Saving an average of $872 per year in property tax for park residents is great, but the only reason the numbers worked out is that volunteers did all the work and the court appearances (and appeals). It’s an interesting concept that perhaps state MHAs should investigate, but it would need to be a statewide initiative brought by the state MHA to really work.

Guys, Covid is over. Officially. The masks are in the trash can. Nobody is getting the shots. Nobody can use Covid as an excuse any more. If evictions are soaring in Montana it’s because residents are not paying their rent. There are millions of jobs available. Go back to work and pay the rent. Stop using the Covid nonsense. Nobody is buying it.

Wow, the writer of this article put in literally zero minutes in research. Here are some factual problems:

1. There are NOT 20 million Americans living in mobile home parks (which is what the writer implies). There are 44,000 mobile home parks in the U.S. with an average lot count (nobody knows but just guessing) of 50 units per park. That’s 2.2 million mobile homes in all parks combined. Assuming 3 people per home (which is too high) that’s 6.6 million Americans. What the writer missed is that around 65% of all mobile home residents live on their own land and not in a park. Big difference.
2. When a mobile home park is in floodplain (and subdivisions, too) what’s at issue is how many lots are in the flood plain and how high the water goes (known as Base Floodplain Elevation or BFE). If a park has only the greenspace in floodplain or the water only goes 1” high, it’s not that important.
3. I hate to rain on the writer’s parade who is trying to publicly shame park owners but there are 14.6 million housing PROPERTIES in floodplain in the U.S. – and that number includes apartments that could have 100 units or more. That’s a fact that you can find on Google in 2 seconds (would have been nice for the writer to spend at least 2 seconds of research). That makes this whole mobile home park shaming seem a little out of proportion, right?

The good news is that AI is going to replace writers like this, and they can then devote their lives to higher pursuits like driving for Grubhub.

And this is why it’s becoming virtually impossible to obtain insurance in Florida. When you live in Florida, flooding comes with the territory, and you must work around that fact. Now people no longer want to accept personal responsibility and want to pretend that you can live at 1’ above sea level and flooding magically won’t happen – or that it’s the landlord’s fault. It is estimated that 16 million stick-built homes in the U.S. will be lost to flooding by 2050 – with a huge percentage of those in Florida. This is not a mobile home park issue, this is an every living person in Florida issue.

“After three court dates, Havens confirmed that Lawrence and Glander were willing to settle the case at $25,000. As of June 5, Warrens confirmed that the settlement was paid and will be split between all 15 plaintiffs. Prior to paying the settlement, Glander told the Appeal that he “categorically (denies) all the charges” and declined further comment.“They’ve all got this judgment on the record which is what we wanted so they couldn’t do this again,” Warrens said. “We succeeded in what we wanted to do. Whether we get a dime or not is not the big thing. It’s just nice to know that we did get the judgment.”

I know nothing about this park or any of the matters involved but when you subtract the legal cost of three separate court trials from $25,000 you end up with something like ($25,000) -- or worse – for the residents to split. So the tenants won basically nothing from all this. But wait, they did succeed with one thing… I bet you $50 the park owner puts this land on the market for redevelopment, and nobody on earth could fault him for that. For greater detail read article #1 above.

Let me get this straight – the park residents lost water for three hours and they therefore feel entitled to $5,000 damages per household? I have lost water at my house probably ten times in 20 years due to main water line breaks on the city’s equipment. I never – NOT EVER – would have dreamed to make such an asinine request. This defies all logic and is a testament to what a completely screwed up country we have become.  Fortunately the judge saw through this nonsense and tossed the case.

Also note that the journalist titled this piece “dismisses the mobile home park appeal” which is not true and the title should have been “dismisses the mobile home park RESIDENTS’ appeal”. Gee, I wonder what side the writer was on?

Hmmm … I think I saw that same concept two stories ago. If the residents don’t want to pay a rent high enough to support keeping the mobile home park a mobile home park, then I can already hear the “land for sale” sign being nailed up on the frontage and the apartment developers starting to make offers. IS EVERYONE IN AMERICA TOO STUPID TO SEE THAT ARTIFICIALLY KEEPING RENTS LOW SIMPLY LEADS TO PARKS BEING TORN DOWN? Apparently so.

The good news is that very, very few mobile home parks in the U.S. have cities that read and bill the water meters. Normally, the city sends one master bill to the park owner and then they read their own submeters and bill it back. But before these owners start thinking about installing meters, they might want to change to a RUBS or CAMS system and get out of the metering business altogether. Of course, that’s often the reason the city put the meters in to begin with, because most cities hate RUBS and CAMS (where you send residents either the same bill per lot or a gradated bill based on number of constants). But that’s where this is going for those owners. And the water companies are to blame.

