If this article says what I think it says, the city is discontinuing curbside trash just to mobile home parks due to city budget constraints. Obviously, that makes zero sense. Why are mobile home park residents singled out as not being worthy of curbside trash? Personally, I think the park owner should go to HUD and get their opinion on this.

Yet another state wants to drink the Kool-Aid that “resident first option to buy mobile home parks” is the solution to world hunger, global warming, drought and pestilence. If I got a dollar for every mobile home park that is successfully purchased by the residents in Maine. I’d have … zero dollars.

Only in California …

The approval was ultimately granted in 2020, in part based on promises from the developer to ensure no resident would become homeless through the closure process. As the closure process comes to an end, the developer has failed to ensure the residents are relocated to safe and affordable, local housing as promised.

How can you task a mobile home park owner with what the U.S. Government itself can’t even accomplish (the waiting list for Section 8 is years long, right?). Where in the world would you find cheap housing in California and what keeps any resident from simply saying “I don’t feel this proposed housing is safe and affordable, in my opinion”?

What a stupid, stupid provision.

It’s interesting how people can be manipulated by a “spin”. In this case you have a group that bought a mobile home park, found the land was worth more in a different use, and was able to demolish the park without any pushback because they claimed it was all about focusing on this corny “missing middle” spin. The guy with the boatyard project in the earlier article should have told the city he was working on the “missing middle” and they would have said “yes, that’s extremely important to our city so go ahead and tear those last two trailers down” – without even knowing what he was talking about.

Reminds me of when they re-labeled “garbagemen” into “environmental engineers”. My hat is off to the “missing middle” label – pure genius.

MY HAT IS OFF TO THIS GUY!

Steube said the mobile home parks and communities he dealt with had the same recovery needs as individual homeowners and should receive the same support.

America needs more politicians like this guy – people who don’t waste time on nonsense (tenant first options that never materialize) and focus on real issues like putting homes back together after a major storm and flooding.

Bravo!

At least one person in the room is still sane:

But the new requirement may adversely impact investment, said Jeff Cook, CEO of Rochester-based Cook Properties, the state’s largest owner of manufactured housing communities. “This onerous extra step represents another hurdle for owners and potential owners of these communities, who will now think twice about making investments in New York,” Cook said. 

It would be interesting to know how this “tenant right of first refusal” concept began in the first place. It certainly is not based on fact. Currently over 99% of mobile home park transactions do NOT include the tenants buying the park. Anyone who has ever sold a park to the tenants knows that it takes forever and a huge percentage of those then fail to materialize (as no non-profits want to guarantee the debt, which is required).

These kind of laws make as much sense as giving each and every person in the State of New York the first option to buy the Brooklyn Bridge – and about as useful.

Sure, you saw this article came out of California and you thought “oh boy, I bet this is going to be stupid”. Well, this article met your expectations. Now Sonoma, California wants to reduce the amount of rent mobile home park owners can raise each year to only 70% of CPI. Yes, that’s right – not even CPI. How does that make sense? It doesn’t. Just another reason to avoid California as a real estate market.

Now you have the State of Washington trying to emulate the new laws of New York on tenant first right of refusal. That means that Washington park owners may also now have to wait an additional 70 days while their tenants do absolutely nothing to buy the park but simply waste time and energy. Again, this concept has a 99% FAILURE RATE! That’s the actual stat. Why would anyone bother to spend time crafting and enacting laws that fail 99% of the time? Because it panders to their base, who have no idea how pointless it all is apparently.

It’s rare that the court sides with the mobile home park developer, but this is one of those occasions. Of course, it will probably be appealed over and over and we may not know the ultimate verdict for years. By then the city will probably come up with a plan to take the property through eminent domain to build a green space (it’s happened before).

What a crazy world we live in today.

Over time, words with beautiful meanings occasionally get degraded into ugliness. “Gentle,” for example. Originally meaning good natured and kindly, it was twisted into “gentry” in the Middle Ages by very un-gentle land barons seeking a patina of refinement. Then it became a pretentious verb — to “gentrify” — meaning to make something common appear upscale. And now the word has devolved to “gentrification,” describing the greed of developers and speculators who oust middle-and-low-income families from their communities to create trendy enclaves for the rich.

The truth is that progress is terrific and the desire to live a better life is what has fueled all the great things that society has created from nice homes to quality healthcare. As part of the continual quest for better living there is continual displacement. Obviously, nobody likes to see the 80-year-old forced to find a new home, but you have to weigh the benefit to hundreds of people versus the detriment of a few. That’s how society makes decisions: by majority rule. It’s the basis of our political and economic system.

