MODESTO BEE “LETTERS TO THE EDITOR”

I am one of the many senior citizens that is also disabled. I have lived in a senior mobile home park for 13 years. I received notice on July 27 to vacate my home by Sept. 1. Apparently, they are going to remove my home to make room for a brand new modular so they can make more money.

I am 66 and on a very limited income. Where do I go now? I can’t afford to pay more and there is no low-income housing that I can find. I am one of the hundreds in senior parks that this is happening to. There are more and more of us senior citizens that are becoming homeless every day.

NANCY WARD, Modesto

Seniors trapped by skyrocketing rents on mobile homes

By RAYMOND O. NEWMAN Last Updated: August 24, 2006

There are many communities of manufactured and mobile homes populated by seniors who are being seriously affected by usurious increases in their space rents. If allowed to continue, this will result in a whole new class of homeless.

Elderly, frail and disabled are being forced out of the homes in which they have lived for many years and will be out on the street, unable to find lodging. People who have worked their whole lives to be able to retire in some measure of secure comfort are being forced out of their homes by rent increases as high as $350 a month.

Yet, because of fears of litigation, threatened by these parks’ owners, local authorities are abandoning the one group of people who are least able to absorb this blow. This situation rightly should be classified as a form of elder abuse.

For those who may not be aware, manufactured and mobile homes are not mobile. Once in place, they are the same as a house, with some differences. The people who have purchased these homes and placed them in parks of their choosing are charged fully for the maintenance and upkeep of the home and its surrounding space. The park owner simply provides the piece of land on which the home resides and access to utilities, the charges for which usually are paid by the homeowner.

While the park operator may provide some amenities, such as a clubhouse or swimming pool, these are maintained by a portion of the space rent.

Unfortunately, in many parks, there are problems with sewer systems, water supply and general maintenance of the facilities, threatening the health of residents. These problems are not being addressed by the park owners, in spite of the huge rent increases.

Sadly, if homeowners decide to sell and move to more affordable housing, they find that the park owner will increase the space rent by several hundred dollars a month for the person wanting to buy the home. The result is that the buyer backs off and the would-be seller is trapped in a home he or she no longer can afford.

This leaves sellers with difficult choices. They can forgo their medications and food to pay the rent; turn off their air conditioners and suffer the physical consequences during times of extreme heat such as the valley just experienced; or they can decimate their meager savings to survive.

Whatever the choice, it is a disaster waiting to happen.

It is time for elected officials to step forward and enact mobile home rent stabilization to protect the homes and lives of the elderly.

Newman lives in a north Modesto mobile home park

.Mobile home owners have recourse

Last Updated: October 19, 2006,

The trial victory described in the story “Court win by tenants still leaves a bad taste” (Oct. 9, Page B-1) was far from a win. As with all residents that live in mobile home parks, park owners in the long run will win the battle as attorneys that know the mobile home residency laws settle cases out of court.

Judges are the only ones who can enforce the mobile home residency laws. If mobile home owners don’t know the mobile home residency laws, they should get a copy from the park manager or the park owner and read them. If the county isn’t doing its job, go to the state, starting with the Department of Housing and Community Development.

Counties do not always follow the law. Some park owners are devious and will cheat and do whatever it takes to keep from maintaining water systems, sewer systems and the park itself. The law requires that mobile home parks be inspected either by the county or the state to keep them from becoming substandard.

Mobile home parks are one of the few forms of affordable housing left in California and need to be preserved for seniors and the disabled. Rent-control ordinances are needed to keep rents affordable. There are state agencies that can be called when the counties fail.

JEAN DE MATTOS Mi-Wuk Village

‘Elder abuse’ at mobile parks

 Last Updated: November 4, 2006,

At the Oct. 24 Modesto City Council meeting, I referred to the large group of mobile and manufactured home owners in attendance as “victims of elder abuse” (“Council strikes deal to keep Modesto Nuts,” Oct. 25, Page B-1).

To clarify: Emotional or psychological abuse is the infliction of mental or emotional anguish, such as humiliating, intimidating or threatening. Exorbitant rent increases beyond the renter’s ability to pay have resulted in this anguish.