This is an EXCELLENT article – fair and unbiased and based on fact. And the problem is best described in one quote from the article on what the residents of the park found when they had to find a new place to live as the park was being redeveloped: the “rent was often double, or even triple, the $850 a month they paid for their lot”.

In ALL of these type of stories – and there are several every week – the reason the park shut down was that you can build apartments on that land, stack them two or three high, and rent them for $1,850 per month per unit (that’s the price that the apartments that just went up on another nearby park are priced at). So what landlord needs a mobile home park for $850 per month in lot rent when you can get nearly $6,000 per month for that same spot of land?

Of course, the only difference is that the park already exists and you have to build the apartment building which costs capital. But the moral needs to be that all these residents and media advocates – and the idiotic politicians that pander to them – need to be chasing after park owners begging them to raise their rents high enough to not be tempted to tear the park down and put up apartments. It’s not rocket science.

“About 60 modular homes in Phoenix that were meant to be prioritized for Almeda Fire victims were recently discovered to be uninhabitable. Replacing the homes could cost $20-25 million.”

Basic math yields that for 60 modular homes to be worth $25 million means that the bureaucrats spent $416,666 per home – that’s right nearly half-a-million dollars per unit.

Do you seriously believe they spent $416,666 per unit on homes that you and I can buy factory direct for maybe $80,000 all day long?

I know that government spending is out of control, but how can taxpayers read this and not freak out?

Let me get this straight: somebody is buying 2.78 acres for $16.25 million and nobody knows if it’s going to stay a park or not? Not to offend those without math skills, but that’s over $5 million per acre. There’s no mobile home park in the U.S. that can support $5 million per acre outside of Malibu (and even that is sketchy). So clearly, yes, this site will be redeveloped. When the city official says “to change anything over from what it is now, would require a comprehensive plan map change. It would require rezoning. It would require major development application review hearings. You would probably be looking at a two- to three-year process to get it done” he is just trying to confuse the journalist since that timetable is true of all development, not just conversion of a mobile home park to another use. And do you think even one neighbor will speak against tearing down the trailer park to make way for the fancy new hotel? I mean, this thing is next to a boat marina. Give me a break here.

Getting approvals to expand RV parks are so much easier than mobile home parks as most Americans have a positive stigma of RVs and a negative one towards mobile homes. It’s interesting tha the #1 assertion of the city to get the permit is that no customer can stay more than 180 days – they want to make sure that this in no way resembles a mobile home park. 

"The apartments, which are being built across from the entrance of the Verde Valley Medical Center on State Route 89A, start at $1,575 for a one-bedroom and go up to $2,235 for a three-bedroom, according to its website."

Wait a minute – that’s affordable? Then how can you criticize mobile home parks which offer 3 bedrooms for $995 per month including lot rent? Total hypocrisy!

"Henderson was on the city council when Councilman Lee Meyer said the council should explore condemning the property, but she offered no opinion on Meyer’s comments. “I had people coming and tell me that you want to close down the trailer park,” Lane said to Henderson. Henderson denied Lane’s claims without explanation."

Come on, nobody can be this stupid. Clearly the city wants the park gone because it’s ugly and offers little in property tax. The greatest B.S. in the world can’t distract from this fact.

“Everyone talks about the missing middle. This is part of what a solution to the missing middle looks like, 1,500- to 1800-square-foot homes with a price of under $500,000 for a base unit,” said Malcolmson."

I know Canadians are richer than Americans on average (nearly twice as rich) but $500,000 is considered “affordable” housing and does not even include the land, which is leased? Wow. I need to open a Louis Vuitton store there.

I’m all for these type of programs – we have sold several parks to the residents so far – but can we all admit how few properties this benefits in the end? Residents in the entire U.S. only buy about 20 or 30 parks a year. Wouldn’t this money be better served if every mobile home park got a grant to build a pavilion, charcoal grills, playground, and nicer entrance? That would benefit ten times more people for the same money. I’m not sure what this obsession is with the residents buying the land underneath their mobile homes, but it does nothing to stop rents from increasing, if that’s the myth that people are counting on. I don’t have any stats, but I know of parks that have significantly higher rents under resident-owned scenarios as they then have to contend with covering the rising costs of everything from insurance to property tax, as well as try to pay a crushing monthly mortgage.

Not to sound like the Grinch but the non-profit spent $2.4 million on a dirt-road 20 space park, and are looking at spending maybe $600,000 more in infrastructure repair. That’s $150,000 per household spent so that they can continue to live in a dirt-road trailer park. Would it not make more sense to buy each household a debt-free stick-built house in another state? Would that not be infinitely better than what they ended up with? I’m all for programs that benefit those in need, but I’m afraid that the virtue-signaling this non-profit was after exceeded common sense.

