It’s good to see that the “Free Rent Movement” folks are back from their Christmas break. Here are some of the basic common-sense contradictions contained in this article:

Residents reached out to ABC Action News because they say several ongoing issues may force them out, including receiving fines for parking on lawns and not keeping the grass cut.

So let me get this straight. People are going to have to move out because the new owners are requiring them to mow their lawns and not park their cars in their yards? That’s maybe the dumbest quote so far this year. Where in America do you not have to mow your yard and not park in it? If that’s your goal as a resident, then you need to move out of this nice property and into a trailer park with no skirting and gravel roads. You’ll find one under the bridge and down by the river.

Lewis said the rent has continuously increased despite most residents having fixed incomes. In 2022, the lot rent was $566; this year, it’s $694. She said the fees also vary month to month.

The rate of inflation under the Biden administration – which covers the period 2022 to 2024 – was 20%. That would make a $566 rent $679 per month – which is pretty much exactly where it is now. You might say “but that’s just over three years’ time and not four” but remember that Biden had not screwed up inflation that much in his first year as he inherited a nearly 0% rate. If the residents don’t like the 20% inflation result then maybe they should have worked more diligently on the Trump re-election campaign in 2020.

And many mobile-home owners rent the land on which their home sites, she said. If they fall behind in their lot rent, they can be evicted. “Oftentimes, they can’t afford to move their own mobile home because that’s expensive … So they lose their home,” she said.

Did this writer even read their copy before they turned it in? Check out this logic. “if the resident is unable to pay the lot rent then they might not be able to relocate their home”. So if they’re too broke to pay rent why in the world would they even think of moving their mobile home? Yank it around on a bicycle?

What always blows me away with this narrative is this simple question. If they can’t afford the rent, why not sell their home right where it sits to someone who can pay the rent? Why abandon it when you could sell it? That seems like the dumbest thing they could do, right? There’s really no rebuttal to this. I posed this question to a frothy woke journalist once and they couldn’t even come up with a retort.

“Over the past months, we have conducted extensive financial modeling and assessments to determine the viability of maintaining the park,” according to the letter. “Unfortunately, we have come to the difficult conclusion that Pines Park is no longer sustainable as a trailer park and must be closed.”

Yes, this is exactly what I predicted months ago. FEMA and city governments have suddenly realized that all they have to do to get rid of mobile home parks is simply demand that every home be raised above the base floodplain elevation (BFE) – one home they even wanted to be elevated 12’ in the air – which costs a fortune and that no resident or owner can possibly afford. It’s really a clever scheme in that you can disguise closing down “trailer parks” while blaming it on simply looking out for the residents’ future happiness. If that’s not FEMA’s intention then they need to immediately cut out this nonsense and get these people back in their homes as quickly as possible. Have you ever heard of such a thing from a group supposedly devoted to helping those in need? That would be like the police showing up at your house and saying “sorry, but I can’t stop that burglar from strangling you until you replace your deadbolts, because it might happen again”.

So check this out. The residents are paying $8 million to buy their mobile home park to fend off a $35 per month lot rent increase:

Residents of Cedar Falls Mobile Home Park in Bangor have secured financing to buy the land their homes sit on. Last year, they successfully submitted an $8 million bid to prevent the property from being sold to a Canadian developer that planned to increase monthly rent by $35 a year.

And now they just figured out that, upon buying it, they will have to raise the rent more than $35 per month:

With the interest on the loans and $300,000 in repairs that need to be done on the property, lot rent will have to increase.

So here’s the moral. When the tenants buy the park, the combination of mortgage and operating costs requires a rent that is just as much – or more – than when a professional owner steps in. But here’s the bigger problem. Residents are lousy managers as they refuse to evict for unpaid rent, make tough decisions that anger their neighbors, or vote to spend money on cap-x repairs, so the tenants pay not only more rent per month but their quality of life in the park is actually lower. Pretty stupid concept, right?

The grants will fund bold projects such as replacing old units with new, energy-efficient homes, expanding existing MHCs, and creating entirely new, resident-driven communities.

