“The homes range from two to five bedrooms, contain 850 to 2,200 square feet, and sell from about $80,000 to $170,000, according to Live Lone Star. Residents pay monthly fees of about $675, which cover lot rental, use of the amenities and common-area maintenance.” If you add in the lot rent, that’s the same as a mortgage on a $180,000 to $270,000 stick-built home. You can buy a really nice single-family home in Missouri for that much money.

WARNING: READ THIS ARTICLE BEFORE YOU BUY A PARK IN CALIFORNIA. No wonder everyone is fleeing the state.

When you pay $1,000 to $3,000 per square foot for a mobile home, you have to be basically nuts. A nice stick-built home can be had for less than half that amount – and comes with the land underneath. Overpaying for an asset is nothing to be proud of, but it is fun to see just how stupid people can be.

A judge shoots down each and every claim from a group of disgruntled residents and decides that the tenants failed in their quest to buy the park under their first option, having failed to get the necessary resident signatures to start the process by around 30%. The crazy part is that the residents were able to keep this case in court for years when the whole case was so stupid. Shame on this judge who wasted so much time and legal fees on points of law that any sane adult could have ruled on within an hour.

The government department for park owners in Maine is the “Maine Department of Professional and Financial Regulation Office of Professional and Occupational Regulation Manufactured Housing Board”? That’s funnier than the fake spokesperson article above. I’d like to see that letterhead.

First the resident harass the owner over the water system, and then are horrified when he decides to simply shut the park down and redevelop it into something else. Has anyone ever heard the old adage “biting the hand that feeds you”?

Only a handful of towns in New Hampshire’s Upper Valley are taking up zoning changes this town meeting season. But farther south, in New London, town officials are also pushing for changes in an effort to address the housing shortage.

“I think we’re feeling the same pressures as the rest of the state in the housing market,” New London Zoning Administrator Adam Ricker said. “We’ve been hearing from our major institutions that they’re having a hard time recruiting because people can’t find housing — not just in New London, but anywhere in a reasonable commuting distance that’s affordable for the positions that they’re recruiting for.”

Recent census data shows that single family units make up the vast majority of New London’s housing. This spring, the town’s planners are hoping voters will be open to incentivizing different types of housing developments. That would include multi-family homes, condos, and workforce units. Another proposal would grant density bonuses — financial incentives to build units in a specified development project — in certain parts of town where planners think more housing would work well.

Paradis, who leads the town’s planning board, said that kind of mixed housing stock is exactly what the town needs: Right now, New London officials say out of the more than 2000 units in town, only 7 are available.
Building a variety of housing, Paradis said, would allow many different people to make New London a home.

“I don't think you're going to see a wholesale change,” he said. “We would just have different types of housing beyond just single family housing in certain areas where it makes sense.”

Ricker said it’s hard to tell how the proposals will go over when voters finally weigh in.

“I think that whatever the will of the voters ends up being, it will provide the planning board data,” he said. “Then, they can readjust and decide what their path forward will be.”

The author of this story believes that it is the fundamental right of the city council to force property owners to accept whatever zoning (and value) the city cares to designate. This is completely contrary to all property rights – and is one more example that woke journalists are completely insane. If a mobile home park owner wants to sell their land for redevelopment that’s completely their legal right. One of the fundamental underpinnings of socialism is the removal of the right to privately own property and this writer apparently thinks that’s a great idea.

As the State of Washington is debating rent control, some woke journalist put this story in the paper to attempt to sway politicians that rent control on mobile home parks is a good thing (see the above story). I’m sorry, but it you look at the articles by economists on the impact of rent control, they unanimously conclude that it’s a complete catastrophe in which nobody reinvests capital since you can’t get it back.

This article wins the dumbest media insertion of the week.

One more reason not to buy a mobile home park in Washington (as if you needed one). Of course, it’s a good idea to buy a demolition company because all of those parks are going to make great pad sites for Home Depot if this rent control law passes.

My guess is that Attorney General Tong is trying to get some PR in Connecticut for a future run for Governor or Congress and decided that this was a good way to get some free publicity. SUN is one of the best operators in the mobile home park sector and I am willing to bet that Tong is making a fool of himself for pretending otherwise. The good news is that SUN has a large budget for legal fees and I’m betting Tong is about to find out that there’s a whole other side to this story built on fact and paper trail ad not just the verbal allegations of a bunch of tenants. 

Spending $3 million to save a 28 space park from the wrecking ball equates to over $100,000 per household. Why not simply give each family $100,000 cash to go by a stick-built home with no lot rent. Sure, some may need to move to a different town, but what is Missoula really trying to prove here? It just makes no economic sense.

OK, look at the photo of the homes. Then tell me how it makes sense for those folks to pay $183,000 each for their lots. Maybe these Floridians have not travelled much, but $183,000 will buy you a nice stick-built house in the Midwest for all cash. Why would you want to live in this park – based on the photo in the article – and not a nice, brick home on a golf course fairway in Kansas City for that same price? There must be more to Florida than meets the eye.

Not sure if Attorney General Tong knows who he is dealing with, but SUN is one of the largest and best REITs out there, with strong management and great properties. When the facts come to light, I’m betting Tong regrets this publicity stunt.

THIS IS A GREAT ARTICLE! This is win/win thinking by the city and state to help a mobile home park remain in that use and everyone is a winner.