“We’re just beyond ourselves about why the Bureau of Reclamation wants to kick us out,” said a resident. Seriously? The story concedes that the park brings in only $30,000 or tax revenue. They are talking about building $10 million of property improvements on this land. That’s an annual tax bill of around $200,000. By giving the green light, the tax authority ends up $170,000 per year richer. And you don’t get that logic? Give me a break.

This quote shows how stupid this story is:

"Alondra Ruiz has lived at Periwinkle mobile home park for nine years and has been a central voice at protests and City Council meetings about the park’s closure. She said attorneys for the university asked her to sign a contract with a “non-disparagement” clause that would prohibit her from saying anything negative about GCU or Trellis, the housing nonprofit GCU hired to help residents relocate.If Ruiz doesn’t sign the contract, she said she will not receive the compensation package GCU is offering her, including $10,000."

It's standard business in the U.S. to get release clauses signed when you get paid. Either stop blasting GCU and take the money or get nothing. The resident has no power here and the journalist is giving her false hope. This park closed in May – by the book – and Ruiz and others have no apparent legal basis to still be living there. Grand Canyon University is trying to stop this PR nightmare and have bent over backwards. Their patience is at an end, and I don’t blame them.

States funding the connection of mobile home parks from private to public utilities is smart. Restricting this to only “resident owned communities” is stupid.

Vermont working on a mobile home initiative is as whacky as Kansas working on a surfboard initiative. There are fewer mobile home parks in the entire state of Vermont than there are in a typical Missouri metro. Just a bunch of virtue-signaling and nothing more.

I’m always confused on these articles. The family in the article earns over $80,000 per year. They pay maybe $10,000 in income tax. The kids to go public school. I’m sure the woman’s job includes health insurance. How can they not afford the $2,000 per month rent? Have you ever wondered why the numbers in these stories don’t add up? I guarantee that if you actually tracked their spending on a given month, there’s much more to the story than what’s revealed. But let’s assume for a minute that they really can’t make it happen on $80,000 in the city. Then move 1-hour out of the city to a small town and housing would be cut in half. In addition, they would have a more family-centered environment and probably be much happier. When you remain status quo and whine about it rather than make a move and better your position, it drives me nuts.

Yes, I believe this is the same park that the tenants had first option to buy for $16,250,000 with $1 million non-refundable and they were only able to raise only around $4,000 by the date to exercise their option. Now these same tenants are miffed that the owner is not giving them updates on the REAL buyer and the date of closing. Why should they? The tenants had their shot and blew it. Why would anyone think the seller owes them any further courtesies which, no doubt, they will only use to try and derail the legitimate and lawful sale further? 

Let’s break this article down into components:

1. The residents claim that a $390 per month lot rent in Hastings, Michigan is “insanely high”. A quick trip to Bestplaces.net proves out that the median home price in Hastings is $281,400 and the average three-bedroom apartment rent is $1,530 per month. Therefore, clearly, the tenants’ claim is BOGUS.
2. The tenants claim that the rent has gone up since the private equity group bought the property. TRUE. And that the quality of the maintenance has declined. BOGUS. They have no examples of this supposed “decline” in maintenance of the property, but I know from experience that a private equity group ALWAYS runs the park they buy better than mom and pop did. 
3. The writer claims that private equity groups are destroying the wonderful quality of Michigan mobile home parks. BOGUS. These groups are, in fact, the only pioneers bringing these old parks back to life.
4. As with what we see every week, new owners raise rents and fix up parks and marginal tenants (maybe 1%) are willing to live in total squalor rather than pay $100 per month more. Nobody agrees with this philosophy except this strange tiny slice of the tenant pie. BOGUS.

Can AI PLEASE hurry up and put all these woke journalists out of their jobs? Any computer would instinctively know that there are two sides to every story – not just the one expressed by a few hoarder tenants.

There is no rent control in Ohio and this story is based on the false narrative that somehow a few mobile home park tenants can magically change state law. And if that happened, parks like this one would simply be torn down and made into more profitable uses. However, there is definitely a problem when senior residents can’t afford to allocate more money for lot rent, which is always going up (along with every other thing in America today). So the real issue is how you subsidize the seniors if that’s what society wants to do. If the city/county/state wants to start paying a portion of the lot rent to the property owner, then I’m sure they’d be fine with that. But we all know that’s not going to happen and what’s really going on is that society is trying to make mobile home park owners subsidize tenants and effectively become their own personal Section 8. That’s all these stories basically amount to. And it’s extremely annoying that mobile home park owners should be placed in that position when apartment owners simply receive subsidies through Section 8. If the government doesn’t want to do its job with subsidies, then that should be the end of it. Either put up or shut up.