I hope this project makes lots of money because when the city, residents and media go after the owner on such ridiculous technicalities as if the permits were supposed to be filed in “10 days” or “10 business days” you kind of wonder if the project is worth this much hassle.

Back before Zappos founder Tony Hsieh died in a tragic fire his personal assistant gave me a tour of his Airstream Village community in which he lived in downtown Las Vegas. She told me the story of how he originally wanted to make Airstream Village out of shipping containers (it ended up being Airstream RVs and tiny homes) but found them to be unsuitable from a utility cost standpoint (“they were like tiny ovens” she said). So that’s problem #1. But the bigger issue is that I don’t think that anyone will pay $200,000 to live in a shipping container in Indiana – and then pay lot rent on top of that. This is a product that might work on the beach or a mountaintop. But maybe I’m wrong.

“I have lived at the San Roque Mobile park for over 30 years now. I have seen many changes – some good, and far more bad ones. We have big potholes in our streets. Our park has become a trash mesh. Things get started and never get finished. Now they have closed off some of our streets, and the stupid gates are so silly indeed. This is not a nice place anymore for us!”

Translation: “You increased our rents, brought the old park back to life, and installed classy security gates – and we hate you for it!”. For every one of these type of residents there are 100 that are thrilled with the improvements and don’t mind paying higher rent to have a nicer property.

Wow, economics must be hard to grasp in the Bay Area. The owners are trying to save the park by raising the rents to market levels. Otherwise, as they explained to the residents, they will simply close the park and redevelop the land. But any way you cut it there’s no way that folks are going to continue to live in the San Francisco area at 1980s pricing. It’s really up to the residents how this movie ends – and the owners have been more than transparent.

Wait a minute – is this a typo?

Once the factory is completed in 2024, it can begin producing modular homes. It is expected to produce 12 to 15 homes per year in its first few years of operation, but eventually will ramp up its production to up to 50 homes per year.

The average mobile home park factory produces 7 homes per day. That’s 1,820 per year. And this one is going to produce 12 homes a year initially and then a whopping 50 per year in the future?

I know that marijuana is legalized in Colorado, but these would have to be the slowest assembly line workers in history, right?

Sure, the headline is misleading. This quote from the owners is very sensible on an Act of God they had no control over:

Maine Real Estate Management has been working daily to coordinate with experts to resolve the problem and anticipate a new well being installed very soon. In the meantime, we have arranged for regular deliveries of water to fill the holding tanks, as well as supplemental drinking water deliveries,” the company wrote.

So what’s the problem here, other than the considerable expense to the owners until the new well gets drilled? Well, apparently, none of this is good enough for the residents who claim they don’t like the taste of the “imported water” and it messes up their washing machines (which I’m sure is a complete falsehood). If the residents don’t get a better attitude I’m sure there’s a land re-development plan in the making for this tract – and who would blame the owners?

I guess the residents did not read the fine print. But it’s right there in the article:

In years to come, residents, with the help of the land trust, intend to redevelop the park by removing the trailers and transforming the units into homes. The co-op and land trust are currently in the early stages of redeveloping the park, and residents are leading those discussions.”

So all the trailer park folks are going to be going bye-bye and replaced with single-family homes which they will never qualify for or afford. And they voted for it! What would you call this: “political suicide”?

I don’t know anything about this park or its water and sewer problems, but I do know the fundamental laws of economics and I’m sure that the heirs will simply condemn that park and sell the land off at a huge profit. 1,500 individuals will then be left homeless. It would have been much smarter for the government to make the required repairs for the late owner’s estate and then bill the park monthly until repaid in full. But, once again, it exemplifies that the most terrifying words in the English language are “I’m from the government and I’m here to help’. In this case the quote would be “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you be homeless”. Does nobody from the government realize that there’s no way the heirs are going to do any of this incredibly costly cap-x work when the land is worth more than the park in all likelihood and they probably just want to settle the estate?

Let’s be honest: these are not celebrities – these are “has-beens”. Nobody is leaving Bel Air for the trailer park if they are doing well in their movie careers. Tom Hanks should not even be on this list as he only used an RV on-set. The others would dump their “tiny” home in one second if they could amass enough cash to buy a decent house in the Hollywood Hills. I know that there is so much media out there today that writers struggle for content, but these type of articles insult our intelligence.

