“Township officials analyzed “potential impacts on the environment and township resources of having 500 units in an area that didn’t have access to public water and sewer, and the possibility of more traffic on Warren Road,” she said, also noting “that’s what prompted the negotiations.”

Yeah, right … I’m sure those were the reasons. Do you think the truth might really have been just that they didn’t want to have a “trailer park” in their town? Nah, no way that ever even came up in the conversation, right?

Now that Trump is in office, do you think we can all just be honest again and stop all the ridiculous fake wordsmithing? It comes off like a bad Hallmark card.

Another positive industry article – and from Vermont, no less. What would Bernie Sanders say (particularly if you didn’t pay him to say it)?

The new owner also replaced sewer lines and hauled out unfixable trailers.

Another case of the “evil corporate landlord” ruining the quality of life for residents, right? Clearly, corporate owners are the ones that are putting millions of dollars annually into bringing old parks back to life. Nobody else is doing so. But all corporate owners typically get are insults. At least this writer was honest about the good work the new landlord was performing.

She credits manager Danielle Sargent for revamping the culture of a community that, for years, had struggled with drugs, prostitution and other issues. Now there are potlucks and sing-alongs, as well as neighbors who deliver food after surgery, watch your pet when you’re out of town, or stop by to chat for no particular reason. Sargent took on the managerial role 10 years ago because of her background in construction and property management, and because she believes in the communal power of a mobile home community.

OK, that’s a change. A positive article about mobile home parks. Wow.

Another positive article with no woke trappings at all.

The final argument by the Minnesota Attorney General’s office, which filed the suit, was struck from the record after warnings about misstatements.

I’ve never even heard of that before. Sounds like the tide is turning, as I discussed last week.

While residents were concerned about housing affordability, Habitat says there is a plan in place. "We promised we'd keep rent stable, and we don't plan to redevelop for a while so we can work together to plan the future," Rosensweig said.

What a mess for the residents who originally celebrated Habitat for Humanity outbidding the corporate buyer who wanted to keep this as a mobile home park. Instead, they now are realizing that Habitat is going to tear the park down and build apartments on the land in the near future. Pretty sneaky non-profit antics, right? Not really. All these non-profit deals are built on short-term debt, and that means short-term commitment. The corporate owner would have left it a mobile home park, probably forever. Shame on the media for relentlessly supporting the “non-profit owned” community concept

In a split 4-3 vote, the City Council approved limiting rent increases to 60% of the Consumer Price Index, with a 0% floor and 3% ceiling, at their meeting on Jan. 28.

Looks like the City Council of Mountainview is moving one step closer to shutting down every mobile home park in town for new redevelopment into apartments. Is that their secret goal? Must be. No way they could be this stupid otherwise, right?

Lil’ Abner Mobile Home Park is being torn down to make way for a giant apartment complex. Once again, the lot rents were not high enough to make the land more compelling to remain as a mobile home park. It’s the same old story we cover week after week. Mobile home parks make perfect spots for a large number of uses and apartments are hard to beat since they can be stacked two or three high and mobile homes can’t.

But there’s another part of the Lil’ Abner story that is also worthy of discussion:

“We were planning on moving it, but it would have taken too long and it was costing us around $32,000”

Federal, state and city bureaucracy is a big reason that mobile homes are anything but “mobile”. The media always wants to blame it on park owners, but they have nothing to do with the simple cost and process of moving mobile homes. In HUD states the cost of moving is doubled or tripled because they require concrete pads, piers or runners to be built under the home, with no appreciable value for the customer to do so. In Texas, for example, they require no such concrete structures and everything works fine.

Take a look at the photos, take a look at the price, and then feel good that you don’t live in California.

Another overall positive commentary on the industry, but from the perspective of weather events and calling for greater federal/state/city support of mobile home parks.

Those who support the bill claim that rent increases in spaces like RV parks are unethical and driving people into homelessness.

Warning: idiot zombies have apparently taken over the Oregon state government. Remember that Oregon already HAS rent control – but now they want to reduce the amount that park owners can charge even farther because CPI is just evil, don’t you know. How stupid do you have to be to say something like “raising RV rent is unethical”? If this bill passes I guarantee you that a ton of mobile home parks in Oregon close and get redeveloped into more profitable uses and nobody could possibly blame them.

The bills have been motivated by fears around out-of-state corporate buyers purchasing Maine mobile home parks and increasing lot rents, placing vulnerable tenants at risk of eviction. Rep. Golek said her bill would exempt resident-owned communities from the rent hikes.

You have to hand it to the folks that promote the “tenant-owned community” model. They have somehow brainwashed otherwise intelligent adults like Representative Golek into believing that corporate owners are “evil” and charge higher rents than the tenants would have to, which is clearly false based on simple common sense. Unless someone can show me how the tenants with the same mortgage and costs can charge a lower rent than a professional owner, then I’m going to continue to point out this falsehood in perpetuity. Just last week, a resident-owned community admitted they had to raise the rent over $100 per month MORE than the corporate owner had proposed. Stop lying to people!

What are they smoking at Sedona city hall? The state has a law that says that mobile home parks allow short term rentals. The City of Sedona apparently doesn’t care what the law says. So they found some woke judge that hates the Republican-led state fathers so much that they will rule against anything they say. Now it gets appealed and the judge’s ruling gets tossed. What a waste of taxpayer funds. Pitiful.

Residents were ordered to leave the mobile home park in Sweetwater, Florida, when its management company, CREI Holdings, announced plans to redevelop the site into government-subsidized affordable housing, displacing nearly 6,000 residents across 900 homes. Notices were issued in October 2024, giving residents until May 19 to make alternative living arrangements, a move many residents and legal experts argue violates Florida’s landlord-tenant statutes. 

