Mobile Home Park News Briefing

Let me get this straight. A mobile home park is pulverized by a tornado in March. It’s officially closed forever in April since the owner just wants to develop the land into a different use rather than attempt to put it all back together. So he clears the land at 100% his own expense. The tenants did nothing to help nor did they pay a dime. And now they are suing the park owner because he carted away their destroyed homes for free yet did not give them enough time to sift through the debris to look for things like a “measuring cup”? As I see it, the tenants owe the park owner thousands of dollars, not vice versa.

One solution is cooperatives, where mobile home residents pool money together to buy their park and share ownership. This way, they’re not subject to rent increases or displacement when the park land changes hands. However, this is an underused option, as only about 2% of manufactured housing parks were community owned in 2019, according to a Freddie Mac report.

Why do you suppose that in all these decades -- in the “bluest” of all red states -- only 2% of mobile home parks are resident-owned communities? After all, it’s not a new idea. The problem is, of course, that this concept requires an outside donor for the downpayment and then another non-profit to personally guarantee the loan. In none of these deals do the residents ever “pool their own money” to buy it – they have no money. It’s just a game of massive subsidies from outside the park. Apparently, very few groups want to give away free money or co-sign mortgages. With that reality in mind, can we please stop throwing out this stupid notion that, although it’s failed for decades, somehow it now suddenly has a shot of working? After all, 2% in 20+ years is not much of a track record to brag about.

Everything in this article seems more than a little odd. The mobile homes shown in the photos are newer models and don’t look that bad. I’m not even sure that the park owner owns these mobile homes, since the monthly rent is $800 per month, which in Florida is around lot rent levels not including the homes. On top of that, the residents are claiming that the park needs to provide 24/7 security, which they don’t by law. And then there’s the resident that says she won’t call 911 because “it’s a pain”. None of it really adds up to me.

There are two sides to every story. I’m betting the news agency is getting “played for fools” by the residents, who are hoping to get their rent reduced as a result. Reminds me of the time that National Geographic did a segment at one of our parks and a resident conned them into going over to their house to “reveal” that we had sold them a mobile home with a furnace that didn’t work. We showed National Geographic that the reason the tenant’s heat was not working was because they had simply not paid their gas bill and they didn’t run that story as a result.

Again, there’s two sides to every story and this article only provides one of them.

With every other form of real estate, once you build it you’re stuck. If you build an office building you have so much money invested in the construction that – no matter what the city later declares – you have no choice but to accept it because there’s no other way out. But mobile home parks are basically just parking lots and it costs virtually nothing to tear them down and redevelop. As a result, while California may allow crime in retail centers without worrying about closure – because nobody can afford to tear their malls down – mobile home park owners have freedom of choice and no economic barriers to preclude them from building something back on the land that’s more profitable.

As a result, the city’s attempt to control the park owners is simply going to displace the tenants and not really harm the park owners that much. But perhaps that was the plan to begin with, since most cities want all the mobile home parks removed, right?

Littleton City Manager Jim Becklenberg said at a city council study session this week that the city does not currently have housing purchase subsidies funding to grant the residents’ original $2.6 million request to help them buy the land. Instead, the council directed staff to contribute $225,000 — some of which will be refunded — to go toward earnest money and pre-purchase expenses.

Clearly, this deal is not going to happen. It was a nice gesture by the city to save face, but to pull this off the residents will need a gift of around $1 million and a non-profit to personally guarantee the mortgage.

Of course, it’s probably better this deal dies quickly as many of these “blindfolded half-court shots” rack up monstrous diligence costs before finding out that they can’t come up with the money.

Read these new rules from the Massachusetts Attorney General regarding mobile home parks:

• Clarifies that community owners may not deny tenancy applications based on a single factor, such as credit score or income level, when there is other reasonable evidence of a prospective tenant’s ability to pay rent
• Informs community owners that they must charge new residents entering their community the same rent as residents already living in the community so long as the new residents have similar lot sizes and receive the same services as those already living in the community
• Clarifies the process that community owners must follow to discontinue the use of a manufactured housing community

So now tell me who would want to own a mobile home park in that state?

Ironic that the city that brought you the Boston Tea Party – the origins of the “freedom” movement – would be the place in which woke bureaucrats heap on new regulations that make property ownership completely unappealing.

