Mobile Home Park News Briefing

This means residents are at the mercy of park owners when a dying tree poses a hazard to their home, for example, or when a water or sewer line needs to be repaired.

Seriously? Has the writer ever even been in a mobile home park in Fort Collins? They’re immaculate. This article is so off base it’s pathetic.

Because relocating a manufactured home costs thousands of dollars, residents face limited options when corporate owners raise costs.

That is a complete lie. Any mobile home park owner will typically pay the full cost of moving any mobile home to their park if a customer wants to relocate. They are called “organic” moves, and they are done all the time. This is the same false narrative that has fueled much of the woke movement. If I have a park and a potential resident calls me and says “hey, I hate where I’m at, can I move to your park” I’m going to say “absolutely, and I’ll pay for the whole move”. So let’s cut the “limited options” B.S.

The real reason that residents don’t move is simply that they can’t find anything cheaper to move to. This story normally starts with an old mom and pop selling the property after a 50-year run with dirt-cheap rents that haven’t been raised in 20 years. The new owners are piling millions of dollars of debt on it – and fixing a bunch of deferred infrastructure items like roads – and raising rents to make economic sense of the purchase and rehab. The tenants hate that their rent is going up – despite all the great improvements being made – and create this false “private equity groups are evil” and “we have no options” schtick to try to get somebody – anybody – to come up with some regulation to stop their rent from going up. But the problem is that there’s nothing even remotely as inexpensive as the mobile home park at the NEW rent, so there’s no place to move their mobile home (which could be done for free). In addition, if they want to buy their own land and put their mobile home on it the price tag nationwide averages $80,000 for the lot and then they will have to build a septic and well for another $30,000.  And to get that loan they’ll need at least $20,000 cash and great credit. Which they don’t have, which is why they are in the mobile home park in the first place.

Let’s all just be honest and tell it like it is. The “Free Rent Movement” – of which this journalist is obviously a proud member – simply wants housing for free. Nothing more. There’s no great conspiracy, no underworld story in dark rooms, just the simple fact that people don’t like prices going up. And they’ve learned – through the Biden years – that politicians are mostly gullible and easy to manipulate.

Sure, that’s going to fix everything – let’s just pass rent control. Well, here’s the big reason that it’s not going to work: EVERY PARK OWNER WILL SIMPLY TEAR IT DOWN FOR A BETTER USE THAT HAS NO RENT CONTROL. Is nobody noticing that there are a handful of parks being torn down in every week’s news releases? Why? Because they can make more money with a different use. THE FREE MARKET WORKS AND SOCIALISM SIMPLY DOESN’T. It’s not my opinion, look it up on AI.

“If they were looking to buy a house, the same house they could have gotten for $150,000 in 2019 is now $340,000,” she said. “It just outpriced everyone for the most part. So we focus on attainable homes.”

Not to get on my political soap box, but the “Free Rent Movement” folks need to realize that Biden was the source of the current affordability crisis, as he was in charge through most of the period described in the article. Housing went up at twice the pace of household earnings under Biden, and that yielded most of the issues the socialists now are on a warpath about. Where were they back then?

This article is so full of untruths that you’ve got to break it down into pieces:

Those who own manufactured homes occupy an unusual position: they hold titles to their dwellings, but pay monthly fees for the land beneath them (2). Relocating these structures typically costs $5,000 to $10,000, according to National Consumer Law Center data (2) — and, depending on the size and age of the home, that moving fee could exceed what these homes can sell for.

Mobile homes were never meant to be moved more than once: from the factory to the mobile home park. The whole point of a mobile home is that it’s built in a factory cheaper than you can build it on location. The sales pitch has never been “mobile homes are so easy to move that any idiot can do it”. I would guess that 99% of them never get moved twice, because it’s just not cost effective when you can simply sell them where they sit. The concept of mobile homes being easy to transport went away in the 1950s when you could no longer pull them behind your car. A mobile home is like any other dwelling: when you want to move you sell it right in its current location and buy another wherever you’re moving to. This “easy transportation” concept is nonsense unless you think we’re still in the 1940s. If you want something you can move every day, if you want to, go buy an RV.

That means relocating one of these homes is pricey and potentially unrealistic for many who live in them, and this economic reality grants property owners substantial control over pricing.

No, what gives park owners the control over pricing is that they virtually give their rents away for free and nobody can even come close to matching them. In a free market system, you go with what the lowest competitive price is, and nothing is nearly as cheap as a mobile home park. That’s why the customers don’t move. If the customer had a lower cost alternative, they most certainly would. And they wouldn’t need their trailer as it’s Section 8 housing.

Median lot rental rates across the country increased 45% over the past ten years, according to census data analyzed by NPR, and some metropolitan markets are seeing lot rental growth that’s outpacing increases in traditional rental housing.

So you’re telling me that mobile home park lot rents have gone up 45% over the past ten years and that’s bad? Heck, everything rent up more than 20% over just Biden’s one term. The average single-family home went up 105% during that same ten-year period. What a pile of crap.

