Vermont working on a mobile home initiative is as whacky as Kansas working on a surfboard initiative. There are fewer mobile home parks in the entire state of Vermont than there are in a typical Missouri metro. Just a bunch of virtue-signaling and nothing more.

"The apartments, which are being built across from the entrance of the Verde Valley Medical Center on State Route 89A, start at $1,575 for a one-bedroom and go up to $2,235 for a three-bedroom, according to its website."

Wait a minute – that’s affordable? Then how can you criticize mobile home parks which offer 3 bedrooms for $995 per month including lot rent? Total hypocrisy!

Getting approvals to expand RV parks are so much easier than mobile home parks as most Americans have a positive stigma of RVs and a negative one towards mobile homes. It’s interesting tha the #1 assertion of the city to get the permit is that no customer can stay more than 180 days – they want to make sure that this in no way resembles a mobile home park. 

This quote shows how stupid this story is:

"Alondra Ruiz has lived at Periwinkle mobile home park for nine years and has been a central voice at protests and City Council meetings about the park’s closure. She said attorneys for the university asked her to sign a contract with a “non-disparagement” clause that would prohibit her from saying anything negative about GCU or Trellis, the housing nonprofit GCU hired to help residents relocate.If Ruiz doesn’t sign the contract, she said she will not receive the compensation package GCU is offering her, including $10,000."

It's standard business in the U.S. to get release clauses signed when you get paid. Either stop blasting GCU and take the money or get nothing. The resident has no power here and the journalist is giving her false hope. This park closed in May – by the book – and Ruiz and others have no apparent legal basis to still be living there. Grand Canyon University is trying to stop this PR nightmare and have bent over backwards. Their patience is at an end, and I don’t blame them.

“We’re just beyond ourselves about why the Bureau of Reclamation wants to kick us out,” said a resident. Seriously? The story concedes that the park brings in only $30,000 or tax revenue. They are talking about building $10 million of property improvements on this land. That’s an annual tax bill of around $200,000. By giving the green light, the tax authority ends up $170,000 per year richer. And you don’t get that logic? Give me a break.

Let me get this straight: somebody is buying 2.78 acres for $16.25 million and nobody knows if it’s going to stay a park or not? Not to offend those without math skills, but that’s over $5 million per acre. There’s no mobile home park in the U.S. that can support $5 million per acre outside of Malibu (and even that is sketchy). So clearly, yes, this site will be redeveloped. When the city official says “to change anything over from what it is now, would require a comprehensive plan map change. It would require rezoning. It would require major development application review hearings. You would probably be looking at a two- to three-year process to get it done” he is just trying to confuse the journalist since that timetable is true of all development, not just conversion of a mobile home park to another use. And do you think even one neighbor will speak against tearing down the trailer park to make way for the fancy new hotel? I mean, this thing is next to a boat marina. Give me a break here.

“Everyone talks about the missing middle. This is part of what a solution to the missing middle looks like, 1,500- to 1800-square-foot homes with a price of under $500,000 for a base unit,” said Malcolmson."

I know Canadians are richer than Americans on average (nearly twice as rich) but $500,000 is considered “affordable” housing and does not even include the land, which is leased? Wow. I need to open a Louis Vuitton store there.

I’m all for these type of programs – we have sold several parks to the residents so far – but can we all admit how few properties this benefits in the end? Residents in the entire U.S. only buy about 20 or 30 parks a year. Wouldn’t this money be better served if every mobile home park got a grant to build a pavilion, charcoal grills, playground, and nicer entrance? That would benefit ten times more people for the same money. I’m not sure what this obsession is with the residents buying the land underneath their mobile homes, but it does nothing to stop rents from increasing, if that’s the myth that people are counting on. I don’t have any stats, but I know of parks that have significantly higher rents under resident-owned scenarios as they then have to contend with covering the rising costs of everything from insurance to property tax, as well as try to pay a crushing monthly mortgage.