“After I pay for water, electricity, cable, groceries, and my medication I am left with nine dollars at the end of the month,” one resident on fixed income, who requested to remain anonymous, told the Lynnwood Times.

I know that Washington state is blue as can be. I know that it’s the homeland of the woke “free rent movement”. But if you add up the items in the quote above, it means that the resident has a total income of around $1,000 per month. Exactly how would this person be able to live anywhere in the U.S. on that amount? They clearly need to get into the U.S. Section 8 program. But, of course, they can’t because there is a 10-year wait list or something like that. This is not the story of evil park rents but instead the story of a government subsidy system that is broken.

99.9% of park residents like higher lot rents because they bring with them better property condition and professional management. But instead, Washington is seriously contemplating policies that revolve around an incredibly small minority of tenants but will literally destroy the Washington housing market, as rent control has in all other states dumb enough to institute them.

Mobile home park duplexes are the bastion of “man camps” and parks that are filled with temporary, transient workers who are there to do a job and go home. To pretend that anybody else would live in these dreadfully small, depressing things is completely asinine.

This is not going to work. Just more subsidies for the taxpayers and donors to pay. Can’t anyone come up with an idea that is not reliant on hand-outs?

I’m confused by who the target customer is for these things. 400 sq. ft. is way too small for a family with kids. So it must be focused on young single people or seniors. But these developments are located out in the middle of nowhere so there’s no jobs and, therefore, I don’t know how the young person can pay the rent (unless they work remotely, which is a very small market). That only leaves senior households, and those 400 sq. ft. homes are too small – and with awkward floor plans – that render them difficult to be truly functional.

Until you can solve this riddle, tiny homes have no future. But they do make for entertaining TV shows on the HGTV channel.

But some residents and District 2 Caddo Commissioner Greg Young say they would like to see more ownership in the area.

No, that’s not the real reason. It’s the politically correct reason, but not the truth. The reason that people don’t want to have a mobile home park built next to them is that it substantially reduces their property values. Just go to Zillow and look at a house next to a mobile home park and one three blocks away. The one by the park is about 30% less in value. Until you can fix that simple reality there won’t be any new mobile home parks built.

I hate to rain on another fantasy parade, but the homes in those photos are from the 1970s and 1980s. They are clearly in extremely poor condition. They will never survive the move from that property. On top of that, none of these residents will ever be able to afford private land or the $10,000 needed to put in a well and septic. This is just a bunch of hopeless nonsense. The residents had a great run at the world’s cheapest housing under an all too lenient mom and pop owner, but the new investor appears poised to take this property to the next level – benefitting the remaining residents who have pride of ownership – and these homes need to be demolished, not moved. This is not a story of an evil park owner but of residents who did not maintain their homes, to the detriment of their neighbors, and their actions finally caught up with them. It’s called personal accountability.

And another one bites the dust … This time you have a city that is tearing down the “trailer park” to build a “recreational park”. Well, at least it’s still in the “park” family.

I always love the fact that when a private company tries to tear down a park the media goes crazy and demands that the city fathers stop them but when a city does the exact same thing the media thinks it’s the greatest thing since sliced bread. Perhaps they can bottle up America’s sheer hypocrisy and use that as an alternative energy solution. It’s the most plentiful product America produces at the moment.

"Kelly cited extensive repairs needed to the park's decades-old infrastructure, specifically the water system, as the reason for the evictions…"

And here we have yet another park being torn down – and it’s the same old story. The lot rents were too low to pay for needed infrastructure repair and the land was now worth more than the park.

Have I mentioned that LOW LOT RENTS = REDEVELOPMENT enough yet?

“The nuisance abatement law provides a solution for problem locations that disproportionately demand law enforcement resources and reduce the quality of life for citizens of North Carolina,” said Scottie Shoaf, the Special Agent in Charge of the Nuisance Abatement Team. “It was a privilege to work with this community and restore peace to the residents living in this community.”

And another one bites the dust… This city had an original idea to get the “trailer park” out of town and that was to use a “nuisance abatement law”. I’ve never heard of that one before. The Park owner was probably OK with that decision as it clears the land for him to redevelop without much fanfare, and he can blame it all on the city.

