Blog, Market Updates, News
California Coastal Commission causing problems for Laguna Beach mobile home park owner trying to subdivide
August 6, 2010 by parkguy1 · 3 Comments
The owners of the Laguna Terrace Mobile Home Park on Tuesday filed a lawsuit against the commission in Orange County Superior Court. The suit asks the court to determine if the commission can exert jurisdiction over the park’s conversion to resident ownership. On July 20, the council approved subdividing the 20-acre ocean-view park developed in the 1960s by owner Stephen Esslinger’s grandfather, allowing the 157 lots to be sold for the first time to tenants. Even before the vote, the commission’s executive director, Karl Schwing, signaled his intention to contest the decision. Read more here.
I HAVE LIVED IN LAGUNA TERRACE PARK FOR 25 YEARS. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND
THE COSTAL COMMISSONS OR PENNY ALIAS OPPOSING THE SALE OF LOTS
TO THE TENNANTS. THERE IS NO NEW DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL TAKE
PLACE ONLY SUBDIVIDING THE LOTS FOR SALE. THE PARK WILL REMAIN
AS IT HAS BEEN FROM THE 1960S. SINCE I PAY A HIGH RENT FOR MY SPACE
(ONE OF THE HIGHEST IN CALIFORNIA) AND HAVE AN INVESTMENT OF OVER
$250000 FOR MY MOBIL HOME, I WOULD LIKE THE CHANCE TO PURCHASE
MY SPACE. THE PARK IS GOING TO BE THERE NO MATTER WHAT EVEN WITHOUT
THE SUBDIVISION. THE ONLY THING THAT WILL HAPPEN IS THE RENTS OVER
TIME WILL INCREASE AND TENANTS WILL LOSE THEIR INVESTMENT IN THEIR
HOME, BECAUSE THEY WILL HAVE TO LEAVE.
I could not agree more and with home / land ownership, you will benefit from all of the tax breaks that come with it. Unfortunately, the Coastal Commission will make it very hard for the conversion of any mobile home park in coastal areas.
I would guess that Jerry Butler posting above is really a park owner, pretending to be a resident. I would guess that a large majority of the park’s residents oppose such a condo conversion of their park., as is the case statewide. And Parkguy is clearly an advocate for mobile home park owners, so it is their advantage he is speaking out for, do not believe he is saying what is good for the homeowners.
Many homeowners are already paying a mortgage, and cannot pay or even get another mortgage on the land. Being at the ocean, the park owner probably wants to sell the lots at a high price. Many mobile home park residents are senior citizens, most residents are low or moderate income, and could never afford to buy their lots. So talking about “resident ownership” is a scam. However, if only one lot sells, rent control goes out the window. Rents could go so high that the residents cannot afford to pay them. It is not like an apartment where they could move to a different one–mobile homes are not really mobile. So people have to abandon their homes in place, because they find out, they have totally lost their equity. For if the new owner has to purchase the land from the park owner, he will not pay much at all to the homeowner to buy an old mobile home. So the homeowner has to abandon his home, the park owner takes it over, but that homeowner still has to pay of his mortgage. It is a total disaster for mobile home park residents.
We (mobile home residents) will win this battle eventually, parkguy, in both the courts and the legislature. WMA might have bribed enough Senators to stop SB444 this year, but eventually, probably next year, legislation protecting mobile home owners will pass, and Governor Brown will sign it. . An increasing number of court cases are going in favor of the residents. I assure you we will win this.
For those at Laguna Terrace–make sure your city is invoking the Mello Act to stop the conversion as well. If they don’t, you can sue them (look up Venice Town Council vs. Los Angeles). .
Keep an eye on the case involving the mh park where I live-Palisades Bowl vs Los Angeles. The city of LA invoked both the Mello Act and the Coastal Act to stop condo conversion of our park, which the residents did not want. The park owner prevailed in a lower court decision by Judge Chalfant, who rules for park owners every single time. However, in a major published appellate decision, the three judge panel unanimously overturned Chalfant’s decision, and affirmed the right of the city to deny conversion on the basis of the Mello and Coastal Act. Now the case is being reviewed by the state Supreme Court, but I feel fairly confident that they will affirm the unanimous three judge appellate ruling. If we win before the Supremes (most likely, IMO) , no way can your park owner convert. (Perhaps why he paid for an amicus brief in support of the park owner. )
It is nonsense to say that these conversions are good for the home owners,. If that were so, why are mobile home owners statewide trying to stop such conversions?