Look, park owners have no problem selling properties to the residents. But this story kind of shows the problem. The only reason this particular deal got done was that the city had to chip in $330,000 for just 14 residents. Not many cities are willing to throw money like that at virtue-signaling initiatives. Let’s face it, pretending that this story is a blueprint for thousands of other parks is as ludicrous as me finding a $5 bill in a parking lot and then writing an article that says that if you can find $5 a day in a parking lot you can make an extra $1,800 per year to subsidize your income. These residents got lucky that the city fathers were in a crazy money-tossing mood – nothing more.

People read articles like this and group “tiny homes” together with “mobile homes” and then use the condemnation of “living small” across both housing types. For clarification, most tiny homes are 400 sq. ft. or less while the average mobile home is around 1,200 sq. ft. That means that you can fit around three tiny homes into every mobile home. This author’s complaints are all about the insanely small size of the tiny home. I agree. I have no idea how anyone could be happy living in a space that small. That being said it’s a shame that most Americans don’t know the size difference and will think that mobile homes are “tiny” too and that both are being condemned by the author.

This is not a story about a “trailer park”. It’s a bunch of RVs parked along a road by a baseball diamond. Sure, it’s a terrible idea to let people live in a school bus and to have complete strangers that near to little kids, but this is not a story about a “trailer park”. So why did the New York Post not accurately substitute the words “RV” for “trailer” – which they correct in the article itself? Because the average American sees the words “trailer park” and hopes to read about sex and violence. The U.S. media has literally turned 300 million Americans into Pavlov’s dogs.

I love that everyone today wants to try and attach a “hidden agenda”:

Why does it cost more to insure a smaller home? The insurance industry points to greater susceptibility to wind, hail damage, tornadoes, fire, theft and vandalism compared to a traditional home. But there could be more to it: Some consumer groups say insurance companies may be more likely to take advantage of “financially vulnerable” people, charging them more money for fewer benefits. There also might be outdated discrimination from the days when mobile home parks were mostly located in poor and crime-ridden ZIP codes.

If I go to Taco Bell and order the bean burrito is it because I really like the taste of a bean burrito or instead because I’m making a subversive statement against the meat industry?

Look, insurance industries are tired of taking huge losses by writing policies that are known losers. That’s why they’re leaving Florida and California. The days of corporate subsidy of bad risk bahavior is over on the part of the insurance community.

Yes, tiny homes are often flimsy, top-heavy, built by amateurs, and are often located in weird areas. I wouldn’t insure them, would you?

The truth is that private equity groups have saved literally thousands of mobile home parks from the wrecking ball by buying old parks, pouring millions of dollars of capital into repairing and replacing aging infrastructure, and raising rents to levels that fend off redevelopment. The late Sam Zell was part of a “private equity group” when he ushered in the whole concept of bringing old parks back to life in the 1990s when nobody else would lift a finger to save them. Over a million residents of these “private equity group” parks have a nice place to live because of these visionaries, and 99.9% of these residents would say that they are thrilled by their new living standards.

This article is so dumb that it refutes its own argument only a few paragraphs earlier:

“This is not where we want to be right now. I'm sure you know how horrific the market is,” Gina said. “Even as high and as atrocious as the lot rent is, where in the hell in Dane County am I going to find a place to rent for $585 for three people? I'm not going to find that anywhere.”

Is then followed by:

(Mobile home parks) also come with a host of challenges: Property managers often are limited on budgets to provide anything other than minimal maintenance, and rents can be exploited by out-of-state investors to make money off of vulnerable populations.

So let me get this straight, the tenants state that they live in the park because the rent is ridiculously low and then are surprised that the owner can’t afford to keep the property up and then are even more shocked when new owners raise rents? That’s like someone checking into the Tiki Motor Court for $19 a night lodging and then calling down to the office and complaining that the furniture is old and there’s a light bulb burned out.

Here’s the solution. Raise the lot rents to a level that the park CAN afford to bring itself back to life and 99% of the residents will be very happy indeed (plus fend off the wrecking ball of new development). But not the tenants quoted in this article because they would be unhappy if the park gave them a million dollars and would respond “wait why not two million dollars you cheapskate out-of-state owner!”

One final note: what’s up with this new hatred of “out-of-state” owners? Virtually every hotel, restaurant, shopping center, apartment complex, self-storage facility and Walmart is owned by an entity that is “out-of-state”. Is that supposed to be an insult or a conspiracy theory? Because it’s just plain stupid.

Maybe it’s because I’m a born skeptic but does anyone seriously believe this group going to put that much investment into something with a 1960s mobile home park in the middle of it? My personal bet is that they will wait until they get the 100 acres of apartments and retail approved and built and then tear down the mobile home park and put the fanciest part of the new development there – probably a hotel since that’s the exact right parcel size. Does anyone else think that? Does anyone not think that?