When investment firms acquire these properties, immediate rent hikes typically follow to justify the acquisition costs.

The only thing in this entire godawful article that was not a complete lie.

Palmdale’s Municipal Code Chapter 5.44 determines that rents for mobile home spaces are regulated to protect mobile home park residents from “excessive” rents while also allowing park owners to receive a fair return for their investment.

When the government regulates rents and profits, it’s no longer a free-market system but simply the very definition of socialism. Karl Marx would love California today, but he’d look odd in shorts.

“…they often don’t see high numbers of supporters when people are arrested.” 

First of all, I have never seen or heard a single discussion of ICE arrests from any park manager or owner, so I had to assume this is mostly made up. But then the big reveal came with the quote shown above in which the writer simply wants people to try to show up and disrupt ICE from making arrests, in the rare event they ever did. So then I thought “what the heck is the Sahan Journal, which wrote this crazy story”? Here’s the answer from their own website: “Founded in August of 2019, Sahan Journal is a nonprofit digital newsroom dedicated to reporting for immigrants and communities of color in Minnesota.”

Mystery solved. The entire story is 100% fiction.

Harmony Communities Inc. has verbally threatened to file a lawsuit against the city following the ordinance’s adoption, according to Goleta City Attorney Isaac Rosen. Nick Ubaldi, who represents the management company, claims that the city’s ordinance violates federal fair housing law as it reportedly discriminates against families with children, is not considered “urgent” under state law, and impacts affordable housing and fairness. 

I know nothing about the details of this case, but I do know that the City of Goleta looks to be getting into a lot of trouble here and better assign a big part of their city budget to legal costs and damages if they don’t change direction.

This would not be the first case of a city thinking they have unlimited power … and being wrong.

Sure, Maine has lost their marbles. Ranking nearly last of 50 states in every category from population to economy, it’s not surprising that they now want to lose their affordable housing, too, through annoying park owners into redevelopment. The good news is that there are very few mobile home parks in Maine so it’s not a big story unless you already own a park there. And, in that case, start coming up with some other uses for your land that are free from the control of these nutjobs.

The Rock Falls City Council unanimously approved an ordinance Tuesday aimed at cleaning up its mobile home parks.

The ordinance bans mobile homes that were manufactured more than 20 years old from the parks within city limits. It applies to all those homes even if they’ve been renovated, but does not apply to homes already within a city park, accor ... [Log in or subscribe to continue reading]

“Ryerson listed his two-bedroom, two-bathroom manufactured home for $229,000 … with a lease for the land of $1,285 a month.”

Who in the world would think you could EVER sell a 2/2 mobile home for $229,000 with a $1,285 monthly lot rent attached to it? Particularly in a low-energy market like Concord, New Hampshire? This bad decision-making, on the part of the homeowner, is not the result of any action by the park owner but simply poor financial education. You’d be lucky to sell a regular 2/2 single-family home in Concord, New Hampshire for $229,000 – a quick review on-line shows I can buy a nice 2/2 frame house on a pretty lot for $295,000 without any lot rent whatsoever. I’m lost on what the homeowner was thinking on this.

News Flash: there’s this thing in America called “free market” in which consumers have the freedom to do what they want and businesses strive to meet that demand. Why in the world does Michigan feel the need to regulate something like this? If somebody wants to retire in an RV Park, then what’s the problem? Conversely, if an RV Park owner doesn’t want longer term tenants, then why force it?

The lack of focus on “free market” is getting out of control in the U.S. right now and will end up with the same bad consequences as have afflicted every other nation that embraces socialism.

And another park bites the dust.

More idiocy out of Maine. Thankfully there are very few mobile home parks in Maine (and soon to be fewer).

“One of the demands the union leaders made was a rent freeze until negotiations could happen between union leaders and Regal Communities”.

Just like Montana, Missouri has no such thing as an official “tenant union”. Here’s what AI says about it: “in Missouri, any group of tenants can choose to call themselves a tenant union; there is no formal state registration required to begin organizing. While federal law (for Section 8 housing) explicitly protects the right to organize, Missouri state law does not have a specific statute protecting all tenants from retaliation for joining a union.”

So basically the “tenant union” has no power to control rents whatsoever. In fact, since Missouri has absolutely no form of rent control, such a concept is kind of ridiculous.

This whole new ‘tenant union” nonsense reminds me of a little kid wearing a badge out of a cereal box and saying they’re a sheriff. It has no clout no matter how loud you shout it.

And another park bites the dust.

There’s a lot of liberal lunacy to unpack in this story, so let’s break down the false assertions one-by-one.

Shawn Belobraidic, a Harvey’s resident and bargaining team member, said mobile home parks are promoted to out-of-state investors as profitable because they can pass costs onto vulnerable residents who typically don’t push back.

No, that’s not correct. Investors can increase rents because their existing rents are ridiculously low and everyone knows it. Interesting how the writer forgot to mention that the single-family home cost in Missoula is $512,000 and the average apartment is $1,560 per month. And the lot rent is audacious at around $700? Give me a break.

