And another park bites the dust.

And another park bites the dust.

Lawmakers say they are among the state’s most economically vulnerable residents and easily exploited.

“Wait”, you might say, “those are the same words that the earlier article used when they said “vulnerable” and “exploited”. Am I crazy?” No, that’s just how the woke media works it anymore. They think that they can brainwash and hypnotize you if they simply repeat the same words over and over (kind of like a late night TV commercial). So I guess I’ll simply offer the same rebuttal I used earlier:

Residents of mobile home parks are in a unique and sometimes tenuous situation with landlords — they usually own their mobile homes but pay rent for the land they are on. This can lead to housing insecurity when properties change hands, and often leaves residents vulnerable to exploitation. 

Is that woke enough for you: “housing insecurity” and “residents vulnerable to exploitation”? The argument is that somehow park residents are a separate group from all other humans in that they can’t move their homes. The truth is that mobile homeowners have MORE options than any other residential group, which include:

• They can sell their home (just like a single-family home or condo owner)
• They can get it moved for free to another mobile home park, paid 100% by the receiving park owner
• They can simply abandon it (which is completely unnecessary due to the options above)

Those who live in single-family homes, condos and apartments do not have three options. That gives mobile home owners actually MORE options, not less.

Stark is trying to get more relief for residents in mobile home parks this legislative session. She is pushing for the passage of House Bill 701- Local Housing Assistance Plans. If passed, mobile home homeowners can apply for lot rent assistance from their local government.

Finally, a good idea for once. Of course, it’s not new. HUD passed a rule allowing for Section 8 funds to be used for lot rent years ago, but they did never actually paid any out. Maybe with new political pressure – and a new head of HUD – this can finally be put into place and become operational. After all, HUD has been subsidizing 2.3 million people to live in apartments since 1965.

Let’s see if they make it even five years before the debt collapses and the park gets sold to a professional investor capable of obtaining real bank financing and not a cobbled-together time-delayed mess.

Pulte Homes has bought the land occupied by the Winchester Ranch Mobile Home Park in San Jose next to the world-famous Winchester Mystery House, according to documents filed on May 28 in Santa Clara County.The just-bought parcel totals 15.7 acres and is located at 500 Charles Cali Drive near the corner of South Winchester Boulevard and Tisch Way, county property records show. Pulte Homes paid $50 million in cash for the property, according to documents on file at the County Recorder’s Office. The project will consist of 320 single-family homes and 368 apartment units, according to the city documents. The residences will include seven-story apartment buildings as well as four-story town homes and condominiums. Winchester Ranch Mobile Home Park is reserved for residents who are 55 years of age or older. The park contains about 110 mobile homes.

This exemplifies what happens when you enact rent control: parks get torn down. Case in point, this property can hold 688 condos and apartment units instead of only 110 mobile homes. Do the math. The thing that many people forget is that mobile home parks are only on one level, but multifamily can go up several stories into the air (and in this case seven stories). As I have correctly identified for two decades, mobile home parks make for VERY attractive redevelopment opportunities as they have great locations on major roads and all utilities are present. On top of that, cities will give any zoning needed to get rid of “trailer parks”, which they inherently hate. Maybe that’s why last week’s articles alone announced no less than six parks being closed for redevelopment into other uses.

The bill gives a group of homeowners or a mobile homeowners association the right of first refusal when it comes to purchasing a park that's being sold.

This leaves out all the negative articles that are suddenly surfacing regarding the “tenant-owned” concept that is simply not working according to plan. It’s crazy that the state that brought you the no-nonsense L.L. Bean label has lost their common sense.

Residents of mobile home parks are in a unique and sometimes tenuous situation with landlords — they usually own their mobile homes but pay rent for the land they are on. This can lead to housing insecurity when properties change hands, and often leaves residents vulnerable to exploitation. 

Is that woke enough for you: “housing insecurity” and “residents vulnerable to exploitation”? The argument is that somehow park residents are a separate group from all other humans in that they can’t move their homes. The truth is that mobile homeowners have MORE options than any other residential group, which include:

• They can sell their home (just like a single-family home or condo owner)
• They can get it moved for free to another mobile home park, paid 100% by the receiving park owner
• They can simply abandon it (which is completely unnecessary due to the options above)

Those who live in single-family homes, condos and apartments do not have three options. That gives mobile home owners actually MORE options, not less.

