Mobile home residents point to a growing trend of large corporations purchasing mobile home parks and implementing aggressive rent increases. The business model particularly affects residents who own their homes but lease the land underneath, leaving them vulnerable to rising costs with limited options for relocation.

To the woke writer who authored this article, there is zero chance of rent control ever being passed in Florida, so you’re wasting your time.

Communal housing is an interesting concept. I saw it first-hand at the late Tony Hsieh’s Airstream Village in Las Vegas, and it was working there. Residents donated their skills and time – in addition to their rent – to do such items as cooking, cleaning, etc. But the big problem with this concept is Fair Housing under HUD, as tenants are “curated” for their skills and I don’t know how that works under the law (and Tony Hsieh’s assistant couldn’t explain it to me, either). This concept may work on a hippie commune in the mountains of Colorado, but it won’t probably pass muster in a highly regulated mobile home park.

And another park bites the dust.

So last week it was the group pledging $250,000 and now we have a new player pledging $1,000,000 towards a hopeless minimum goal of $20,000,000. The residents have very little time left on the clock and clearly the goal is not going to be reached. What a great virtue signaling maneuver – simply pledge money towards an impossible goal and you get in the paper without ever having to pay a penny. Utter genius. At NBA basketball games they sometimes let an audience member try to make a shot from half-court and, if they do, they win $100,000. Only in this case, they have to take the shot from outside the stadium – there is literally 0% risk of having to donate a penny.

On Wednesday, the Senate also passed LD 1016, which would establish the assistance program fund but also a fee to help with ongoing funding. The fee would be paid by certain park buyers equal to $10,000 for each lot in the community. “I want to be very clear, I have no intention to de-incentivize the purchase of these parks by everyone,” said Sen. Cameron Reny (D-Lincoln), the bill sponsor. “There are exceptions to this fee to state and municipal housing authorities, for resident owner cooperatives and for smaller businesses and individuals with net worths of less than $50 million.” However, Sen. Rick Bennett (R-Oxford), who supported the minority committee report recommending against the bill’s passage, said he finds some of the carveouts troubling, specifically the one based on net worth. “It is treating people unfairly based on an arbitrary amount of money that that person or entity owns,” Bennett said. “I believe this is unconstitutional for that reason, although it’s very well intentioned.”

So now Maine is going to charge any park buyer who has more than $50 million of net worth a fee of $10,000 per lot – clearly to make it impossible for them to buy anything in the state. Even one of the idiots in the Maine senate admitted that it’s basically unconstitutional (which I assume means that it will end up in litigation for years and then probably defeated). I would say that all park owners should boycott Maine as a result of this attack on the industry, but the problem is that there is literally nothing anyone buys that comes from Maine except lobster and poorly made L.L. Bean pants.

And another park bites the dust.

Fallacy #1: A $600 lot rent is too high in Brunswick, Maine. In fact, it’s far too low. The evidence: the average single family home in Brunswick costs $443,000 and the average apartment is $1,893 per month.

Marieke Giasson, who lives at Bay Bridge Estates in Brunswick, said monthly lot rent typically went up about $15 or $20 a year. She paid $410 a month in 2021. Then, Legacy Communities, an Arizona company that owns about 70 manufactured home parks around the country, bought her park. In the last three years, Giasson said rent has increased by 46%. She now pays about $600 a month.

The fact is that $600 per month lot rent in Brunswick is ridiculously, indefensibly, impossibly low.

Fallacy #2:  The tenants buying a mobile home park for $22 million will yield lower rents. The truth is that the lot rent will be the same in order to cover all operating costs and a $22 million mortgage and down-payment loan.

On Tuesday, the Friendly Village residents submitted their own bid to purchase the park for more than the community's initial asking price of $22 million.

How can the U.S. media be this math and logic challenged?

And another park bites the dust.

Mobile homes are the new starter homes. Between sky-high interest rates, high home prices, and limited availability of real estate overall, becoming a homeowner is something many Americans feel they can't afford. While renting is a good option for some, others are finding creative ways to live in their desired locations, despite the prohibitive price tag - like mobile homes. Mobile homes are no longer just the go-to preference of thrifty retirees. Many people from across the age and life-experience spectrum are looking to manufactured homes and accessory dwelling units (ADU) as a new mode of affordable homeownership.

A rare, favorable review of our product. But that’s two weeks in a row so I like the trend.

If it agrees, Basalt could join other local governments to raise $20 million to assist with the purchase of both mobile home parks. Basalt Town Manager Ryan Mahoney and Basalt Town Council members discussed a contribution of $250,000 toward the purchase. The $20 million goal, however, might be difficult for local municipalities to reach on their own.  “It’s looking at this time that the $20 million ask is probably a little tall for the governments, if I had to read the tea leaves,” said Mahoney. 

What’s so frustrating about these articles – which dominate the landscape right now – is that their logic is missing one fundamental reality: the lot rent will be the same or more under resident ownership as it will be under corporate ownership. Here’s why:

• The cost of every single line item on the P&L is the same whether owned by a non-profit or a for-profit company (water, sewer, electric, insurance, property tax, etc.).
• The cost of the debt service (mortgage interest and principal payment) is the same whether the buyer is a non-profit or a for-profit corporation.
• Therefore, the lot rent will be the same regardless of who buys the park – the non-profit has zero financial advantage for the tenants.

But there’s even more to the story. As anyone who has researched the end result of tenant-owned communities knows, the quality of life and the collection of rent go down when the amateur tenants run the property. They can’t evict their friends and they refuse to make cap-x repairs. The managers show favoritism to their friends and zero capability to find new debt when the loans come due. Essentially, a total disaster with a time-delay fuse.