Financial or material exploitation is the improper act or process of an individual, using the resources of an older person without his or her consent, for someone else’s benefit. These homeowners are definitely being exploited to the benefit of the park owner.

Neglect is the failure of a caretaker to provide goods or services necessary to avoid physical harm, mental anguish or mental illness, such as denial of food or health-related services. Exorbitant rent increases create denial of food or health-related services because the homeowner has no money left after paying the rent.

This problem must be dealt with to prevent a new class of homeless.

RAY NEWMAN Modesto

MODESTO BEE “LETTERS TO THE EDITOR” by Mobile Home Owners—continued

Rent control for seniors needed

Last Updated: November 25, 2006, 04:40:36 AM PST

In response to “Mobile home owners victimized” (Nov. 20, Letters): I have to express my outrage at mobile home park owners for their victimization of the elderly to make a quick buck. It’s got to stop and be rolled back to a liveable level.

I live across the street from the Coralwood Mobile Home Park, where more than 50 of the 190 residents have their homes up for sale or have walked away from them because an unscrupulous mobile home park owner from Ohio raised rents far beyond any reasonable level.

These seniors’ rents have gone from $395 a month to $750-plus a month in a year and half. Seniors who retire with Social Security only are capable of meeting the lowest housing requirements for even a low-income mobile home park. This is elder abuse to the highest degree without any compassion or even common business sense.

The county and the various city councils absolutely need rent stabilization for the 6,000 low-income residents in our community now. Where will this stop if we don’t? You’ll be next! Get involved and write or call your council person, supervisor, assemblyman, senator and congressman and express your outrage.

BOB ARMSTRONG, Modesto 

Demand stable mobile home rents

 Last Updated: December 3, 2006, 06:41:21 AM PST

Until I read in Opinions the plight of mobile home owners throughout the county, I thought the park where my husband and I live was the only one with these issues. The golden years of mobile home owners in Stanislaus County have been turned into a gold mine for greedy park owners.

Huge rent raises, intimidation and lack of basic maintenance of many parks have turned what should be a more or less peaceful time in our lives into one of poverty, fear and uncertainty.

A large number of mobile home owners are old, disabled and-or low-income families. The community should be outraged at this treatment of the most vulnerable of its citizens by mostly out-of-the-area park owners.

Contact elected representatives in your city and the supervisor in your district to let them know you support rent stabilization rather than waiting until more people become homeless or worse and become a burden on the community’s  already overburdened resources.

The gift of support of the community would be the best gift of all to the more than 6,000 mobile home owners in Stanislaus County. Many of them are trying to save their homes and live independently.

JUDY LAWSON Oakdale

WMA Code of Ethics

THE VOICE, July 2006, Page 11:

Editor’s Note:  The following was taken directly from the Western Manufactured Communities Association website (www.wma.org).  We have bolded and underlined the important passages.

The residents of mobilehome/manufactured housing communities, as homeowners, can expect recognition of their rights to privacy, respect, courtesy and dignity. The responsibility of management is to serve the needs of the community, and to provide safe and well-maintained common areas and community services. Mutual respect and concern are the governing principles of management-resident relations.

In order to provide for responsible relationships between resident and resident, and between residents and management, and to protect the investment of residents and management, reasonable rules and regulations shall be established in writing and be available to all residents. Management pledges to enforce rules and regulations in an equitable and forthright manner.

Communications are essential to all interpersonal relations and to the successful operation of all businesses. Management pledges to be available to residents, to be receptive to their constructive suggestions and to provide factual information.

Contentment, security and peace of mind are the desires of residents and the goals of management. To this end, management pledges that residents shall be free of worry of arbitrary or unlawful termination of tenancy. Management further pledges to operate the community in a manner consistent with established business practices and procedures which assure long-term economic stability for residents and investors.

Management recognizes its business responsibilities to the community, state and the Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association, and pledges full support of those laws and activities which encourage the growth of manufactured housing community living and the Association

City of Goleta Fights To Save The Constitutionality of Rent Control

Goleta is a newly incorporated City, about three years old, located just to the north of the City of Santa Barbara.  It has four rent-controlled parks, and one very wealthy park owner who absolutely hates rent control and is willing to do almost anything to get rid of it. 