Hurricane Harvey did $200 billion in damage and only $20 billion was insured. That’s what happens when you have major flooding as few people are insured for it. Mobile homes sit about 3 feet off the ground and actually do better in floods than stick-built dwellings (just ask any park owner who survived Hurricane Harvey).

This is the part about these type of articles (and they come out all the time) that kills me:

• Her 396-square-foot dwelling at Escape Tampa Bay Village's tiny home community cost her $159,000. 

OK, so $159,000 for around 400 sq. ft. works out to roughly $400 per square foot. You can buy a nice house in the Midwest for $159,000 – brick exterior, 3/2 and 2-car garage. And own the land underneath. So this lady apparently has no idea that there’s a whole universe of better housing options out there. And neither does the writer. And that’s kind of sad.

This is the future of housing. Even my small town in Missouri recently passed a “tiny home ordinance”. Give the people what they want for heaven’s sake. Look at the drawings of the homes and you have to admit that they look a lot better than most of the larger homes in town. Who always shows up at the zoning meetings on this topic are stick-built builders who don’t want the competition and try to claim that tiny homes will cause the apocalypse. They won’t. In many applications they make infinite sense. Holding back this type of product is as hopeless as holding back Uber – it’s just going to happen in the end so better get out in front of it. Nice to see that this town is doing so.

This non-profit is spending $60,000 to build an 8’ x 20’ house? That’s $375 per sq. ft. A mobile home costs around $40 per sq. ft. So my first thought is why are they reinventing the wheel when they can just call up any mobile home park dealer and do this for a fraction of the price using a HUD-code home? But the bigger issue is that it’s just plain dumb to think that the key to ending youth homelessness is by sticking them in a 8’ x 20’ hut and getting them on the nation’s welfare dole starting at 18. A better plan would be to take the $60,000, put them into trade schools, and teach them how to make a decent living. Those who want to take advantage of that program would become successful citizens. Those who refuse are going to trash these 8’ x 20’ shacks and run off. I just can’t make any sense of this initiative given the realities of life.

Every time I drive across America I am confronted by those hideous wind turbines that make scenic vistas look like industrial graveyards. And now suddenly people are waking up to the fact that all this wind and solar energy is really, really ugly to look at? I could have told them that 20 years ago.

I’m afraid these residents are in for a rude awakening:

“The county has a collection of four mobile home parks that are up for sale right now. If they sell, new owners or property managers could raise their rents, or try to build on those properties and remove their homes altogether. That being said, those parks are potentially eligible for help from the state or county, if they can find grants to have the county purchase the parks and keep rents low”. 

Most bureaucrats talk a big game until you ask them to write a check and then they hide under their desks. Similarly, any new buyer will surely raise the rents significantly as these parks look to be mismanaged from the photo and will require new professional leadership and capital expenditure, and that will almost certainly require higher rents. And, of course, they are also in a prime position for redevelopment.

Any way you cut it, the probable outcome is that the parks will either be torn down or the rents will go up. I see little chance of the bureaucrats rushing in to save the day as you could make the same argument that they should buy the local apartments, too, and the list goes on and on.

Nobody really appreciates mobile home parks until they are on the verge of going away – kind of like some sad country western song.

OK, do you spot the scam going on in the media right now:

“It occurred to me that 90% of the questions in this four-page survey were satisfied by my local community, Marin Valley Mobile Home Country Club (MVMCC). It is a close-knit mobile home park of over 400 residents, owned by the city of Novato since 1997, with competent oversight from an elected group of residents. Novato doesn’t provide these healthy living activities, such as yoga or book clubs, as recommended in the survey, but the residents themselves provide them through volunteer commitments.However, the city has provided security and stability by serving as a nonprofit entity-owner, with reasonable, affordable rents. A defined 40% of the lots are reserved for low-income residents.”

There are only around 300 resident-owned mobile home parks in the U.S. out of 44,000 parks. So this is all nonsense and not worthy of this much media time.

So why are there suddenly a ton or articles on how great life is when residents own their own communities? Clearly, this is a big media push that is being promoted by a number of non-profits behind the scenes that are trying to brainwash Americans (and politicians) that this is the greatest idea since sliced bread.

Smart people will spot that this is a scam and not buy it. But unfortunately, idiots will.

