Blog

Supreme Court denies Contempo Marin petition to review San Rafael Mobile Hompe Park rent-control ordinance

The U.S. Supreme Court this week hammered the final nail in the coffin of a 14-year legal battle between San Rafael and Contempo Marin mobile-home park owners by declining to hear a challenge of the city’s rent control ordinance. Read more here.

Oak Harbor WA, Mobile Home park Sells to Residents

When the homeowners in the 59-site mobile-home park formerly known as Thunderbird gathered to give thanks last week, they had something new to add to the list: They now owned the land under their homes as well. Read full article here.

Santee (San Diego County, CA) Approves Mobile Home Park Rent Increase and Partial Vacancy Decontrol

Courtesy of HKC law firm, Orange County California:

Last week, the City of Santee approved a settlement that grants a Santee park owner a $200.00 per month rent increase, implemented over four years. The agreement also allows for a 15 percent vacancy adjustment and 100 percent of CPI for the next 25 years. This is a positive result for the park owner. But it didn’t come without filing suit and creating “downside” risk for the City and park tenants in the form of an even larger rent increase.

The park initially requested a significantly larger rent increase which had a substantial factual and legal basis. The City’s rent commission denied the park owner any rent increase and this decision was upheld by the City Council.  The park owner filed suit.  With the case set to go to trial, the City indicated its willingness to agree to a substantial rent increase.

This case illustrates the point that for local governments, denying an administrative rent increase application is often the politically expedient decision regardless of whether it is right or equitable. Local government politicians get to look like heroes by saving the tenants from a rent increase and the City has no immediate exposure to damages from the administrative decision. Politicians realize a park owner whose rent increase application was denied may simply abandon the application rather than incur the cost of filing suit. The question for the political official is something like this: “Do I make a large group of tenants who vote happy or one (often out of town) park owner happy”? We all understand how politicians usually answer such questions. Thus, while we would like to believe park owners would be treated fairly with a rent increase application before the local government, all too often that is not the case.

My law firm is frequently asked whether we should seek a more modest rent increase in order to avoid upsetting the local politicians and the tenants. In our experience, the political dynamic does not change for the politicians or residents unless the requested increase is so small that it barely justifies the application.

Gov. Brown Signs Sen. Jackson’s Mobile Home Bill

Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a bill by state Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, to prevent lawsuits and give mobile home residents a voice when their mobile home park is being subdivided and sold. Read more here.

Lakeport City California – Council votes to put senior mobile home park rent control initiative on ballot

Courtesy of  Lake County News

LAKEPORT, Calif. – After hearing from both supporters and opponents of a senior mobile home park rent control initiative that the city attorney warned was likely to be challenged as unconstitutional, the Lakeport City Council decided to leave the decision of enacting it up to voters.

In a 4-0 vote – with Councilman Martin Scheel absent – the council chose to place the initiative on the November 2014 ballot, when the city’s next municipal election will be held.

The vote was greeted with cheers from Lakeport resident Nelson Strasser, the measure’s proponent, as well as other members of the “Save Our Seniors” group which reported it has just completed collecting signatures for a similar ballot measure in the county jurisdiction.

Even so, members of the city council had raised concerns about the city finding itself in court over the measure’s legality, which interim City Attorney David Ruderman said was a likelihood based on his analysis of Strasser’s one-page initiative.

The initiative defines senior parks as those where at least 80 percent of the homes have at least one person age 65 or older. It would roll rents back to those in place on Jan. 1, 2012, and require that rent increases be tied to rises in Social Security benefits.

It was Ruderman’s conclusion that the initiative will be the focus of litigation and be invalidated by a court because it constitutes a regulatory taking and is preempted by state law. City park owners already have indicated they may sue if the initiative is adopted.

While the initiative power is “fundamental,” Ruderman added that the courts “have clearly stated that people do not have the right to put an invalid initiative on the ballot.”

Ruderman offered to the council a menu of choices: accept the initiative without change as a city ordinance, place it on the November 2014 ballot, seek declaratory and injunctive relief from the duty to place the initiative on the ballot based on the initiative’s invalidity, place the initiative on the ballot for voter consideration but refuse to defend the initiative if a preelection challenge is brought against it.

He also suggested a fifth option – simply decline to take any action, either to adopt it or to place it before voters, which would require the initiative’s proponents to bring suit against the city in order to get it on the ballot.