The owner is Daniel M. Guggenheim of Newport Beach, an independently wealthy developer who has decided to buy up a few mobile home parks and use his wealth to scare cities into getting rid of rent control.  Well, his tactic worked almost everywhere, but not in Goleta.    So he found a couple of opportunistic loopholes in local/state/federal laws and filed  a suit  in the  Federal Ninth Circuit Court,  claiming that our ordinance was unconstitutional.  Here’s what he did.

First, he discovered that the City of Goleta, at the time of its incorporation,  had missed a deadline to transfer the rent control ordinance from County (Santa Barbara) jurisdiction over to City (Goleta) jurisdiction.  That allowed him the opportunity to claim that the City’s Ordinance was “new law” and could therefore have its constitutionality challenged in Federal court.    Well, in order to challenge it, he then needed to find a legal basis on which to challenge.  He found it in the City of Cotati Case (which you all should know was appealed and reversed).  But he hurried into Federal Court with the initial findings of Cotati (that rent control was unconstitutional), and equally hurriedly asked for a summary decision–—which the City of Goleta, just weeks old, failed to challenge.  The judge had no choice but to find this Ordinance to be unconstitutional, so Guggenheim set about immediately to raise rents three-fold.

After much debate and coaxing from mobilehome owners, the Goleta City Council filed to appeal the Guggenheim decision.  While this case was in the Federal appeals court, the Cotati case, in the very same appeals court, was reversed.  This caused the Court to  remand the Guggenheim back to the Federal Trial Court to be reheard on grounds that did not include the  Cotati arguments.  The trial date is set for June 6th before Judge Cooper, who heard the original case.

Mobilehome residents in Goleta have formed a coalition which has found success in coaxing the City of Goleta to defend the lawsuit more vigorously the second time around.  The Coalition has also hired an attorney who has taken up the cause with a greater than expected exuberance, and who is also working in concert with the City’s effort to mount a strong challenge to the suit.                 One of the most puzzling facts about this whole matter is that groups such as GSMOL, CMRAA, and MHOC have failed to realize the importance of this case.  There is a feeling among many of the mobilehome residents in neighboring communities in Santa Barbara County (which has a duplicate ordinance) that should the Goleta ordinance fail to be upheld, that their county regulated ordinance would fall as well.  Numerous Santa Barbara parks have sent small donations to help Goleta’s mobilehome owners, and believe me, the Goleta Coalition appreciates them all.  We’re literally in the fight of our lives.  In the park that Guggenheim owns, he has also filed with the City to convert the park to a subdivision (condo-type), and has filed to CLOSE the park as well.  And to rub a little salt in the wounds, he is preparing to file suit in Superior court to overturn an arbitrator’s decision regarding our 2005 rent increase  (that’s right, 2005—we have already been noticed for our 2006 rent increase to begin April 1).

All we can say about this whole matter is that it never ceases to amaze us that certain people with such enormous wealth can so easily put on a pair of blinders and simply not care about the financial destruction that he can cause for so many.    

Article written by Dennis Shelly, Spokesperson, Goleta Mobile Home Owners Coalition (GMHOC), 7465 Hollister Ave., Sp. 423, Goleta, CA  93117

MOBILEHOME OWNERS ARE VULNERABLE TO SOARING RENTS

Reprinted from the San Diego Union Tribune Article—March 17, 2005

There is a great misconception regarding mobile home parks. Many years ago people traveled considerably, towing travel trailers, some as small as 12 feet and some as long as 35 feet and stopped in various locations that were called “trailer parks” all over the United States. You rented a space for the night or several nights or longer if you chose to do so. Many people lived in them for months or years.             

 Desi Arnaz and Lucille Ball made a movie many years ago regarding a travel trailer being towed behind a car. My wife and I traveled all over this country and Canada towing a trailer and then with a motor home, and stopped in many so-called “trailer parks,” now called RV Parks. These locations are for the traveling public, they are not mobile home parks!

