I’ve been in this movie myself, back on a park in Texas in about 1999. The city tried to add an “administrative fee” to the park owners of about $2,000 per year just to get their annual permit renewal. So we all banded together, hired a municipal lawyer, and sued the city. The city lost big time. It turned out that the law in Texas clearly states that the amount of such fees cannot be greater than the actual cost to inspect the property, which was more like $100 and not $2,000. And what this city is proposing is even worse than that Texas city tried:

As of now, what is proposed to take effect on Jan. 1, 2024, “and for each year forward,” is that the “township shall charge and collect for the license an annual fee of $200 and the sum of $7 per calendar week for each mobile home occupying any space in the mobile home park during the calendar week or part thereof.”

These park owners probably need to get together, pool their legal fees, hire the nastiest municipal lawyer they can find, sue the city and stop this nonsense. I hope at least one of them is reading this and can look into these facts.

Great quote from the park owner:

“While our aim is to preserve mobile home parks, Hurst and Son is not a low-income housing provider. At the same time, we want our communities to be mixed income, and we don’t want improvements to displace anyone. Many mobile home parks are at a crossroads, but that doesn’t have to be the future. If we looked at this as a private-public partnership, the state could allocate income assistance for those who are low-income while the private sector makes the required infrastructure improvements to sustain the communities as an attainable housing option."

The bottom line is that bringing old parks back to life is expensive and rents are going to go up and marginal residents are going to be displaced – and 99.9% of residents are going to be delighted by the improvements and happy to pay the higher rent. It’s either that or just tear the parks down and put up apartments which never seem to get any pushback on anything they do. It is NOT the park owner’s responsibility to provide for the marginal group that can’t afford to live in a modern world. That falls on the back of Section 8 which does a poor job of addressing the needs of the American public and has massive waiting lists. The government should not use private property owners as the backstop for their failure to do their job of offering housing assistance.

Ok, this is a first. Who ever heard of a bunch of mobile home park residents trying to criticize a fancy, new townhome project going in next door? But here’s what they had to say at the council meeting:

Residents said the project is too dense for the site.“For you to imply that it fits the area is ludicrous,” said Steve Harvey. “I believe we, the 155 residents in the park, deserve more consideration than just going forward with this project. On paper, it looks beautiful; in reality, it’s going to be a nightmare.”

Now take a look at the rendering for the project, then look at a normal mobile home park’s density and appearance, and you can easily see why the board immediately voted to approve the project.

This is one of the dumbest articles of 2023.

This is the rule the tenant was evicted under and appears to have admitted they are guilty of:

That included Section E of the lot rental agreement that states, “no bottles, cans, equipment, tires, lumber or debris of any matter shall be stored outside or under the mobile home.”

That’s a pretty bad problem: having junk in your lot, right? Pretty big eyesore for the neighbors and hurts the quality of life for 99.9% of the residents. And they refused to clean it up after they were given every possible opportunity to do so.

But that doesn’t matter because all the author was looking for was some lame intro in order to do the zombie repetition trick with this quote that reads like the article above it:

“Most people that own the mobile home will be facing loss of the mobile home itself,” he said. DeCoil estimates her home was worth about $10,000. She said she tried selling her home, too, but a pending eviction was a black mark for buyers. Experts estimate the cost of relocating a mobile home can cost between $5,000 and $15,000. And that’s assuming it can be moved, Eviction Lab research specialist Jacob Haas said. “They're called mobile homes, but they're often very immobile," he said. "It can be really costly, or often an impossible, process to relocate a mobile home to another site.”

So if some woke writer can engage in the hypnotism scam, then I will respond in kind:

What about selling the home or having another park pay to move it? What about selling the home or having another park pay to move it? Have I mentioned selling it or having another park pay to move it?

What a bunch of idiots these media groups think you are.

Here’s a test of your gullibility:

Dianellys Molina: “I was walking, she passed me by, and she told me, ‘You know that you can’t have two dogs here,’ and I said, ‘OK, I didn’t know that, but hey, that’s fine. In a little while, this dog is leaving.'”