A group buys an old mobile home park and is going to tear it down to make way for a new self-storage facility. When asked why the park has to be torn down, the owner responds with:

“many of the homes are “well beyond” their economic life and the park itself has experienced ongoing domestic water, sanitary sewer and road infrastructure issues”

Yes, that’s right. The park needs a ton of capital-intensive work and the owner doesn’t want to do it. But when a private equity group or other new buyer tackles this type of project -- to bring an old park back to life -- they are assaulted with criticism. There probably was a rent level in which this park was worth more as a mobile home community than as a self-storage building, but it was clearly not hitting that mark. Once again, LOW RENTS = REDEVELOPMENT.

This guy wants to redevelop his mobile home park into boat storage, which the zoning is correct for and already adjoins the tract. But the city is making him wait for five years to start the project despite the fact that there are only two mobile homes remaining on this piece of land. This whole situation sounds beyond idiotic to me.

Back in the 1980s the town of Watauga, Texas took an eminent domain action to rid themselves of some ramshackle old businesses that ruined the drive-up approach to their city. The business owners complained that they could not find alternative, cheap retail space and many shut down. But the look of the town improved overnight, new housing developments popped up, and around 10,000 people benefitted greatly from the loss of about 10 businesses. That’s called “progress” and it happens every time something is torn down to make way for a better use.

In this case a dilapidated mobile home park is being razed to make way for a new lakefront development. The entire town is thrilled but around 50 residents hate it. They will have to just accept it and move on.  

The property owner has the right under Florida law to develop this site into any purpose they desire – including having it revert back to raw farmland. Residents have absolutely no legal right to block that owner’s right. It’s called basic American property law. Sure, the residents don’t want to leave because their rent was dirt cheap. But that’s why the park is shutting down, right? You can’t have it both ways. As I’ve said for a decade now LOW RENTS = REDEVELOPMENT.

The title of this article has nothing to do with reality. The new law would require park owners to give residents a couple months of advance notice if they want to sell, so the residents can somehow band together and buy the park under a “resident-owned communities” fantasy. But here’s the problem. The residents will never be able to pull that off 99% of the time (that’s the actual statistic). Only a bureaucrat with zero real-life experience would think this is even important enough to waste the time to debate and try to pass into law. The politicians must have needed something new to pander to their base over and this was low-hanging – but meaningless – fruit.

When a Midwesterner reads articles like this it makes them think “why would anyone want to own property in California?” What a nutty place to own a business!

This is more of a photo expose than an article but it might be leaving out some important facts:

1. If those are abandoned homes then the landlord has no ability to secure them or make any repairs until they receive title to the homes via an abandonment process, which can take months (or even years in some states). So if that’s the case then you can’t blame the park owner as their hands are completely tied.
2.  If that trash is on occupied lots then the park owner has no ability to get rid of it without the involvement/permission of the person renting the lot. And, on top of that, it’s the tenant’s responsibility.

But another key part of this article is “why can’t the complaining resident just pick up the trash themselves?” I mean in the time they spent complaining they could pick up every piece of litter in the photos. I am always picking up litter in mall parking lots and everywhere else I go and I’m sure you do, too.

Every photo of this park – including the park office – shows it is well maintained. There are two sides to every story and this writer is sadly presenting only one of them.

Looks like planning board member Samantha Burdick has been hanging out with the guy pictured in the above article:

Planning Board Chairwoman Samantha Burdick on Tuesday chastised the new owner of a mobile home park off West River Road for what she said are ongoing problems with flooding, poor roads, issues with rats and cracking slabs beneath homes.

So let me get this straight – the park owner is responsible for flooding (Act of God), ‘poor” roads (can she please define because they look fine in the photo), rats (Act of Mother Nature) and ‘cracking slabs beneath homes” (which have zero impact on safety or home condition -- and how can she see them anyway?).

It would be refreshing if Burdick could just be honest and probably say “I hate trailer park residents and I don’t want two more houses full of them in my city”, right? Never going to happen.

Yet another article in which the writer claims that it’s “evil” for big companies buy up poor condition mobile home parks, inject capital into them, bring them back to life, and then raise rents. In fact, the writer sums up the problem with four words in a sub-heading “rules and raising rents”.

OK, if you want to live in a dirt-road dump then that should be your right. But that is NOT what 99% of mobile home park residents want – and it’s insulting to insinuate they do. They want to live in a nice, clean, safe place with working utilities, professional management and strong rules enforcement and they are willing to pay up for that.

This article reminds me of the 2020 push to “defund the police” in which woke journalists made their case that Americans hate law enforcement and prefer complete anarchy. Does anyone still believe that?

What’s “evil” is when you force 99% of the park residents to live in squalor to accommodate the 1% that like to live that way.

Didn’t really see any “big ideas” in this article. I’ve been to Maine and some of these ideas are not even as good as having L.L. Bean start knitting affordable homes in a number of attractive yarn colors – and with a lifetime guarantee.