WOW... Your hard work paid off... Prop 98 was defeated by almost 2 to 1, and Prop 99 -- the good eminent domain initiative -- won by an even bigger margin. Will the park owners and landlords get the message? Who knows. As long as they're motivated by greed and can find some allies like the Howard Jarvis anti-government folks (aka the gang that brought us Prop 13 in 1978) we have to be careful. But for now, let's give ourselves and the wonderful groups that helped out on this -- AARP, CARA, the League of
Cities, tenants' advocates throughout the state, and the League of Women Voters and many others -- A HUGE THANKS AND A HEARTY HIGH HIGH FIVE. Special thanks in Sonoma County to those great residents of Sequoia Gardens senior park who manned tables at supermarkets throughout Santa Rosa for several weeks to get the word out. To all of you, THANK YOU!!
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Chronicle Slams Prop 98
Defend our cities - vote no on Prop. 98
Sunday, May 4, 2008
The best that can be said of Prop. 98 is that it is poorly drafted. Supporters of 98 like to portray it as an attempt to defend our homes against the prospect of a hostile takeover through eminent domain. If that were the case, the measure would be carefully tailored to accomplish its stated purpose. It is not. It goes further. Much further.
Prop. 98 is disingenuous and dangerous. It threatens to wreak havoc on the ability to achieve collective goals throughout the state. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, former Gov. Pete Wilson and Sen. Dianne Feinstein all oppose 98 out of a concern that it could imperil this state's ability to assure an adequate water supply for the future. A Coastal Commission analysis warns that it could undermine efforts to protect the coast and keep it accessible to the public.
The president of the California League of Conservation voters said "a wide array of environmental regulations" could be threatened by passage of Prop. 98. The director of the League of California Cities called it "a very, very broad prescription against the use of eminent domain" that could wipe out, among other things, local governments' efforts to compel developers to build affordable housing.
In other words, this benign-sounding measure that is being advertised as a way to protect your home could end up undermining the environmental and neighborhood regulations that add to your quality of life - and help sustain your property's value.
"This measure has tentacles that are going to reach out and challenge a wide array of public works projects," said Chris McKenzie, executive director of the League of California Cities.
The ostensible purpose for Prop. 98 is the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision against Susette Kelo, a Connecticut homeowner who was trying to fight off government efforts to seize her house for a redevelopment project. That high court ruling, which upheld the ability of a government to shift private property from one owner to another for broadly defined public purposes, created widespread outrage, and for good reason. No one would want his or her home or farm to be seized against his or her will just so a local government can reap the sales and property-tax bounty of a Wal-Mart or Home Depot.
Prop. 98 clearly precludes that possibility. It expressly prohibits the use of eminent domain for the transfer of property for private use.
But that is just the start. It also prohibits any new rent-control laws - and begins the phaseout of such laws in San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, San Jose, Los Angeles and Santa Monica. It would wipe out rent-control laws on mobile-home parks in more than 100 cities and counties. Supporters of Prop. 98 - who have received the bulk of their financial support from landlords - suggest that abolition of rent control is a logical extension of eminent domain reform. We regard it as a stretch - an overreach, to be precise.
The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst has determined that Prop. 98's restrictions on regulation of a property's sale price could abolish laws (now existing in about a third of the state's cities and counties) that require the inclusion of lower-cost housing in new developments.
Then there is the most potentially sweeping clause of Prop. 98: Its prohibition on laws or regulations that "transfer economic benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the private owner." Opponents of 98 warn that this provision could be used to attack myriad laws that restrict land use or protect land, air and water resources. At the very least, 98 is an invitation to lawsuits - with us, the taxpayers, bearing the burden.
A much more straightforward approach to eminent domain reform is the alternative, Prop. 99, which would declare quite clearly that an owner-occupied single-family residence could not be seized for transfer to another private party. It has no hidden agendas, no ulterior motives, far less risk of unintended consequences.
