This is getting absolutely ridiculous. The power in a mobile home park was cut-off for a brief while for necessary repairs to a transformer and the residents are going beserk because they didn’t get enough notice. I have lost my power for days at a time in a stick-built house in the middle of the summer – due to a major storm – and the entire town survived just fine. Here’s what both sides say:

“{the manager] said the power outages were a result of a private electric company hired by the management to work on a transformer within the park. She said paper notices were distributed to residents' mailboxes, but the warning given was far from sufficient. "We're supposed to have 72 hours notice, they didn't even come close to doing that," she said. One of the notices had the wrong date listed on it, leading to additional confusion”.

Not that many decades ago there was no air-conditioning. And 100 years before that, there was no electricity. And people survived just fine. Is America so pathetic now that it can’t get along even for a couple hours without power? 

Yet again the residents think they have won by harassing the owner into selling the land to a developer – then shocked and agitated when they can’t find anywhere even remotely as inexpensive to live:

“The Jimenez family is supposed to pay $440 in lot fees each month. Like the other tenants, they’ve stopped those payments. However, they can’t afford to move anywhere else. The day they have to pack up is fast approaching. County records show the residents were supposed to vacate the premises by the end of June as the property owner prepared to sell the park to a developer.”

I don’t know anything about this property or any of its troubles, but it seems to me that the residents massively overplayed their hand and now they’re homeless as a result. You are going to see much more of this until America stops being a nation of litigation and instead strives to focus on win/win strategies.

The buyer is spending $16,250,000 for 87 mobile home lots. That’s around $200,000 per lot. Look at the photos of the property. Look at the location. Who in the world would not realize this is going to be torn down and redeveloped in the extremely near future?

I have no problem with the concept of residents buying parks – we’ve sold several to the residents – but let’s all agree that 32 lots is not exactly changing the direction of the earth as many of these “resident-owned” articles like to suggest.

Here’s one of the classic quotes of all time regarding this city-owned park:

“We’re making over $170,000 a year, so if any private developer would come in, I imagine they would maintain their asset the same way we would,” he said.

For those who have little math skills – which this bureaucrat hopes applies to residents of the park -- $170,000 per year in net income at a 6% cap rate works out to only $2,800,000. Do you think that a big piece of land near the waterfront in Ontario, Canada might be worth a little more than $2,800,000?

Here’s how this is really going to work out. The city is going to sell the property to a developer and they will swiftly tear it down to build apartments. The city removes all of the cost the park inflicts on the city (school tuition, uninsured hospital visits, etc.), improves the drive-up appeal of the neighborhood, and gets out from under the tough job of managing a mobile home park. And everyone knows it, regardless of what they may say at city council meetings.

We all know that mobile home park residents are all angels and can do no wrong. Certainly, they would never lie to the media, right? Well, I’ve not been to this property, but I know Acentia and they are one of the best operators in the U.S. with exemplary property condition and professional management. I’m pretty sure that the owners are correct when they say:

"Much of the information shared in your story is inaccurate and untrue," wrote Marko Vukovich, Vice President of Operations for Acentia, in an email to CBS News Colorado. "We have owned and operated Foxridge Farm for over 43 years and take great pride in serving our residents and fulfilling our mission, vision, and values. We aim to offer a clean, safe, healthy community for many years. We are not in business for the quick profit and resent any such accusation."

So why would the residents lie to the press? Well, let me think what their motive might be? Maybe they think that they can press the bureaucrats into freezing their rent or getting them some free stuff. I’m willing to bet $100 that if we all went out to Foxridge Farms right now we’d look at each other with a puzzled look and say “what are these tenants talking about?”

It’s not hard to find an attorney to file almost anything if you’ll pay their hourly rate, but I sense the residents will have some challenges with their class-action dream namely because 1) Ohio has no rent control 2) Ohio has no rent control and 3) did I mention that Ohio has no rent control? Kind of hard to overcome that one issue when your lawsuit is about the owner raising rent.

But I can bet you that the owners of this park are probably meeting this weekend with some land developers to get the current value per square foot – wouldn’t you? If the residents are the catalyst for that redevelopment then they have nobody to blame but themselves.

Great letter to the media from this owner when they were accused of raising rent and ruining the park:
When contacted, Brett Garner, the park manager until recently, responded in writing, citing some of the options.

“1. We can leave the community as it is, not pursue improvements, and leave lots rents close to where they were.”  “2. Increase the quality of the community by adding the lots on the east end, connect the existing community to the newly installed water and sewer pipe (planned for next summer), repave the roads (planned for July 2023), add a recreation area on the north side of the park, and clean up the look of the community so that it’s more desirable for you and all residents to live in. We chose to go with option two because, in our eyes, it’s what’s best for our immediate community (Estates at The Bluff) and the community at large (Kremmling).“

There’s no question that in any 100-space park there are probably 2 people who can’t afford to pay more rent and want to live in squalor if that’s the cheapest option. But the majority don’t agree and the key to running a business is to please the majority of your customers, not some tiny fringe faction.

