Look, the owner for the past 70 years just died and the family wanted to sell the park to settle the estate. A regular person would have no idea that Maine’s bureaucrats were this stupid:

According to a law that went into effect in October, mobile home park owners are required to give 60 days' notice to both residents and MaineHousing via certified mail.  

So now the family will have to notify the tenants, waste 60 days while they do absolutely nothing, and then move on.

Why will nobody publish the actual numbers of how many park residents successfully act on these “first options”? I’m betting it’s something like .0000000000000001% -- and that’s being kind.

I don’t know the facts of the case but I’m betting that this park was on a “master-metered” gas system that has failed and there is probably no way of fixing it and turning it back on. They will probably have to convert to propane or all-electric. If that’s the case, it’s one more warning to park buyers about this type of gas system in which the park owner essentially acts as the gas company. I’ve written about this extensively as my very first park purchase 30 years ago lost its natural gas in the dead of winter and I had to convert all lots to propane. It was a nightmare.

The residents are making the worst collective decision of their lives. They are hamming it up to the county officials, hoping to force the park owner to perhaps abate or lower rent and instead they are on the path to homelessness. When the bureaucrats say “the Yuma County Board of Supervisors is currently in the process of figuring out if they want to take receivership of the park but that would include calculating the cost of taking over the park and what the next steps could be” that translates to “thank you for giving us the opportunity to shut the park down and say it was your idea”.

It reminds me of the time I evicted a tenant and they told the judge (to try to get out of the eviction) “your honor I am very sickly and I almost passed out ten times driving over here” to which the judge said “well I have some bad news for you: not only am I granting the eviction for non-payment but I’m also instructing the bailiff to take your car keys and you’ll have to take a bus home and get your car later when you’re in a better condition to drive”.

Sometimes trying to manipulate the system has unintended consequences.

So here’s what the writer hides until the end of this article:

Tuesday evening, the Department of Commerce Division of Industrial Compliance shared the following statement:

The Ohio Department of Commerce Division of Industrial Compliance is aware of a water outage that allegedly occurred on Sunday from approximately noon to 6 p.m. Our investigation found that, as a result of the pump house’s door being left open or partially ajar, the extremely cold weather caused the pump and/or other components to freeze, which caused the stoppage. Water service resumed that same day (Sunday) and we have not received any additional complaints regarding that issue. We are aware that some residents may still be without water service due to frozen pipes; however, those issues would be the result of residents who did not take adequate steps to protect those lines from the cold temperatures. As far as we are aware, there are no remaining issues with the park’s water system.

Since the writer knew the entire story was a fraud invented by the residents, why did he still publish it? Gee, I can’t imagine

Can you spot a problem with the facts in this article:

The average sales price of a new mobile home in Idaho in 2022 was $168,500. That’s an 83% increase over the price in 2017, which was $92,300, the report said. The cost of a new mobile home is cheapest in Kansas, Ohio and Nebraska, where the average sales price in each in 2022 was around $101,000.

Then comes a clue:

Channel said one reason the average price of a mobile home is highest in Idaho is because residents are more willing to pay a premium for “higher-end” multi-section models, like a double-wide or a triple-wide, versus a typical single-wide, than people in other parts of the country. The U.S. Census Bureau’s Manufactured Housing Shipment Survey shows that in 2022 a majority of mobile homes shipped to Idaho were larger, more expensive models.

The bottom line is that many people in Idaho buy large, fancy mobile homes to put on their personal land and NOT into mobile home parks. If you take 50% off all of these prices, then you’re recalibrated back to singlewides that go into mobile home parks.

This article was obviously written by AI but it does have some good points.

See if you can make sense of this story.

I looked up the Woodlands park that the story references and found it to have 1,235 lots at about a $700 lot rent, which equates to a revenue of around $10,374,000 annually. Assuming the other park is just as large then total revenue is around $20 million annually. It’s just basic math.

So if that’s the case, then how could the two parks pay $83.8 million in property taxes annually against $20 million of total revenue?