Vote no on Prop. 98, yes on Prop. 99.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/04/INHA10C1U4.DTL
This article appeared on page G - 10 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Prop 98 - the Hidden Agenda
The Sonoma County chapter of the League of Women Voters is sponsoring a public debate on Prop 98 and 99 on Monday, April 28, 2008 at 7 PM in the Santa Rosa City Council Chambers at City Hall. You are all invited to attend. I will be presenting the case against Prop 98. You are all invited to attend, or you can also watch the debate on your Public Access TV channel.
Please keep up the effort to educate your friends and neighbors about Prop 98. It's one of the worst and most deceptive initiatives on the ballot in many years. Absentee ballots will be mailed out in about three weeks, so there's not much time to get the word out. For further information, click on any of the links below.
David Grabill
_______________________________________________________
| No on Prop. 98 - The Hidden Agendas Scheme
That's why a broad coalition including seniors, renters, businesses, conservationists, labor, homeowners, and agriculture opposes Prop. 98. [Note that SONOCONDO is listed as one of the mobile home residents groups opposing Prop 98] |
Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car listings at AOL Autos.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Rent Hike Slashed at Windsor Mobile Country Club
From: THE SANTA ROSA PRESS DEMOCRAT
By Clark Mason, Staff Reporter
Mar 31, 2008
Lucy Jazzux, a 74-year-old widow, was worried that a looming 70 percent hike in her rent would force her to move out of her Windsor mobile home.
"With the rent increase, plus paying the water bill, taxes, and car insurance, there wouldn't be enough for food," Jazzux said. "I was getting very panicky inside of me, very nervous."
But Jazzux, whose sole income is from Social Security, found out recently the rent increase is being cut almost in half, thanks to a group of residents who fought the hikes proposed by the buyer of Windsor Mobile Country Club.
Residents at the mobile home park, the largest in Windsor, negotiated a settlement with the buyer that will slash the rent increases, enabling Jazzux and other strapped residents to stay. "I'm so glad," she said.
Most residents in the 336-unit senior citizen community off of Conde Lane pay $301 a month for their spaces and were facing an increase of $217.50 in April. But under terms of a settlement reached with the purchaser, Resident Owned Parks Inc. of Sacramento, the rents will increase by no more than $117.50. It also requires the new owner to provide rental assistance to the lowest income residents in the park. Some residents - those with less than $10,000 in annual income - will face only a $7.50 increase.
"We're hopeful no one in the park will lose their homes now," said Donna Helwig, who led the fight to soften the rent increase. "We're very pleased with the agreement that was reached."
"It has ended well," said David Grabill, a Santa Rosa attorney who represented the residents' group.
Grabill said it ensures preservation of badly needed affordable housing at a time when increasing numbers of mobile home parks are being closed. Another trend is conversion to condominium-style ownership in which residents have to purchase their spaces, typically for $100,000 or more.
The settlement also requires current and future owners of the mobile home park to reserve half the spaces for low and very-low income residents and to limit future rent increases.
Maurice Priest, the president of the nonprofit corporation buying the park, described the settlement as amicable and "a good result for all the residents."
He disputed that the original rent hike would have forced anyone to leave, because Resident Owned Parks was committed to providing rental assistance to low-income residents. Priest said the reduced rent hike was made possible by the current owner's willingness to restructure the payments he will receive from the sale.
Priest's corporation is buying the park from longtime owner Ron Wollmer for $23 million, in a deal that is being financed with tax-exempt bonds authorized by the California Municipal Finance Authority.
Wollmer will hold the bonds, getting 5.75 percent interest tax free. When the bonds are paid off in 30 years, ownership of the park will go to the homeowners association.
Residents and town officials said Windsor Mobile Country Club is a well-maintained park. They appreciate that Wollmer has kept rents low for a long time. "Everybody loves this guy and rightly so," Grabill said. "He thinks of these folks (residents) as cousins, sort of extended family."
