Blog
Oregon’s latest rent control proposal…Senate Bill 555
February 19, 2013 by parkguy1 · Leave a Comment
Courtesy of MHCO…
“For those of you interested in seeing what the Oregon Legislature is up to, here is a link to the most recent rent control bill introduced in the Oregon Senate last week: PDF of Senate Bill 555. Warning: This is one of the most onerous rent control bills to be proposed in Oregon. Makes for some very unpleasant reading.”
Santa Monica CA Mobile Home Park approved for closure / redevelopment
November 16, 2012 by parkguy1 · Leave a Comment
Ending six years of negotiations, City Council votes 4-2 in favor of hundreds of new apartments being built at Santa Monica’s last remaining mobile home parks. Read more here.
San Juan Capistrano mobile home park sells for $8.25MM.
October 27, 2012 by parkguy1 · Leave a Comment
A longtime battle between Capistrano Terrace Mobile Home Park residents and the park’s former owner, who sought to shut it down, has drawn to a close following an $8.25 million nonprofit purchase of the property. Read full article here.
Judge sides with Orange County California mobile home park owner
July 2, 2012 by parkguy1 · Leave a Comment
By Mona Shadia…
An Orange County Superior Court judge ruled against Huntington Beach and sided with a mobile home park owner looking to convert the land from rentals to for-sale.
Pacific Mobile Home Park filed a lawsuit in August claiming the city broke the law when it turned down the park owner’s request to convert the land and offer renters the opportunity to purchase the parcels under their coaches.
The court’s decision, issued June 28, set aside the City Council’s previous vote and requires the city to reconsider the application.
“Based on the way the court ruled, the city doesn’t really have any choice but to approve the subdivision,” said Pacific Mobile attorney Mark Alpert.
In June of last year, the council denied Pacific Mobile’s application because the conversion would have further encroached on city property.
Over the year, some of Pacific Mobile’s coaches or their accessories had gradually moved toward the street, taking part of the city’s land.
However, Judge Luis Rodriguez said the city did not have the authority to deny the application based on whether or not the coaches were encroaching on city property.
Huntington Beach has filed a request to evict or relocate residents whose coaches have encroached on city land. But a court decision on that request has not been made yet, Alpert said.
Assembly Bill 317 would benefit mobile home parks in “second home” locations.
April 23, 2012 by parkguy1 · Leave a Comment
Assembly Bill 317, which passed the state Assembly in January and is sponsored by Assembly Majority Leader Charles Calderon, would exempt mobile homes from rent control ordinances if the mobile home is not the owner’s only residence. Read article here
Yucaipa, CA mobile home parks must remain 55+ (senior)
February 20, 2012 by parkguy1 · Leave a Comment
Four mobilehome park owners in Yucaipa, California appeal the dismissal of their suit under the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (“FHAA”) challenging a city zoning ordinance prohibiting any mobilehome park currently operating as senior housing from converting to all-age housing. Because the FHAA is silent on whether such senior-housing zones are permissible and because federal regulations allow for them, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
Read more here.
The City of Santa Monica Ponders Spending a Bundle to Save a Mobile Home Park
December 9, 2011 by parkguy1 · Leave a Comment
By Ashley Archibald
CITY HALL — The City Council voted Tuesday to ask the owner of an embattled trailer park to sell his property, a potentially expensive proposition that would kill off planned city projects and that the trailer park ownership team has not considered in the past.
The request comes at the end of over six years of negotiations between City Hall and co-owner Marc Luzzatto to keep residents in their homes until details could be hammered out on a mixed-use condominium project proposed for the site.
That included a tenant relocation plan that would move residents into deed-restricted low-income apartments included in his project, or into the-city owned Mountain View Mobile Home Park.
In the meantime, the company has spent a lot of money maintaining the park, Luzzatto told council members.
“No good deed goes unpunished,” he said Tuesday.
It’s the first time aggressive action like purchase or eminent domain has come up with the council, but Luzzatto couldn’t say he was surprised.
“Nothing in this process has surprised me, nor will surprise me,” he said.
Luzzatto would not comment on whether or not he and his partners would consider the offer to sell for city staff’s estimated $22 to $30 million, or at all.