There are not that many mobile home parks in Delaware so this stat in the report was remarkable:

• The composition of the state’s housing stock has changed little over time, with the most significant change being a 6,800 unit decrease in manufactured or mobile homes.

I guess Delaware has seen quite a lot of redevelopment where mobile home parks got torn down and made into other uses (probably apartments). But any way you cut it, that’s a lot of parks lost.

This property owner gets points for creating a new word to help avoid the “trailer park” designation:

“An agrihood community”

Not sure if the variance will pass, but they should definitely get an award for creativity.

This article was clearly written by AI as they got so many easy things wrong, such as crossing RV stats with mobile home stats (including using an RV photo on an MH article) and not knowing that Sam Zell is deceased. I can’t figure out if the point of the article is that mobile home parks are good or bad and, like most AI articles, neither did the computer that wrote it.

When you read this article and you cut through all the gas-lighting of 30% and 50% increases – which sound impressive – you realize that we’re talking a few hundred dollars more to live for literally $1,000 per month less than every other housing option in these markets. If your lot rent is $500 per month and goes to $700 that is a 40% increase – nobody can deny the math – but if you simply look at Bestplaces.net you see the apartment rent is $1,700+ per month. So can we please start putting the actual cost of housing in these articles? Have you noticed that none of the woke writers bother to do that even though they could get it off Bestplaces.net in ten seconds? That’s because it destroys their narrative and offends their audience.

The bottom line is that these parks are the best deal in town and that’s why people live there. Period. Do residents hate higher rents? Of course. But do they move out? No, because it’s still an incredible deal even at the higher prices.

At least there’s some honesty to this article:

“The park is not closing tomorrow. Do not panic. You’re not being thrown out,” Carroll told the gathering. Not yet. But it’s coming."

The bottom line is the same as in every issue of this news analysis, so here we go again:

LOW LOT RENTS = REDEVELOPMENT.

Every park has a lot rent level that will stave off the wrecking ball. But in many cases it’s probably two or three times what the residents are paying now, which is insanely low throughout the U.S. Just go to Bestplaces.net and look at the single-family home pricing and the apartment rents and then tell me how a $300 national average lot rent is justified. It’s not.

Wait, isn’t this the same City of Petaluma that just passed rent control? So now they think that they are getting somewhere with making all parks be seniors only – at a time when seniors can’t possibly afford to live in Petaluma? I believe the correct social media response would be WTF. I am endlessly amazed that people in California apparently don’t realize that the other 49 states have a cost of living that is a fraction of what they’re paying now – as much as 70% less. So if you live in Petaluma and are reading this, go get in your car and drive to Texas and find a nice retirement property and call Mayflower because you’re about to get a huge boost in disposable income. If you want to stay in Petaluma – even though it’s beyond expensive – then that’s your choice. But no matter what the City may mandate, all of those parks are going to be demolished and redeveloped in the not too distant future.

I know nothing about this case or this park but I do know that having a tenant run up $1,000 per month in water is certainly not outrageous. All a resident has to do is fill up a commercial water tank on a work trailer every night (landscaper, paving, construction, mobile car wash) and you can easily exceed $1,000 per month. So let’s stop the theatrics.

Easy conclusion: any place with the name “Washington” – either on the west or east coast – should be avoided.

OK, let’s cut through the B.S. and get straight to the truth:

1. Petaluma housing costs $839,600 for a house and $3,850 per month for an apartment. So a lot rent of $2,215 per month is actually insanely cheap.
2. If you are on a strict budget then you should never even think of retiring in Petaluma. That was a really bad choice.
3. The City of Petaluma set all of this in motion when they stupidly decided to pass rent control which then forced all property owners to raise rents as high as they could before future increases were capped. "As property owners, we’re seeking a fair market rent or considering closing the business before we are forced out," owner Nick Ubaldi said in a statement. The City of Petaluma passed an updated ordinance earlier this year that capped the annual rent increases allowed by mobile home parks. The intention was to strengthen protections for renters, however, it has resulted in threats of closure in July at two parks, including Little Woods.
4. The property owner will most certainly redevelop this land if it can’t command fair rents.

So who is the real culprit in this story? The City of Petaluma. And the resident who thought that this was a good place to live on a limited budget. If I went to an expensive steakhouse with $10 in my pocket, I would be accused of being out of my mind not receiving any empathy from anyone.

Can you get any more hypocritical? The old owner is getting offered over $1 million per acre for his land. His current rents don’t justify anywhere near that figure as a mobile home park. He summed it up for the reporter:

“My property has gotten old and needs to be revived. Everything changes. This is just a continuation of Cary’s growth.”