Windsor, like other cities in Sonoma County, has rent control in its mobile home parks. Annual rent increases are tied to the Consumer Price Index, typically around 2 to 3 percent. But when a park changes hands, the new owner can adjust rents to take into account the cost of acquisitions and other factors. If the rent increase is greater than the rate of inflation, it triggers an arbitration process, which resulted in the new agreed-upon rents. [The arbitration process started when the rent increase was initially proposed last September. After several days of contentious hearings spread over two months, the arbitrator, Andrea Ponticiello, ruled in favor of the residents in November and denied the rent increase. Priest served a new rent increase notice in December and several additional hearings were held before the settlement agreement was reached. The arbitrator approved the settlement late last week. - Sonocondo]
Priest said both the homeowners' association and the town had agreed to the initial higher rent increases of around 70 percent. But a group of about 30 residents led by Helwig objected.
"The thrust was to keep people from losing their homes in here," Helwig said. "The only way to do it, was to get the rent increase down."
She said that there used to be a waiting list to get into the park, but after the sale and rent increases were announced last year, there was a proliferation of residents who put their homes up for sale and planned to move.
Jazzux feared she would have been forced to give up her independence and live with one of her adult children, or try to find a senior living center.
"It would have been a catastrophe for me," she said.
_______________
Note: The Settlement Agreement also precludes the owner from everfiling a condo conversion application for the park unless at least 50% of the residents support such a conversion and includes other protections for residents. The Settlement Agreement [names redacted] CAN BE VIEWED HERE
By Clark Mason, Staff Reporter
Mar 31, 2008
Lucy Jazzux, a 74-year-old widow, was worried that a looming 70 percent hike in her rent would force her to move out of her Windsor mobile home.
"With the rent increase, plus paying the water bill, taxes, and car insurance, there wouldn't be enough for food," Jazzux said. "I was getting very panicky inside of me, very nervous."
But Jazzux, whose sole income is from Social Security, found out recently the rent increase is being cut almost in half, thanks to a group of residents who fought the hikes proposed by the buyer of Windsor Mobile Country Club.
Residents at the mobile home park, the largest in Windsor, negotiated a settlement with the buyer that will slash the rent increases, enabling Jazzux and other strapped residents to stay. "I'm so glad," she said.
Most residents in the 336-unit senior citizen community off of Conde Lane pay $301 a month for their spaces and were facing an increase of $217.50 in April. But under terms of a settlement reached with the purchaser, Resident Owned Parks Inc. of Sacramento, the rents will increase by no more than $117.50. It also requires the new owner to provide rental assistance to the lowest income residents in the park. Some residents - those with less than $10,000 in annual income - will face only a $7.50 increase.
"We're hopeful no one in the park will lose their homes now," said Donna Helwig, who led the fight to soften the rent increase. "We're very pleased with the agreement that was reached."
"It has ended well," said David Grabill, a Santa Rosa attorney who represented the residents' group.
Grabill said it ensures preservation of badly needed affordable housing at a time when increasing numbers of mobile home parks are being closed. Another trend is conversion to condominium-style ownership in which residents have to purchase their spaces, typically for $100,000 or more.
The settlement also requires current and future owners of the mobile home park to reserve half the spaces for low and very-low income residents and to limit future rent increases.
Maurice Priest, the president of the nonprofit corporation buying the park, described the settlement as amicable and "a good result for all the residents."
He disputed that the original rent hike would have forced anyone to leave, because Resident Owned Parks was committed to providing rental assistance to low-income residents. Priest said the reduced rent hike was made possible by the current owner's willingness to restructure the payments he will receive from the sale.
Priest's corporation is buying the park from longtime owner Ron Wollmer for $23 million, in a deal that is being financed with tax-exempt bonds authorized by the California Municipal Finance Authority.
Wollmer will hold the bonds, getting 5.75 percent interest tax free. When the bonds are paid off in 30 years, ownership of the park will go to the homeowners association.
Residents and town officials said Windsor Mobile Country Club is a well-maintained park. They appreciate that Wollmer has kept rents low for a long time. "Everybody loves this guy and rightly so," Grabill said. "He thinks of these folks (residents) as cousins, sort of extended family."
