Investment Property Group
Blog, Market Updates, News

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

September 18, 2013 by · Leave a Comment 

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.

 

Speak Your Mind

Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!

Investment Property Group