The answer is “no”. Looking at modular homes is like looking at car styles from the 80s – certainly no longer cutting edge. Personally, I would bet that 3-D printed homes are the future of affordable housing when you’re talking about putting attractive small homes on small lots at lower price points in stick-built neighborhoods. Modular homes look lousy and cost way too much for what you get, which is a glorified mobile home. That’s why – even though modular homes have been around for a long time – nobody buys them. Time to move on.

So let me get this straight. A private company buys an old mobile home park with the intention of tearing it down to build something new. The city fights them tooth over nail and ultimately forces them into bankruptcy so that they can now buy it and do effectively the same thing that the original developer intended. But, of course, it’s OK for the city to do this because they inject the word “affordable” into their announcement every other word or so.

Did anyone notice how odd it is that the city is buying out all the mobile homes themselves as part of the transaction? Clearly, that’s so they can get rid of them later on. Until then, in phase one, they are going to let some nutty start-up build out around 30 units of stick-built housing on the currently unused part of the tract. Of course, they don’t tell anyone that phase two will probably be to tear down the 38 mobile homes the city just mysteriously bought and put stick-builds on those, too.

Another case of the residents playing the patsy for the city’s intended closure of the mobile home park.

I know absolutely nothing about these parks – and I wouldn’t own one in California if you gave it to me – but more than likely the park has rents that are way too low and it finally caught up with the owner. When you stop paying your utilities, it’s normally the last straw. However, before all the residents jump up and down on their dream of trashing the owner, they better remember that the owner will more than likely be selling the park off as raw land for development as their next step, since the park clearly is not cash-flowing.

As always, LOW LOT RENTS = REDEVELOPMENT.

In a land lease community (LLC), residents own their home but lease the land it sits on, paying a regular rent to the community’s developer to occupy the site. Without the land component, homes can be 30 to 40 per cent cheaper than if they were a freehold property in the same location.

Looks like Australian journalists may have more common sense than their American counterparts, because this is an article from “down under” and they “get” the fact that people choose to live in land-lease communities because they’re cheaper and not in hopes of home appreciation. But don’t tell the assistant professor from the earlier article because she’d call this “manipulation and exploitation”. You can imagine what Crocodile Dundee would then call her…

If Congress removed the permanent chassis requirement, manufactured homes would be safer, and they would be much more acceptable in traditional neighborhoods.

Few people are aware that the reason that mobile homes sit on a “boat trailer” foundation is because Congress mandates it to be that way – dating from when they did a hostile takeover of mobile home manufacturing in the 1970s. Clearly this was a decision made at the request of the single-family home building special interest groups who did not want their prices to be undercut and thought that affixing a boat trailer to the underside of a mobile home would render it a lesser competitive form of housing. Scandalous, huh?

Look at the photos then look at the prices. What idiot would pay that much? In Missouri we’d call that “bad shopping”.

The city is partnering with Kirksville R-III School District and is planning to use the property to build four tiny homes.

So the city is tearing down a massive mobile home park in order to build only 4 tiny homes? I love the fact that – since a city owns the park and they are demolishing it – there is zero push back from the media on all the families being evicted. This makes me think we need to add to my earlier equation:

LOW LOT RENTS = REDEVELOPMENT = HAPPY CITY GOVERNMENT

Is that REALLY what rent control is all about? Wouldn’t shock me.

Dozens of tenants at a mobile home community in the Flathead Valley just got eviction notices as the new owners change their business model. They have 180 days to vacate. Most are now facing an uncertain future with no other place to go.

Yes, this is the future of many, many mobile home parks if lot rents do not go up substantially. Property owners are not going to stick with a mobile home parking lot if there are more lucrative options. Since you can build apartments stacked two or three high on a single mobile home lot – and rent those apartments for $2,000 per month each – it is essential that lot rents increase significantly and fast.

As I’ve written about for years now, the basic message is “Low Lot Rents = Redevelopment”. It’s not rocket science – simply common sense.

A Chilliwack resident is urging city hall to consider the plight of senior owners in Fraser Village Mobile Home Park who may soon be forced to sell their manufactured homes and move. Terry Hanson said he and fellow park residents learned about redevelopment plans for the park across from Townsend Park after reps of Westbow Group held a meeting explaining their intent to build townhouses on the property.

I should start selling T-shirts that say ASK ME HOW LOW LOT RENTS = REDEVELOPMENT. If I sold them to displaced residents only my sales would be in the thousands of units.