I would refer anyone even thinking about a tenant-owned community to read this article from last week:

https://www.canoncitydailyrecord.com/2025/04/10/fremont-county-receives-foreclosures-notices-of-four-mobile-home-parks-in-canon-city/

While tenants can be easily manipulated into buying a property – as long as a non-profit loans them the downpayment and personally guarantees the note – the more important question is exactly what they do a few years later when the loan comes due and the non-profits have lost interest. Apparently, as described in the article above, that’s the reality that nobody wants to talk about.

But the residents of Lake Onota Village have another option — organize and purchase the park themselves. In Massachusetts, manufactured home park residents have the right of first refusal, giving them first dibs to purchase their park if they can match the sale price.

That “first dibs” is not working out for a whole lot of other “tenant-owned” communities. But then again, Massachusetts has some of the dumbest landlord rules in the nation so why not?

American Horror Story" star Sarah Paulson has finally secured a buyer for her Malibu trailer home—almost one year after she first listed the property for $2 million. However, Paulson, 50, was forced to accept an offer of more than half a million dollars less than her original asking price, eventually selling her double wide for $1.45 million on April 16, according to property records. Still, the actress managed to make a tidy profit on the dwelling, which she bought for $860,000 back in March 2021 and then quickly set about renovating.

Someone who reads this in Missouri would think “what idiot would pay $1.45 million for a $50,000 old doublewide?” and, of course, they’d be right.

Republicans showed up to the House floor prepared to fight. “It seems like this body is passing bills that make housing more expensive and then we see expensive housing,” said Republican Ed Diehl, of Scio. “Then we say, ‘Oh we need to respond to that.’” And so we do rate caps. It’s like we are in this housing doom loop.” Diehl said he wants to see vulnerable seniors remain in their manufactured homes, but the solution, he said, is to build more houses, not add more constraints. It was a refrain echoed by many Republicans. “If our goal is to help those at the very lowest income levels, especially in manufactured home parks, there are better ways to do it. We can offer tax credits or targeted subsidies to park owners who voluntarily keep rents lower for those residents,” Diehl said. “That’s a solution that helps those in need without disrupting the broader housing market.”

Well at least the Republicans of Oregon understand the realities of life and offered some good suggestions such as “tax credits and targeted subsidies” to park owners to keep rents lower. Remember that Oregon already has rent control. Now the far-left nuts that run the politics there are trying to make the percent that landlords can raise rents even lower (of course, their goal is 0%). Let’s hope the Republicans can save the day.

Ah yes, once again the Washington state government wants to pass rent control. And you know they just have to push it because higher rents mean nobody can buy food or medicine, right? Here’s what one of the backers of rent control had to say

“I ended up stopping my meds for three months, trying to figure out what I could do to make up that $66,” Hammond said. “After three months, I finally figured it out: I turned my heat off at night.”

Although virtually all of the Republicans in the Washington state house are opposed to rent control, hopefully at least a few of the Democrats are reading this, so here’s some things they need to know:

1. If someone cannot afford to pay the exorbitant price of housing in Washington, they should move to a cheaper state. It makes no sense for a senior on a fixed income to live in one of the most expensive locations in the U.S. The free market should set where you live, not price controls.
2. Rent is only the fourth highest cost for renters in Washington, being exceeded by healthcare, transportation and childcare. All three of those have zero pricing controls. So there will be no net benefit to the consumer.
3. Rent control has been proven to destroy the availability of housing stock as nobody builds in a rent-controlled state.
4. Property owners will not put money into capital repairs if there is rent control as they can’t get the money back.
5. In over 100 years, only six states have been dumb enough to enact rent control – and they have suffered greatly as a consequence.

I knew that rent control would be a hot topic again in Washington this year since it failed last year. Let’s hope that the Republicans – the only ones with common sense in Washington apparently – can fend it off again.

And another park bites the dust.

Timothy, 68, relies on monthly Social Security payments to cover rent, insurance and groceries. Unexpected expenses leave her scrambling to make ends meet. She’s used the last of her savings, and her diabetes makes it difficult to get a part-time job like some of her neighbors, who bag groceries at Safeway or work as a cashier at McDonald’s. As she faces a new lease with increased costs starting in May, Timothy said she doesn’t know what she’s going to do. In a few months, she may be living out of her car .“I keep praying for a miracle to happen,” she said.