Dianellys was fined for allowing a visitor’s dog on the property. She paid the fine and thought that was it.

Eleven months later, she got this letter.

Dianellys Molina: “That letter says that I have 30 days to get out of here for having a second dog. That’s just basically what it says.”

Dianellys was accused of walking her bosses’ dog again. Not true, she said.

Dianellys Molina: “I know that I can’t have two dogs, after all that happened last year.”

While Dianellys owns her trailer, she rents the space it sits on, and now she feared losing the home.

Dianellys Molina: “She won’t accept the rent because that’s usually what she’s done in the past. Then, after she doesn’t accept the rent, she takes you to court like you are not paying, to evict you.”

Dianellys was stunned that she had 30 days before she will be evicted. Enough time to pack up, but not enough time to sell her home.

Dianellys Molina: “She wants me to go, and leave my trailer for her to sell and keep my money.”

Dianellys was left in tears. Her home is worth money. Now, she about to lose all that.

Dianellys Molina: “I need you to help me so she doesn’t kick me out of here, because it’s unfair.”

Doesn’t seem fair, but is it legal to evict someone from their home and then sell that mobile home? Howard?

Howard Finkelstein, 7News legal expert: “This is not fair, but yes, it’s legal. If the landowner has the right to evict you, you have three choices: move the trailer, sell it or abandon it. Giving someone 30 days to sell it is also not fair. The best solution: delay the eviction so you can sell it, but you need to hire a lawyer, and many people who live in mobile homes do not have the money to do that.”

We tried to contact the property manager at Haven Lake Estates. She wouldn’t talk to us.

Our solution: we spoke to Broward Legal Aid.

They took a simple step, but it worked. They got Haven Lake to give Dianellys 45 days to sell her mobile home, and she did, after that call to Help Me Howard.

Dianellys Molina: “Very grateful for you guys. Without you, I wouldn’t have been able to do it.”

Dianellys then used the money from the sale of the trailer to buy a house. A pool in the back, lots of room and lots of smiles.

Dianellys Molina: “I’m able to have a cat, a dog, doing barbecue, parking on the grass, a lot of freedom, thank God. Yes, I’m very grateful.”

And in the end, everything worked out for the best for Dianellys, and I was surprised the mobile home park could end up owning Dianellys’ trailer if she didn’t sell it or move it, but in the eyes of the law, it’s abandoned on their property, and they can keep it. However, in this case, Dianellys beat them by selling it.

This article is such a joke in so many ways. But let me first tell you the story of Buddy back in my Oklahoma park in 2001. He was a guy that could not pay the rent. So instead – when he got served with eviction papers -- he jammed up his own sewer line to make it look like the park’s city sewer system was not working to try to claim it was “landlord retaliation”. He called the media and they took the story without any fact-checking whatsoever. Turned out that an Oklahoma City employee  had just inspected the park the day before and told the media station that the story was completely fabricated. I then threatened to sue the channel if they did not correct the story, which they sheepishly did. And this story sounds equally false. Here are the top three reasons that I don’t believe any of this:

1. I don’t for one second believe that what caused the eviction was simply that the tenant walked two dogs around the park just one time a year earlier. My bet is that the resident did, in fact, have two dogs (or more). Park owners take evicting tenants very seriously and it’s not just some random act based on hearsay.
2. I’m expected to believe that this tenant was able to sell their home because they got an extra 15 days to do so and couldn’t get the job done only in 30. 15 days was the secret, huh? Interesting. And totally unbelievable.
3. We are told that the mobile home sold for so much that the tenant was able to buy a brick house with a swimming pool. So a beat-up old mobile home now sells for as much as a stick-built with a pool in this market? How about that?

Whoever wrote this article needs to either 1) do a better job of fact-checking or 2) find a new career because they are embarrassing themselves.