He pointed out that Strasser initially had provided the city with a petition in November 2012, and former City Attorney Steve Brookes had reviewed the proposal and provided a letter explaining problems with it. Ruderman said Strasser made some changes, returned with a revised initiative the following month and was informed of additional issues.

Council member Stacey Mattina asked if there was time to recirculate the initiative before the November 2014 election. Ruderman said there was.

Councilman Kenny Parlet said it was a difficult decision to choose between spending money to put it on the ballot when litigation is likely – a move that he said seemed “ludicrous” – or to face litigation for not putting it before voters.

He said it seemed that it was Ruderman’s advice to not put it on the ballot. Ruderman replied, “This is a policy decision that is within your discretion.”

“So we’re kind of between a rock and a hard place, we could get sued by either side,” said Mayor Tom Engstrom.

Mary Ann McQueen, who along with husband Jerry owns Northport Trailer Park outside of the city limits, told the council that the initiative wasn’t necessary.

She said it had gotten the attention of park owners who had since agreed to work with residents. “They don’t want to work with the park owners now,” she said of the proponents.

McQueen argued that it will create an expensive bureaucracy, and said a long-term lease agreement that park owners representing 80 percent of the park spaces in the unincorporated county had agreed to accept was a better alternative.

Engstrom asked how many mobile home parks the city initiative would affect. Ruderman said he did not know.

Strasser told the council that 100 California municipalities have rent control for mobile home parks. “We’re not doing anything radical, we’re not inventing the wheel.”

He said there have been abuses by park owners – including massive rent increases in some parts of the state – “and rent control has been the pushback.”

The issue, said Strasser, is whether any senior should have to live at the mercy of a company or corporation that can raise rents unilaterally, putting seniors in danger of being homeless. He suggested the local government should have taken action to fix the problem.

“Stay out of our way. The people of Lake County want their seniors protected,” he said, adding, “We just want our chance on the ballot.”

William Eaton, the Save Our Seniors Committee chair who lives in Sterling Shores Estates mobile home park in north Lakeport, said they’ve tried unsuccessfully for more than a year to get a long-term lease agreement from their park’s owner. They finally heard back from the owner two months ago as the county initiative gained traction.

In the two years since he moved to the park, Eaton said his Social Security has gone up by 1.7 percent but his rent has increased 8 percent. The park’s owner, he said, has openly stated his objective is to make as much money as possible. Eaton asked the council to place the initiative on the ballot.

Bill Cline, owner of Castlewood Estates in Nice, argued that the initiative was “clearly illegal,” adding that the council was in a no-win situation. He suggested that Strasser should begin again and retool it.

Doug Johnson, a representative of the Western Manufactured Home Community Association, told the council, “What Mr. Strasser has written is patently illegal” and unconstitutional, and urged the council to place the burden on Strasser, who he said should be forced to go to a judge to try to get it placed on the ballot.

Mattina told Strasser she wished he would start over with something that would work. Strasser said the city council and Board of Supervisors should have put something together. “We really need something that would tie our rents to Social Security.”

He added that he already had a motion written to seek a writ of mandamus, which he planned to file with the court the next day if the council didn’t place the initiative on the ballot. “I don’t want to fight, I want to solve a problem.”

Joyce Pierson, who like Strasser lives in Fairgrounds Village Senior Mobile Home Park in Lakeport, said she helped gather signatures on petitions from the general public, and heard many people say “it’s about time” when she explained the initiative to them.

Pierson said it was time to start doing something for seniors, pointing out the county’s large senior population. She added that she and her 83-year-old husband have a tough time making ends meet, and her husband continues to work part-time to pay the bills.

It was Mattina who moved to place the initiative on next year’s fall ballot, with Engstrom seconding. Despite concerns raised by council members, the vote was unanimous.

The group of senior proponents had sat quietly as Mattina read through the motion and the vote was taken.

“So it’s going on the ballot,” said Engstrom, at which point Strasser and the group seemed to let out its collective breath, clapping and cheering.

In other council news from Tuesday, Lakeport Police Chief Brad Rasmussen received the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training’s Executive Certificate. It’s the highest certification the commission offers to executives, who must complete a training program, college units and have served at least two years as a department head.

The council also voted to move forward with the process of refinancing side fund obligations owed to the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, which could save an estimated $20,000 annually.

Council members also approved an application from “Hey … Hot Dog!” for a time limit waiver in order for the hot dog cart to remain at one location along S. Main Street beyond the city’s two-hour time limit for mobile catering businesses.