Not to sound like the Grinch but the non-profit spent $2.4 million on a dirt-road 20 space park, and are looking at spending maybe $600,000 more in infrastructure repair. That’s $150,000 per household spent so that they can continue to live in a dirt-road trailer park. Would it not make more sense to buy each household a debt-free stick-built house in another state? Would that not be infinitely better than what they ended up with? I’m all for programs that benefit those in need, but I’m afraid that the virtue-signaling this non-profit was after exceeded common sense.

The person who did this remodel actually did a pretty good job. But anyone who would pay $145,000 for a tiny RV that formerly served as Desi Arnaz’ makeup trailer is nuts. If you’re looking for a cool home in California, you could have taken that $145,000 and bought a 100’ wooden yacht that the engines are missing on and moor it in a nice harbor or marina and wear a yachting hat and ascot. I know someone who did that – in Catalina harbor no less – and that’s way smarter than this trailer concept.

Spending money putting more people on the dole is not going to do anything but delay the inevitable until those funds run out. Apartment Section 8 programs are not sustainable and never were. If you really want to solve affordable housing the key is to come up with a single-family home that can be built incredibly cheaply (think 3-D printing) and then the state/county/city provides the land and infrastructure for free. It’s a one-time cost and the tenant can last forever with a debt-free cheap house that requires no further subsidy. Why is this not already occurring? Because the single-family and multi-family housing lobbies will never let it happen and they have every bureaucrat in the nation on their payroll in some manner.

Sure, who wouldn’t want to have a mobile home manufacturing plant built next to their single-family home on land zoned residential? Who could possibly be mad at having their property value fall by 50%+, have constant noise, and have zero liquidity on re-sale? I guarantee that if the mayor was that property owner this would never have made it to a vote.

There’s little description of what the “Dover” program is, but if it replaces aging sewer lines in parks at no cost to the owner then I’m all for it. These are the types of initiatives that would save many mom & pop parks from the wrecking ball.

You’ve got to love these bureaucrats. They are tearing down a mobile home park and turning it into apartments and then disguising this as being OK because the apartments will be “affordable”. Of course, the apartments will only be “affordable” with government subsidies like Section 8. And they were able to escape the wrath of the media by saying “there’s really no difference between non-subsidized mobile home parks and subsidized apartments – it’s all just one big affordable housing family” which is clearly not true. 

Yes, I believe this is the same park that the tenants had first option to buy for $16,250,000 with $1 million non-refundable and they were only able to raise only around $4,000 by the date to exercise their option. Now these same tenants are miffed that the owner is not giving them updates on the REAL buyer and the date of closing. Why should they? The tenants had their shot and blew it. Why would anyone think the seller owes them any further courtesies which, no doubt, they will only use to try and derail the legitimate and lawful sale further? 

Let’s break this article down into components:

1. The residents claim that a $390 per month lot rent in Hastings, Michigan is “insanely high”. A quick trip to Bestplaces.net proves out that the median home price in Hastings is $281,400 and the average three-bedroom apartment rent is $1,530 per month. Therefore, clearly, the tenants’ claim is BOGUS.
2. The tenants claim that the rent has gone up since the private equity group bought the property. TRUE. And that the quality of the maintenance has declined. BOGUS. They have no examples of this supposed “decline” in maintenance of the property, but I know from experience that a private equity group ALWAYS runs the park they buy better than mom and pop did. 
3. The writer claims that private equity groups are destroying the wonderful quality of Michigan mobile home parks. BOGUS. These groups are, in fact, the only pioneers bringing these old parks back to life.
4. As with what we see every week, new owners raise rents and fix up parks and marginal tenants (maybe 1%) are willing to live in total squalor rather than pay $100 per month more. Nobody agrees with this philosophy except this strange tiny slice of the tenant pie. BOGUS.

Can AI PLEASE hurry up and put all these woke journalists out of their jobs? Any computer would instinctively know that there are two sides to every story – not just the one expressed by a few hoarder tenants.

Now Primrose Estates of Mesa, Arizona joins the growing list of parks being torn down to make way for more profitable uses. How could this have been avoided. HIGHER LOT RENTS. This is not rocket science.

