The article fails to mention how many people live in this park (no doubt so you could not easily whip out your calculator and see what a monumental waste of money this non-profit inspired project was) so I did the research for you. Here’s the information on Mountain View Mobile Home Park. As you can see, it houses 34 trailers. When you see how many non-profits contributed to this deal you begin to realize why nobody wanted to identify the number of beneficiaries. Assuming they procured 80% LTV – and only counting the county’s contribution of $1 million as the total down payment -- then the park must have been purchased for around $5 million. At 34 total sites, that works out to $147,000 per household, and you know the actual number is probably closer to $200,000 when you add in all the extras from all the other non-profits. This then begs the question “is this really the best way to spend that money”? For example, they could have simply passed on buying the park and given each family $200,000 in cash and told them to go buy a nice brick house with no mortgage, a newer car free-and-clear, and have a happy life. But instead, they are going to force these folks to live in a highly dense 1960’s trailer park for the rest of their lives.

I promise you that not one single resident would have elected to stay if given the option of the money or their trailer. Shouldn’t they be given that choice in these transactions?

Looks like the same flight path as the earlier articles. When you fight lot rents going up even with CPI increases you are just asking for closure. Either these bureaucrats are completely incompetent or maybe their plan all along is just to get the parks torn down.

Wow, same story as above and will probably have the same ending unless these city leaders have more common sense.

I love the way that – only on mobile home parks – raising rents becomes a part of a social agenda. Here’s what the quote in the article said from one resident:

"I don’t understand why they think they need so much money to live on when we have so little to live on”.

I had the same question once from a woke reporter at PBS who said “why do you have to raise rents – why can’t you lower them instead?”. My answer was simply that I was a business person and not a non-profit but if she or PBS would like to cover the difference in rent – as a charitable act – then I could work out a deal. I’ve still never heard from the reporter or PBS to take me up on that offer. Charity sounds great as long as you don’t have to pay for it, right?

The same tired story of how resident-owned communities saved a 13-space trailer park from demolition and can do the same for all the other 44,000 parks in the U.S. There’s only one problem with this story: resident-owned cooperatives have only done around 300 parks total in decades of existence. That works out to a .0068% success ratio. At the current speed it will take them roughly 3,666 years to tackle the rest of the parks! That seems like a reasonable use of this much attention and discussion, right?

First of all, I love the lack of bias from the woke reporter:

Fresno mobile home park under the threat of closure by an unscrupulous owner with a cash register heart.

Second of all, this is an article that is the perfect illustration of why Ronald Reagan once said “the nine scariest words in the English language are “I’m from the government and I’m here to help”. This owner offered to keep the park free from redevelopment at a $650 per month lot rent, which was more than reasonable. The city blocked him and told him it could not be more than $350. He warned them, the park would be demolished if they refused to listen to reason but they wouldn’t budge. And now it will be demolished and everyone in the park will be homeless.

Here's a quick look at Fresno housing prices looks like: $359,700 on the single-family home average and $1,330 per month apartment rent on the two-bedroom unit and $1,800 per month on the three-bedroom.

So, $650 looked like too much, huh? Interesting logic.

But don’t worry, residents of the park, those same bureaucrats are ensuring you’re going to get at least 12 months’ notice to move out.

Think the residents would have voted to raise the rent to $650 per month as opposed to their new position as being homeless in a market with $1,300 2-bedroom and $1,800 3-bedroom rents?

I know nothing about the facts of this case, but let’s face it, if you live in California or Florida and your rent is too low the odds are 99% your property will be redeveloped. If I was a resident in a CA or FL mobile home park my question to the owners would be “how high does the rent need to be so the park won’t be torn down?” Isn’t that just basic common sense?

This is a 31-space park in poor condition. At $5.5 million that works out to around $200,000 per space. So, yes, this park is going to be torn down as far as I can tell. Everyone has to remember that there are many different options for every tract of land and mobile home parks are only one of those. It’s perfectly natural for a piece of land to go through a progression of uses over time – just as many mobile home parks started off as producing farms and then RV parks with gas stations and then on to mobile home parks. When a mobile home park gets turned into a nice apartment complex or retail center it’s simply called “progress”. There’s no deeper meaning.