Yes, even non-profits have figured out that mobile home parks make for GREAT redevelopment parcels. Once again, these 6,000 residents could have been saved from all of this if the lot rents had been high enough to make it the best use of the land. They failed.

“We evaluate special-use permits, if they are allowable by the town,” Borisenok told the audience, some of whom tried to shout him down calling him a “coward” and a “liar.” “We do subdivisions, site plan approval. That’s what we do here.”

Yes, and another park bites the dust. Is anyone paying attention here? Only higher lot rents stop redevelopment. Once again, in this case, the lot rents simply weren’t high enough.

The cooperative did have to increase some land rents to have enough revenue to pay off interest from its loans, said David Stouder, who serves as the board’s operation manager. Land rents, which formerly ranged somewhere between $780 and $995 per month, will now be $960 per month for all residents, he said.

So the residents had to raise the rent – on day one – from $780 to $960 per month? That’s compared to the $50 or so raise the corporate owner was proposing. Yeah, that’s a pretty big success … having the rent go up nearly $200 per month right out of the chute. It’s bizarre that they aren’t embarrassed to tell this tale.

But that’s not nearly embarrassing enough. Up to bat next will come the park falling apart as the tenant managers will fail to collect rent or enforce rules on their friends as well as never being able to raise additional capital to make repairs. Maybe these folks haven’t head about the other great tenant buyout of the Sans Souci Park, also in Colorado. Read this article when you have a chance.

A concept plan by WithersRavenel dated Oct. 2 showed 90 townhomes and 328 multi-family units on 27 acres at 607 Cedar St., which is the mobile home park’s address.

Clearly, being able to replace around 270 mobile home park lots that rent for $400 per month with 90 townhomes and 328 apartments that will rent for around $2,000 per month is a no-brainer financially. And this is the story for most of the mobile home parks in the U.S. in the years ahead. As I’ve been writing about for years now, mobile home parks make ideal redevelopment parcels as they have 1) great locations 2) great road frontage 3) access to all utilities 4) the correct acreage size and 5) the city is willing to give out whatever permits you need to get the park torn down. The sooner that people understand this, the better. Owners are not stuck with mobile home parks as their only option, and only higher lot rents will fend off the wrecking ball. In this case, the lot rents simply weren’t high enough.

BRADENTON BEACH – In a Jan. 27 letter to the Pines Trailer Park Homeowners Association (HOA), Pines Park Investors LLC offered to sell the mobile home park to the residents for $75 million. At that price, each of the 86 mobile homeowners would be responsible for $872,093.02.

To make this mobile home park worth $872,093 per lot, at a 6% cap rate, would require a monthly lot rent of around $8,000 per month. That’s probably not going to work. Some mobile home parks can’t make sense continuing in that capacity regardless of how high you raise the lot rent.

If you own a mobile home park in Delaware, it’s apparently time to start calling land brokers to get your parcel on the market for a better use. The folks that run Delaware are clearly nuts.

This article is wrong on so many counts:

• The false assertion that lot rent of $1,000 per month in Albuquerque is “horribly high” when the average apartment rent in Albuquerque is $1,708 per month and the average single-family home is priced at $308,000. When mobile home park lot rents are 40% lower than apartments and 80% less than the single-family home mortgage and taxes, it would seem to me that mobile home park lot rents are actually very low NOT high.
• The false claim that corporate owners somehow lead to lower property condition when, in fact, they are well-known to inject million of dollars into large properties, such as this one, to bring infrastructure and cosmetics back to life – something that former mom and pop owners often let deteriorate over the decades and have no money to fix.
• The false concept that residents are having to cut back on prescription drugs and food solely as a result of higher mobile home park lot rents. As you may be aware, while all prices in the U.S. rose roughly 20% during the disastrous Biden administration, food alone is the fastest inflating commodity. On top of that, housing is only the fifth largest cost for Americans, eclipsed by health insurance, childcare, transportation and taxation. Those have risen faster than mobile home park lot rents and it’s beyond ridiculous to pretend that somehow only the mobile home park lot rent is the culprit of people being broke.
• The false narrative that somehow tenants could buy parks and lower the lot rents. Since the bulk of the cost would be to service the debt – at the exact same price as a corporate owner – plus utilities, insurance, property taxes and repairs that would all be the same regardless of ownership, the truth is that tenants pay the exact same amount no matter who the buyer is.

While the writer of this article may think that you are dumb enough that they can convince you that 2+2 = 5, hopefully they failed.

Mellissa Finch, who inherited the park after her mother’s passing in 2024, said the reason for the rent increase is property taxes have been raised from $4,400 to $37,000 and insurance prices have risen.

Oh, I see how it is. The property taxes go up by 1,000% and the park owner is just supposed to shrug that off. Instead of complaining to the park owner, why not complain to the tax assessor.

As for the potential for homelessness here, it’s not the lot rent increasing that’s the risk, it’s probably going to be Ms. Finch realizing how much more this parcel is worth in a different use. That’s going to come to her soon enough as the tenants deliberately create so much mental anxiety that there will soon come an offer from a developer and she’ll quickly agree.

Great article. Fair and balanced. I’m impressed.

They better hope that large, well-funded groups keep buying these mobile home parks as they are the only people who have the capital to fix the flooding issues in North Carolina that FEMA has no money to help with.

I’m impressed that there was no negativity to this article – that’s refreshing.

While I disagree with the premise that mobile home parks are best served by resident ownership (which I have discussed in detail every week) the article explores more than that one item and concludes that mobile home parks are important for the community and should be saved from redevelopment by perhaps having the state/county/city gift the necessary infrastructure repair that many older parks face, as well as to help residents obtain the funds to buy them, when possible.

Once again, overall, a favorable article for the industry.