Here’s a great quote from the property owner:

“There often comes a time in the life of a park that a decision must be made as to whether it is feasible to continue operating a park when the physical improvements and infrastructure become older and costly to repair and replace, and/or the park owners conclude they can no longer economically operate the park based on measures taken by state and local government,” read a July 6 letter from Little Woods Mobile Villa managers to residents. Due to such factors, the letter stated, the owners were “considering whether it is viable to continue operating the park as a mobile home park, and are exploring the option of converting the park.”

Rent control equals redevelopment – it’s just that simple. It’s unbelievable that these bureaucrats can’t see that they have absolutely no power over the property owner’s right to simply tear the park down and build something else on the property that is not subject to rent control. Total idiots. They are personally responsible for hundreds of households being homeless as a part of their actions in this case.

The moral to this story is simple: stay far, far away from California if you want to be a landlord. Who in the world wants to mess with nonsense like this?

Same recurring theme:

Soon, the mobile home park located on Forrest Avenue in McKenzie could cease to exist. During the monthly meeting of the McKenzie City Council, the board approved (on the first reading) Ordinance 554 to amend the mobile home park property from R-4 (residential mobile home) to R-3 (high-density residential). This allows the owners to develop the property for the construction of “townhouses.”

Redevelopment of mobile home parks is accelerating for more profitable housing options. Residents and bureaucrats better take note because they will soon find out that the only way to stem this tide is to drop the strategy of public shaming park owners who engage in reasonable rent increases and instead say to owners “how much would the rent have to be to keep this park in operation and away from the wrecking ball?” and then happily pay it.

This time it’s a city itself that is tearing down the mobile home park to make way for a better use of the land. And the residents are mad because the city is going to displace 30 tenants to make way for 300 more housing units.

"Residents of the park have described the morale as “depressing” since the approval.“There is a community based here. They showed that they are going to make places so that people can have more places to live, but what about here? There are over 70 residents here. We are all getting kicked out on the street and that is not right,” said Amanda Mitchell, a resident who has lived at the park for 20 years."

It looks like the 800-pound gorilla in the room nationwide is that park owners simply tear down and redevelop when the mobile home park is no longer the highest and best use of the land. That means residents need to embrace rent increases and follow the rules because the alternative is homelessness. It’s that simple. Even cities – in this case -- are following this mantra.

No offense but given the current values of mobile home parks in Colorado – typically around $100,000 per lot – means the $28 million the state has allocated to this program will only cover about 280 lots (there are single parks bigger than that). 

This is a tough situation for the City of Blaine. They thought they had all mobile home parks effectively banned from being built in the city and suddenly it turns out the zoning department screwed up. A developer found the loophole and now the city is freaking out and trying to stop the developer with a moratorium. “City council approved the moratorium May 22 to allow time for city staff to clean up code inconsistencies. The underlying zoning code allows for manufactured home parks but the planned unit development (PUD) code does not. Manufactured home parks that are five acres or larger are required to be developed as PUDs.”

How will this turn out? The developer has pledged to sue the city if it denies his permit. The city is basically doomed as you can’t legally do what they’re doing. It’s like a plane with a broken landing gear and no matter how long you delay it, it’s still going to crash.

And here’s the winner of “Most Misguided Attempt at Social Engineering of 2023”. Despite there being no rent control in Ohio a resident named Wykle has “organized a series of protests in front of his Lancaster mobile home park since June after he said park owners continue to increase lot rent”.

I hope he has a lot of sunscreen.

And we have another winner: “The Worst Strategy Decision of 2023”. After acknowledging the complete absence of available rental properties, these few renters are harassing the park owner with nonsense suits on everything from mold to energy efficiency. What do you imagine that’s going to accomplish? Let me guess – the park owner gets out of the rental business and sells these units off, rendering these folks homeless. Smart move.

And another winner: “The Best Quotes of 2023”. Here’s what a resident and park owner said after the city voted to put into effect even more rent control in this California town:

Calling the council's direction misguided, resident Salo Landano claimed rent control efforts always fail. "It never works and it always leads to lower housing stock and poorer living conditions."

Park owner Nick Ubaldi says he's considering drastic measures. "We are currently managing properties with aging infrastructure while dealing with escalating expenses, however, it seems that the decision to impose additional restrictions on rent increases, keeping them below C.P.I. will have unintended consequences. As I'm sure you're aware of, we have hired a consultant to assess the feasibility of closing our mobile home park. We believe this to be our only viable course of action. We are concerned that if not addressed, these changes will suffocate our business and render our property virtually worthless."