The city/county is trying to clear out this dilapidated trailer park from the nice lake front to benefit the lives of thousands of community residents. It’s a no-brainer and the residents have zero chance of convincing any sane adult otherwise. Yet here’s what the media claims:

Community advocates said finding affordable housing, especially on the lakefront, remains difficult. “There’s just not a lot of good, affordable housing in the area that is suitable for folks,” said Josiah Quarles, the director of organizing and advocacy for the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless. “They have crafted a life for themselves that fits their needs and means and now they’re being tossed into a market that does not have a wealth of affordable housing.”

Fortunately, this drama is playing out with a municipal group and not a park owner. But it harkens back to the earlier article in which the media now thinks that all tenants somehow have the right to demand their landlord to be their legal guardian for life just because they paid rent at one time.

Yeah, right. That’s the only reason that they rejected the expansion of the park – because hypothetically a flood would make the additional lots unsafe, even though such a flood has actually never occurred nor probably ever would? I’m pretty sure that this is what actually went on at the meeting behind the scenes, when the Board met before they went on stage:

Board Member #1: ”We need a really good reason to deny this trailer park expansion thing tonight. I’m thinking we go with the flooding idea.”

Board Member #2: “Are you sure? I really like the meteorite might hit the park excuse”.

Board Member #3: “Wait, I liked the potential forest fire one”.

Board Member #4: “I don’t care which one we use – let’s just get this thing denied quick because I don’t want to miss Monday Night Football”.

You’ve got to love California. If you own a mobile home park there and simply want to sell it as land for redevelopment, here’s what the state says you have to do:

Many require park owners to conduct studies on how closing would affect residents. The owners then have to report how they would compensate residents for their lost homes. And, a closure impact report has to be approved by local officials before a park closes.

Wait – you might say – do they require this of any other landlord? And the answer, of course, is “no” and here’s why:

Officials look at mobile home parks differently than other forms of housing because people living there often own the homes but not the land. But because moving a mobile home can be expensive, residents often leave the trailers behind if the park closes.

Now here’s where I see this argument falling apart. When someone buys a mobile home it comes with the condition that it is on rented land and there’s no assurance that the land will always be a mobile home park. That’s the basics of the agreement. It’s a ground lease. Just like parking your car at the airport. And mobile homes are very cheap as a result (think $1,000 to $5,000 for used homes in many markets).

If park owners are forced to go through all of these insane requirements, then they will need to adjust their rents accordingly, right? If you have to basically act as the guardian of every tenant in perpetuity then that’s a service that’s pretty expensive. Kind of like if the parking lot has to offer 24/7 roadside assistance and free auto repair as part of the parking fee.

But even though park owners have this additional burden in California now, they can’t raise their rent to accommodate this insane request due to rent control.

Which is just one more reason that you may have to be insane to buy a park (or anything) in that state.

Before the residents pop the cork on the champagne bottle over their “big win” they might want to read the decision. Having to give cause for a lease termination is not really that big a deal. Most park owners don’t like to do so because their attorneys tell them not to since it’s not required. But it’s not going to be that hard for those same park attorneys to come with standard reasons that allow the park owner to proceed without undue risk.

The key item that people are missing is that there is no financial incentive for park owners to terminate the lease of a paying customer who follows the rules. Never has been. The only type of tenant that would be terminated would be one that is a detriment to the general community. So effectively they are trying to ruin the lives of the 99.9% of residents who follow rules and pay rent and don’t want their neighbor having three pit bulls in the yard, two non-running vehicles and playing Van Halen at full volume at 3 AM. That’s why the Governor of Montana vetoed this idiocy to begin with, but now the court has once again overruled common sense.

The real moral of this article is not that the water bills were not paid by the “evil” park owner but simply that, once again, low rents = park closure. I’m sure the reason that mom and pop did not pay the water bill was that there was not enough money in the account to do so. And the only solution – as usual – is for a new buyer to come along and inject a huge amount of capital into the property to bring it back to life. Here’s what the attorney for the mom and pop owners had to say:

A deal is in the works for another company to buy Forest View, Gigante said. "They're prepared to invest over a million dollars into this park and upgrade it.”

