Yet again the residents think they have won by harassing the owner into selling the land to a developer – then shocked and agitated when they can’t find anywhere even remotely as inexpensive to live:

“The Jimenez family is supposed to pay $440 in lot fees each month. Like the other tenants, they’ve stopped those payments. However, they can’t afford to move anywhere else. The day they have to pack up is fast approaching. County records show the residents were supposed to vacate the premises by the end of June as the property owner prepared to sell the park to a developer.”

I don’t know anything about this property or any of its troubles, but it seems to me that the residents massively overplayed their hand and now they’re homeless as a result. You are going to see much more of this until America stops being a nation of litigation and instead strives to focus on win/win strategies.

Am I the only one or doesn’t this program sound like the old “company store” from the 19th century where miners and manufacturing workers were not paid in U.S. currency but in credits they could only use at the “company store” and had no actual monetary value? In this case, you buy a stick-built home with real cash and yet all you get is a 99-year land lease under which you can only sell your home back to this “land trust” and after 99-years – if you don’t sell – they can just take it back for free. Since the whole point of home ownership is to gain equity as home prices increase, they are effectively neutering the ability to profit from home ownership. Bad deal for the buyers, in my opinion.

Great letter to the media from this owner when they were accused of raising rent and ruining the park:
When contacted, Brett Garner, the park manager until recently, responded in writing, citing some of the options.

“1. We can leave the community as it is, not pursue improvements, and leave lots rents close to where they were.”  “2. Increase the quality of the community by adding the lots on the east end, connect the existing community to the newly installed water and sewer pipe (planned for next summer), repave the roads (planned for July 2023), add a recreation area on the north side of the park, and clean up the look of the community so that it’s more desirable for you and all residents to live in. We chose to go with option two because, in our eyes, it’s what’s best for our immediate community (Estates at The Bluff) and the community at large (Kremmling).“

There’s no question that in any 100-space park there are probably 2 people who can’t afford to pay more rent and want to live in squalor if that’s the cheapest option. But the majority don’t agree and the key to running a business is to please the majority of your customers, not some tiny fringe faction.

This is getting absolutely ridiculous. The power in a mobile home park was cut-off for a brief while for necessary repairs to a transformer and the residents are going beserk because they didn’t get enough notice. I have lost my power for days at a time in a stick-built house in the middle of the summer – due to a major storm – and the entire town survived just fine. Here’s what both sides say:

“{the manager] said the power outages were a result of a private electric company hired by the management to work on a transformer within the park. She said paper notices were distributed to residents' mailboxes, but the warning given was far from sufficient. "We're supposed to have 72 hours notice, they didn't even come close to doing that," she said. One of the notices had the wrong date listed on it, leading to additional confusion”.

Not that many decades ago there was no air-conditioning. And 100 years before that, there was no electricity. And people survived just fine. Is America so pathetic now that it can’t get along even for a couple hours without power? 

The buyer is spending $16,250,000 for 87 mobile home lots. That’s around $200,000 per lot. Look at the photos of the property. Look at the location. Who in the world would not realize this is going to be torn down and redeveloped in the extremely near future?

Here’s one of the classic quotes of all time regarding this city-owned park:

“We’re making over $170,000 a year, so if any private developer would come in, I imagine they would maintain their asset the same way we would,” he said.

For those who have little math skills – which this bureaucrat hopes applies to residents of the park -- $170,000 per year in net income at a 6% cap rate works out to only $2,800,000. Do you think that a big piece of land near the waterfront in Ontario, Canada might be worth a little more than $2,800,000?

Here’s how this is really going to work out. The city is going to sell the property to a developer and they will swiftly tear it down to build apartments. The city removes all of the cost the park inflicts on the city (school tuition, uninsured hospital visits, etc.), improves the drive-up appeal of the neighborhood, and gets out from under the tough job of managing a mobile home park. And everyone knows it, regardless of what they may say at city council meetings.

Well, if you thought she had any investing acumen, now you know better. Anyone who would spend $1 million on a mobile home that you don’t own the land underneath – whether it’s in Malibu or Timbuktu – is a certified idiot. My bet is that she released this video because somebody found out she lived in a “trailer park” and was about to sell the story to the National Enquirer so she decided to get a jump on that article. I watched this video and thought “wow, that’s embarrassing”. Not sure who would think otherwise.