Real smart to publicly shame a park owner who is trying to fix a broken water pipe but can’t get the part due to the “supply chain crisis”. When this owner shuts down and redevelops the park into a different use in the future, I’m sure he’ll tell the same newspaper “I’m shocked you didn’t see this coming as you were responsible for it”. Not sure if the writer did any research on this topic, but the City of Jackson in Mississippi has not had water in five months now https://www.foxnews.com/us/jackson-mississippi-preparing-go-without-water-periodically-for-up-10-years-crisis-continues.

Since there are no mobile home parks in most of these countries, can somebody please explain …

Mobile Homes Market Regional Analysis:

The research study covers North America, Latin America, Asia-Pacific, Europe, Middle East and Africa on the basis of productivity, thus focusing on the leading countries from the global regions. Our report also provides a deep dive into the consumer behavior and preferences, which can help businesses understand their target audience better.

Did AI write this? Better proof it in the future.

For getting hit by a tornado, these two homes did pretty well.

When pushed as to why the park owners shut the park down after the city and residents united to sue to block the rent from being increased, the owner gave the quote of the week: “the park has been operating at a loss for several years and has been fighting to keep this park open so no resident will have to move. The reality is the land is worth much more than operating an RV Park for affordable housing.”

When will people learn that low rents = park redevelopment? Apparently never.

Yet another State of Washington article designed to sway politicians that rent control for mobile home parks is a great idea (a clearly unified woke journalist effort). I hope the politicians actually read this one though, as the park is being torn down for a mixed use development since the rents are too low ($250 per month lot rent in Washington State – seriously?). You can’t have it both ways. Either you get higher rents or parks get torn down. Your choice, politicians of the State of Washington.

I find this article disturbing at the sheer amount of arrogant waste that some Americans indulge in today and the fact that the media relishes this type of over-the-top behavior. When you spend nearly $4 million for an 800 square foot mobile home on the beach, you are basically depriving a willing charity of $4 million that could actually do many people some good. If this buyer had donated that $4 million to St. Jude’s Hospital in Memphis (the non-profit that treats children with cancer for free) think of how many kids and families could have their lives changed. Or you could start your own non-profit and give the money to individuals in need. But to waste that type of money on literally nothing is a testament to the complete lack of moderation and morality which is currently ruining our society. I’m all for buying nice things, but this story is all about sheer and utter waste – literally burning $4 million in a bonfire. The fact that a media outlet would find it funny and cute is gross.

Interesting idea but I’m a bit confused on the mechanics. Doordash charges a big fee for delivery and these people who need assistance have no money – so who is paying for this? The writer needed to give better specifics, but I’m all for new ideas if they actually help someone.

Let’s first address the concept that rents are high at this park. Here’s the stats for Killingworth, CT: SF homes average $411,000 and apartment rents are over $2,000 per month. Although the article refuses to state what the rents are now or what they were in the past, unless they’re $1,000 per month then they’re too cheap (based on the old rule of lot rents needing to be around 50% of apartment rents – which has no scientific basis at all).

As for the complaints about the property’s maintenance, let’s look at those complaints again:

“One disabled resident complained of a large beehive in front of her porch. The management company said they did not have money in their budget to remove it. The tenant paid herself to get it removed. Another tenant complained that her stairs lacked rails and were loose. She reported that maintenance agreed they were dangerous, but management has yet to fix them.”

Are you serious? That got the attention of the Attorney General of Connecticut? He must be really, really bored. The article does not even state if the homes belong to the tenants or the park (I’m betting the tenants) in which case those issues are not even a part of the park’s responsibility.

SUN is one of the best operators of mobile home parks in the U.S. They are a REIT. There are two sides to every story and I would personally bet that SUN’s story is the correct one – which this journalist chose not to share it at all.

You gotta love the audacity of California bureaucrats. This is a terribly rundown park that is being sold for $2.7 million to a developer. But the city doesn’t want it to go. So they’re dreaming up alternatives. One they like a lot, apparently, is to force the seller to instead sell the park to the city. So here’s their logic:

Given that figure, the pro rata value per mobile home pad is $60,750. Compared to the high six-figure cost of building a single unit of affordable housing, the city’s purchase of this property makes economic sense. 

Here’s a better, more Midwestern approach. Give every household in the park $60,750. Tell them to locate to a less expensive area and buy a stick built home for cash for $60,750 and live their lives free of rent or mortgage payments. Where can you find homes for $60,000? Small towns all over the U.S. Based on the photos, these residents are currently living in dilapidated travel trailers and 1950’s units. My proposal would be a blessing for all involved.

I understand that the industry wants to change its negative stigma, but let’s just give up on the old argument on what you call a mobile home. This article is all about a couple prominent financial podcast hosts daring to use the words that all Americans do when describing the industry: “trailer” and “mobile home”. The article states “In all languages, definitions and the meanings of words matter. A “manufactured home” is not a motor home or trailer, and although it is often called a “mobile home,” it is not that either.”

Here's the problem. The people have voted and the winner is “mobile home”. Why do I say that? Because Google analytics show that 90%+ of all searches on-line are using the words “mobile home”. And “trailer” scores just as many searches as “manufactured home”. You can’t argue with those stats. That’s why the people who are the most vocal about using “manufactured home” use the words “mobile home” in all their on-line marketing. Pretty hypocritical, huh?

Those podcast hosts used “trailer” and “mobile home” because that’s how their audiences refer to the product. If I invented a new term for mashed potatoes called "manipulated carb units" and then put that on grocery store shelves, I wouldn’t sell any because nobody would know what I’m talking about. You can’t blame any speaker for using the terms that their audience uses.

Before the internet, the discussion on what we call mobile homes was interesting. Now it’s just stupid.