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.

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.

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.

If you google up rent control in Washington state, you’ll see the catalyst that drives woke writers crazy:

House Bill 2114 (HB 2114), otherwise known as rent control, that passed the Washington State House of Representatives February 13 on a party line vote, appears to have died in the Senate and failed to pass out of committee.

Look, I know the “free rent” advocates almost choked to death on their kale salad when it turned out that Washington state bureaucrats were not as woke as they hoped, but please give this issue a rest for a few years and then try again. Rent control is just not coming to Washington state at this point. Not even close. Sorry.

COMMON SENSE MISTAKE: REFUSING TO ACCEPT REALITY

Classic lie:

Trailers do give a unique issue when it comes to severe weather because they’re just not built to withstand even 70 mile an hour winds, we usually see those flip or start to come apart pretty easily.

Wow, somebody needs to get a hold of HUD because a mobile home going down the highway already has winds of 55 mph to start with and, if it’s going into a headwind of 30 mph, then it’s facing 85 mph winds and will apparently “come apart pretty easily”. I guess HUD needs to require mobile homes to be shipped only at 30 mph and on perfectly calm days!

The truth is that mobile homes are built perfectly fine and do about as well as stick-built homes in a tornado – they both get shredded. I live in the Missouri Ozarks and I have seen first-hand tornado damage and when a 200 mph wind hits a brick house it’s pulverized. Everything is.

COMMON SENSE MISTAKE: THINKING THAT ANYTHING CAN WITHSTAND A TORNADO – IT CAN’T.

Tenants of the Residences on Mill Pond mobile-home park at 40 Albany Road in West Stockbridge can now breathe a sigh of relief following the town’s Rent Control Board decision on May 8 that upped their monthly fees by less than $2.

Here’s a message to the West Stockbridge Rent Control Board: “when the owner tears the park down and displaces all 35 residents, you morons are directly responsible”. What idiot would think that another year of Bidenomics yielded only $2 of additional expenses for the park owner? Inflation is running closer to 10% than 1%. If the new attitude of the Rent Control Board is that rents can no longer provide decent rates of return on mobile home park investing, then there won’t be any mobile home parks left in West Stockbridge a couple years from now. But was that their actual plan all along? Probably. And the tenants fell right into their trap.

COMMON SENSE MISTAKE: TENANTS THINKING THAT BUREAUCRATS HAVE THEIR BEST INTERESTS AT HEART

However, in January, Anderson received a notice from the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission that her mobile home encroaches on land where the RTC plans to build the Coastal Rail Trail and, eventually, run a passenger train. She will have to pick up her home and move it by June 2025 or, the RTC said, the agency has the right to move it for her.

Have people completely lost track of the concept of progress? Clearly, more people will benefit from the rail line than those few tenants who have mobile homes that back up to the tracks. That’s how progress works. Every time a rundown block of downtown is renovated, the old residents are displaced. There’s no other way it can be accomplished. And, as usual, the residents want to play the victim and sue to shut the development down or use that concept as extortion to get more money – and the woke media revel in giving them that opportunity.

COMMON SENSE MISTAKE: REFUSING TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT PROGRESS REQUIRES SACRIFICE FOR THE GOOD OF THE MAJORITY.

Stark says it does not cap lot rent increases, but it’s a start.“These people have had no voice, had no way to fight back a little bit if they thought the rate increases were extraordinary. So, this gives them that opportunity to mediate that,” Stark said.

For those who think that Florida is a “red” state, please read this article. Giving tenants the ability to force a costly mediation every time the rent goes up – without any legal limitations on rent increases – is just ridiculous. This will cost park owners a fortune in legal fees and for no purpose whatsoever. I have long written about the fact that Florida talks a “red” agenda but is as “blue” as can be when it comes to tenant law. Combined with the simple fact that it’s becoming impossible to obtain or retain insurance in Florida this latest law would suggest that the best years for park ownership there are over. Pretty embarrassing that Ron DeSantis signed this flawed legislation.

COMMON SENSE MISTAKE: EMPOWERING RESIDENTS TO THINK THEY HAVE POWER OVER RENTS WHEN THEY HAVE NONE.

“You can’t move the home, ‘mobile’ is a huge misnomer,”said Dickens. “That home is built, created, made to be placed in one spot and not moved and that becomes a real challenge for manufactured homeowners who are constantly facing economic eviction through the ever-increasing rents. ”Dickens often refers to manufactured homeowners as “prisoners in their own homes” because they do not have the ability to move and are constantly at the mercy of predatory landlords who “seem to want to nickel and dime them through various fees and charges and an ever-increasing rent.”

So let me get this straight. You can’t afford the cost of housing and the only solution is to jack your home up, re-attach the hitch, call a mover, and down the highway you go into the sunset? How about just putting it on the market and selling it like all home and condo owners do? If you move your mobile home the lot rent will all be about the same no matter where you go, and you will have wasted thousands of dollars in moving the home for no purpose. If you live in Washington you’d have to move the home several states over to find a cheaper place to live. Instead just sell the mobile home and move somewhere that you can actually afford, even if that means moving to an apartment in Kentucky.