I’m assuming that the writer made a typo or misinterpreted the actual information. If we were on a game show we’d guess that the $20 million revenue yields $14 million in net income which equates to around $200 million in valuation and, at a 3% property tax rate = $6 million in annual property tax.

Therefore, I’m betting the actual number is $8.38 million and NOT $83.8 million.

If I’m wrong on this, please educate me on how any of this is possible mathematically.

So a school district can buy a mobile home park and then shut it down without warning or compensation and not a word is said – while at the same time an “evil” private sector developer can do the exact same thing and be met with litigation, the city council trying to block all redevelopment options and the media in a frenzy of outcry and threats?

Can you say “hypocrisy” anyone?

What a shocker – woke media outlets working in unison to try and brainwash you that the mobile home park business only works when the tenants own the land and are therefore free from “evil” developers.

"In recent years, the usual aggravations of life in mobile home communities have been overlain with a new anxiety: that landlords were looking to cash in by selling out to developers with other ideas about what the land is good for."

I wonder how many times you have to repeat the same false narrative before readers start thinking it’s true? Let me try it. CARTER WAS A GREAT PRESIDENT. CARTER WAS A GREAT PRESIDENT. CARTER WAS A GREAT PRESIDENT. Are you convinced now? Well, the media is hoping so. They are obviously working together to write multiple articles on the same narrative at the same time – kind of like a coordinated attack on our intelligence.

The narrative of park residents buying the parks they live in is reaching new levels of insanity, starting in Washington state apparently:

"Preserving low-income housing is growing increasingly difficult in western Washington, as developers gobble up land for pricey high-rises and condos. Often it's those who can least afford to relocate who are caught in the crosshairs."

Originally the narrative in these articles centered on residents who must be freed from “evil” park owners and now it has morphed into park residents who must be freed from “evil” developers. But here’s the big question: is this really the best use of public funds? If Washington starts to try and buy parks at elevated prices just to preserve them from being torn down for redevelopment that’s going to take money away from many other programs that might benefit a larger number of people, right?

For example, a park in Washington with development potential would probably be priced at $100,000+ per space. So a 50-space park would cost $5 million to buy. Is $5 million best spent helping 50 families live out their life in a dilapidated trailer park or would that money be better spent to build a $5 million library to benefit 100,000 people? 99% of all residents in Washington would probably vote for the library.

Of course, all of these efforts are nothing but virtue signaling. The non-profits want to pretend like they are the champions of the poor (and to them the label of “mobile home park” is perceived by their constituency as “the poor”). At least, that is, until they move on to something more interesting as Palo Alto just did.

People are wrong about America not producing anything anymore. We are the world’s #1 producer of hypocrisy.

Articles like this should serve as a wake-up call to the MH manufacturing industry as you have 400 sq. ft. tiny homes beating out 1,000+ sq. ft. mobile homes for demand – even at $1,200 per month price points.  The industry must accept that it must have a terrible stigma problem when you can re-package a smaller version of the product in any wrapper other than “mobile home” and it sells ten times faster and at a higher price per square foot. The only way to get rid of the stigma – it appears to me – is to radically change the exterior of mobile homes and tack on a better name. Just as the optics of an elongated rectangle sitting on stilts is clearly not a crowd pleaser, even the name “mobile home” or “manufactured home” is a sales loser. “Tiny homes” came out of nowhere and, with the aid of a few HGTV shows, have already blown mobile homes out of the water with consumer preference. Surely, manufacturers must find this alarming.

What this all boils down to is that the city is now saying that RVs can only be in the park for 6 months while people have been living there full-time for decades. Why the change in attitude by the city? You know the answer. It’s probably because kids are moving into those RVs with their parents and the city doesn’t want to pay the tuition (in fact, the article mentions the recent school crossing sign). So at a time when the affordable housing crisis in the U.S. is at its worse, here’s another government agency trying to basically shut a park down. In San Francisco they’re letting people live in tents on the city streets, but here we have a city that won’t let people live in RV park spaces at no danger to anyone and completely compliant with the precedent that’s been going on for decades.