This story is so ridiculous. Let’s break it down into each dumb piece:

1. The tenants say that $635 per month for lot rent is ridiculously high. I’m sorry but a quick search on Bestplaces.net shows the median home price to be over $300,000. STUPID.
2. The city of Aberdeen wants to increase the notice period for rent increases to 180 days, in complete contradiction to state law and certain to be overturned in court without ever taking effect. STUPID.

So what’s really going on here? A few of the tenants obviously are going down and yelling at city officials who want them to get out of their hair so they are proposing a law that they know has no chance of sticking just so those few tenants will stop coming to their offices and wasting their time. Classic move.
I think I’ve seen this movie before – wasn’t it called Joe Biden and the evictions moratorium that the Supreme Court threw out the window but placated AOC and “the squad” for a brief while?

There’s clearly a disconnect here. The mobile home park owner says he wants to bring in tiny homes to replace run-down trailers, and the city says it’s going to start sending out citations and fines for run-down trailers. I see absolutely nothing in this article even remotely suggesting that the city is actually going to give this guy a variance to bring in tiny homes on HUD-licensed lots. All that’s going on, in my opinion, is the city is declaring war on the old trailers and after they get them removed is going to deny the tiny home dream and, as a result, reduce the occupancy at the park.

There is no rent control in Ohio and this story is based on the false narrative that somehow a few mobile home park tenants can magically change state law. And if that happened, parks like this one would simply be torn down and made into more profitable uses. However, there is definitely a problem when senior residents can’t afford to allocate more money for lot rent, which is always going up (along with every other thing in America today). So the real issue is how you subsidize the seniors if that’s what society wants to do. If the city/county/state wants to start paying a portion of the lot rent to the property owner, then I’m sure they’d be fine with that. But we all know that’s not going to happen and what’s really going on is that society is trying to make mobile home park owners subsidize tenants and effectively become their own personal Section 8. That’s all these stories basically amount to. And it’s extremely annoying that mobile home park owners should be placed in that position when apartment owners simply receive subsidies through Section 8. If the government doesn’t want to do its job with subsidies, then that should be the end of it. Either put up or shut up. 

This woke journalist contends that private equity groups buying mobile home parks are “vulture capitalists” ... “an investor who buys up distressed companies and makes a profit by aggressively cutting costs or selling the business for parts”. Let’s try and put some common sense to this statement:

1. Yes, private equity groups raise rents because they’re ridiculously low and not supported by market forces. If the apartments are $1,200 per month, then lot rents don’t need to be $350 per month but rather $1,000+ per month to align with supply and demand. These groups are being nice simply raising rents in more moderate amounts, even when it’s 100% legal to go up in larger increments.
2. No, private equities make zero money cutting costs. What’s there to cut? Can’t shut off utilities, stop paying property taxes or drop the insurance. Can the writer please elaborate and give a single example?
3. How do you sell a mobile home park for parts? Sell off the power poles to a logging company? Again, this is a stupid comment that is not based on fact and the writer gives no examples at all.

Did you notice this week that there’s a plethora of similar articles about “evil private equity groups”. I’ve seen this before. A few years ago a single associate professor in Colorado bragged that they had been able to cause 40 different media groups to publish their personal grudge that mobile home park owners are evil. Lurking in the background is some new person or group that is trying to do the same.

At least one bureaucrat got it right : “only Councilman Scott Myers voted no, citing the broad nature of the provisions and the potential of government overreach”. Once again the city is passing a law that they acknowledge does not align with state law, and will then be tossed out in litigation. Does this seem like a trend to you?

Removing the mobile home park and then replacing those mobile homes with stick-built structures has been done before (a large development in North Ft. Worth did it twenty years ago) but it’s interesting that there is no push-back on this from the media, unlike the Grand Canyon University project. That’s because they have neatly wrapped this up in a clever P.R. campaign that claims they are actually increasing the supply of affordable housing. They are not. It’s a lot-for-lot replacement of $10,000 mobile homes for $200,000 stick-built dwellings. They just did a better job of B.S. than GCU did.