“We are going to demand a fair lease that treats us with the dignity and respect that we deserve,” he said. “We are not vulnerable, we are informed. We are not going to be taken advantage of. We are organized. We are not going to back down.” 

A Montana “tenant union” has no official power whatsoever, and here’s what the state law says about it: “the most concrete legal power is found in the Montana Residential Landlord and Tenant Act of 1977. Under Section 70-24-431, a landlord cannot legally evict you, decrease services, or increase rent specifically because you joined or organized a tenant union.” As you can see, it gives them no power to control rents, only the power to potentially not get evicted for joining the “union”.

Harvey’s resident Jacquie Thompson asked the crowd to support the union’s mission. Thompson said she moved to the Bonner park after retiring in 2019 because it was small, quiet and the $335 lot rent was affordable. Now, with rent and fees more than double that amount and her monthly fixed income at roughly $1,000, that’s no longer the case, she said.

Yes, the former owner’s lot rent was absurdly low, given the $500,000 local home price. Their mismanagement does not bind the new owner to continuing the absurd practice of practically giving away the lots for not much more than the actual cost of utilities, insurance, repair, property tax and management. As for the fact that this resident can’t live on $1,000 per month it should be noted that they reside in one of the most expensive housing markets in the U.S. (the average single-family home cost in the U.S. is half that), and perhaps the solution is for them to move to a much less expensive place. They could move to any city in Missouri, for example, and live happily on $1,000 per month with money left over.

 “Most of the residents at Harvey’s are seniors or people on fixed incomes. We simply cannot absorb these kinds of increases.”

Under the rules of Fair Housing, there can be no exception for seniors such as offering them a lower rent. As a result, the 80-year-old has to pay the same as the 30-year-old. And, yes, the younger folks with active jobs can afford to pay more than those on fixed incomes. If this rule was changed at HUD perhaps more owners would be willing to accommodate seniors with a lower rent, but until then it’s basically illegal. That’s not the fault of park owners who are merely following the law.

But on top of that – and what’s even more infuriating – is that food, healthcare and transportation costs have gone up far faster than mobile home park lot rents, yet that reality is never mentioned. A dollar is a dollar and if groceries go up $100 a week, then isn’t that just as bad for fixed incomes? Why are only mobile home parks singled out for the U.S. reality of inflation?

If mobile home park owners want to raise lot rents by a certain amount they must submit a petition to the city and park renters.

Here’s a better idea if you own a park in Maine. Find a different use for your land, tear down the park, and go into another line of business. There’s no way any park owner should have to grovel to keep their rents at market levels. It’s insulting. Clearly the state does not appreciate the great things that park owners do to provide the only form of non-subsidized affordable housing. Maine ranks near the bottom of the list among all states in everything from economic vitality to education to quality of life and population growth. Clearly Maine’s leaders are incompetent and this new rent control plan is just the latest in an endless list of blunders.

And another park bites the dust.

Sure, stop all rent increases forever. Why not make landlords reduce their rents 10% annually instead? Why not end private property completely and just take it from the owners and give it to the tenants?

I know these city council people know better than to embrace this socialist nonsense, but they simply don’t have the guts to stand up to the screaming mob. What a bunch of cowards.

Finally, someone has the guts to stand up to the Washington socialists. But what a shame that it has to go to that extreme simply to protect their property rights. What a nasty state.

“The bargain struck between landlord and tenant is always advantageous to the former in the greatest possible degree.... Besides the advantage he derives from the nature of the case, he derives a further advantage from his position, his larger fortune and greater credit and standing”.

That’s a quote from Karl Marx, the founder of communism. Folks in Maine sound more and more like him every day, which is odd for a state that was originally based on the concept of hard work and not handouts. What a disappointment Maine has become on all fronts. It comes in near the bottom of all states in everything from economic strength to education. Clearly, whatever their leaders are doing – including the new rent control push – is not working. Of course, it hasn’t gone well for most Marx advocates in the past.

Here’s an important announcement for all woke journalists: Montana is trifecta red. It has a Republican Governor, Senate and House. There is literally a 0% chance of ever enacting rent control. So you need to go somewhere else with your socialism pandering. Maine would be a good place. Pack up all your worldly goods in a U-Haul, jump on I-90, and you can be there in 35 hours.

At-large Councilor Marc Lessard said limiting park owners from raising rent would create a slippery slope. “I know some people might disagree with me, but this is just a path to control businesses on investment,” Lessard said. 

At least most of the city council people in Biddeford, Maine understand what socialism is and have no interest in embracing it.

“What I feel is betrayed,” Commissioner Daniel Finn, who represents mobile park residents and lives in a mobile home, told San José Spotlight.

They ask the owner of eight mobile home parks their opinion on rent increases because they would obviously be a more knowledgeable authority on such things than a crackpot single resident in a park that would clearly be averse to even a $1 increase. This is not a form of betrayal but simply good, common sense. Can you imagine asking a McDonald’s customer if they are happy with the McChicken going from $1 to $3? No, you’d talk to the franchisees to get the true picture.