Ditto. Same story as all the earlier ones. Fighting higher rents = certain closure of the park.

Looks like construction companies will have plenty of work redeveloping former mobile home parks in 2024.

OK, it’s pocket watch time again. Start swinging it side to side while you read this pile of nonsense:

“Diamond Field LLC (also referenced as defendant) purchased Maple Acres Estates in August 2022. In March Diamond Field issued notice to Maple Acres tenants of its intent to increase their lot rent from $170 to $299 … Diamond Field’s tactics coincide with a nationwide trend, in whcih predatory corporations hiding behind layers of shell companies purchase manufactured housing communities, then raise the lot rent and force mass evictions”

So let me get this straight. Park owners raise rents because they want to do mass evictions? That’s their business model? Where’s the money in that? And, of course, there isn’t. A good rent increase is one in which you lose not a single tenant. And you get there by offering a good value, which at $299 I’m sure it is.

OK, so now let’s get to the down-and-dirty truth. Diamond Field LLC appears to have taken a crazy, stupid ridiculously low rent of $170 per month and raised it to $299 which is still crazy, stupid and ridiculously low but a little less so. And I’m sure they did major improvements and started to enforce the park rules as part of the increase. And if we went to the park right now and knocked on any random door we would find that the residents are absolutely ecstatic with the improvements and have no problem paying the ridiculously low rent of $299 now that the park is nicer. But, as usual, one or two people who were living marginally in the park and having trouble paying $170 per month ran out and found a cheap attorney who filed a frivolous case since there is no rent control in West Virginia. In fact, if you read the preamble to the article, you’ll see that all the attorney accomplished was to file an appeal wanting to get the eviction case moved to a different court in order to buy the marginal folks a little more time before they pack up their pickup trucks and drive off. Big deal.

Was anyone hypnotized by this article and its repetitive mantra? If you have an IQ higher than a lima bean then probably not.

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.

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.

This park manager – facing rent control – had a not too veiled opinion of the end result:

Vance Verderame, operating manager of Canada Cove mobile home park, spoke against the idea, explaining that Canada Cove maintains all infrastructure and amenities in the park and government regulation could upset this balance.

Here’s the translation: “If you pass this rent control we’re going to demolish this thing”.

Can you blame them?

Only in California …

Get out the pocket watch as it’s hypnosis time again:

Nationwide, ROC-USA works with over 300 resident-owned communities. Now, federal legislation, sponsored by U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, has been introduced to help preserve these communities. The bill, which was introduced by Nevada Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, would establish a permanent grant program to help revitalize manufactured housing communities with a specific emphasis on those that are resident-owned. With it would come funding for infrastructure improvements like water and sanitation.

Apparently some bureaucrats have been successfully turned into zombies and now believe that you should only fund infrastructure repair on resident-owned communities. Since there’s only 300 or so of them, that’s not a very big commitment. And maybe that’s why they put that restriction on there?

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.

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.

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.

Do you notice a new trend in this week’s news stories? It’s back to the media brainwash plan of having every article tie back to the same dubious conclusion and – with repetition – turn you into a zombie that surrenders and starts believing their nonsense. This story has the same conclusion as many this week:

“Asking someone that, due to circumstances, to move out of an apartment with their possessions is totally different than asking someone to move their home to a new location,” Richardson said.

There’s one big piece missing that the writers are hoping you’re too dumb to ask: what about selling the home before you abandon it?

When I was on the Freakonomics podcast recently (one of the largest in the U.S.) and this topic came up, the folks that produce the podcast cut that discussion out. So let me try to use the brainwash technique myself to hammer it home:

Mobile home tenants have the freedom to sell their mobile home. And the freedom to sell their mobile home. And have I mentioned they have the freedom to sell their mobile home?

Additionally, they have the freedom to move their home to another mobile home park and have that owner foot the bill (called an “organic” move).

So why do many mobile home owners simply abandon the home? Because they have bad planning and foresight and don’t even try to sell it or move it. And why don’t they care? Because they value the home at next to nothing, which is normally what they paid for it.

Only when the media comes by – or a pandering bureaucrat – does the home suddenly become highly valuable.

Shocking, huh?

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.

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”.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.