COMMON SENSE MISTAKE: THINKING THAT MOBILE HOME PARK LOT RENTS ARE CHEAPER DOWN THE STREET BECAUSE THEY’RE NOT AND THAT MOVING A MOBILE HOME IS SMARTER THAN JUST SELLING IT.

Shocker! Gee, never saw that one coming – NOT. When will people learn that the “moat” to our industry is a permanent thing as cities don’t want new mobile home parks and the citizens back that hatred. I talked to a guy that draws engineering plans for zoning variance applications for new parks recently and asked “so how many of these designs have been actually built so far?” and he answered “none”.

COMMON SENSE MISTAKE: THINKING THAT PEOPLE WANT NEW MOBILE HOME PARKS IN THEIR CITY BECAUSE THEY 100% DON’T.

This year, park owners proposed a $100 increase to her nearly $900-a-month lot lease. Park owners can raise rates if they match the Consumer Price Index. Inflation has given license to raise lease prices as much as the market will bear. “Now people have to decide well, ‘do I take that off of my food?’” she says. “’Or do I take that off of my prescriptions?’”

Why is all this “attitude” focused only on mobile home park lot rents? Under Biden we have seen 30% increases in prices in three years. Gas is double and so are groceries. Why are those increases fine but mobile home park lot rent increases (at an actually lower percentage) are abhorrent? I’m sick and tired of this false narrative.

COMMON SENSE MISTAKE: PRETENDING THAT ANY TYPE OF COST IS DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER – IT’S ALL THE SAME WHEN YOU HAVE TO BALANCE YOUR BUDGET.

A few years ago there was a booth at the MHI show in Vegas that sold a storm shelter that goes under the mobile home deck for around $10,000. And now there’s one from Home Depot that’s around $4,000.

Anyone would know that a successful storm shelter is going to require close proximity to your home, like your basement. People are not going to run in the wind, rain and hail to a shelter 400 yards away in the mobile home park. But they will walk 5’ out of their home when they feel the tornado is near. That’s why mobile home park shelters are a stupid idea and these personal shelters are totally the answer. It is then up to the tenant whether or not they want to spend the money on it.

COMMON SENSE MISTAKE: THINKING THAT ANYONE WILL TRAVEL MORE THAN A FEW FEET OUTDOORS IN THE MIDDLE OF A GIANT STORM.

I’m not sure who’s giving legal advice to these residents – or paying the bill – but here are their odds on appeal:

The losing side can then elect to petition the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. However, the SJC only accepted 12 of the 393 further appellate review applications considered in 2023.

I’m sure some non-profit is behind all of this, but when your odds of even having the appeal picked up by the court is 3%, it’s probably not a great idea to spend $50,000+ in legal fees to give it a try.

This case is simple. I wrote about this same story months ago. The bottom line is that the residents did not even come close to having enough verified signatures to trigger the right of first refusal. The judge had no difficulty in telling them so.

The correct headline would be:

RESIDENTS WASTE MORE NON-PROFIT LEGAL FEES IN MAKING FOOLS OF THEMSELVES

It seems like a good idea, until you see how much they allocated to the program:

The county has set aside $400,000 in American Rescue Plan Act dollars for the project.

At an average renovation cost of $10,000 (and you know the non-profits will blow that up to around $50,000) you’re talking so few homes that it’s not even really worth mentioning.

The correct title should be:

BOULDER TALKS WOKE BUT FUNDING IS A JOKE

Three residents driving to the capitol is not exactly a groundswell of support. I could get three people to petition for virtually anything from demanding that the average work week be reduced to one day or that only chocolate be served as lunch at all public schools or even that cars should be outlawed and replaced by mules.

The correct title would be:

STATE LEGISLATORS TRY TO HUMOR THREE PEOPLE

People always ask why I am able to predict the future with such accuracy. It’s simply because I try to employ common sense. I wrote about a decade ago that mobile home parks – in the absence of doubling or tripling lot rent – would all ultimately be bulldozed to make way for apartments. The reason is simple. You can stack apartments four or five high on the same ground space as one mobile home park lot. So here’s the reality of that prediction coming to fruition in Fort Lauderdale where one single 200 lot mobile home park can hold 978 new luxury apartments.

The correct title to this article should be:

LOW MOBILE HOME PARK LOT RENTS YIELD REDEVELOPMENT: IT’S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE

Let’s cut through the B.S. and get right to the point:

She recently received notice from Virginia Housing that no waiting lists to use a Housing Choice Voucher are currently open. 

The failure of this woman to find housing -- despite being on disability with five kids -- falls on the failure of Federal and state government NOT ON THE MOBILE HOME PARK OWNER. All that’s going on here is that you’ve got a person that can’t find housing in normal society and will only be able to get shelter via a subsidy program which the government cannot afford to expand. Here’s what the correct title to this article should be:

GOVERNMENT FAILS MOBILE HOME PARK RESIDENT – WHY ARE WE SENDING BILLIONS OVERSEAS WHEN WE CAN’T EVEN PROVIDE HOUSING TO OUR OWN PEOPLE?

