I know nothing about the details of this park or the allegations, but it sure looks suspicious that these bureaucrats won’t simply fix the water now, but will only invest the money if the owner sells to the residents. The optics to me makes me wonder if this is really just a case of trying to coerce this owner into this ridiculous resident-owned community dream. Wait until the residents see what the new lot rent will be once they pile debt on this property. Good luck.

$105,000 for a 10’ x 30’? Seriously? That’s $300 per square foot. Maybe somebody considering this should consult Realtor.com because you can get a real house – including the land underneath – in the nicest areas of the U.S. for an average of $250 per square foot. 

I have to admit that I find it ironic when cities shut down parks and think they can rationalize it with flowery prose:

McAllen City Manager Roy Rodriguez said the city bought the property three years ago for expansion purposes. “We are expanding the campus for the McAllen Convention Center and outside festivities like MXLAN, this weekend is a perfect example of how we are expanding the facility,” Rodriguez said. “We are ready to start attempting to develop it”

I guess all park owners can learn from this and use the old Teddy Roosevelt phrase when the media calls “we shall endeavor to persevere” with property redevelopment.

This article pretty much exemplifies that the worst thing you can probably hear is “I’m from the government and I’m here to help”.

It’s like electric cars: they’re not for everyone. I have no desire to live in a 300 sq. ft. house, nor do I know anyone who does. I think those who want to “live small” are already working on that dream. But I also think that houses under 1,000 sq. ft. don’t fall into the average American’s list of goals, and that’s why you’re not going to see a ton more interest. Mobile homes hit that 1,000 sq. ft.  threshold and that’s why they’re in endless demand. I’ve personally sold hundreds of homes and I can tell you that under 1,000 sq. ft. is a deal killer.

No, I don’t buy into this viewpoint. Although there’s no question that rents have gone up, $400,000 homes and $2,000 per month apartments are only in giant cities. Nobody ever talks about the alternative. Here’s the actual stat from Wikipedia on life outside of the city:

Rural areas in the United States, often referred to as rural America, consists of approximately 97% of the United States' land area. An estimated 60 million people, or one in five residents (17.9% of the total U.S. population), live in rural America.

So if you move out to the 97% of America that is outside major cities, you can get a nice house for $100,000 and a nice apartment for $500 per month. I know, because I live in a town of 4,500 an hour outside of the big city. These “transient” people described in the article need to give up on their “big city” obsession, move to rural areas, get stable jobs, and provide a nice home for their families. This entire “I can’t afford the real world” nonsense is the opposite of personal accountability and the truth is that there’s absolutely no reason for anyone to live in a Winnebago in a WalMart parking lot. If that’s your lifestyle then the problem is you and not the U.S. housing market.

This was an interesting article until I got to the actual pricing: $1 million for 1,866 sq. ft. The whole point of alternative construction methods is to save money – not spend $500 per sq. ft. on something that is, at best, experimental with no stats on resale value. Makes no sense to me.

Sure, these are cool. And 144 sq. ft. for $8,325 means a 1,000 sq. ft. model (which is much more livable) would only cost around $50,000. And, yes, this is the solution to the affordable housing crisis. And, no, you can’t build them virtually anywhere in the U.S. due to the Uniform Building Code. And the construction industry will never let that code be changed. So when people tell you that it’s impossible to build affordable housing they’re not telling you the truth. The truth is that the government ensures that you can’t with codes that most people don’t even know exist. Change the codes and between this type of option and 3-D printed homes you could provide $150,000 stick-built dwellings in cities across America (the average lot in the U.S. is $80,000 so you have to add that in, too, thus the $150,000 price point).

The buyers are paying $16,250,000 ($200,000 per lot) for a rundown park. Exactly how would this not be a redevelopment deal? The reason the residents have probably not received notice is that the owner is not going to do so until after the deal has closed. How could anyone think that there will be any other outcome? 

Another article about a county government shutting down a park. Between owners wanting to redevelop for more profitable uses – and city/county/state governments wanting to shut them down to remove affordable housing units from their neighborhoods – mobile home parks may soon be listed as an endangered species.

The residents rarely have the ability to come up with the money on these ridiculous first-option rules. The odds are about as large as a meteorite hitting the title company. Just read the article itself. Here’s the proof:

“There are now 24 resident-owned communities in Washington and roughly 300 across the country, she said”

Here’s a reality check. There are around 44,000 mobile home parks in the U.S. There are around 300 resident-owned communities. That’s .0.0068% probability that they pull it off. Or conversely a 99.32% chance they can’t. Is that really worth the delay these first-option rules require? Clearly not. Then why pass such nonsense? Because it panders to the voting base and most voters are too stupid to know the actual math.