The “mobile homes” of today are not really mobile. They are from 40 to 80 feet long and can be up to 32 feet wide or more, depending upon the space available in the mobile home park, where it is placed on special supports made of concrete or steel. They may be transported in two or even three sections and then assembled on the lot or space. The wheels are then removed.

These units, also called “modular homes,” are beautifully finished inside and out and may cost new, in today’s dollars, up to $150,000 or more. Older, double-wide mobile homes built 20 to 30 years ago are selling for $50,000 to over $100,000 depending upon the quality and condition of the park and the amount of the space rent charged by park owners. There are family parks and senior parks. One problem facing seniors is that many are living on very small retirement incomes, some exist on Social Security alone because many companies didn’t have retirement provisions like they do today. Most seniors living in mobile home parks today are in their late 70s to mid-90s and they cannot afford to move. Even if they could, where to? Cities have not made any land available for new parks. There are no new spaces anywhere. They are “captive” tenants!

What really compounds the problem is the absolute greed of some park owners. Most are averaging 66 percent profit on their original investment yet they still keep raising the space rents on the tiny plot of ground that the mobile home sits on, in addition to the normal CPI index raises of about 3.5 percent.

People living in Chula Vista, however, have some of the most reasonable rents in the county due to the mobile home tenants fighting for and retaining rent controls in local parks. Rents in Chula Vista typically are in the range of $325 to $525 per month in the 33 parks covered by rent controls. I have personally spoken in many parks and fought for rent controls.

The sad and frightening part of this story is that out-of-town corporations are gouging residents in other area cities. Santee and Spring Valley park residents are being forced out of their homes because MHC Corporation of Chicago has raised space rents to astronomical heights of $750 to reportedly $950 per month. Santee and Spring Valley have no rent controls.

Tenants cannot pay the exorbitant space rents. Some, who have the means, dismantle their units and tow them out. Others just abandon them. The greedy park owners love that.

People in Santee and Spring Valley have told me that there are as many as 35 mobile homes up for sale in their parks with no buyers due to the horrendous rents. As a result, homes that were worth $50,000 and up are being offered for sale in the $20,000 range with virtually no takers. Who wants to pay or can afford $850 or $950 per month in space rent?

Another unknown factor is that tenants must pay for their own water, sewer, rubbish removal and electric and gas bills, in addition to the space rent. Tenants also constantly paint and upgrade their units as any homeowner would.

Why can space rents soar so much? Lack of park rent controls! The county Board of Supervisors has shirked its duty. The county should protect senior citizens living in mobile home parks by enacting stringent laws preventing unscrupulous park owners from literally forcing people onto the streets.

I have talked to members of the board of supervisors to no avail. I have also met and spoken to State Senators Bill Morrow, R-Carlsbad, and Joe Dunn, D-Garden Grove. Even though they have drafted many laws protecting park tenants’ rights, statewide rent controls so far have been elusive.

Management Problems

We have not discussed the subject termed “park management problems” by the Senate Select    Committee on Mobile and Manufactured Homes (Senator Joseph Dunn, Chairman) in quite sometime.  It continues to be a serious problem in many parks. In 1982, and again in 2004, the Senate     Select Committee held hearings on “management problems.”  The bottom line:  nothing concrete has been done.  Remember last year there was legislation introduced to train managers.  It failed. 

Actually the “problems” include actions park managers and owners take against residents. These   include violations of the MRL, harassment, intimidation, and others. These are often the focus of  residents complaints,  yet we are still waiting for some assistance from state and local government.

Those of us who have experienced such problems quickly realize that the Housing and Community Development (HCD) has little or no power to    enforce the Civil Codes found in the Mobilehome Residency Law and continues to have budget problems.  Don’t write to the Ombudsman for help with MRL issues.

A small portion of the public hearing of December 19, 2004 before Senator Dunn  is published here.  This testimony should only strengthen our feeling that these types of problems occur across the state, they are not isolated incidents as the park owners would have us believe, and they have occurred, without any real action, for over 25 years. Shouldn’t we TAKE A STAND NOW?  Or are we willing to endure another 25 years under the oppression of those managers who feel they are above the law and park owners who are motivated to break the law for financial gain and greed. You and I,  our friends and neighbors living in mobilehome parks need to UNITE TOGETHER!