First of all, Biden is leaving the building in a few weeks and I doubt this program will ever get funded as I assume Trump will undo every single thing Biden does in these final days (and for good reason).

But even if it did actually see daylight, there ae four basic problems with this concept:

#1: $225 million is not a game changer for “million of Americans” unless the plan is to give $10 to each of the 22 million folks who live in mobile home parks. Has that title been puffed up enough? In reality, most private equity groups alone have already poured more than $225 million into their own mobile home park portfolios via cap-x projects and with much greater impact (and no credit from the media).

#2: Nobody on earth cares about “energy efficiency” projects that cost more than they save and are part of the whole “green agenda” that was summarily flushed down the toilet on November 5th.

#3: The Federal government has no power to influence community zoning and has proven to be completely impotent when it comes to park expansions since the day Biden took office.

#4: There is no such thing as “entirely new resident-driven communities”. That’s the same “word salad” nonsense Biden shouted about for four years. None of it happened. His time is now over. Give it up.

STUPIDITY INDEX: 8

To that end, Jacobo and roughly three dozen of his neighbors gathered on Dec. 21 outside their community, a 900-home trailer park, to protest its imminent closure. The park’s owner, CREI Holdings, informed residents last month that they had until May 19 to vacate their homes, continuing a statewide trend of trailer parks shuttering to make way for development.

If residents don’t want mobile home parks to be redeveloped, the only answer is to have much higher lot rents. Yet all the residents say – supported by the media – is that higher lot rents are “evil”. You can’t have it both ways. As I’ve been writing for years, LOW LOT RENTS = REDEVELOPMENT. You can either accept that reality or not, but it’s not going to change. There are too many other, more profitable uses for the land that most mobile home parks sit on.

STUPIDITY INDEX: 10

Here is an update on FEMA's progress on placing families in mobile homes. A top FEMA official pledged he would try to get 26 Helene-affected families placed in mobile homes by Christmas. Progress is slow-going at the site in Black Mountain. FEMA officials confirm only three families are in trailers out of 26 trailers total.

Does anyone on earth still seriously believe that the Biden administration can get anything done properly?

STUPIDITY INDEX: 8

There are two main factual problems with this article:

Millions of Americans own mobile homes but rent the ground beneath them. And despite the “mobile” moniker, these factory-built homes are difficult and costly to relocate. That makes owners of such homes particularly susceptible to rent hikes — especially as longtime communities get bought up by big investors.

#1 The fact that mobile homes are “not easily moved” has nothing to do with being “susceptible to rate hikes”. There is no form of housing that is actually “mobile” yet every other sector (single-family, condominium, apartment) is somehow different? Why is that? Well, it’s not. People live in mobile homes because they are inexpensive and NOT because they think they can attach them to their Buick and drive off at the drop of a hat. The reason mobile home park lot rents go up is simply economics: when your rent is $300 per month on average in a country where the average single-family home is $400,000 and the average apartment is $2,000 per month then you can literally double the lot rent and still be 70% less than every other option. And that’s why rents go up and people still flock to mobile home parks: because we’re the cheapest form of housing on earth. Sure, residents would like the rents to remain ridiculously low in perpetuity, but the failings of mom and pop to set proper rent levels is not going to survive the next generation. When mobile home park lot rents no longer offer a great value, then people will stop living in them and owners will have to lower prices to remain competitive. It’s called basic economics. But it has NOTHING to do with mobility.

Residents at Liberty Landing were “phenomenally lucky,” Peterman said. The park’s longtime owner was looking to get out of the business and suggested the resident-owned model. Working with a nonprofit organization, residents bought the park by securing a $9.5 million loan — debt that is being repaid by monthly lot rents.

#2 When the residents buy the mobile home park their lot rent ends up exactly the same – or higher – than when the ‘evil corporation” does. They have the same mortgage payment, utility cost, insurance cost, property tax – everything. But, unlike the corporate owner, they are lousy at collecting rents, fixing things, and budgeting, so residents end up actually paying more yet having a lower quality of life. Makes sense, right?