Of course, you know the rest of the story. With the capital infusion and good financial prudence to make sure the property does not get into this situation again the rents should go up significantly. And then these same journalists will write scathing articles about how the new owner has ruined the lives of the residents because the rent is now still ridiculously cheap and not just insanely, unsustainably, ridiculously cheap.

You know that’s coming up soon.

Another positive article? Unbelievable.

If enacted, the bill would ask the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to implement “a competitive grant program to award funds to eligible recipients to carry out eligible projects for improvements in eligible manufactured home communities,” according to a draft version of the bill obtained by HousingWire.

Grant funds would “assist in carrying out a project for construction, reconstruction, repair, or clearance of housing, facilities and improvements in or serving a manufactured home community that is necessary to protect the health and safety of the residents of the manufactured home community and the long-term sustainability of the community,” the draft bill reads.

I am still a little baffled by this new non-profit vision of people buying homes and renting the land.

To address affordability head-on, NeighborWorks introduced the concept of a housing trust, which was created this year to bring in large sums of money for downpayment assistance. This initiative aims to maintain long-term affordability by having families own the structure but lease the land from NeighborWorks.

While this is effectively the business model of mobile home parks, the difference is that mobile home residents don’t pay much for their homes and are not focused on appreciation. But in this case, you are talking about big price points and down-payments. The only reason people buy stick-built homes is for the potential for appreciation and wealth formation which is basically being eradicated under this concept, as they are basically not allowed to make money but simply live in the home and then kind of give it back at the end. I wonder if the folks buying homes under this program really understand the ramifications. It’s a terrible financial choice for them.

Of course the city would want to increase all setbacks – that reduces the number of mobile homes that can go into the park. This is not about some grand concern for wide-open green spaces but simply the universal desire by city halls across America to eradicate and/or minimize the capacity of mobile home parks.

Great quote from the city manager: "We want to work with him, not necessarily against him". Three out of four articles positive – that’s a new world record.

Another positive article – that’s two in a row. In this one a mobile home park owner makes good on promises of bringing an old park back to life and the city rewards them with a new license after seven years of denial

How could the city let the park owner get $900,000 in arrears on their water bill? This article gives me the impression that possibly the city baited the park owner to get in over their head so they could shut off the water and force the park to close. There’s more to this story than meets the eye.

Glad to see an article that is positioned to help ease the stigma against “trailer trash” – but hate that they had to title it “Trailer Park Heaven” rather than a classier title (what would be wrong with “Manufactured Heaven”?). But at least they had good intentions, and I hope it starts a new trend for similar articles.

Same false narrative as the above article. A simple Bestplaces.net review of Puyallup, WA shows the median home price of $499,500 and a three-bedroom apartment rent of $2,470 per month. The new mobile home park lot rent is $805 per month. That’s right, it’s 66% less than the apartment rent. Yet somehow the article claims the rent is exorbitant. It’s not. Not even close, In fact, it’s ridiculously cheap based on actual math with no optics attached.

Instead, like the above article, the truth is that the residents who are living on $1,000 per month of social security should not be living in an area this expensive. If you are retired you have the ability to live anywhere free from any need for employment, right? So why would you live in an area with prices this crazy high? You could move to Missouri and live on $1,000 per month all day long – but NOT in Washington or California.

The other part of this story should maybe be that social security is not nearly enough to live on at $1,000 per month, right? But the social security program is essentially insolvent so it can’t give any increases.

The bottom line to this is that nobody likes the rents going up, but people have to be realistic in their expectations of housing in retirement. That’s the true narrative in this story.