Bravo!

“The Royal Oaks Mobile Manor manufactured home park burned down in the 2020 Almeda Fire. But a series of new modular homes being installed there were recently found to be uninhabitable after construction defects were discovered.”

After you read that quote, it’s hard to be impressed with the two apartment complexes the City of Phoenix is building – you can’t stop wondering how much money they squandered trying to fill the mobile home park with modular homes that turned out to be uninhabitable. Think they’ll ever discuss how much money was lost and which city official was held accountable for this mess? Yeah, right.

And we have another winner: “The WORST TIMING of 2023”. The park is being sold for $16 million to be redeveloped. That means the homes have to move out. In light of all of this, six residents of the park – with ancient homes that look to be pre-HUD – are wanting to sell them for up to $189,000 each. Here’s the problem I guess the residents don’t understand. The homes were only worth that much because they offered cheap living in a beach town in Florida. The location is what people were buying, and not the homes. Now these homes will only bring maybe $10,000 since they have to leave the property. They should have sold them before the park closure was announced.

Yes, we have a winner. “The Wokest Article OF 2023”. It not only takes the regular nonsense and expands on it, but it actually has a new woke angle not seen before: the reason mobile homes look bad is that evil manufacturers classify mobile homes as cars and therefore banks won’t fund home improvements that the residents are desperate to do which is clearly ridiculous. There is no battle between 99% of mobile home residents and out-of-state investors. There IS a battle between the 1% that want the parks to remain dumps at low rents and with the infrastructure failing. If these type of woke journalists want to really help those few mobile home park residents that don’t like living in a civilized society, then they should let them move in and sleep on their sofas.

Here’s what one neighbor of the mobile home park had to say: "let me tell you something. I see another fire happening. It's going to cost somebody their life. Whose head's that gonna be on? You guys. Take a look. Think about that." Based on that argument I could say to that neighbor “let me tell you something. I see you drive your car out of the driveway and it might cost someone their life if you crash into them. Whose head’s that gonna be on?”

The park owner is trying to tear down 10 old trailers and install 10 new ones. He’s not promising that he can end the risk of fire, famine, or locusts nor bring about world peace. He’s just following the law. That’s why the city agreed with the park owner.

First of all, NOBODY evicts for minor reasons. When you get rid of a paying tenant, you lose probably $10,000+ by the time you get that lot re-filled. I don’t know the facts, but I know from experience that eviction is the last straw available when the resident refuses to pay rent or follow the rules. And it sounds like the owner is at that point with these few tenants. Note that the attorney for the residents admits that the owner has done nothing legally wrong – so then what’s the issue here? If you’re a woke journalist who lives in a tiny apartment in Manhattan and doesn’t own anything, then you have zero idea of how business works. In the real world, you have to do unpleasant things when you’re a landlord, which includes firing employees and, in this case, evicting tenants.

Well, if you thought she had any investing acumen, now you know better. Anyone who would spend $1 million on a mobile home that you don’t own the land underneath – whether it’s in Malibu or Timbuktu – is a certified idiot. My bet is that she released this video because somebody found out she lived in a “trailer park” and was about to sell the story to the National Enquirer so she decided to get a jump on that article. I watched this video and thought “wow, that’s embarrassing”. Not sure who would think otherwise.

This is a really good idea offered by the State of New York to mobile home owners:

If an elderly resident has to move to a nursing home, it can cost the state $400 per day. By making the mobile home handicap accessible, it saves them a ton of money. This is a sensible win/win scenario. I’m a big fan of government making smart decisions – it’s just that they do it so rarely.

If an elderly resident has to move to a nursing home, it can cost the state $400 per day. By making the mobile home handicap accessible, it saves them a ton of money. This is a sensible win/win scenario. I’m a big fan of government making smart decisions – it’s just that they do it so rarely.

This writer thinks they have it all figured out when it comes to why mobile homes in Vermont got flooded the other day – in the same storm that flooded their own capitol. “A large share sit on floodplains. Many parks have aging water and electrical systems that are more at risk of failing when hit by severe weather, and older homes built to outdated housing codes lack the physical integrity to withstand damage.”

Wow, that was really stupid on so many fronts. Yes, many mobile home parks have floodplain on some part of the property, but so does every other type of real estate (including the Capitol of Vermont apparently). Water and electrical systems do not fail in storms any more than any subdivision. And mobile homes have been built to the standards imposed and inspected by HUD (the Federal Government) since 1976.

The real reason that the mobile homes of Vermont flooded recently was simply that the entire state of Vermont flooded and those mobile homes just happened to be located in Vermont.