I went on a wokester podcast a few years ago and pointed out both of these factual issues to the host who then refused to debate either of them because there’s no defense to the simple truth. So instead, he just edited that part of the discussion out and simply stuck with the generic “Free Rent Movement” slant that “corporate owners are evil”. But I invite anyone who wants to debate this to contact me. I would love to hear an intelligent argument on how 2+2=5.

STUPIDITY INDEX: 10

A two-bedroom, two-bathroom home will cost $870 a month to rent, while a three-bedroom will run $920 a month, commissioner Gwendolyn Hooker said. The housing commission owns the homes, but not the lots they sit on. Monthly rent includes a $440 lot rental fee. The home rent portion of the new homes would go directly to the housing commission, plans state.

I’m more than confused on how this is any different than what park owners who embrace rental homes have already been doing for the past 50 years? I guess it’s fine for the county to join in as it fills vacant lots without any cost to the park owner, but how is this even worthy of media time?

STUPIDITY INDEX: 5

New data shows the average sales price of new mobile homes in Pennsylvania skyrocketed in recent years. According to LendingTree.com, the average sales price of a new mobile home in Pennsylvania last year was $127,500 a 65.16% increase from 2018’s average price of $77,200. The percentage increase is the 12th highest in the United States. The site says new mobile homes sold in the U.S. cost $124,300, on average. Despite the seemingly large amount, new mobile homes are considerably cheaper than site-built, single-family homes. As of 2023, the average sales price of new single-family homes was $409,872 — $285,572 more than that of new mobile homes, per LendingTree.com.

I’m shocked the media isn’t having a fit about mobile home prices and whining that costs are up 65% in only six years. Of course, they can’t float that argument very well since single-family homes are now at $409,000. All that ever matters to customers is the actual dollar amount, not the percent of increase. It would be nice if mobile home park lot rents got the same consideration by the media.

Barnstable Superior Court ultimately found that the petition did not contain the requisite number of signatures and “the association did not meet its burden of proof.” Judge Michael K. Callan stated that the petition needed at least 41 signatures from owners living in the park to represent the required 51 percent of residents. Forty-nine signatures were submitted; of those, the court found that four were duplicates (from the same unit), five were subtenants (not owners), five were owners but did not live in the park, and four more freely rescinded and withdrew their approval. That left the association with only 31 signatures of support from resident owners. “No effort was made by any of the signature gatherers to verify whether the park residents who were asked to sign the petition were owners or simply tenants, subtenants, or guest residents at the park,” Judge Callan wrote in his decision.

Do you honestly believe that a group of residents who can’t even figure out the simple directions for signing a petition are competent to put together a non-profit and funding for a “tenant owned” property?

The Canadian company that was outbid by the Cedar Falls cooperative told the Bangor Daily News it had only planned to raise lot rents by $25 to $35 a year and were responsible park owners.

If the tenants buy the park they will face lot rent increases much greater than what the corporate buyer was proposing. But don’t worry, there’s no way the tenants will be able to raise the $8 million down payment by the due date since the clock has almost run out and all they have cobbled together is $1.5 million. The tenants’ lack of fundraising ability has luckily saved them from their lack of park management skills.

Now the mobile home park is vacant. The land, off Lakeshore Boulevard in the city’s North Collinwood neighborhood, is being cleared to become part of a park. And the people who lived there – some for just a few years, some for generations – are settling into different homes scattered across the region and beyond. “This whole experience has been unprecedented,” said Isaac Robb, vice president of planning, research and urban projects at the Western Reserve Land Conservancy. The nonprofit bought the 28.5-acre site in late 2021 to protect it from development and bring it back into local hands. After a planning process, the land conservancy decided in early 2023 to close the park, which was half-empty and hemorrhaging money.

Wait a minute … I thought that the whole “tenants buying their own park” schtick was supposed to be a forever story of unicorns and gumdrops? Nobody mentioned the reality that the non-profit (who IS the owner and not the tenants since they put up the money and have their name on the mortgage) is free to re-sell the park or even tear it down if they want.