 

King County WA purchaes mobile home park along flood-prone River

King County has acquired the Riverbend mobile home park that lies close to a flood-prone portion of the Cedar River in Maple Valley. The County is working to provide relocation benefits and assistance to affected tenants. The purchase price was $6.85MM.

Read more here

 

Initiative efforts seek rent control for senior mobile home parks in county, city of Lakeport CA

LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – Efforts are under way to place initiatives that would implement rent control in senior mobile home parks on upcoming Lakeport and county ballots.

Lakeport resident Nelson Strasser is the chief proponent of the initiative effort in Lakeport, and he has joined forced with the Save Our Seniors Committee, which is working on the countywide initiative. So far, no initiative is under way to govern the city of Clearlake.

City Attorney Steve Brookes and County Counsel Anita Grant both provided ballot titles and summaries for the parallel efforts, and the required legal notices were published.

Strasser said he and the Save Our Senior Committee gathered about 200 signatures – of which he estimated 60 to 70 were for Lakeport residents – last Friday and Saturday, and also registered 10 new voters.

“We’re pretty enthused,” he said, adding that it appeared to be an “easy sell” once they explained their purpose.

The language of the initiatives are, for the most part, similar on their main points, said Strasser, with some minor exceptions.

Both call for rent control to be imposed in senior mobile home parks, which the county measure defines as “one where at least one inhabitant of 80 percent of the mobile homes is over 55 years of age and which has at least two mobile homes.” Strasser’s measure defines such parks as have one inhabitant age 65 or older in 80 percent of the homes.

The two measures also would roll back all rental rates to those in effect on Jan. 1, 2012, and prohibit all space rental increases in senior mobile home parks unless there is an increase in Social Security benefits, and then only to the extent of that percentage increase. Violations would result in misdemeanor penalties in both proposed initiatives.

The measures allow capital improvement costs, including reasonable financing costs, to be passed through to residents in a senior mobile home park only if a majority of homeowners occupying spaces affected by the pass through consent to the improvement. Government-mandated expenses could be passed through to tenants; in the county measure, passing on such costs would require a 90-day written notice.

The county measure requires that space rentals decrease proportionately to any reduction in Social Security benefits; prohibits any rent increase in a senior mobile home park when a tenant moves from a space due to illness, incapacity, death or the sale of the mobile home; and would not apply to leases more than 12 months in duration, to mobile home spaces constructed after 1991 and mobile homes which are not the tenant’s primary residence.

The Lakeport measure would provide “limited exemptions for rent control for mobile home spaces with leases over 12 months in duration, for mobile home spaces constructed after 1991, and where the mobile home space is not the tenant’s principal residence,” and forbid rent increases when a mobile home space is transferred to a new mobile home owner or occupant.

Strasser said he’s aiming to get the Lakeport initiative on the ballot this November, and must collect 415 signatures by July 1.

For the county initiative, Lake County Registrar of Voters Diane Fridley said it will require a minimum of 2,115 signatures, which is based on a percentage of the total number of ballots cast during the Nov. 2, 2010, gubernatorial election.

Fridley said the county initiative’s proponents have 180 days from April 12 – when they picked up the copy of the final ballot title and summary from her office – to collect the necessary signatures.

They have not so far requested a special election, which Fridley said would require them to collect a greater number of signatures. She said there is not enough time for them to get on the November ballot, so if they make their deadline it would go on the next statewide election ballot, which would be in June 2014.

The origins of the effort

Strasser purchased a mobile home in Fairgrounds Village Senior Park in Lakeport more than a year ago.

He began spearheading a rent control movement after the park’s new owners began to implement large rent increases, including a recent 7.5-percent hike. He said that raised his rent from $330 to $355 each month.

He said there are no limits on the amount of rent that can be increased at a time, with only a 90-day notice required.

For many seniors in the parks, Strasser said they don’t have a means to go elsewhere if the rents get too high, and called the high rent increases “vulture capitalism.”

Strasser circulated a petition among fellow park residents, getting between 40 and 50 signatures, and then, during citizen’s input at a Lakeport City Council meeting last August, he asked the council to consider implementing rent control in senior mobile home parks. However, the council since has taken no action to hold a separate discussion on the matter.

He wanted to pursue an initiative, and said he met with City Manager Margaret Silveira and Brookes, who asked him to come up with an alternative, so he called the owner of his park and asked if they would commit to a year of not raising space rents.

