of vacancy," El Monte redevelopment attorney Dave Gondek said.

Roads are cracked and in one area of the park a former retaining wall is broken and buried beneath a hill of sand.

The park's poor appearance also stems from some residents' lack of concern or an inability to perform maintenance, officials said. Some homes are cracked and worn, and others have overgrown brush and weeds.

Police Capt. Santos Hernandez said police and city staff helped an elderly resident by cutting back overgrown shrubs in the back of her property.

Code-enforcement officers said they are reviewing the property, including the retaining wall, but had no determinations on violations.

Rent control

Like the feudal system in medieval England in which a free man owned his cottage and a feudal lord owned the land and charged a fee for using it, most mobile-home residents own their homes but rent the land beneath the property.

Renters at the Brookside property said rent ranges from $1,000 to $1,500.

Officials with other local cities said mobile-home spaces rent for about $800 or less. Glendora has rent control that keeps rents at about $800. Advertisements show rents in Palmdale, Riverside and Pomona for more than 1,000- square-foot lots are about $450. The Whittier East Community rents lots at $593 a month. In Laguna Beach, a 2,400-square- foot lot is advertised at $1,876.

Unlike Glendora, El Monte doesn't have rent control because of a 1990 ballot initiative. That same initiative also prevents the city from even trying to revisit the issue, which was passed with the help from the owners of Brookside, the Tatum-Kaplan Financial Group, Gondek said.

In 1988, in an effort to stymie rapidly increasing rents for mobile-home parks, the City Council adopted a rent-control ordinance, Gondek said.

It established an avenue for rent review between tenant and park owner with mediators overseeing the review.

Park owners challenged the ordinance with a referendum, but narrowly lost.

Two years later in 1990, the Tatum-Kaplan group, led by Jeffrey Kaplan, brought forth an initiative that proposed to abolish the rent-control ordinance, Gondek said. The selling point of the new plan was rental assistance for low-income senior citizens. Those who qualified would receive a 10 percent discount on rent.

Voters passed the ordinance, and it has been the rule of law ever since.

And if the city ever wanted to challenge it, it couldn't, Gondek said. The redevelopment attorney said Kaplan's team was "clever," and within the language of the voter- approved ordinance, the city is forbidden from contributing any staff time or city funds toward efforts to overturn the law or establish rent control.

For the city to get involved, a new ballot initiative must overturn the law to free the city, Gondek said.

"The language of the ordinance pretty much puts the city of El Monte, as a unit of local government, in a straitjacket," he said.

Tatum-Kaplan's history

Anderson said he is familiar with the Tatum-Kaplan Financial Group, the firm that owns numerous mobile-home parks under several business names, including Brookside.

"They have a tendency to look at the bottom line. A lot of them are that way," he said.

Jeffrey Kaplan and Thomas Tatum own Mobile Community Management Company. Although that company runs Brookside, the land at Brookside is owned by First National Finance, another organization run by Kaplan and Tatum, according to company officials and the Los Angeles County Assessor's Office.

Kaplan, a lawyer who heavily invested in the mobile- home business in the 1980s, owns more than a dozen mobile-home parks in Southern California, according to records from the California Secretary of State's office.

He purchased the Brookside park in the 1980s and initially leased the land, including a 2.1-acre parcel from El Monte Union High School District, city officials said. He later bought the property, including a 2004 deal to buy the school district property for $450,000, according to the purchase agreement.

Kaplan also led a failed state initiative in 1996, similar to the El Monte ordinance, to do away with rent control for mobile homes.

Kaplan and his companies have had their share of lawsuits regarding mobile home parks. Kaplan, Tatum or Mobile Community Management are named in 11 civil suits in San Bernardino County dating back to 1998 and another 10 in Orange County from 1989 to 2010, including fraud, unfair business practices and breach of contract.

A lawsuit has also been filed by residents at Brookside, but attorneys representing the group did not return phone calls seeking comment.

Objecting to rent increases, some Brookside residents formed an association in 2008 and threatened a rent strike, according to the fact sheet provided by Mobile Community Management.

In 2009, about one-third of Brookside residents filed a lawsuit against their landlords after meetings with them dissolved, according to the sheet. Park managers deny any wrongdoing, according to the fact sheet.

Residents disagree.

"They are finding the fastest way to get money out of people's pockets," a resident said.

Friday, September 9, 2011

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


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.

Wednesday, September 7, 2011

Residents fight increase in Camarillo mobile home park rent

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/sep/06/some-lamplighter-residents-fight-increase-in/

According to Lamplighter Mobile Home Park resident Matt Lorimer, many of the other residents are moving out because of the unfair rules established by the management, and the increase in rent.

When Debra Vogel purchased her two-bedroom coach at the Lamplighter Mobile Home Park in 2005, she paid $126,000 and $725 per month in rent.

When the park in Camarillo changed ownership in August last year she said, her rent increased by $31, and on top of previous increases, she now pays a monthly rent of $881.40. The rent hike has placed her in a financial bind, Vogel said.

Vogel also said that since the recession, the value of her home decreased by 30 percent. Problems with management and owners of the park also have caused her property value to drop another 30 percent, Vogel alleged.

Appearing before the Camarillo City Council at a meeting last month, Vogel implored officials to help her and the other residents of the park.