First of all, the rent is going to $975 per month at this park in Castro Valley. If you simply look up Castro Valley on Bestplaces.net you’ll see that the median home price is $1,047,800 and the two-bedroom apartment rent is $2,320 per month and the three bedroom is $3,300 per month. So much for the reporter’s angle that “this new mobile home park lot rent is ridiculous” because it’s not. Not at all. In fact, it’s less than 50% of the apartment rents.

The more interesting part of this story revolves around the new owner’s argument that these are not mobile homes but RVs. Very strategically interesting and could present some really bad case law for the rent control advocates. Technically – looking at the video of the story – most of these are NOT mobile homes, but instead either park models (which are designated as RVs) or pre-HUD homes (which are not then defined as mobile homes which would have a HUD seal). So I think the park owner has a shot. And it will be a cliffhanger for California if this case proceeds to trial as a huge amount of California mobile home parks look just like this one and technically these aren’t necessarily mobile homes based on definition. If that should occur – and this park owner wins -- then it might be possible for all California park owners to use that new case law to upend rent control across the state. For that reason, Castro Valley may want to think twice about litigating this.

NEWS BULLETIN:

The earlier article said that the residents bought their mobile home park for $6 million with 46 lots but this one says 26 lots. If that’s true, then they paid $260,000 per household so they could have the honor of living in a high-density trailer park. I hope this article is wrong on that lot count because – if not – this is a total scandal. There’s no way you can spin that as being in the best interests of anyone.

When you spend $11.5 million to save 76 mobile homes crammed into a tiny parcel of land you just spent $151,315 per household to live in a tiny trailer. I’m sure the park owner is delighted to have scored this much for the land but how do rationalize these numbers from a non-profit perspective? If you said to these folks “here, I’m going to give you $151,315 cash OR you can stay in your trailer” NOBODY would have taken them up on the offer to stay. They’d take the cash, drive another 30 minutes out, and buy a brick house. I think there’s some type of disconnect going on between non-profits, reality, and the true wishes of the people who live in these properties.

Not to be a party-pooper but there are two glaring problems with this story:

1. The residents paid over $130,000 per lot to own the land. Including the value of the mobile homes on those lots they are in this deal at maybe $160,000 per lot. Based on my memory of real estate in Texas, you can buy a nice brick house for that amount in many markets. Wouldn’t they have been better off simply giving these folks $160,000 cash to go buy a brick house free and clear? I’m confused.
2. The article admits that this is the third resident-owned community in the entire state of Texas. Since Texas has the largest number of mobile home parks in the entire U.S. that’s a stunning admission. When woke media discusses how residents buying communities is the solution to all the world’s problems they never include the actual statistics of how many of these deals actually close. It’s a really, really, really, really, tiny number – and then half that again.

Looks like Vermont makes really good maple syrup but really bad bureaucrats. Can you believe anyone could make such a monumental mess out of something as simple as buying a bunch of mobile homes and delivering them to the spots where the wiped-out homes used to stand? Read this article if you need a refresher on Reagan’s quote that the scariest words in the English language are “I’m from the government and I’m here to help”.

A resident moves into a rental mobile home and immediately claims that her health is being compromised by carbon monoxide, black mold – even tiny particles of dust in vents.

The management fixes each and every item she complains about, but every day there’s something new.

“At this point, everyone has mutually agreed that this isn’t working out and that we’re happy to pay her move-in cost and she can find somewhere else to live and we can have an amicable resolution to this,” Property Management Vice President, Michelle Oppelt tells 6 News in a phone call.Esham says she doesn’t feel the payment is enough when weighed against what she, her son and her cousin had to go through.

If you don’t know what is really going on here then you have obviously never rented a mobile home to a tenant.

The moral: sell off every park-owned rental you have as fast as you can. Stick with the parking lot part of the mobile home park business only.

This is a reminder that 99% of city governments just want the mobile home parks in their boundaries to follow the rules and don’t want to shut them down. It’s a shame that  Orlando – in the above story – had not shared this attitude and was then complicit in the residents becoming homeless. Cities and park owners can either work as a team and everyone wins or at odds and nobody wins.