Maryland Gov. Wes Moore signed three affordable housing bills into law: House Bill 538 (the Housing Expansion and Affordability Act of 2024); HB 599 (the Housing and Community Development Financing Act of 2024); and HB 693 (the Renters’ Rights and Stabilization Act of 2024). The bills fall in line with the Moore Administration’s goal of making the state a more affordable place to live and work. 

FOR ADULTS ONLY:

Give it up, Wes. There’s no way you can legislate “affordable housing” into existence. It’s the red tape that Maryland has created that makes housing impossibly unaffordable. If you really want to help, then just abolish all the housing regulations and let the free market do its thing – don’t announce even more bureaucratic roadblocks to capitalism. I’m sure Wes knows better but it’s time to buy votes again and this agenda will go absolutely nowhere after the press releases go out, and everybody knows it. Welcome to election season in America!

As someone deeply invested in the well-being of our city, it concerns me to see over 200 families forced out for another upscale residential development. The loss of affordable housing options such as mobile home parks is becoming all too common in Broward, and Pan American’s closing is a glaring example of this troubling trend. It’s clear that profit often takes precedence over residents’ needs. Rezoning to allow for more units at higher density only exacerbates the issue, pushing out those who can least afford alternative housing. The city must monitor and follow up on what happens to these families, ensuring that they are placed in situations equal to or better than previous conditions. It’s unacceptable to expect individuals barely surviving to uproot their lives with weeks’ notice.

FOR ADULTS ONLY:

Without much, much higher lot rents, you’re going so see a ton more parks reach the same fate as Pan American Mobile Home Park. As far as the former residents are concerned, they will need to adapt to the reality of the U.S. housing market and, if necessary, move to a cheaper place to live. The new mindset that the government should take care of everyone only has one huge flaw: the U.S. government is flat broke and can’t even afford to support those that it already has a commitment to. I believe the Section 8 waiting list is now something like three years or more. When America is no longer $35 trillion in debt, but actually has no debt and a surplus, then you can throw out ideas like the government making sure that every person has a nice home to live in and food on the table. Switzerland, which has no debt, can make things like that happen. We are currently the poorest nation in the world based on indebtedness and for some weird reason people still think that Uncle Sam is their rich relative who lives under a bridge in a tent because he’s just eccentric.

Erica Ledesma co-founded the nonprofit Coalicion Fortaleza, the organization that helped turn this park into a resident-owned cooperative. She said that will be a major tool in rebuilding the community because residents will have a say in how the park is operated. Residents will be able to choose whether or not to be a part of the cooperative. But, Ledesma said opting in will likely come with perks, like a slightly lower rent and getting to have a say in park operations. Ledesma said the rent for mobile home spaces will likely start at under $700 per month. Those funds will pay off the state loan used to purchase the park from its original owners and to pay for a management company to help with things like landscaping, utilities and maintenance. She said rent in resident-owned communities typically doesn’t go up and in all likelihood, the rent will decrease as the loan is paid off in the coming years. The modest manufactured homes that are being installed were funded through a state grant. They’ll be gifted to the new homeowners. Ledesma said first priority will be given to survivors who lost their own manufactured home in the Almeda Fire.

FOR ADULTS ONLY:

Taking a nod from the EV industry, this deal has so many subsidies and grants that it’s really unclear who is shouldering the burden and when the bill even actually comes due. As I’ve said for years now, all of these non-profit deals are absolutely dependent on handouts from various groups and everything sounds great until one of them loses interest and then the whole deal goes on the market for sale to a real buyer. It’s going to be really interesting to see how many of these deals – held together with non-profit chewing gum, duct tape and chicken wire – are still in operation a decade from now. As with the resident-owned deal in Palo Alto and San Souci in last week’s issue, none of these transactions should be viewed as a permanent fix.

On Tuesday, Sharing Connexion officially closed on the sale of the mobile home park. The nonprofit has a real-estate rescue program and were voted to become interim owners. Together with residents, and Justice for the People Legal Center, they were able to secure the $11.5 million needed to purchase the park, preserving their homes and community. Sharing Connexion will be the interim owner of the park for 1-3 years, until the residents are able to manage and operate it on their own.