And I bet you $50 if the owner instead raised the rent to a level that would justify $1 million per acre in value, the media would go berserk claiming that he was ruining lives by gouging rents and the residents would stage a protest.

So the media and residents have pretty much done this to themselves. The old guy is just too smart to get involved in that type of mess and is simply going to take the easy way out and sell the land for redevelopment.

First, let’s review the math.

LAKELAND, Fla. (WFLA) — Deborah Dicus has lived at Holiday Mobile Home Park since 2012. Dicus said when she first moved in, her rent was $325 a month. Come January, it will be $767. Her social security check is $900 a month.

Over 11 years, the increase in rent from $325 per month to $767 equates to 10% per year. That’s pretty much in-line with most all of her other costs including gasoline, utilities, insurance – basically everything. So clearly you can’t complain that the park owner is “gouging” the rent.

The bigger issue is that – for some unexplained reason – while every other good and service in America has inflated at the same rate, only the mobile home park is singled out as the lone bill that ruins Deborah’s life.

The reality is that you can’t possibly live in Florida on a $900 per month social security check. Perhaps she has a pension or other retirement funds, but the fact is that Florida was a really poor retirement choice. If she lived in Missouri, for example, she could easily get by on a $900 per month check, as rural Missouri lot rents are maybe $250 per month.

So this is really a story about how expensive Florida is as a state coupled with how social security is not sufficient to retire on unless you made really good decisions on how and where to live in retirement.

Why can’t they just be honest and admit that they want to kick the mobile home parks out?

Now here’s a non-profit that actually is doing good on a shoestring budget. Mobile homes are very energy inefficient but it’s easily remedied with 1) thermal switch plate covers 2) caulking around windows 3) weather stripping front and back doors 4) making sure that skirting has no gaps and 5) putting shrink-wrapped plastic over windows. We think it might save $50 per month on some homes. We have been trying to inform our own residents of these easy fixes for years. It would be great if more people want to jump on the bandwagon.

Sure, you’re saying “gee this looks suspicious”. No, it’s the usual media trying to change the direction of politics schtick. Hopefully the elected officials of Colorado are smart enough to see through this attempted manipulation.

Basically the same article as above. What happens is that these non-profits get with the media and start to do a ton of articles trying to persuade elected officials that their dumb ideas are actually genius. Unfortunately, all of the facts shown above hold true regardless of how you sugar-coat it, and that’s why the chances of pulling off a resident-owned community will remain at 0.013%. You have better odds of winning the lottery at the gas station.

Can we just be honest here? Having sold more than one mobile home park to the residents I can tell you that there is a reason why only 12 parks out of 900 in Colorado (yes, that’s only 0.013%) are resident-owned communities. I’ll lay it out in simple terms:

1. Most residents don’t want to own their own community. How do I know? Just go ask the tenants.
2. These type of transactions take at least two times longer normally that a regular sale and most sellers are not willing to wait around for it.
3. A huge number of these deals fall apart in the end so after wasting months of time the seller is left to start over again.
4. Non-profits are required to guarantee the loans, and most have zero interest in guaranteeing a “trailer park”.

But then there’s the reality of what happens after these incredibly rare and few deals actually close, namely:

1. Rents seem to go up just as fast or faster (the park we sold in Austin to the tenants had to raise rents faster than we ever did just to cover the bills because they had no idea how to manage a property).
2. Tenants are often miserable because their elected officers play favorites and there is no uniformity in rules enforcement, etc.
3. These properties often look terrible as without professional management nobody follows any codes at all.

I love the fact that the writer of this article used New Hampshire as the gold standard of how great the concept is … since New Hampshire has among the fewest mobile home parks in the U.S. That would be like me comparing the cost of snow skiing equipment in Hawaii.

Now I know that the folks that facilitate these transactions really work the media to make dumb articles like this possible, but those are the facts and no amount of B.S. can change them.

You don’t even need to read the article. Yes, out-of-state owners raise rents. Yes, in-state residents raise rents just as far and fast. Why? Because the rents are absurdly low. When you see any market in Iowa in which mobile home park lot rents are higher than apartments or stick-built homes then you let me know. Until then, how dare you say that mobile home park rents are too high? If they were too high then they would not be 100% occupied – yet they are. It’s called supply and demand and it’s one of the most basic formulas of economics.

I know nothing about this case or about this property. But I do know there are two sides to every story and you are only hearing one. I bet that we could solve this in one day by simply putting on a new meter and seeing the reading 24-hours later. My bet is that where this water goes is not actually a mystery to the tenant, but I could be wrong.