From the same folks that brought you Covid-mania comes the new item we should all fear: PFAS. I’ve never heard of it before, but I did find this first item on Google of interest:

The industrial use of PFAS – sometimes called “forever chemicals”, since they don't degrade in nature – has been so prevalent in the last decades that 99 percent of all humans, including fetuses, have measurable levels of PFAS in their bloodstreams.

If 99% of all Americans already have PFAS then exactly what are we worried about? I looked up Missouri and PFAS is not even regulated in my state nor do they believe it poses any health risk at all. So I guess the correct title would be:

WHY DOES ANYONE LIVE IN CALIFORNIA?

Ah, the Guardian. What a great publication – at least when it comes to losing money. These folks can’t help but lose more money year after year. Here’s the current results straight from Google:

The publisher told staff in a quarterly update, seen by Press Gazette, that it anticipated a cash outflow of approximately £39m in the 2023/24 financial year (which runs to the end of March), versus £17m in the previous year, due to the revenue decline and cost of investment in technology.Feb 12, 2024

Maybe the reason that nobody reads or advertises in the Guardian is that the reporters are very bad at what they do. Check out this example of such basic errors:

Mobile home parks, also known as trailer parks, are officially and more accurately called manufactured housing parks. Prefab homes are substantial constructions; once placed in a park, more than 80% of them are never moved.

The writer can’t even figure out the correct name of “manufactured housing community” and that the homes are anything but defined as “prefab”. Even scarier that person’s boss can’t even figure it out as I assume they at least attempt to fact check the stuff they print.

Later in the same article they take great offense at my statement from some past article or speech that “there’s a huge number of poor people and there’s more poor people, like, every day.” I’m not sure how that’s shocking since the U.S. government’s own stats confirm that “there are more poor people every day”. Here are the numbers, straight from Google: “The U.S. poverty rate saw its largest one-year increase in history in 2022 wth 12.4% of Americans now living in poverty. According to new 2022 data from the U.S. census, this is an increase from 7.4% in 2021.

The correct title for this article would be:

WRITERS WANTED: NO EXPERIENCE NECESSARY

So the new owner buys a dilapidated mobile home park and attempts to bring it back to life, and even provides a very accurate narrative of the project and the goals:

Since purchasing North Morris Estates MHC, we have renovated many homes, added new homes, removed all unsalvageable homes, are in the process of completing multiple major utility infrastructure repairs, and also catching up on years of other deferred maintenance inherited from previous ownership. We are working closely with all regulatory agencies to ensure the community is brought into and remains in compliance. We also have a strict entrance process to ensure all residents meet our guidelines, adhere to fair housing laws and will agree to be an important part of a quiet and enjoyable neighborhood. We are excited about the progress we are making and appreciate the positive feedback we have received. We look forward to continuing to work with the surrounding community to make North Morris Estates MHC a great place to live.

The new owner did not create the park’s current condition, instead they are the solution. Meanwhile the residents seemed determined to try and get back at the new owners for raising rents and demanding that rules be obeyed. The buyer is a well-known and well-respected park operator and the park looks very nice in the photos. Clearly, common sense would tell you that what’s really going on here is that the residents hope to gain an advantage by pretending that the park is in abhorrent condition and the state and city seem to be totally on-board with all of this manipulation. What the residents will soon find out is that the city is more than happy to get this park torn down and redeveloped into a nicer use and they have effectively given them the ammunition they always dreamed of to do so.

The correct title to this article would be:

FOOLISH PARK RESIDENTS DEMAND TO BE HOMELESS – AND THE CITY IS HAPPY TO OBLIGE

Across the country, residents of mobile homes are organizing to buy and cooperatively run their communities, with government help, to protect themselves from landlords known for jacking up rents and neglecting infrastructure.

I respect that “all’s fair in love and war” but can we please remove the most ridiculous part of the above mantra of the “free rent” movement folks: “neglecting infrastructure”? That’s because professional landlords do anything BUT neglect infrastructure. On the contrary they are the ONLY ONES injecting the capital needed to bring old parks back to life. This is mandated under their loan covenants among other items, and I am yet to see a single example of this ever being the case.

I guess the problem is that the “free rent” movement people can’t come up with anything to complain about other than rents going up so they invented that false claim to have at least two points to complain about.

The correct title might be:

“FREE RENT” ADVOCATES DEMAND FREE RENT

However, that’s not really accurate, either. Because the stats prove that tenant-owned communities have rents that rise just as fast – or faster – than those of professionally owned ones. Additionally, the residents get lousy management and failing infrastructure when the tenants are at the controls. It’s all just a game of smoke and mirrors in which spotlight-seeking non-profits offer short-term subsidies that never last (just ask the city of Palo Alto which quietly shut down their resident-owned community after a few years) just to get 5 minutes of fame.

So the truthful headline would be:

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FREE LUNCH OR FREE RENT

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.

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!