This is a tough situation for the City of Blaine. They thought they had all mobile home parks effectively banned from being built in the city and suddenly it turns out the zoning department screwed up. A developer found the loophole and now the city is freaking out and trying to stop the developer with a moratorium. “City council approved the moratorium May 22 to allow time for city staff to clean up code inconsistencies. The underlying zoning code allows for manufactured home parks but the planned unit development (PUD) code does not. Manufactured home parks that are five acres or larger are required to be developed as PUDs.”

How will this turn out? The developer has pledged to sue the city if it denies his permit. The city is basically doomed as you can’t legally do what they’re doing. It’s like a plane with a broken landing gear and no matter how long you delay it, it’s still going to crash.

No offense but given the current values of mobile home parks in Colorado – typically around $100,000 per lot – means the $28 million the state has allocated to this program will only cover about 280 lots (there are single parks bigger than that). 

This is a really good idea offered by the State of New York to mobile home owners:

If an elderly resident has to move to a nursing home, it can cost the state $400 per day. By making the mobile home handicap accessible, it saves them a ton of money. This is a sensible win/win scenario. I’m a big fan of government making smart decisions – it’s just that they do it so rarely.

If an elderly resident has to move to a nursing home, it can cost the state $400 per day. By making the mobile home handicap accessible, it saves them a ton of money. This is a sensible win/win scenario. I’m a big fan of government making smart decisions – it’s just that they do it so rarely.

This writer thinks they have it all figured out when it comes to why mobile homes in Vermont got flooded the other day – in the same storm that flooded their own capitol. “A large share sit on floodplains. Many parks have aging water and electrical systems that are more at risk of failing when hit by severe weather, and older homes built to outdated housing codes lack the physical integrity to withstand damage.”

Wow, that was really stupid on so many fronts. Yes, many mobile home parks have floodplain on some part of the property, but so does every other type of real estate (including the Capitol of Vermont apparently). Water and electrical systems do not fail in storms any more than any subdivision. And mobile homes have been built to the standards imposed and inspected by HUD (the Federal Government) since 1976.

The real reason that the mobile homes of Vermont flooded recently was simply that the entire state of Vermont flooded and those mobile homes just happened to be located in Vermont.

I admit that these homes look really cool but they violate the ordinances of almost every city in the U.S. Why? Because they don’t have HUD seals. And that’s why they look really cool. When you make them HUD compliant, they look like a shoe box. One day, maybe the law will be changed. But don’t hold your breath. Until then, they won’t work in parks.

And here’s the winner of “Most Misguided Attempt at Social Engineering of 2023”. Despite there being no rent control in Ohio a resident named Wykle has “organized a series of protests in front of his Lancaster mobile home park since June after he said park owners continue to increase lot rent”.

I hope he has a lot of sunscreen.

And we have another winner: “The Worst Strategy Decision of 2023”. After acknowledging the complete absence of available rental properties, these few renters are harassing the park owner with nonsense suits on everything from mold to energy efficiency. What do you imagine that’s going to accomplish? Let me guess – the park owner gets out of the rental business and sells these units off, rendering these folks homeless. Smart move.

And another winner: “The Best Quotes of 2023”. Here’s what a resident and park owner said after the city voted to put into effect even more rent control in this California town:

Calling the council's direction misguided, resident Salo Landano claimed rent control efforts always fail. "It never works and it always leads to lower housing stock and poorer living conditions."

Park owner Nick Ubaldi says he's considering drastic measures. "We are currently managing properties with aging infrastructure while dealing with escalating expenses, however, it seems that the decision to impose additional restrictions on rent increases, keeping them below C.P.I. will have unintended consequences. As I'm sure you're aware of, we have hired a consultant to assess the feasibility of closing our mobile home park. We believe this to be our only viable course of action. We are concerned that if not addressed, these changes will suffocate our business and render our property virtually worthless."

Bravo!

“The Royal Oaks Mobile Manor manufactured home park burned down in the 2020 Almeda Fire. But a series of new modular homes being installed there were recently found to be uninhabitable after construction defects were discovered.”

After you read that quote, it’s hard to be impressed with the two apartment complexes the City of Phoenix is building – you can’t stop wondering how much money they squandered trying to fill the mobile home park with modular homes that turned out to be uninhabitable. Think they’ll ever discuss how much money was lost and which city official was held accountable for this mess? Yeah, right.

And we have another winner: “The WORST TIMING of 2023”. The park is being sold for $16 million to be redeveloped. That means the homes have to move out. In light of all of this, six residents of the park – with ancient homes that look to be pre-HUD – are wanting to sell them for up to $189,000 each. Here’s the problem I guess the residents don’t understand. The homes were only worth that much because they offered cheap living in a beach town in Florida. The location is what people were buying, and not the homes. Now these homes will only bring maybe $10,000 since they have to leave the property. They should have sold them before the park closure was announced.

