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.

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 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.

OK, I called this a few years ago. Yes, tiny homes will one day be allowed in all parks nationwide because, just like Uber, it’s what people want even if it’s not technically legal. If they could repeal prohibition, they can certainly open the doors to tiny homes over time.

How can you justify spending $2 million just for the sidewalks on a 14-lot expansion? That’s over $100,000 per lot just for the sidewalk cost the city is demanding. I’m afraid on lost on this concept. 

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.

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.

What kind of goofball pays $200,000 for a mobile home? Move to Missouri and you can get a brick house in a good school district for less money. And what’s with the use of the name “Reserve” on just about every housing project in Florida? Reserve is defined as “a supply of a commodity not needed for immediate use” – which basically means it’s something that nobody currently needs. How is that a positive in a development name?

If Delaware passes a bill that bans evicting residents for criminal behavior and provides every resident a free attorney when an eviction is filed against them then they may go to the top of my list of dumbest states. Pathetic.

Blah, blah, blah … park owners are evil, residents are angels and the only way to save the world is for the residents to buy the parks they live in. These types of stupid narratives are what is causing an acceleration of parks being redeveloped into apartments and Home Depot stores. Why would anyone want to own a park in California and put up with these crackpots? I sure wouldn’t. 

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”.

Don’t you love it when politicians hold public forums? It’s absolutely meaningless but makes people feel like they’re being heard. Instead, decision makers are making tiny notes of grocery items and daydreaming about golf adventures while nodding sporadically to pretend like they’re really concerned. “Walla Walla Rep. Mark Klicker, the ranking Republican on the House Housing Committee, will host the sessions along with assistant ranking member Republican Rep. April Connors and a housing policy staffer. "Basically, it’s a listening session to get some ideas to find solutions to both the rental market and mobile home parks to curtail the rapid rate increases," Klicker said in a statement.” The odds that these forums will change anyone’s vote is somewhere around .00000001%.

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. 

Here’s where I get confused on articles like this. She says she has a full-time job with the same company for the past 17 years. Her only obligation is a $280 per month lot rent. Yet she says “I live paycheck to paycheck”. So even if it took you 17 years to work up to minimum wage, you’d earn at least $20,000 per year. $280 per month represents 17% of your income. I’m sorry but I just don’t buy it.

While broadband is not the most important utility to work on, these type of grants and projects are a great way to help residents and keep mobile home parks from being redeveloped. There have been other articles recently in which water and sewer were also upgraded under these types of arrangements and I am obviously all for it.

There are two lessons learned from this article:

1. The residents should have paid their rent, not complained about increases, followed the rules, and Trails End might still be an ongoing mobile home park. Instead, the residents refused to pay or follow the rules, fought the owners every step of the way, and the fate of the park was sealed. The new owner made $2.4 million selling the land, but they might have hung in there and simply raised the rents if the residents had accepted the fact that the property owner held all the cards.
2. Once again, the words “I’m from the government and I’m here to help” proved to be the scariest phrase in the English language. Just ask the residents of Trails End.

And here’s something really rare: another story of a park being torn down to make way for new development. Yet the residents are trying to intervene claiming that the $650 per month they are currently paying is profit enough for the owner. Unfortunately, that’s not how the free market works. The owner of the mobile home park will weigh the numbers on owning the park vs. selling the land. If the residents wanted to improve their odds, they should go to the property owner right now and say “how much would we have to pay in lot rent to keep this as a park” and maybe they would have a shot at negotiating a solution. Having some woke journalist try to publicly shame the property owner only tilts the scales in favor of redevelopment.

And here’s another story of a park being torn down for redevelopment. One of the residents in the article admonishes “we don’t have a place to go” – which means they can’t find anything as affordable. The moral is that residents should embrace higher rents because without them they are homeless. Would an extra $150 per month in lot rent have saved the day? We’ll never know. Nobody ever wants to accept this reality until the eviction notices go out.

Yet another article about a mobile home park being torn down to be redeveloped into a new use. This time it’s going to be 19 stick-built dwellings. Once again, you have to ask yourself what the lot rent would have had to be raised to in order for this property to remain a mobile home park. Pretty tragic if it was only $200 more per month. Another reminder that without higher lot rents all parks end up being built into a more profitable use: you can’t mix the narratives of low rents and status quo usage.

What a crazy country we live in. A developer pays a fortune for an old mobile home park to tear down and build a new expensive project and now they are not allowed to dig on it because native American items were found on the site. So the developer now appears to own Florida’s most expensive grassy field. I guess the moral is that there are few things riskier than building from scratch – much safer to simply buy existing properties and fix them up.