Once again, there’s only word for this behavior: hypocrisy.

First of all, whenever I hear of “San Dimas” I think of the movie Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure (which is where the fictional movie is located). And in this case San Dimas is on its own excellent adventure in actually advancing a good idea that is becoming more popular with many states, counties and cities:

“Grants of up to $40,000 will allow San Dimas mobile homeowners to “make critical health and safety repairs, as well as make meaningful upgrades to their homes for energy-efficiency savings, refurbishments, restoration, and more,” according to a news release. “This initiative is expected to enhance the quality of life for residents and extend the lifespan of these affordable properties.”

This is the framework of true affordable housing progress in the U.S.

Another smart initiative. Using state funds to fix old mobile homes is a win/win as it preserves home availability in a very low-cost method.

Even New York is jumping on the bandwagon of making free repairs to the residents of old mobile homes. This is a seismic shift that will benefit a huge number of people at a low price point.

This is smart. A city obtains a grant to replace the main water line in a mobile home park. It saves the park, saves the residents, and costs the city nothing. While the media wastes its time promoting resident-owned communities, it could be promoting this simple, effective way to actually help people immediately.

Ah yes, the power of manipulating data to focus only on percentages and not the actual price points. Sure, new mobile homes have gone up more than new single-family homes by percent – but that’s only because they started from a really low number in the first place. On top of that, the stick-built numbers have been corrupted by the author to include used units, too (since apples to oranges comparison was the only way to make their case).

"In 2017, the average sales price of a manufactured home in the U.S. was $71,900. By 2022, that number had spiked 77 percent to $127,300. At the same time, traditionally built single-family dwellings clocked in at $293,737 but only saw prices rise by 47 percent to $430,800 in that same period"

Look, I can play the same game:

1. Dollar Tree raised their prices from $1 to $1.25 so they went up 25% while Walmart only went up 10%. What an unscrupulous outfight the dollar store must be! But wait ... that’s wrong.
2. McDonald’s Value Meal product went from around $1 to $2 so they’re up 100% while Red Lobster only went up 20%. Darn that evil McDonald’s – how abhorrent! Hold on though … I know that’s not true.

The important data is the ACTUAL COST not the percentage of increase. A $127,300 mobile home is a heck of a lot cheaper than a $430,800 single-family home. In fact, if you’re obsessed with percentages, it’s 338% higher. I’m sure the author pushed the percentages to make their case, but only an idiot would come to their hoped-for conclusion.

One final problem with this piece of bad journalism. Used mobile homes sell for $1,000 to maybe $30,000, so if you include used mobile homes in those stats – which is only fair since you’re allowing used homes into the SF stat – then the actual statistically accurate price of the average of new and used mobile homes is more like $70,000 which is an even bigger gap with the SF number. To whoever wrote this article: nice try.

It’s interesting that there are two articles on the same topic this week. It’s a fact that RVs are becoming a desirable retirement housing option for many seniors and it makes a lot of sense that they are. Many Baby Boomers already own RVs, so it’s a simple transition to sell their house and move into the RV that they already own and enjoy and there’s none of the “trailer trash” stigma when you live in an RV, which has very high status ratings with their peers.

Of course, this article also brings forth the same question as the earlier one: do cities really have the right to restrict RVs in mobile home parks, since when the original permits were issued, they were all just “trailers”? If the city had not voted to allow the two RVs then the issue might have been litigated and the weakness in the city’s argument would have been exposed. Fortunately, the city saw the light here.

2024 has just begun and we already have a serious contender for Dumbest Article of the Year:

IDIOCY #1: “This model of collective ownership, also called resident-owned cooperatives or ROCs, is on the rise. In 2000, there were little more than 200. Today, there are more than 15,000, according to a 2022 study from researchers at the University of California Berkeley, Cornell and MIT.”