Yes, we have a winner. “The Wokest Article OF 2023”. It not only takes the regular nonsense and expands on it, but it actually has a new woke angle not seen before: the reason mobile homes look bad is that evil manufacturers classify mobile homes as cars and therefore banks won’t fund home improvements that the residents are desperate to do which is clearly ridiculous. There is no battle between 99% of mobile home residents and out-of-state investors. There IS a battle between the 1% that want the parks to remain dumps at low rents and with the infrastructure failing. If these type of woke journalists want to really help those few mobile home park residents that don’t like living in a civilized society, then they should let them move in and sleep on their sofas.

Here’s what one neighbor of the mobile home park had to say: "let me tell you something. I see another fire happening. It's going to cost somebody their life. Whose head's that gonna be on? You guys. Take a look. Think about that." Based on that argument I could say to that neighbor “let me tell you something. I see you drive your car out of the driveway and it might cost someone their life if you crash into them. Whose head’s that gonna be on?”

The park owner is trying to tear down 10 old trailers and install 10 new ones. He’s not promising that he can end the risk of fire, famine, or locusts nor bring about world peace. He’s just following the law. That’s why the city agreed with the park owner.

First of all, NOBODY evicts for minor reasons. When you get rid of a paying tenant, you lose probably $10,000+ by the time you get that lot re-filled. I don’t know the facts, but I know from experience that eviction is the last straw available when the resident refuses to pay rent or follow the rules. And it sounds like the owner is at that point with these few tenants. Note that the attorney for the residents admits that the owner has done nothing legally wrong – so then what’s the issue here? If you’re a woke journalist who lives in a tiny apartment in Manhattan and doesn’t own anything, then you have zero idea of how business works. In the real world, you have to do unpleasant things when you’re a landlord, which includes firing employees and, in this case, evicting tenants.

The most important revelation of this article is that Harvard University is now researching the “trailer” industry. Sadly, this article is not up to Ivy-League standards. I’m sorry, but if CrossMod (the new mobile home/modular concept) is only 27% cheaper than stick built, it’s never going to sell. Most people have a stigma against mobile homes that is far bigger than just 27%. If CrossMod was maybe 50% less, it might have a chance, but I’m still not even convinced then. 

16 trailers and the well has gone bad? That’s why you never buy a park this small with private utilities. The owners should be discussing a listing price for the raw land as soon as possible. The tenants have no idea that they are basically signing their own real estate death warrant, and the journalist is the idiot that’s lighting the match on the funeral pyre.

When an article starts off with “activists claim the alleged issues there are an example of a problematic trend happening to mobile home parks across the country. They say large private equity companies are buying up mobile home parks, raising rent prices, and implementing costly policies, which they say take advantage of the people who live there” you know it’s yet another woke article by a biased journalist and based on commentary from one or two residents that are usually behind on their rent or in trouble for rules violations.

The truth is that private equity groups are the good guys that are bringing old parks back to life. Without them a number would be closing. As part of resuscitating old parks, they are, of course, raising rents and being more rigid on rules (such as parking in this case) and that makes 10% of the residents mad – the very residents that ruin the quality of life for every else in the community. 90% of the residents share none of these complaints but are too good natured to say that those complaining neighbors are nuts.

It reminds me of when Steve Jobs moved Apple out of his parents’ garage and into real office space. Some of the workers said “I want to go back to the garage – it was way better”. But 99% of the workers at Apple did not agree, including Steve Jobs. Those that could not handle reality land were free to quit and go sit in their own garages.

This is a strange concept. People buy a house at a reduced price on a 99-year lease and you can’t sell the home except back to the Land Trust at a reduced price. And if you keep it for 99 years then they take it away from you. And this is accomplishing what exactly? Here’s a better idea. If you can’t afford a home and you are gainfully employed then you need to move to a part of America where homes are cheaper. Wages are pretty much the same throughout the U.S. in low-paying jobs, so artificially keeping people in areas they can’t afford without this subsidy creates generational poverty, right? I can never figure out why people live in New York City and San Francisco and all these other areas that they can’t afford without ever thinking “wow, if I picked up and moved to Topeka and made $30,000 per year I’d be set”.

The rapper 50-Cent said it all earlier this week when he said that California is going down for the count. If I owned this park I would sell the land and bulldoze it rather than to comply with these idiotic rent control ordinances and tenants that have a “victim” mentality and can’t do anything for themselves with a pandering state government that eggs them on. You watch, this park will be an apartment complex in three years.