These residents would still have a home if they had let a corporate buyer be in charge. That was a costly mistake on their part.

Last month, Habitat purchased Oak Grove Mobile Home Park, which is located at McKinley Avenue and Byrkit Avenue on Mishawaka’s east side. Habitat of St. Joseph County CEO Jim Williams told WNDU 16 News Now only 34 of the 117 lots at Oak Grove are occupied. Habitat is closing the mobile home park but working to relocate the people still living there. Williams added the families will be invited to take part in the Habitat for Humanity program starting in January.

And here we have another non-profit that bought a park to “save the residents from the evil corporate landlord” and then summarily evicted everyone to build an apartment complex. Still thinking the “tenant-owned park” concept is a winner?

But buying the park came with new challenges. The co-op was now responsible for the park’s maintenance and infrastructure needs, like water, electricity, roads and snow plowing. Because working-class Westbury is technically a private community, getting those services was complicated and expensive.

Sounds like the reality of “tenant owned communities” is finally kicking in. It all sounds great when the glossy P.R. people from the non-profits dangle the utopia of “let us buy your park for you” but then comes the sad reality that mobile home park residents are the worst property managers on earth, unable to collect rents or make tough decisions on rent increases. And that does not even count just a general lack of professionalism on capital expenditures and basic business sense. As I’ve said for over a decade: “TENANT-OWNED” PARKS HAVE THE SAME – OR HIGHER – RENTS THAN CORPORATE OWNERSHIP, BUT WITH A LOWER QUALITY OF LIFE. Want a second opinion? Read this article: https://coloradosun.com/2024/04/22/sans-souci-boulder-county-mobile-home-park-challenges/

It has been three years since Mountain View approved a rent control ordinance for its mobile home parks. Now it is looking to update the ordinance to offer more protections for tenants who are struggling to keep up with annual rent increases. In a 2-1 vote, the Rental Housing Committee (RHC) recommended at their Dec. 12 meeting that the city cap rent increases for mobile homes below the rate of inflation.

If there still exist any mobile home parks in Mountain View a few years from now, I would be amazed. Who wouldn’t tear their park down if they can’t raise rents even in-line with inflation? What a bunch of idiots.

In a historic move to preserve and revitalize manufactured housing, the Biden-Harris administration has announced $225 million in grant funding for 17 awardees across 26 states under the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Preservation and Reinvestment Initiative for Community Enhancement (PRICE) program. The initiative targets repairs, infrastructure upgrades, new home creation, and transitioning manufactured housing communities (MHCs) into resident-managed models.

I guess it’s never too late to try and buy votes … or maybe it actually is.

This week, the North Platte City Council approved the purchase of nearly two-and-a-half acres of land along 14th Street, just south of Madison Middle School, with plans to transform it into a park. “We’re building a rec center, we’re building water parks, we have a lot of construction going on here in North Platte, which is great. The Northwest is kind of one of those areas that doesn’t have a place where you can walk within ten minutes,” said Lyle Minshull, city of North Platte Parks and Rec Director.

When a city tears down a mobile home park it’s called “progress” and when a corporate owner does the same thing it’s called “evil”. Does anyone find that even the least bit hypocritical?

According to a study by LendingTree, the average price of new manufactured homes — also known as mobile homes — is rising faster than that of new single-family homes.

Wait a minute – a positive article on mobile home appreciation? Wasn’t it just a couple years ago that there were hundreds of articles condemning mobile homes for being a bad investment? I remember being on several woke podcasts where that was the number one attack on our industry.

Well, there go those arguments!

Here we have a non-profit that bought a mobile home park to shut it down and redevelop it into apartments:

Habitat for Humanity acquired the 9-acre mobile home park at Byrkit and McKinley Avenue in November, and neighbors will have until May to move out.

And here’s what the CEO of the non-profit had to say about the whole situation:

“We are looking for a new place to invest and create more affordable housing and the city of Mishawaka was anxious for us to do something along the McKinley corridor,” said Williams.