I really like this idea. I have long thought that affordable housing (yes, including mobile homes) are not nearly as attractive as they could be. The industry needs some fresh ideas and I have no doubt that a gifted college student may well contribute the idea that revolutionizes the way housing looks. I see all these cool designs in European design magazines at the bookstore and wonder why the U.S. can’t come up with its own fresh ideas. Maybe this contest will make something happen. It can’t hurt.

Read this article closely as it’s nothing but smoke and mirrors. The public spends $1 million to build 8 housing units that are as small as 395 sq. ft. and which equates to $125,000 per unit. All this to save people $100 per month in rent using this goofy coop structure. The free market is good at this stuff and bureaucrats are not – so please stop with this stuff as you are embarrassing yourselves.

Before you get worked up, go to the end of the article that sheepishly mentions that the bill only restricts lot rent increases to one time per year and with no limitation. The writer kind of hyped up the rest including the title.

Basically, more pandering and virtue signaling to their voting base – with more than a little help from the media.

Thank heavens that most PA legislators know that actual rent control dooms all mobile home parks to almost certain redevelopment over time.

A 1,300 sq. ft. home for $130,000 plus the cost of the land is not exactly a big deal. You can attain that in pretty much every city in the U.S.

But remember that Jackson is also the city that can’t even keep their public water system working for months now. I was there recently and the hotels have “boil water” signage at the registration desk (not sure how you do that in a hotel). Read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson,_Mississippi,_water_crisis

Realizing it’s Jackson they probably messed up the decimal and it’s $1,300,000 for a 130 sq. ft. house. That’s more likely.

Great news Austin residents! City Hall is proposing to build next to your subdivision:

·         Accessory dwelling units

• Rezoning manufactured housing communities
• Low-income housing.

Better call your realtor and put your house on the market before more people find out what’s about to happen.

OK, this is virtually cut-and-paste #4 this week on the topic of how great the world would be if the tenants owned the parks:

After months of fundraising and working with the Denver-based nonprofit Elevation Community Land Trust, Westside made a successful offer and formed a housing co-operative. Now owned jointly by its residents and Elevation, the park operates as a community land trust, which removes land from the real estate market and transforms it into community-owned property. Two decades after she first arrived in Durango, Chavez, a DACA recipient, is now the park’s property manager and the co-op’s vice president.Their voices will be heard now. They weren’t listened to before.

Are you brainwashed yet?

Wait a minute … are you saying that a city hall might have violated the law and now won’t hand over any of the notes or minutes from the meeting? That they are refusing transparency regarding their actions? Welcome to the new U.S.A.

“I am also concerned about housing justice. There is a significant shortage of affordable, accessible housing in Cleveland and across Northeast Ohio. Therefore, I am concerned about the destruction of existing affordable housing at the Euclid Beach Mobile Home Community in favor of the expansion of Euclid Creek Reservation. Cleveland Metroparks could play a key role in keeping the Euclid Beach Mobile Home Community open.”

Gee, not another article about how great it would be if residents owned their own parks? What a coincidence!

Reminds me of the story of Esther Sullivan, the Associate Professor in Boulder, CO who took credit for causing virtually every negative industry article for a several year period (including John Oliver). It’s amazing that U.S. media is so lame that single individuals can pervert the entire media conglomerate to take the wrong position on a macro scale – and that Americans are dumb enough not to spot this manipulation.

There’s one item completely left out of this article:

Less than two years ago, Claudia had never heard of Bermuda Estates Mobile Home Park, and the Bermuda Estates residents she now shares easy chatter with were at that time fearful of being forced out of their homes. The owner, J&J Equities, LLC, was selling the park, and the prospective buyer planned to redevelop the land and build townhomes. This meant the nearly 40 families living at Bermuda Estates would be displaced, their homes, meticulously tended rose gardens and memories plowed under to make way for new homes that would not be affordable to them.

That item is what did they pay?

My bet is that they paid $100,000 per lot or more. And then you have to ask yourself “wouldn’t these people just be better off if they took the $100,000, relocated to a cheaper place than Virginia, and bought a nice stick-built house for cash?”

This whole “let’s buy the park to fend off redevelopment” nonsense is really nothing more than virtue signaling by bureaucrats and non-profits who want acclaim for saving 40 households housing when, for the same money, they could have paid for 160 people to go to college, or 800 people to renovate their homes and lower their utility costs.