So let’s cut the crap about how tenants buying the properties yields lower rents ad better quality of life. That’s a total lie. Instead, this is really just about virtue signaling. And, in this case, the city manager that offers $250,000 towards a $20 million target knows it’s just a way to get a headline and nothing more. The end.

After years of fighting for mobile home tenants’ rights, Deb Wilson is celebrating new rent stabilization requirements, signed into law this month, that will cap rent increases for mobile homeowners at 5% per year.

Sure, Deb and her neighbors will celebrate their big win for a while. And then they will get a notice that the park is being closed for redevelopment. None of these idiots apparently understand that by approving the 5% cap on mobile home park lot rent – and 10% on apartments – they signed a death warrant for Washington state parks. Who wouldn’t tear their park down and build apartments – or literally any other use – instead? The answer, nobody. Goodbye mobile home parks, hello new apartment units.

And another park bites the dust.

Republicans opposed it as well, saying it interfered with landlords’ rights and the free market.

Even though the Republicans are right on all counts, Connecticut has a Democrat trifecta of Governor, House and Senate so the Republican voting block in the state has no power at all. But quietly, in the background, many of the Democrats also agree with the Republicans on this. Rent control is housing suicide and has been well proven in all those states that have enacted it. That’s really why they don’t enact rent control.

Washington needs to now prepare for all mobile home parks to be torn down to build apartments. How in the world can you have a 5% cap on mobile home park rents and 10% on apartments? That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. So here’s a simple message to all park owners in Washington: 1) go get the permits to build apartments and 2) tear down your park and build as many apartments as you can on the land. Apparently, that’s exactly what the state wants you to do.

But first, let’s see how this holds up in court as it will surely be litigated.

They do realize that under “tenant-ownership” their rents will go up a ton, the quality of life will plummet, and they’ll probably default on the loan when it comes due, right? I bet nobody bothered to mention those realities. Just ask those four parks in Canon City, Colorado that are resident-owned and now in foreclosure.

And another park bites the dust.

"The Board of Supervisors is constrained from placing any rent-related conditions upon park ownership," Green told the Press-Citizen. "We do, however, request they refrain from further lot rent increases and welcome any dialogue with them."

What a ridiculous concept – a county in a state that has no rent control asking a property owner to voluntarily impose rent control on themselves. Why stop there? Maybe the county should ask the restaurants, grocery stores, car dealerships – every business – to stop raising prices? I’m sure the county will also agree to halt all property tax increases, right? Oops, that’s the one sector that’s off-limits, right? “Rules for thee but not for me” in action.

According to Aztec police records, there have been more than 632 calls for service to the San Juan Mobile Home Park in the past two years.

That quote pretty much tells the whole story. This mobile home park was a complete disaster and now a new owner is attempting to turn it around, bring it back to life, and provide a quality living experience for the residents. The new owners are complete heroes for taking on this dump. Anyone with common sense realizes this. However, the writer of this story tries so hard to instead spin the story that the new owners are inhumane tyrants who demand that people clean up their act and pay a fair rent. I’m sorry, but don’t tell me the status quo was great when the police were called literally every day of the week for two straight years!

Lawmakers supported a bill to add $3 million to a fund to help residents purchase their mobile home parks. But its fate hinges on whether it makes it into the budget.

Maybe Maine legislators are math challenged, but $3 million in a 70% LTV lending world will only buy $10 million of parks. That might handle one or two parks. Hardly the landmark gesture that has any meaningful consequences. But, of course, it was only about virtue signaling anyway, right?

Week after week, there’s nothing but idiocy coming out of Maine. The good news is that it has among the fewest mobile home parks in the U.S.

Read how flaky the financial construction of this deal is – and this is just the DOWN PAYMENT:

The $1.5 million city contribution will be split into two installments. The first, up to $750,000, would be disbursed at or near closing. The second would be available no earlier than September, when additional 2C revenue is expected to become available. Thistle confirmed that the cooperative would take out a short-term bridge loan to cover the full closing cost, repaid once the city’s second tranche is issued.

If they can’t even come up with the cash to close, can you imagine how complicated and screwed up the note would be on this deal? Who’s going to personally guarantee the debt when the tenants have zero skin in the game and even the down payment is in the form of an IOU? I’d put the odds of the tenants pulling this off at the usual 1%.

And then there’s this little addition hidden in the bottom of the story:

The project’s financial pro forma, included in council packets, estimates an average lot rent increase of $135 per month for residents with the full city contribution factored in …

So the rent is going up $135 per month on day one of the tenants buying the park? Did anyone bother to tell the tenants that? A corporate buyer would not go up nearly that much in rent.

As usual, this non-profit virtue signaling simply leaves the tenants with a more than uncertain future – with basically higher lot rent, poorer management, and probably a loan default within 5 years (just like those 4 parks already in foreclosure in Canon City, Colorado with ROC, featured in the last few weeks).

This article leaves me very confused. These homes have no HUD seals, yet the city is letting them go into a mobile home park (in which HUD seals are typically required). Did anyone bother to research this fact? Is the city waiving this requirement? Clearly, this is nicer than a regular HUD-code mobile home because it doesn’t suffer from all the bureaucratic requirements to get that HUD seal. But if you remove that requirement, mobile home manufacturers are doomed – the victim to the simple fact that unregulated housing is more attractive.

And another park bites the dust.

And another park bites the dust … times two.

Several dozen trees that once provided shade and privacy for residents at the mobile home park were reduced to stumps. Some residents say they believe the tree work was being done because they are legally challenging an increase of rent at the park.

Who would be dumb enough to think that a park owner would spend tens of thousands of dollars because they’re mad at the residents for fighting a rent increase? Only in Massachusetts!