The direction came as a result of Councilmember Kevin McKeown’s urging that the council do something to preserve Village Trailer Park and allow its 51 elderly and disabled residents to live out their lives in place.
A request to sell fell far short of McKeown’s hope that city staff would explore “all options to protect the Village Trailer Park and its residents, including acquisition,” phrasing that would open the door to seizure through an eminent domain process.
Eminent domain is the seizure of private property by a government entity at or above market rate. It was characterized by City Manager Rod Gould as “the most extreme use of a city’s police powers.”
Using eminent domain to acquire the property could result in a sale price that exceeds the market rate by 50 to 100 percent of the cost, which would restrict City Hall’s ability to provide services or complete other approved projects by cutting into the General Fund.
The total impact of such a sale was hotly debated by local attorney Rosario Perry, who argued that the property could not be worth more than $8 million, and required an “honest appraisal.”
The $22 to $30 million figure given by staff was evaluated by looking at what 167,664 square feet of property would cost, per square foot, in other locations on the northeast side of the city, including airport property and property on Exposition and Olympic boulevards.
There’s a lot of information missing, Perry said.
“There’s no explanation of where these are, how big they are or what use is allowed on these properties,” he said.
Use, in particular, is important to any valuation because commercial is worth more than residential, and density also factors into the equation.
If the Village Trailer Park was valued like the properties around it, which are all low-density residential, it would only be worth $8 million, Perry estimated.
The question of zoning is an important one in what City Attorney Marsha Moutrie called “an unusual situation.”
The Planning Department is negotiating a development agreement with owners of the park to guide the potential condominium project they wish to build. That would change the zoning, and therefore the value, of the land on which the mobile home park sits.
“Whether the park would be valued as presently zoned, or valued at what the value might be with a development agreement, I can’t tell you I know that answer,” Moutrie said.
The council remained divided between what should be done to help the elderly residents and what kind of precedent City Hall should set in terms of considering the seizure of private property.
The council has seen many properties removed from the rental market and residents displaced, said Councilmember Pam O’Connor.
“If we want to go down the path to protect all renters, let’s take this up as a policy,” O’Connor said.
A flurry of three motions followed, including McKeown’s original — which was voted down — and one to simply study the question of the appraisal value as raised by Perry.
McKeown was disappointed by the outcome.
“The intent tonight was to look at how we might purchase the property,” McKeown said as he voted against the motion. “This and other substitutes that were made tonight looked for reasons not to.”
San Juan Capistrano, CA – Deal pending for residents to buy mobile-home park
November 19, 2011 by parkguy1 · Leave a Comment
BY FRANK SHYONG / THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
Residents and the owner of a San Juan Capistrano mobile-home park mired in bankruptcy proceedings are considering a deal that would allow the residents to purchase the park – potentially ending a years-long struggle over the property’s control and maintenance.
The approximately 300 residents of Capistrano Terrace Mobile Home Park will receive a letter this week explaining terms of the deal and offering an analysis of the financing plan, according to James Hinds, the bankruptcy attorney representing the residents.
Hinds declined to discuss specifics of the plan until the residents are notified.
The preliminary agreement, struck in late October, could end a saga marked by two attempted park closures, a failure-to-maintain lawsuit and a bankruptcy filing.
Capistrano Terrace Ltd. purchased the property in 2003 for $8.3 million. The company was formed as a limited partnership of Lake Forest-based Advanced Real Estate Services, which is developing Distrito La Novia/San Juan Meadows, a residential, commercial and equestrian project near the mobile-home park. The development’s approval by the city was contested and upheld in a June referendum.
Capistrano Terrace Ltd. tried to close the park in 2006 in the face of geological instability, deteriorating infrastructure and residents’ lawsuits.
Residents filed a failure-to-maintain lawsuit in 2007. In January this year, an Orange County jury awarded $1.1 million to 17 of the 127 plaintiffs. The award was to be replaced by a$4.85 million settlement in July covering all the plaintiffs.
However, the park owner filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection two hours before its insurer met with the residents’ attorneys to talk about the settlement offer. At the time, a Capistrano Terrace partner called the filing “coincidental.” All payments and settlements are now in control of a bankruptcy court.
The new purchase deal was negotiated after the court decided to employ a mediator.
Residents have twice before attempted to purchase the park. In 2008, the park and residents agreed to an $11 million price. However, the failure-to-maintain lawsuit complicated the sale.
Hinds said this deal is different because everyone wants to avoid further lawsuits.
“We’ve turned the litigation time bomb off, but we’re working diligently to do the park purchase,” Hinds said.
Ray Poulter, a partner in Capistrano Terrace Ltd., said he is receptive to the agreement.
But Poulter’s signature appeared on a “notice of park closure” that was hand-delivered to all park residents last month. The letter contained a closure date of Oct. 15, 2012.
Poulter said the park owner was simply keeping its options open, since city law requires that mobile-home residents be given a year’s notice of a park closure.
“In bankruptcy proceedings, you have to anticipate and cover all the possible outcomes,” he said.
Poulter said he had had doubts about the financing underlying past attempts to purchase the park but that the current agreement is more promising.
“The residents have demonstrated a sincere desire to purchase the park, and they have greater means to put toward that effort than ever before,” said Poulter, referring to the settlement.
Financing is often the biggest hurdle for mobile-home residents trying to own and operate their park, said Maurice Priest, president of Resident Owned Parks, a nonprofit housing group that guides mobile-home owners through the process. Priest is helping in the Capistrano Terrace acquisition plan.
“Mobile-home owners have to make sure the financing they arrange is on terms and interest rates that keep the project affordable,” Priest said.
Hinds wouldn’t reveal the price of the Capistrano Terrace purchase, but he said the financing plan would keep residents’ rents stable for at least the next year.
A community meeting is planned for early December to answer residents’ questions about the deal, Hines said. If 80 percent of the residents ratify it, the deal would face final approval by a bankruptcy judge at a later hearing.
Laguna Beach CA Mobile Home Park – Residents Make $41MM Offer to Purchase
September 16, 2011 by parkguy1 · Leave a Comment
By: Rita Robinson…
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.
Oceanside CA Mobile Home Parks – Rent decontrol is fair, saves affordable housing
August 11, 2011 by parkguy1 · Leave a Comment
By Amy Epsten
As the debate wages over vacancy decontrol in Oceanside’s mobile home parks, we need to set the record straight and take a look at how we wound up here.
Most park owners are also seniors and veterans (like my grandfather) who built these parks in the 1960s to provide affordable housing and try to run a fair, sustainable business with the hopes of passing it on to their children.
Owners took a risk in buying a vacant property, getting it zoned for a mobile home park, then building a beautiful park with lots of amenities and maintaining all the streets and utilities. The parks eventually filled with happy residents paying a market rent to enjoy the many benefits of mobile home park living.
Then the nightmare began.
In 1984, the Oceanside City Council decided the votes of a few residents were more important than private property rights. The council determined that providing affordable housing should be on the backs of the park owners, without a government subsidy or any financial means test for residents. Fair? Not a chance.
Fast forward 27 years. The parks are getting older and require more maintenance. Park owners are not allowed to increase rent more than 75 percent of the Consumer Price Index. What choice does that leave park owners? They are tired of the government telling them what to do with their property. They have to consider closing the parks and converting them to a more sustainable use.
Meanwhile, park residents don’t want to pay a dime more for rent, even though they never took a financial means test to qualify for this affordable housing, and many of them use these beachfront properties as vacation homes or buy up multiple mobile homes and rent them to turn a substantial profit of their own. Who wouldn’t want a deal this great?
However, Oceanside taxpayers have spent more than $3 million to defend rent control for these residents.
This $3 million could have been much better spent on fire, police or anything else.
Three council members have recognized that rent control is unsustainable and stepped up to offer a compromise. They don’t want the parks to close and to see seniors on the streets, so they suggested vacancy decontrol. This compromise protects all current park residents, as the ordinance will never allow their rent to increase more than 75 percent of the CPI. The space rent can only go to a market rate upon sale of their mobile home.
Despite popular scare tactics, vacancy decontrol does not lower the value of a mobile home. All homes sell for their market value, not the inflated value on someone else’s property. The market determines home prices, not rent control.
This debate comes down to fairness. Will either party be happy? No, but the council is attempting to do the right thing to form a compromise which will keep parks open and preserve affordable mobile home park living while protecting all current residents that bought their mobile home under the rent control ordinance.