FOR ADULTS ONLY:

This deal probably has about a three-year shelf life. Nobody buys a park on a structure this flimsy. All it will take is one of these non-profits to get cold feet or lose interest and the whole thing is back on the market looking for a legitimate buyer. Considering the fact that the residents will never vote to raise rents and will refuse to evict their neighbors for non-payment, the odds of this deal surviving long are not good.

FOR ADULTS ONLY:

I’m not going to say one bad thing about this concept, because this is a smart strategic plan and they are doing a good job. In my opinion, this is the template for how to truly help these people: merging tiny homes with a sense of shared community. And I’m glad this is devoted to veterans as I think they need to be rewarded for doing some of the tough work that civilians cannot even imagine. That being said, this is not a mobile home story as these units are built on concrete foundations and cannot, by definition, go in mobile home parks.

The Walnut Lane Trailer Park was built six years ago by the City of Moab as an affordable housing project. Residents were notified on April 17 that the site would be removed and their leases would not be renewed.

FOR ADULTS ONLY:

OK, here’s what I was talking about in those earlier articles. This supposedly great non-profit-owned community deal lasted a whopping six years before the city pulled the plug on it. Maybe all these politicians and others who promote these non-profit fantasies are unaware, BUT THE AVERAGE MORTGAGE ON A MOBILE HOME PARK LASTS FOR 30 YEARS! If you don’t have your non-profit subsidies locked on for three decades then quit pretending these deals have any future at all!

The newest owners of the property sent a letter to residents by mail on March 7 informing them of plans to redevelop the mobile home park into a multi-family residential and commercial project. According to the letter, the owners are targeting 2025 for the beginning of construction and have completed a pre-application review with City of Mission planning staff.

FOR ADULTS ONLY:

Absolutely nobody at city hall is going to mind tearing down a dilapidated trailer park to make room for a nice, new mixed-use development. They will give whatever zoning is needed to ensure a mobile home park is torn down. That’s why park residents – and politicians – need to understand that only higher lot rents hold back the wrecking ball. You either get much, much higher lot rents or homelessness. There is no third option.

While the Lakeshore Road property has operated as a mobile home park for many years, according to court documents the sons are all in agreement that it “is not the most lucrative use of the lands, and that the lands have significant redevelopment potential. It appears that the Lands are worth tens of millions of dollars.

Yup, that pretty much sums it up. At what rent would remaining a mobile home park have been an option?

In 2018, the city of Moab purchased the land on Walnut Lane that now houses 26 trailer homes. The city embarked on the project, according to reporting from The Moab Times, which became consistently problematic. The goal was to upscale the land to an 80-unit affordable housing complex which would rehouse not just the current residents, but additional tenants. At one point, the developer selected for the project expected to be able to house 288 people, but the rent prices projected were less than “affordable,” according to the Moab Sun News.Wojciechowski said the city’s current plans consist of tearing the trailers down after the residents leave.Unfortunately, a significant portion of the trailers currently on-site are in extremely bad shape (many of which were in even worse shape when the city initially purchased the property), and likely wouldn’t survive a move without significant structural damage,” he said. “Many of the trailers are also old enough that they contain asbestos.”

Even the City of Moab can’t justify not redeveloping the mobile home park’s land. Low Lot Rents = Homelessness. How’s that for a bumper sticker?

“We are all aware of tactics like lost rent checks, unfair evictions, harassment and retaliation,” Newman said.

You always see this garbage in most of these articles, and let’s just refute it point by point:

1. Mobile home park owners have no “tactics” except to rent lots for a monthly rent.
2. Tenants are the ones claiming that rent checks have been lost and that evictions are unfair – park owners simply want their rent by the due date with no such theatrics.
3. Mobile home park owners simply want to be a parking lot. That have no desire to get personally involved with any resident and to have “harassment and retaliation” you would have to engage in personal discussions. Have you ever had a “personal discussion” with the airport parking lot personnel? Park owners want nothing to do with this nonsense.

The article is all about how $900 lot rents are unfair in a market in which homes cost $950,000. If you can’t afford $950,000 home prices and $900 rents I have a suggestion: move to a cheaper place to live. Montana is ranked as the 8th most expensive housing cost state. Here it is straight from Wikipedia:

Montana home values are 51% higher than pre-pandemic levels, which is higher than the U.S. average of 40% and ranks eighth highest of all states.