More nonsense about back-seat driving residents and media reporters trying to second guess complicated land development issues – kind of like me trying to critique brain surgery.

Here’s the key quote from this article:

“In the wake of Petaluma moving to tighten rent control and other protections in its mobile home parks, two park owners have now signalled they may shut down”.

The writer then goes on to point out how this will destroy hundreds of residents’ lives who can find no place even remotely as cheap to live.

OK, now who is then responsible for those folks being homeless? The group that passes the rent control. Their vote effectively signalled the death warrant for these properties. And they won’t be alone. I’m sure that other parks in Petaluma will follow their lead and redevelop into different uses.

I’ve written for nearly 20 years about the fact that rent control equals park redevelopment. It’s never going to change. Want to eliminate mobile home parks in your city/county/state? Simple solution: just pass rent control.

This quote reflects everything that’s wrong with the perception of mobile home park landlords:

[when a home burns down] residents are still required to pay rent for their mobile home spot, regardless if their house is still standing….But that’s not all.“They’re now telling us that we’re responsible for cleanup,” Castillo continued. “These families, many of whom didn’t have insurance, are now left to scramble and find apartments, find other places where they already don’t meet the income requirements. Aside from doing that, they also have to now find a way to save money, to pay the over $5,000 in cleanup fees plus the monthly rent until they are able to put in their 30 day notice to vacate.” Leaving many not knowing what’s next.“I feel like they’re just seeing us as dollar signs,” Perez said.

According to this rationale, mobile home park owners are not landlords, they are apparently government agencies – non-profits – that are responsible for much more than just providing parking spaces for mobile homes. Can you imagine applying this same logic to a parking lot at the airport in which your car burned down while you were on your trip. Do you think that would make you not responsible for your parking fee? For removal of your car? To any damage to the parking lot that the fire caused?

This is just plain stupid.

This is an issue for each resident to decide. If you live in a flood zone, you get flooding. It’s called accountability. How can people suddenly wake up and say “oh my gosh, I didn’t know I could be flooded?” when they’ve known that from the onset. If the State of Vermont now steps in and says “you can’t live in flood zones” then many people who have planned for periodic flooding will lose the use of their property. Is that fair?

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? 

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.

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.

The moral to this story is simple: stay far, far away from California if you want to be a landlord. Who in the world wants to mess with nonsense like this?

Same recurring theme:

Soon, the mobile home park located on Forrest Avenue in McKenzie could cease to exist. During the monthly meeting of the McKenzie City Council, the board approved (on the first reading) Ordinance 554 to amend the mobile home park property from R-4 (residential mobile home) to R-3 (high-density residential). This allows the owners to develop the property for the construction of “townhouses.”

Redevelopment of mobile home parks is accelerating for more profitable housing options. Residents and bureaucrats better take note because they will soon find out that the only way to stem this tide is to drop the strategy of public shaming park owners who engage in reasonable rent increases and instead say to owners “how much would the rent have to be to keep this park in operation and away from the wrecking ball?” and then happily pay it.

I have no problem with the concept of residents buying parks – we’ve sold several to the residents – but let’s all agree that 32 lots is not exactly changing the direction of the earth as many of these “resident-owned” articles like to suggest.

It’s not hard to find an attorney to file almost anything if you’ll pay their hourly rate, but I sense the residents will have some challenges with their class-action dream namely because 1) Ohio has no rent control 2) Ohio has no rent control and 3) did I mention that Ohio has no rent control? Kind of hard to overcome that one issue when your lawsuit is about the owner raising rent.

But I can bet you that the owners of this park are probably meeting this weekend with some land developers to get the current value per square foot – wouldn’t you? If the residents are the catalyst for that redevelopment then they have nobody to blame but themselves.

This time it’s a city itself that is tearing down the mobile home park to make way for a better use of the land. And the residents are mad because the city is going to displace 30 tenants to make way for 300 more housing units.

"Residents of the park have described the morale as “depressing” since the approval.“There is a community based here. They showed that they are going to make places so that people can have more places to live, but what about here? There are over 70 residents here. We are all getting kicked out on the street and that is not right,” said Amanda Mitchell, a resident who has lived at the park for 20 years."

It looks like the 800-pound gorilla in the room nationwide is that park owners simply tear down and redevelop when the mobile home park is no longer the highest and best use of the land. That means residents need to embrace rent increases and follow the rules because the alternative is homelessness. It’s that simple. Even cities – in this case -- are following this mantra.