"At the rate the new owners are increasing the rent, it will be $1,000 at the end of the year," Vogel said. "I can't sell, but I also can't stay. I am only one person in a sea of homeowners, and we are living with heavy-handed management that makes everyone hesitant that any day, new rules would be inflicted upon us, threatening our homes and our budget. "

For months, a group of residents of the Camarillo mobile home park have appeared before city officials to speak against what they said was an "unfair" rent increase approved by the city's Rent Review Commission. The group has asked the council to amend a policy to allow an appeals process against approved increases.

The City Council is scheduled to discuss the Lamplighter issue at its next meeting Sept. 14.

Some residents have asked city officials to consider purchasing the park with redevelopment agency funds.

Brian Fitterer, who purchased the park in August 2010 under his company Lamplighter Camarillo MHC, LLC, said he provided financial statements to the Rent Review Commission that outlined the various improvements made to the park since his company took over the property.

The park has 227 spaces with rents from $700 to $950 per month, he said.

"We had the ability to put any increase we wanted, but instead we decided to work with the city," Fitterer said in an email. "Residents don't agree and basically want a second bite of the apple after losing at the rent review. We have dealt with the complaints, but you won't hear any good things from the residents. The fact they want the city to subsidize their lives by purchasing the park for them is ridiculous."


Fitterer said he initially asked for a $55 increase, but agreed to the $31 increase recommended by the commission. He said the increase is warranted after more than $100,000 in road improvements in the park, as well as landscaping and other improvements.

Matt Lorimer, president of the Lamplighter Estates Homeowners Association, said the financial statements Fitterer provided to the commission were inaccurate and overestimated several items, including the landscaping work and the $18,000-per-month property tax indicated in the paperwork.

Lorimer has implored city officials to investigate the commission and consider a policy change that would also require an independent accounting firm to check financial statements that are presented to the board.

"We ask for a review and changes to be made to the commission process because it lacks fair rules and regulation," Lorimer said. "The commission must have a process and guidelines to follow."

Residents also have complained about various rule changes and reduction in services at the mobile home park, including cutting hours of access to the park's car-wash area and getting tickets from park management for parking their car on the street overnight.

"They impose these new rules without even alerting residents that rules have changed," Vogel said.

City Councilwoman Charlotte Craven said the city couldn't purchase the park as some residents requested because the property is not located in the redevelopment area.

"Besides, that's not a service we provide as a city," Craven said. "I don't see us buying any piece of rental property. Also, the state is now in the process of taking away our redevelopment money."

While city ordinances do not include an appeal process on rent increases, residents can bring their complaints to civil court, Craven said.

Lorimer said Fitterer refuses to meet with members of the homeowners association to discuss their concerns.

Fitterer said he does not believe Lorimer represents residents.

"I believe the ultimate goal of Mr. Lorimer and his group is to force us to sell the park at a discount to residents," Fitterer said in an email. "The majority do not agree with this, and it is slanderous statements being put forth by Mr. Lorimer."

Lorimer and some residents hope the City Council can step in and address the issues at the park

"If the city does not step in and help, residents will be pushed out," he said. "The city needs to do their part to help the residents. The city needs to address this now."

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

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.

Sunday, July 31, 2011

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?

Sunday, June 6, 2010

HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE 2010 GSMOL CONVENTION

HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE 2010 *GSMOL CONVENTION

By

Norma Bohannan

ELECTION RESULTS

Jim Burr was elected President of GSMOL. Tim Sheahan was elected Vice-President of Zone D. Lloyd Logan continues as Vice-President of Zone A. Zone A has been split in half. Regions 4, 11, and 14 remain in Zone A. Regions 1 and 2 have split off to form a new zone; that new Zone is called Zone A-1. Members from Regions 1 and 2 caucused to elect Roger McConnel as Vice-President of Zone A-1.

LEGISLATORS

Assemblymember Pedro Nava was presented with "legislator of the year" award. Pedro Nava is our friend to manufactured-home owners.

Assemblymember Norma Torres spoke. She says she understands our issues. Norma Torres is chair of Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee.

GOLETA

Throughout the convention, there were many discussions about the Guggheim vs. City of Goleta lawsuit. There were several manufactured-home owners from Goleta attending and asking questions. In general, the attorneys and GSMOL leaders at the convention agree: the legality of all rent control ordinances in the state of California depend on the outcome of this case. Probably it will go all the way to Supreme Court. GSMOL and many, many other organizations are teamed up to fight this legal battle to defend rent control. It is a very expensive fight.

SOME WORKSHOPS

There was a workshop about cooperating with other manufactured-home owner groups and HOA's. In fact, there was quite a bit of discussion about this all through the convention. If we all kill each other, the park owners win and the manufactured-home owners lose.

One interesting workshop was "Defending against Eviction". Bruce Stanton advised us to always pay whatever we are billed; protesting some charge on the bill is separate. He advised us to always reply, in writing, to every written notice or letter from owner or manager. And always keep a paper trail, including any complaint or evidence you have in your defense or against management.

There was a workshop about Building Homeowner Action Teams. It's all about getting out of your house and meeting your neighbors. A burden that is too heavy for one person to bear is easy for a team to carry. We all know that. Get to know what other people in your park are up against and help out; you might need help yourself someday.

There were panels of attorneys that answered *MRL questions from the audience. Of course, Bruce Stanton was there, so was Will Constatine and reps from the San Diego group Endeman, Lincloin, Turek, & Heater.


*GSMOL - Golden State Manufactured Homeowners League

*MRL - Mobile Home Residency Laws

Much Thanks to Region 14 Manager, Norma Bohannan for this contribution to our blog