Landry said in a statement. "Mr. Batz ultimately decided to discontinue the operation of the mobile home park on his property, which he is within his rights to do so.

Was there a lot rent amount that would have convinced the park owner to stay in operation and not develop into a new use? Do you see a trend in this week’s articles?

Great business model, right?

“Our goal here is to not let one resident have to move because they can’t afford to stay here,” she said “That’s why it got so critical for us to assure that we stay the community we are.”

Translation: “We’re not going to evict anyone for non-payment and we’re also going to vote “no” on any rent increase so this park will go bankrupt at record speed”.

This is the next Sans Souci just waiting for an idiotic non-profit to guarantee their loan.

The handwriting is on the wall that a ton of mobile home parks in Florida are going to be redeveloped simply because they can no longer obtain insurance. Nobody is going to own parks in the absence of protection from liability and property damage. Even if owners were that crazy, their lenders will refuse to renew loans or grant new ones without proper insurance. This problem has been building for years, as the U.S. legal system has allowed far too many ridiculous judgement and gaming of the system. Since Florida is tied with California for the second largest number of parks in the U.S., you will start seeing endless articles about mobile home park redevelopment in Florida starting soon – such as the first article in this week’s news stories.

I have been preaching this narrative for years now, and if mobile home park lot rents don’t go up substantially this will be the story of every mobile home park in the U.S. with a good location. Based on a standard mobile home density of 10 units per acre, this park has the capacity of about 220 mobile homes (it’s on 22 acres). But the apartment developer is going to build 5-story towers and that creates 978 apartments on that same tract. At $2,000 per month rent, the apartments are a no-brainer to be a more valuable use of this land. The sooner the American public realizes that the only defense available against re-development of mobile home parks is significantly higher rents, the sooner that residents of parks like this don’t become homeless.

Nearly three years after buying their community, residents find themselves confronting infrastructure, governance and management challenges

I’ve been preaching about the fact that residents owning their own mobile home parks was a recipe for disaster for years. There’s nobody less suited on earth to manage a mobile home park than a committee of residents – they will always vote “no” on raising rents and, as a result, the condition of the park will go down the drain. I’m glad this writer was brave enough to expose the truth, and I’m betting that a bunch of non-profits that have been hit up to personally guarantee the debt on these deals (which is the only way they happen) are breathing a sigh of relief that they refused to sign on.

One bill sponsored by Senator Cameron Reny (D-Lincoln County) - LD 1276 An Act to Create and Sustain Jobs and Affordable Housing Through the Development of Cooperatives and Employee-owned Businesses – is promising.  It takes a hard look at the potential for mobile home parks to be part of the solution, especially for Resident Owned Communities (ROCs).

Maybe Senator Reny should call those residents at Sans Souci in the article above before he makes a fool of himself.

Can an old dilapidated mobile home break apart in transport? Sure, I’ve had it happen myself on an old home I was moving in to fill a vacant lot. The moral is simple: don’t move old mobile homes in poor condition. When a tenant can’t afford the rent they need to sell their home in its current position and move to somewhere they can afford. Mobile homes were meant to be moved one time only – straight from the factory to the vacant park lot. After that you have to be very careful. Looking at the photo you can see that this home was not in a condition to be moved.

A 44-story office buildng in St. Louis recently sold for $3.5 million. A 500,000 square foot regional mall just sold for $7 million., And here’s a mobile home park selling for $70 million. How can a mobile home park be worth 20 times more than an office building and ten times more than a regional mall? Several reasons:

1. Mobile home parks are based on affordable housing, which is the most in-demand form of real estate in the U.S. Meanwhile, nobody wants office space or retail space today.
2. Mobile home parks have no risk due to technology – you can’t live in the “cloud”. The internet is what killed office and retail.
3. Mobile home park rents have plenty of room to double and triple in the years ahead as they are ridiculously low ($300/mo. average lot rent vs. $2,000/mo. for apartments). Meanwhile office and retail rents per square foot are plunging.
4. Mobile home parks never become obsolete or require big capital expenditures as they are just a parking lot for mobile homes. Office and retail properties become dated and need giant, continual investments on such things as roofs and foundations.