For some, the purchase of a mobile home offers a low-cost alternative to homeownership. But in many cases, mobile homes lead to exploitation, said Hannah Lebovits, an assistant professor of public affairs and planning at the University of Texas at Arlington. “That specific space in the U.S. creates a lot of opportunities for manipulation and exploitation because we don’t really see that class of people as having power,” Lebovits said. “In fact, we see them as very disempowered and disadvantaged, and that creates opportunities to further marginalize them through systems of exploitation. It’s similar almost if we think about the dollar store model, to where we have these dollar stores popping up in communities that don’t have full grocery stores,” Lebovits said. “And the theory is, well, it’s cheaper because it’s a dollar store, but actually, the per unit cost for most items at a dollar store is significantly higher than at regular grocery stores.Unlike brick-and-mortar homes, mobile homes do not accumulate value over time and create wealth for the owner. The owner is not building equity, Lebovits said. It’s the opposite. The second you purchase that home, you are diminishing the value of the home. The second you begin to live in the home, you’re diminishing the value of the home, which is, again, that economic exploitation,” she said. 

Who wouldn’t expect a woke assistant professor at UTA to declare that mobile home parks are all about “manipulation and exploitation”. Let’s break her arguments down into bite-sized pieces of idiocy to easily refute them. So here goes:

People live in mobile home parks because it’s inexpensive. Yes, mobile homes do not appreciate like single-family homes. Residents are not living in mobile home parks because they are banking on appreciation. What motivated them is that they’re paying around $500 per month for a 3/2 when the surrounding stick-built homes cost $400,000 on average. If they can afford the $400,000 – and look at housing as an investment with huge returns in the form of higher future values – then they should definitely buy that. Nobody is standing in their way. But for most Americans today, $400,000 is a little out of their budget. I guess you could say the same thing about cars. If you bought a $250,000 Ferrari, it might appreciate in value over the years. But if you bought a $25,000 KIA it would only decline in value. So if you can afford a Ferrari – and owning a car is your idea of a smart investment – then that’s what you should do. Definitely. But if your goal is affordable transportation the KIA is the right choice.

Yes, mobile home park owners hold all the cards as far as future land use. It’s their land. Because the residents don’t own the land they pay a fraction of the price of competing housing. If the resident can afford to pay $400,000, they should definitely buy a house that comes with land and that solves the problem. They could also buy an acre way out in the country and place their mobile home on that. Land ownership used to be the American dream, but inflation has made it unattainable. Buying a mobile home, without the land, is attainable. Mobile home park owners are what give residents this affordable option.

Yes, the quality of the products at Dollar Stores is mostly lower than the full-price alternative. But the difference is that everything only costs a dollar vs. $5 or $10 for the same basic commodity somewhere else. They sell the $1 dog bowl at Hermes for $500 if you prefer that. People shop at the Dollar Store because that’s what they can afford, not because they think it’s the place to go to get the highest quality goods.

SO HERE’S THE BIG CONCLUSION: IT’S NOT “MANIPULATION AND EXPLOITATION” BUT A FINANCIAL CHOICE OF THE CONSUMER AS TO HOW MUCH TO SPEND. One of the great things about America is that competition leads to a number of choices and price points, all with good and bad attributes for the consumer to decide. But it’s personal accountability once you make your decision.

I recently flew on Delta and they have three classes of seating options: 1) First-class 2) Plus and 3) Coach. First-class costs three times more than coach. Plus costs two times more than coach. Coach is the cheapest and has very little legroom. If I choose Coach then it’s a decision I make to save money, and I can’t go to the airline later complaining that they used “manipulation and exploitation” to make me buy it. That’s a foundation of the woke initiative – that everyone is a weak and must be watched over. Not buying it.

Hannah Lebovitz is an assistant professor at the University of Texas at Arlington. Not to be mean, but that’s a pretty lowly rated institution. Here’s what U.S. News and World Report says about it: The University of Texas at Arlington's ranking in the 2024 edition of Best Colleges is National Universities, #236. Its in-state tuition and fees are $11,728;  So I guess you could kind of compare UTA to the Dollar Store of colleges, right? Do the students go there out of “manipulation and exploitation”? Apparently, based on her arguments.