Strasser said the park’s owner never called back – he’s still not heard from them – and he decided to move forward on the initiative, which he crafted based on successful initiatives elsewhere. It would form the basis, with some minor changes, for the county initiative, according to Save Our Seniors Committee member Heather Powers.

Powers, a resident at Sterling Shores Estates in north Lakeport, said she became involved in the county initiative effort after being involved with the attempt to negotiate a fair rent contract with the park owner, which she said has raised rents there about 44 percent over a seven-year period.

After finding out about Strasser’s plans, she said the idea came up to pursue a countywide initiative, using language similar to Strasser’s. Eventually, the Save Our Seniors Committee was formed in April, growing out of a homeowners association group.

Brookes said he has concerns about the constitutionality of Strasser’s initiative, specifically, because of due process concerns, retroactivity and issue of “taking” from the property owners.

Strasser believes the measure will hold up, and said he doesn’t see evidence of a taking.

Eric Johnson, spokesman for the California Department of Housing and Community Development, said rent control is a complex issue.

“There are some state rules on how rent control is implemented,” he said.

While state Housing and Community Development has jurisdiction for mobile home parks in relation to making sure they adhere to codes and standards – and provide livable standards including sewer and trash collection – “We don’t enforce the rent control,” Johnson said.

That leaves it up to the jurisdictions. Brookes said there are administrative complexities for the jurisdictions where rent control is implemented, and he expects that the city of Lakeport – and, separately, the county – would need to create bureaucracies to track whether rent control rules were being implemented and followed.

This isn’t the first time that some kind of rent control effort has taken place in Lakeport. In 1988 there was an effort to get an initiative on the ballot to require the city to implement a rent control committee, but that ultimately failed. Brookes said he doesn’t recall any other rent control efforts in the city.

“There’s a lot of municipalities that have rent control,” said Strasser, explaining that many are tied to the Consumer Price Index.

The local measures are tied to Social Security increases, which relies on a weighted CPI, which Strasser considered the most fair approach.

The city of Ukiah has a rent stabilization ordinance in place for mobile homes, as do dozens of other jurisdictions around the state, including Alameda, Sonoma and Ventura counties, and the cities of Calistoga, Concord, Cotati, Milpitas, Morgan Hill, Novato, Santa Rosa, Sebastopol and Sonoma, according to a list provided by the San Luis Obispo Mobilehome Residents Assistance Panel.

A minority of areas, including San Luis Obispo County, the cities of Cathedral City, Delano, East Palo Alto, Escondido, Hemet, Indio, Lancaster, Rancho Mirage, Rohnert Park and Santa Monica, had rent control implemented through initiative, based on the panel’s list.

Weighing issues for parks

According to the California Department of Housing and Community Development, there are about 100 mobile home and RV parks in all of Lake County – including the cities of Lakeport and Clearlake. Available mobile home spaces in the parks range from as few as two spaces up to as many as 158.

Regarding the many parks in the county’s jurisdiction, Powers said the committee hasn’t directly identified all of the parks where the initiative would apply other than Sterling Shores. The owners of that park – Shamrock Millco-Sterling Shores LLC of Paradise Valley, Ariz. – did not respond to a call seeking comment from Lake County News.

In addition to his own park, among the parks in Lakeport that Strasser identified as fitting the senior mobile home park definition was Lakeport Lagoons on South Main Street.

Manager Paula Duggan said she didn’t think the initiative was necessary as, in the case of her park, “We always try to keep it well below the CPI.”

Duggan added, “There’s times that we don’t raise the rent for three or four years because we’re trying to be fair to the residents.”

She acknowledged that some people have come to her park from Sterling Shores because of high land leases there, and said some mobile home park owners are looking to get rich and price out residents. That’s not the case with Arton Inc. of Redwood City, which owns Lakeport Lagoons, she said.

Northport Trailer Resort in the county doesn’t fit the definition of a senior mobile home park, but Mary Ann McQueen, who along with husband Jerry has owned the park since 1988, is familiar with efforts to stabilize rents.

The McQueens, whose park has 26 mobile home spaces as well as 20 RV spots, were among the park owners who signed onto a resolution passed by the Board of Supervisors in September 2008 calling for rent stabilization for all of the county’s mobile home residents.

She said Sterling Shores – which had been a proponent of the measure – ultimately didn’t sign on to that effort.

That 2008 agreement called for maximum rental increase of between 3 and 7 percent at a time, she said.