Who would have ever thought that mobile home parks would be more valuable than office towers and regional malls? Pretty much any mobile home park owner.

Classic quote by a resident:

“We live there because we don’t have no choice”

That quote sums up the new “victim” society we live in where everybody is not in control of their life but simply a victim of some other evil individual or group.

As for the article, hopefully the city council will not be swayed by the eloquent tenant quoted above and realize that rent control results in wrecking balls tearing mobile home parks down.

The title says it all. As I’ve said every week, if you retire in California, you do so with full knowledge that it’s one of the most expensive places to live on earth. If you can’t afford to pay absurdly high prices for everything from mobile home park lot rent to hamburger meat, you need to sell your home and move to a cheaper state, which abound but mostly not in the American west.

Some park residents have a real knack for taking advantage of gullible reporters. When I was filming with National Geographic, a resident saw the camera crew and told them that the evil landlord had turned off their gas. They filmed a segment with that resdient but then had to delete it when, in fact-checking the story, they found that the truth was that the resident had not paid the gas company, not the landlord.

I’m willing to bet $100 that there are some really good reasons these tenants are being evicted and that it’s not just some whim of the park owner – but the reporter did not bother to explore what those issues might be. Shocker.

There are two sides to every story and this article only presents one. I’m pretty sure that any sane adult can guess that the reason these twelve leases were terminated is for plenty of factors that are conveniently not discussed (such as the homes being in poor condition, rules enforcement, non-payment of rent, etc.).

When a park owner non-renews a lease it costs them around $10,000+ in lost rent and lot preparation for a new home, not to mention the pain and suffering of bringing in a home and getting it sold. The last thing a park owner wants to do is to non-renew a good, paying tenant. I’m betting these were anything BUT good, paying customers and there’ no way the owner could keep the business functioning with these folks as residents so they bit the bullet and are going to sacrifice around $120,000 to get rid of the people that are ruining the quality of life for all the other residents.

If the reporter had bothered to show pictures of the homes of the people that were interviewed the cause of the non-renewals would probably be clear.

I’ve seen responses from these companies saying, “If tenants were genuinely concerned with the price of the lot, they would move.” This shows a complete disregard of the cost to move a manufactured home. If tenants try to move, it can be expected to cost anywhere from $1,500 to $10,000 depending on the home, and this is only if they are lucky enough to find an available lot elsewhere.

Wow, this reporter must be reading my weekly news reviews as I’m the person that said “if you can’t afford to live in the park you need to move”. But I never said to “move the home”. In fact, I regularly say that you should NEVER move the home but, instead, sell the home to someone that CAN afford to live in the park (just like all single-family and condo owners do). When I say that you “should move” I am talking about the inherent common sense of moving to a city or region that meets your budget. It blows my mind when people appear in articles complaining that they can’t afford to live in that city, as though it’s society’s responsibility to ensure they can afford to live wherever they want. That’s as stupid as somebody with $10 in their pocket complaining they can’t eat at the local steakhouse – just go to McDonald’s like everybody else does. Maine is an extremely expensive state to live in – among the most costly in the U.S. If you don’t have a large income in retirement you should move to a cheaper state like Arkansas. It’s not rocket science.

The park owner got a legitimate offer of around $40 million for his 370-lot park. The tenants mistakenly thought that simply by saying they would match the price the park owner would opt to sell to them. But here’s the catch:

1. The park residents have no money.
2. The park residents have no experience in buying or operating parks.
3. For the tenants to buy the park will require non-profit subsidies and loan guarantees.
4. Putting all this together will take a year.
5. he corporate buyer can probably close in 60 days with no time, effort or risk to the seller.

There is a thing in life called “time urgency” and if the seller waits a year for the tenants to buy the park and they then fail miserably (which is a 99.9999% certainty) the seller will lose the good corporate buyer who will have moved on. Once again, any sane person would understand that.

I’m sure the park owner will appeal and the next jury may come to a different conclusion. The writer, of course, does not mention that the park owner can appeal until the final sentence. It’s not over until it’s over.