There are only 44,000 mobile home parks in the U.S. and ROC acknowledges they have only done around 200 deals since inception, so where did MIT come up with 15,000?? That would be over 30% of all mobile home parks in America, instead of the actual number which remains at around .0045%. That’s a pretty big error that you would imagine anyone with common sense would have spotted when proofing this article.

IDIOCY #2: “When residents own the land, they can move more quickly to upgrade infrastructure. That’s where climate change comes in. Renewables — especially solar — work uniquely well with these types of places, according to Kevin Jones, director at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at the Vermont Law and Graduate School. There’s nothing more perfect than these resident-owned communities because they already have a cooperative structure and, generally, commonly own the piece of land,” said Jones.  “[They] are just kind of natural communities to be able to bring the benefits of solar to more low to moderate-income people.”

This may come as a shock to a young journalist, but mobile home park residents have absolutely no money to fund infrastructure improvements in an ROC format, and certainly solar energy would NEVER be on that list if they could (fixing potholes is challenging enough when you have no deep-pocket owner to make those repairs).

Perhaps this writer went to the Marie Antoinette School of Journalism because something is definitely missing in their sense of reality. Perhaps the residents should eat cake while enjoying their new solar panels?

This is an issue that has been on my radar screen for nearly 30 years, stemming from my first acquisition called Glenhaven Mobile Home and RV Park. In many cities they claim that you can’t put RVs on mobile home park lots or mobile homes on RV park lots. But the problem is that RVs and mobile homes were the exact same thing when most of these parks were built (hence the words “trailer park”) and therefore the actual grandfathered permits have no such restrictions. Typically, the owners of the park just does what the city says  on this topic because it’s not that big a deal because they have few RVs or few mobile homes, but if Colorado wants to put a microscope on the issue they may soon find they’ve opened a Pandora’s Box as the park owners have been in the right all along and now the courts are going to prove it. Even now – with two conflicting rulings – Colorado is in a mess as there’s no clear case law on RV parks vs. mobile home parks (as long as they were built before the actual definition of mobile home came into play by HUD in 1976). This is one of those issues where both sides should just try to get along without looking to a court to give them a black and white answer on an obviously grey matter.

No offense but $269,000 for that thing is absolutely nuts. I urge anyone who thinks this is a great value to go to any city or town in the Midwest before you write that check. There are a million stick-built options at that price point that are larger, nicer, and better located.

Well, the City Attorney certainly sounds reasonable enough … NOT. Check this out – it’s actually insulting:

“Our chief building official went out, found seven of the ten were either wrecked, damaged or dilapidated and should not be within the mobile home park,” he said, saying the repairs would need to be done outside of the physical location of the community, according to the city ordinances. That’s what we have asked for them to do… repair them up to the current federal government requirements and then provide us that certification that they meet those requirements. And if they repaired up to those requirements, then they could be moved back in and be permitted. But until that is done, that was the position of the city,” Maisch said.

So let me get this straight. You can’t renovate a mobile home on-site. And you can’t renovate a mobile home without the government inspecting the work. Well, I know nothing about this case but I’m betting the actual law may 1) allow you to make repairs to a mobile home without having to haul it out to do so and 2) mobile homes do not need to be reinspected by the U.S. government while making normal repairs unless you do things to them that are not allowed under the HUD code (such as add a heavier roof, etc.).

It looks to me that the city is simply trying to harass this park owner into giving up on bringing more residents into this park. I don’t know how else you can read this. They definitely have a motive since each kid that moves in costs the school district $10,000+ per year in tuition while bringing in negligible property tax revenue.

I hope the owner of this park will present these facts to a local attorney who understands property law and explores what his rights truly are. Additionally, he might want to have a discussion with HUD because this case seems uniquely odd and HUD is starting to take action on cases like this one:

• On January 18, 2022, the court entered a consent order in United States v. City of Arlington (N.D. Tex.).  The complaint, filed on January 13, 2022, alleged that the City of Arlington, Texas violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by discriminating on the basis of familial status when it blocked the development of an affordable housing project for families with children that had been proposed by a developer, Community Development, Inc. (CDI), and would have been financed using federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC).  The complaint alleged that the City refused to issue a Resolution of Support or a Resolution of No Objection to CDI because the City had a policy of supporting LIHTC developments only for new senior housing intended for persons 55 years of age or older.  Under the consent order, the City will pay $395,000 in damages to CDI, maintain a non-discrimination policy for future LIHTC developments, provide Fair Housing Act training to certain city officials, and submit to compliance and reporting requirements for three years.  This case was referred to the Division after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a complaint, conducted an investigation, and issued a charge of discrimination.