On December 19, 2004 Senator Dunn heard testimony from about 22 witnesses, most of whom are mobilehome owners.  CoMO-CAL feels this subject is very important to our members and provides excerpts from the hearing below.  Copies of the full transcript of the hearing (Senate Publication #1306-S) may be purchased from Senate Publications, 1020 N Street, Room B-53, Sacramento, Ca. 95814 for $7.75 plus current California sales tax.  Make checks payable to Senate Rules Committee.                            

 SENATOR DUNN HEARING—DECEMBER 19, 2004                    

MOBILEHOME PARK MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS

 Background   (by Senator Dunn’s Staff)

There are approximately 4,850 mobilehome parks and manufactured housing communities in California providing spaces for an estimated 675,000 residents.  A mobilehome park is an area or tract of land where two or more mobilehome sites are rented, or held out for rent, to accommodate mobilehomes used for human habitation. 

Mobilehome park owners hire managers to perform various functions in the operation of the park, such as collecting the rent, reading utility meters, providing security in the park, arranging for the use of the clubhouse or recreational facilities, if any, enforcing the park rules, providing various notices required by law to the residents, maintaining or overseeing the maintenance of the park, managing the office and books, and dealing with homeowner/resident complaints, among other duties.

Some parks are operated by professional property management companies that select and train site managers.  The Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association (WMA) has their own

 management  training program available to member parks.  Other parks, usually smaller older parks, hire whomever they can find, sometimes even a long-term resident, to collect the rent, oversee maintenance, and run the office.  Sometimes these individuals may be more akin to caretakers than managers.  The Health and Safety Code requires a responsible person to be available in emergencies who has knowledge of the common area facilities and the utility systems, and in parks of 50 or more spaces that person must reside in the park.  The    person must be reachable by phone, cell phone, answering service, or pager to respond in case of  emergencies.  This person is not specifically required by law to be the site manager, but any person so designated by the park to fulfill that responsibility.

Manager Problems  (by Sen. Dunn’s Staff)

The number of complaints to the Committee about manager problems has increased in the last few years.  Testimony that the Committee will hear will illustrate the management problems, which some residents contend necessitate reform.  In summary, these often involve disputes between the manager and a resident or residents regarding enforcement of the park rules, unwillingness of the management to approve the resale of a mobilehome in the park, utility billing and meter reading or a number of other issues.  Sometimes this tension between the residents and the site manager is the result of a lack of communication on both sides or it may involve the attitude of the resident or the manager.  Not infrequently residents perceive that the  manager is harassing or otherwise mistreating them, particularly if the manager threatens them.  In other cases it is simply a matter of alleged neglect or incompetence on the part of the manager. Residents contend that the lack of information or knowledge on the part of managers, particularly of the Mobilehome Residency Law, leads to the management’s refusal to recognize certain resident rights.  This in turn leads to      confrontation and bitterness between the park  resident(s) and the manager.  A common complaint to the Select Committee is that some parks deal with residents in a heavy-handed fashion, intimidating them through threats of reprisal or eviction if they complain about park health and safety violations or the  enforcement or lack of enforcement of park rules.  On the other hand, the park industry argues that in many cases a dispute is just as much the fault of the homeowner as the manager.  Moreover, they point out that the major state park association already has a training program and that the costs of administering and enforcing legislatively mandated manager licensing and training program will drive up the cost of housing in mobilehome parks without guaranteeing that manager-homeowner disputes will or can be resolved, notwithstanding such licensing.

Editors’ Comments:  This is one of the most wide-spread, serious issues in mobilehome parks and there is no relief in sight.  I believe that until there are serious sanctions against managers and owners, it will continue.  Let’s face it, the motivation of most park owners is their bottom line.  If they can pressure a resident to walk away from his/her mobilehome or convince them they must remove it from the park (both tactics are illegal), the park owner wins (profits by placing a new home on the site, can charge market rent for the space, and increases his bottom line which translates into a higher value for his park).  The park owner has NO downside – if he is sued for a violation of the MRL, there is only a $2,000.00 penalty.  His upside is hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional profit – a no-brainer!