A resident weighs in:

“It's hard this time of year to get a letter like that, and especially people who lived on fixed income. That's the shocking part about it because I thought they were supposed to help people like me not you know put me on the streets,” said Michele Harfert.

For those who think that non-profits buying mobile home parks are superior to those “evil, out-of-state owners”, you need to take this article, frame it and hang it on your wall.

The moral of this article is simple: DON’T RENT MOBILE HOMES: SELL THEM. It’ something we learned 30 years ago and it’s as true today as it was in the 1990s. You want to be in the parking lot business, not the car repair business.

The Rental Housing Committee (RHC) recommended at their Dec. 12 meeting that the city cap rent increases for mobile homes below the rate of inflation. Committee members Kevin Ma and Edie Keating voted in favor of limiting rent increases to 60% of the Consumer Price Index (CPI), with no floor and a 5% ceiling. This went a step further than what the city had proposed, which was to limit rent increases to 75% CPI, with a 2% floor and 5% ceiling.

Apparently, the Mountain View Housing Commission has uncovered a large stockpile of economic heroin and have some crazy idea that mobile home park owners should not be allowed to raise their rents, even in tandem with inflation. This is the wildest rent control proposition in the history of mankind. Let me lay it out for the commission once their heroin runs out: your idiotic actions are going to make each and every mobile home park in the town shut down and be redeveloped into other uses that don’t suffer from similar rent control issues. Don’t lie to your constituents and claim that you are somehow preserving their affordable housing as you know full well that all you’re doing is giving these affordable refuges a death sentence. But, then again, maybe that’s your real goal?

“Our focus is entirely on rent increases, because that is the issue that is scaring the pants off of all manufactured home park tenants across the state,” VanLandingham said. 

Sure, Oregon already has rent control, which allows for 7% plus inflation with a cap of 10%. Now the Free Rent Movement folks say that’s not good enough and want to reduce the increases to just the CPI and drop the 7 point addition. And I’m sure they will next want it to be capped at .000001% of the CPI.

Apparently, they forgot to add basic classes in economics to the high school curriculum in Oregon as all this concept will do is make the parks shut down and be redeveloped into uses that have no rent control. What a bunch of idiots.

Bangor city councilors have agreed to kick in $500,000 towards a group of mobile home residents looking to buy their park and stave off investors from purchasing it instead. The move has drawn mixed reactions from those behind the $8 million effort. The nonprofit backing the residents of Cedar Falls — a 129-lot mobile home park on Bangor’s Finson Road — is excited by the council’s decision. But the president of the residents’ co-operative is disappointed the city didn’t allocate more and fears it could set them back from meeting their January fundraising deadline.

So let me get this straight. 129 mobile home park tenants are planning on raising $8 million in cash by January. Are they nuts? Why would anyone think this is possible? Clearly the City of Bangor made this gesture because it gave them free publicity with absolutely no risk of having to fork over a penny. This is exactly how 99.999% of tenant “first options” work out and why everyone knows they are a complete waste of time.

In 1933 Prohibition ended. The U.S. government had tried to stop Americans from drinking alcohol since 1920 but the will of the people ultimately prevailed. Then you had the emergence of Uber, which violated most city taxi laws but, once again, the will of the people won out. And it’s pretty clear to me that a large number of Americans prefer having the option of tiny homes, park models and container homes in addition to the traditional mobile home product and, at least in Venice, Florida, the will of the people has prevailed again.

I know that most mobile home manufacturers will fight this reality, but the advent of new technologies – such as 3-D printing – makes them no longer the only game in town. It’s only a matter of time until more municipalities adapt to what the public desires and allow more than just HUD-code mobile homes on the park’s lots. Park owners have no downside from this eventuality, as we just rent land and are more than happy to have the customers highly satisfied with whatever housing type they choose. However, this competition might actually be healthy for mobile home manufacturers, as these housing alternatives are fairly pricey and make the cost of the traditional mobile home product – which is nearly twice as large – look like an absolute bargain.

We’ll see how this turns out in the decades ahead.