Making sense of this article is like trying to herd cats. So, let’s break it down into pieces:

ITEM #1: TENANTS HATE HIGHER RENTS.

The mobile home park resident interviewed liked paying $350 more than $700. He lives in Pensacola, Florida. Here’s what Bestplaces.net has to say: SF average $240,000, 2-Bedroom monthly rent of $1,120 per month, 3-Bedroom apartment rent of $1,550 per month. Now this guy certainly knew that he was getting a ridiculous deal at $350 per month all this time in that market and that it was obviously not going to last, and even the new rent of $700 per month is crazy cheap compared to a 3-bedroom apartment (his home looks like 3-bedrooms in the photo). He complains that it costs $10,000 or more to move the home. Why move it? Just sell it if he can no longer afford to live in Pensacola and simply move to a cheaper city. If he moves the home his new rent will be just as high or higher so that concept is pointless. The real story here is that this guy can apparently no longer afford to live in Pensacola, not that the park owner is taking advantage. His lack of ability to afford the going housing prices in Pensacola is shared, I’m sure, by many people including the apartment residents in the city – who are paying on average twice as much as he is even at this new lot rent. If this person is truly retired, why not sell the mobile home and move to a smaller town in Florida with lower housing and living costs?

ITEM #2: SOME APARTMENTS ARE IN BAD REPAIR.

Anybody could tell you that. Have you ever been in a Class B or Class C apartment? They’re awful. But what I don’t get is how this relates to the mobile home park example (which looks great in the photos, by the way). I like how they don’t clearly state in the photo that it’s from the apartment complex and not the mobile home park, so if you don’t read the article, you think the filthy shower relates to the mobile home park (nice deception).

ITEM #3: CRIME IS TERRIBLE IN AMERICA.

Absolutely true. There were 4 car jackings and 3 shootings in a single week in Missouri’s most expensive zip code, Ladue, a couple months ago. But the deterioration of safety in the U.S. is absolutely not the responsibility of any single property owner and the examples cited are unique and not representative of the norm in any way. If you want to blame someone, blame the “defund the police” movement or city halls across America that are more concerned with the rights of criminals than those of victims. In St. Louis, for example, the police are not allowed to chase criminals in any case other than murder or rape if it requires them to exceed the posted speed limit. How is that going to work?

So, when you add up the story it’s just more of the usual nonsense which is clearly not what we used to call “news” but merely manipulation of some random facts knitted together to try to persuade you, in this case, that landlords are evil and tenants are angels. There are two sides to every story and this writer only bothers to acknowledge one of those positions and that’s not fair to readers who want 360-degree visibility of issues so THEY can decide what’s correct, NOT the writer.

No offense to the bureaucrats but when you can buy a 29-space park in Massachusetts for $600,000 ($20,000 per space) you know it has some significant cap-x problems in store for the new owner.  I hope they have a plan to pay for those, (and I bet they don’t). I assume the bureaucrats did zero due diligence and are about to find out the hard way how infrastructure and 1001 real-life things work when they have no money to pay for them.

Wow, the “before” photo to the “after” photo of the above article. The bureaucrats are going to spend $90,000 per household to let the residents continue to live in old trailers indefinitely. Do you think the residents might have been better off getting $90,000 checks to buy brick houses in a less-expensive area? I guess nobody realizes that the $90,000 per lot will not get them nicer, newer homes or needed improvements – just the luxury of saying they own the land (and the resulting worry of paying for it). Ronald Reagan wins again.