I know it’s repetitive as it’s yet another article trying to persuade you that rent control will save the world in Washington state but FOR THE LOVE OF HEAVENS, IF YOU CAN’T AFFORD TO LIVE IN WASHINGTON STATE PLEASE MOVE TO A CHEAPER LOCATION. WASHINGTON IS THE FIFTH MOST EXPENSIVE STATE IN THE U.S. IF YOU MOVE TO MISSOURI YOUR RENT WILL BE ROUGHLY HALF OF WHAT YOU’RE PAYING – AS WILL BE THE COST OF EVERYTHING ELSE – AND YOU CAN EVEN GO TO BRANSON ON A FIELD TRIP. All of these articles sound like somebody complaining that they can’t afford the prime rib at Lawry’s so they are going to have to get rid of their air conditioning. How about just eating at Wendy’s instead of Lawry’s?

In the 1800s, Americans moved west in search of cheaper housing. Maybe now it’s time to move back east?

It seems odd that the only people who are willing to inject the capital needed to bring old trailer parks back to life are criticized as “ruining” the industry. But, of course, the only reason this article came out was because the Chicago Tribune was hoping to push Illinois rent control across the finish line. It failed. Better luck next time.

The Fremont County Public Trustee’s office has received two separate foreclosures encompassing four mobile home parks in Cañon City. Rivermaze Cooperative includes the parks at 1634 Poplar and 295 S. Raynolds. The outstanding principal balance for this foreclosure is $1,234,398. Rocky Mountain Homeowners Cooperative includes the parks at 1527 Chestnut and 1611 Cedar. The outstanding balance for this foreclosure is $1,930,924.

According to foreclosure records on the public trustee’s website, the current holder for both foreclosure cases is CC Canyon & Cedar LLC, and the lender for both is Resident Ownership Capital, LLC d/b/a ROC USA Capital. Nicholas Salerno, chief program officer for ROC USA Capital, in a phone interview with the Daily Record on Thursday, said each homeowner owns their home, and each co-op owns the land. He said there are 35 homes in the Rivermaze Cooperative and 55 in the Rocky Mountain Cooperative. “The homeowners themselves are not going to be held liable to the default in their loan – it’s the co-op,” Salerno said.

For years I have been writing about the fact that these “tenant-owned” mobile home park deals are built on incredibly shaky financing. And now my prediction is starting to come true. Read the above quote and tell me if it does not appear that the ROC deals on four different Colorado parks have gone into loan default. That’s how I read it.

It would be one thing if the tenants in these deals actually bought their own parks, but they don’t. Instead, they rely on non-profits to put up the down payment and guaranty the debt. And, unlike real corporate buyers that typically obtain 10-year conduit or agency debt, these things are cobbled together from flaky loan products that are never going to hold up upon renewal.

And now – in front of the whole world – the inevitable has started to happen.

I wonder if all those state bureaucrats preaching about how great tenant-owned deals are have seen this article?  Can we finally put to bed the whole “tenant first option” scam? Time will tell.

And another park bites the dust.

So now we know what the above article and its bias against “out of state” mobile home park owners was really all about – they want to brainwash you that only the people of Maine (namely the park residents) should be allowed to buy parks in Maine. I have bad news for whoever is behind this political movement in Maine: the residents only successfully close on something like .000001% of the deals they are offered. It takes about a year to put together and close on a tenant-owned park. A normal seller is never going to wait that long.

And another park bites the dust.

And another park bites the dust.

"And then we also have the $9 million housing millage. And $9 million seems like a lot of money, but just 530 South Rose alone is $19 million," she says of the new 64-unit senior housing development. 

It sounds like these housing folks need their own DOGE. How can you spend $296,875 per unit on little assisted living apartments? If you really want to fix the “affordable housing” crisis, you need to figure out how to build things a whole lot cheaper – well under $100,000 per unit. You could hit that number only with factory-built or 3-D printed homes and never with traditional stick-built methods. If you really want a solution you have to get creative and nobody is being creative enough yet. The only people out there that are delivering on sub-$100,000 housing are mobile home park owners.

What’s with this fixation on “out of state” owners? It may come as a shock to the writer but every business in America has a 49-out-of-50 shot of being owned by someone who does not reside in that state. If you’re talking about Walmart, and you don’t live in Arkansas, then it’s an “out of state” owner. If it’s McDonalds, and you don’t happen to live in Illinois, it’s an “out of state” owner. And the list goes on and on. It means absolutely nothing.

And another park bites the dust.

And another park bites the dust.