“I understand their frustration,” McQueen said of tenants who have formed to address high rents.

However, she cautioned that rent control measures have been expensive to implement in jurisdictions where they have been adopted.

She said park owners also have to contend with ever-increasing costs, among them, water and sewer, repairs, construction and hiring.

Oregon Mobile Home Park Legislative Update: HB 3007 (Right of First Refusal) Dies in Committee; HB 3482 (Coalition BIll: SAFE ACT Exemption, Hazard Trees) Moves Forward

Source: MHCO

Yesterday was the last day for House Bills to pass out of the Oregon Human Services and Housing Committee. Recognizing that the proponents of the “right of first refusal” legislation did not have the votes to pass the bill on the House floor the bill died in committee. A work group will be formed at the end of session to work on the issue during the interim.

HB 3482 which is the coalition bill (Hazard Trees, SAFE Act Exemption) passed out of the committee with a unanimous “yes” vote. The coalition bill should pass out of the House next week to the Senate. There continue to be minor amendments tweaking the SAFE Act Exemption and we will continue work on that in the Senate.

 

Oregon Rent Control Bill (SB 555) Defeated.

In February SB 555 – Rent Control – was introduced in the Oregon Senate. This was one of the most onerous rent control bills to be introduced in the Oregon Legislature in recent history. Although the bill was put on the legislative agenda it was utlimately removed and did not receive a public hearing. Bills that have not been scheduled for a public hearing or work session by the end of business on April 8th can no longer be considered during this legislative session. Since SB 555 was not scheduled by this deadline the proposed legislation is considered for the remainder or the 2013 Legislative Session.

Goleta California Mobilehome Subdivision Decision Upheld

Source: City of Goleta

The California Court of Appeal upheld a March 2009 City of Goleta decision allowing the Rancho Mobilehome Park to be subdivided and the lots sold to the residents. The tenants of the park challenged the decision claiming that the park owner, Daniel Guggenheim, had not properly conducted a survey of the tenants to see if they supported the conversion. The tenants also claimed that the City Council did not consider the results of the survey that was submitted.

Goleta Mayor Roger Aceves said: “While we are satisfied that the Court recognized that the City’s decision is correct, the State Legislature needs to fix this statute and make it clear that cities have the authority to protect their residents.”

In mobilehome parks, residents generally own their mobilehomes, but only rent the space under the coach. Because the coaches can’t be easily moved, and because residents are often the most vulnerable members of the community, the elderly or those on fixed incomes, Goleta adopted rent control measures to protect residents from unwarranted increases of space rent. Guggenheim challenged the Goleta rent control provision all the way to the United States Supreme Court but the ordinance was found to be legal.

Guggenheim also applied to have the park subdivided, making each rented space a separate legal lot. This would allow Guggenheim to sell the lots to the residents so that they could have true ownership rather than continuing to rent the space indefinitely. Many residents opposed the request, arguing that by selling the spaces, the rest of the park would no longer be subject to rent control; the selling price would be too high for most residents to be able to afford; and that the change would result in the value of the coaches dropping significantly.

On two earlier occasions, Guggenheim sued the City because the Council attempted to exercise more discretion on their application to protect the park residents. In both cases, Judge Thomas Anderle ruled against the City. Finally, in 2009, the City negotiated an agreement with Guggenheim which required the park owner to make significant efforts to help residents purchase the land under their home and to protect the others against future rent increases.

The tenants were initially successful in their lawsuit against the City. The Appellate panel reversed a decision by Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Denise de Bellefeuille. The reviewing court in Ventura said that there was sufficient evidence that the survey was done properly and clearly the City Council considered the results of the survey and the testimony of the residents who spoke at the public hearings. However, State law severely limits what actions a City can take when reviewing an application to convert a mobilehome park to resident ownership. In this case, the court decided that the decision made by the Goleta City Council was the only decision they could make.

“This decision underscores that a City Council plays an important role in evaluating the residents’ desires when considering a mobilehome subdivision,” said Goleta City Attorney, Tim Giles. “Hopefully other cities will not have to spend as much time and money as Goleta spent protecting this point in the future.”

Goleta has spent more than a half million dollars just on litigation expenses related to this mobilehome park.

The conversion statute has been criticized for limiting the ability of local jurisdictions to consider local conditions in deciding whether a conversion is appropriate. The City has repeatedly supported unsuccessful legislative efforts which would make the law clearer and expressly provide local authorities appropriate discretion.

 

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »