Here’s a story of new owners bringing an old mobile home park back to life. How come we don’t hear more of these stories from the media? These types of owners should be celebrated as the true heroes of affordable housing!

Everyone saw rent control coming in Washington state, so I’m not shocked. Just disappointed in how stupid the state legislators in Washington are. As a result of their actions, there will be no new supply of housing in the state, nor will anyone put a penny into cap-x since you can’t ever get the money back. And all the mobile home parks will eventually be torn down and redeveloped into better uses that have no rent control (think retail center, etc.). Total idiots.

And another park bites the dust.

Clearly the policy makers in Oregon have lost their minds if they pass this. No person with common sense would agree that the state should have the ability to force a city to allow a mobile home on a vacant lot next to a million-dollar mansion – but that’s exactly what they’re wanting to do. This is not a mobile home park issue, this is an idiocy issue. What a bunch of morons!

And another park bites the dust.

The logic in this article is so flawed that we have to break it down paragraph by paragraph:

Housing advocates say the problem is part of a broader pattern tied to housing being treated as a commodity and source of investment rather than a human right. Nyawal Lia of Housing Justice Maine and the Maine People’s Alliance, of which Beacon is a project, noted that this shift from locally owned to investor-controlled communities has drastically altered the nature of manufactured housing life.

Interesting premise that mobile home parks are not supposed to see their properties as an investment but a simple provider of a “human right”. Yes, this writer is a full supporter of the “Free Rent Movement” in which the assets of landlords are to be freely given to the people. Marx called this “socialism” – at least that’s the honest term.

“A lot of these communities have had the same owners for a long time — sometimes, for generations,” Lia said. “Residents know them. But then some rich investor comes in and starts just pulling money out of residents’ pockets, and in many cases creating a situation where they lose everything. It’s no way for people to live.”

Sure, a lot of mom-and-pop owners have not been running their parks as businesses for the past few decades. But that all ends with their demise, regardless of who buys them (professional investor or the tenants). Here’s the problem. Mom-and-pop had no mortgage on the park so they could literally charge a rent no greater than the sum of utilities and property tax. But when they die the heirs are going to sell to the highest bidder, and that new mortgage will burden the park with a giant monthly payment that will take the new rent metric to a level many times higher. That’s why, even when the tenants buy the park, the rent goes up hundreds of dollars per month to break even. The only solution? Just take the park away from the owner and give it to the tenants right? Once again, that’s what they simply call “socialism”. Why sugarcoat it?

A recent report by the Genesis Fund documents the accelerating trend of manufactured housing community acquisitions by profit-driven investors and reinforces the bill’s premise: without action, Maine risks losing a key source of affordable housing just as the state faces a severe housing shortage.

So now we’re getting more honest. The goal is to take away mobile home park owner rights because it’s the only way to solve Maine’s housing shortage. And that’s complete “socialism”.  No more, no less.

Now that we’ve established the fact that Maine is apparently wanting to enter a new era of socialism in the Pine Tree State, let’s just call it by its name and quit hiding behind a bunch of B.S.

As for me, I’ll just stop buying the only product that Maine ever produced that was worthwhile: L.L. Bean. Their quality has gone down the tubes anyway so it’s no great loss.

Yes, this is the latest in this insane saga that has stretched on for 6 years now. Here’s the short summary:

• The park owner wants to sell. He finds a buyer for around $4 million.
• He properly gives the tenants their required “first option” notice to match it the deal.
• They bring in a petition that says they want to buy it.
• The petition is false. It includes over 10 signers who are not actual residents. The judge throws it out.
• The tenants find an attorney to file a suit claiming that those who signed are really residents and that the other judge was wrong.
• A new judge rules that the tenants had enough signatures (which makes no sense but was probably just to get such a frivolous case out of his court) and says that now the tenants can buy it again.

What’s missing from all this? THESE TENANTS ARE NEVER GOING TO COME UP WITH THE $4 MILLION. So the past 6 years were completely wasted enforcing a first option that will never go anywhere – just like 99.9% of all tenant first options. Makes you question the intelligence of the Massachusetts court system, right? A total disconnect between theory and reality.

The residents have 60 days to come up with $22 million. And they are going to build a financial time bomb – if they can cobble together the non-profits to pull it off – because they don’t want higher lot rents? Well, here’s the truth: if you buy that park for $22 million you are going to have to raise rents significantly. Remember the article from a few weeks ago in which the residents bought the park and then found out the rent would have to go up immediately by $100 per month just to break even? Same story here.

Another positive article. That’s two in one week. I’ll take it.

The park has 86 lots and the park owner is suggesting that he has an offer to sell the park for $75 million (which is nearly $1 million per lot). The park just got flooded out and now is clearly the right time to redevelop it. The tenants need to understand that there’s something in America called “property rights” and they need to get out of there and find a new place to live.

And, as always, another park bites the dust.

And another park bites the dust.

“…an unsexy, little-known sector that happens to be recession-proof”

While this article has many incorrect statements, the general tone is positive for the industry – particularly regarding its status as the lowest-cost housing in the U.S. – and, as a result, I’m thankful for it. You would NEVER see an article this honest or positive during the Biden era.

And another park bites the dust.

Why do bureaucrats waste time on something that happens maybe one out of a thousand times? Does anyone have any idea how few transactions are successfully closed on by the tenants under these “first option” arrangements? You have a better chance of getting hit by lightning.

And another park bites the dust.

And another park bites the dust.

SB 749 would strengthen state law by requiring park owners who plan to close or convert their properties to first offer the land for sale, at fair market value, to resident organizations or qualified nonprofit housing entities certified by the Department of Housing and Community Development. These entities must have a mission of preserving affordable housing.

Do you really believe that the Pacific Palisades mobile home parks, that burned down recently, won’t be worth more money as single-family or multi-family land? I’m really sure that the tenants can pay what will probably be $500,000+ per space based on market value, right? What a bunch of idiots.

I would refer anyone even thinking about a tenant-owned community to read this article from last week:

https://www.canoncitydailyrecord.com/2025/04/10/fremont-county-receives-foreclosures-notices-of-four-mobile-home-parks-in-canon-city/

While tenants can be easily manipulated into buying a property – as long as a non-profit loans them the downpayment and personally guarantees the note – the more important question is exactly what they do a few years later when the loan comes due and the non-profits have lost interest. Apparently, as described in the article above, that’s the reality that nobody wants to talk about.

Residents of mobile home parks are in a unique and sometimes tenuous situation with landlords — they usually own their mobile homes but pay rent for the land they are on. This can lead to housing insecurity when properties change hands, and often leaves residents vulnerable to exploitation. 

Is that woke enough for you: “housing insecurity” and “residents vulnerable to exploitation”? The argument is that somehow park residents are a separate group from all other humans in that they can’t move their homes. The truth is that mobile homeowners have MORE options than any other residential group, which include:

• They can sell their home (just like a single-family home or condo owner)
• They can get it moved for free to another mobile home park, paid 100% by the receiving park owner
• They can simply abandon it (which is completely unnecessary due to the options above)

Those who live in single-family homes, condos and apartments do not have three options. That gives mobile home owners actually MORE options, not less.

Lawmakers say they are among the state’s most economically vulnerable residents and easily exploited.

“Wait”, you might say, “those are the same words that the earlier article used when they said “vulnerable” and “exploited”. Am I crazy?” No, that’s just how the woke media works it anymore. They think that they can brainwash and hypnotize you if they simply repeat the same words over and over (kind of like a late night TV commercial). So I guess I’ll simply offer the same rebuttal I used earlier:

Residents of mobile home parks are in a unique and sometimes tenuous situation with landlords — they usually own their mobile homes but pay rent for the land they are on. This can lead to housing insecurity when properties change hands, and often leaves residents vulnerable to exploitation. 

Is that woke enough for you: “housing insecurity” and “residents vulnerable to exploitation”? The argument is that somehow park residents are a separate group from all other humans in that they can’t move their homes. The truth is that mobile homeowners have MORE options than any other residential group, which include:

• They can sell their home (just like a single-family home or condo owner)
• They can get it moved for free to another mobile home park, paid 100% by the receiving park owner
• They can simply abandon it (which is completely unnecessary due to the options above)

Those who live in single-family homes, condos and apartments do not have three options. That gives mobile home owners actually MORE options, not less.

Stark is trying to get more relief for residents in mobile home parks this legislative session. She is pushing for the passage of House Bill 701- Local Housing Assistance Plans. If passed, mobile home homeowners can apply for lot rent assistance from their local government.

Finally, a good idea for once. Of course, it’s not new. HUD passed a rule allowing for Section 8 funds to be used for lot rent years ago, but they did never actually paid any out. Maybe with new political pressure – and a new head of HUD – this can finally be put into place and become operational. After all, HUD has been subsidizing 2.3 million people to live in apartments since 1965.

Pulte Homes has bought the land occupied by the Winchester Ranch Mobile Home Park in San Jose next to the world-famous Winchester Mystery House, according to documents filed on May 28 in Santa Clara County.The just-bought parcel totals 15.7 acres and is located at 500 Charles Cali Drive near the corner of South Winchester Boulevard and Tisch Way, county property records show. Pulte Homes paid $50 million in cash for the property, according to documents on file at the County Recorder’s Office. The project will consist of 320 single-family homes and 368 apartment units, according to the city documents. The residences will include seven-story apartment buildings as well as four-story town homes and condominiums. Winchester Ranch Mobile Home Park is reserved for residents who are 55 years of age or older. The park contains about 110 mobile homes.

This exemplifies what happens when you enact rent control: parks get torn down. Case in point, this property can hold 688 condos and apartment units instead of only 110 mobile homes. Do the math. The thing that many people forget is that mobile home parks are only on one level, but multifamily can go up several stories into the air (and in this case seven stories). As I have correctly identified for two decades, mobile home parks make for VERY attractive redevelopment opportunities as they have great locations on major roads and all utilities are present. On top of that, cities will give any zoning needed to get rid of “trailer parks”, which they inherently hate. Maybe that’s why last week’s articles alone announced no less than six parks being closed for redevelopment into other uses.

Let’s see if they make it even five years before the debt collapses and the park gets sold to a professional investor capable of obtaining real bank financing and not a cobbled-together time-delayed mess.

Republicans showed up to the House floor prepared to fight. “It seems like this body is passing bills that make housing more expensive and then we see expensive housing,” said Republican Ed Diehl, of Scio. “Then we say, ‘Oh we need to respond to that.’” And so we do rate caps. It’s like we are in this housing doom loop.” Diehl said he wants to see vulnerable seniors remain in their manufactured homes, but the solution, he said, is to build more houses, not add more constraints. It was a refrain echoed by many Republicans. “If our goal is to help those at the very lowest income levels, especially in manufactured home parks, there are better ways to do it. We can offer tax credits or targeted subsidies to park owners who voluntarily keep rents lower for those residents,” Diehl said. “That’s a solution that helps those in need without disrupting the broader housing market.”

Well at least the Republicans of Oregon understand the realities of life and offered some good suggestions such as “tax credits and targeted subsidies” to park owners to keep rents lower. Remember that Oregon already has rent control. Now the far-left nuts that run the politics there are trying to make the percent that landlords can raise rents even lower (of course, their goal is 0%). Let’s hope the Republicans can save the day.

American Horror Story" star Sarah Paulson has finally secured a buyer for her Malibu trailer home—almost one year after she first listed the property for $2 million. However, Paulson, 50, was forced to accept an offer of more than half a million dollars less than her original asking price, eventually selling her double wide for $1.45 million on April 16, according to property records. Still, the actress managed to make a tidy profit on the dwelling, which she bought for $860,000 back in March 2021 and then quickly set about renovating.

Someone who reads this in Missouri would think “what idiot would pay $1.45 million for a $50,000 old doublewide?” and, of course, they’d be right.