Windsor, like other cities in Sonoma County, has rent control in its mobile home parks. Annual rent increases are tied to the Consumer Price Index, typically around 2 to 3 percent. But when a park changes hands, the new owner can adjust rents to take into account the cost of acquisitions and other factors. If the rent increase is greater than the rate of inflation, it triggers an arbitration process, which resulted in the new agreed-upon rents. [The arbitration process started when the rent increase was initially proposed last September. After several days of contentious hearings spread over two months, the arbitrator, Andrea Ponticiello, ruled in favor of the residents in November and denied the rent increase. Priest served a new rent increase notice in December and several additional hearings were held before the settlement agreement was reached. The arbitrator approved the settlement late last week. - Sonocondo]
Priest said both the homeowners' association and the town had agreed to the initial higher rent increases of around 70 percent. But a group of about 30 residents led by Helwig objected.
"The thrust was to keep people from losing their homes in here," Helwig said. "The only way to do it, was to get the rent increase down."
She said that there used to be a waiting list to get into the park, but after the sale and rent increases were announced last year, there was a proliferation of residents who put their homes up for sale and planned to move.
Jazzux feared she would have been forced to give up her independence and live with one of her adult children, or try to find a senior living center.
"It would have been a catastrophe for me," she said.
_______________
Note: The Settlement Agreement also precludes the owner from everfiling a condo conversion application for the park unless at least 50% of the residents support such a conversion and includes other protections for residents. The Settlement Agreement [names redacted] CAN BE VIEWED HERE
Saturday, March 22, 2008
New Ventura County ordinance restricts mobile home park 'condo' conversions
New Ventura County ordinance restricts mobile home park 'condo' conversions
The law allows officials to block such plans unless most tenants approve. A lawyer for park owners says they might sue.
From the Los Angeles Times By Catherine Saillant, Staff Writer
March 21, 2008
Ventura County leaders this week put the brakes on so-called condo conversions of mobile home parks, enacting a law that would withhold approval of such plans unless park owners could prove their tenants support them.
The issue is important to local governments and affordable-housing advocates across the state, who say too many conversions could deplete one of California's last remaining stocks of affordable homes.
"Mobile home parks continue to be one of the most affordable forms of housing that we have in California, and particularly in rent-controlled jurisdictions," said Brian Augusta, a staff attorney for the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation.
Residents of the parks typically own their homes but rent the spaces on which they are located. In a conversion, the park owner is permitted to subdivide the park property and offer each lot for sale.
Proponents say subdividing offers tenants the chance to own the land beneath their homes. But tenant groups and affordable-housing advocates say the conversions allow owners to circumvent local rent control protections and have forced seniors and families out of their homes. Some believe owners suggest conversions mainly to get out from under the rent restrictions.
More than 100 local governments in California have passed laws that limit how much rent can increase at mobile home parks. But under the state's conversion law, local rent control laws become invalid when a single mobile home lot in a park is sold.
Many tenants of mobile home parks have low enough incomes to remain covered by a state rent control program. But housing advocates say the protections in the state program are not as strong as in local ones.
"It is a real problem that needs to be taken care of now before it really does grow way out of control," said Glenn Bell, a Los Angeles affordable-housing advocate.
Last year, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed legislation aimed at closing the rent control loophole in the conversion law and giving local governments more of a say.
A similar bill, SB 900, is expected to make its way through the Capitol this session. But Ventura County's leaders did not want to wait.
Ventura County's new law -- which aims to give tenants more say -- requires a public hearing by the Board of Supervisors if a mobile home park owner is unable to prove that a majority of park residents support conversion. Supervisors can reject an application if that support is not evident.
If less than 20% of tenants support a conversion, an owner's application will be immediately rejected without a hearing.
Ventura's law, which passed 3 to 1 on Tuesday, is patterned after a similar ordinance that Sonoma County supervisors passed last year.
Mobile home park owners went to court to try to overturn Sonoma County's law. The law was upheld at the trial court level, but owners have appealed, said Richard Close, the Santa Monica attorney representing them.
Close said park owners were considering legal action against Ventura County too.
"We believe the ordinance is illegal under state law," he said. "It's meant to prevent subdivisions and conversions in Ventura County."
California has about 5,000 mobile home parks, which provide housing for 700,000 residents. Conversions have taken place or are underway in about 40 locations, including Pacific Palisades, Carson, Palm Springs, Santa Paula, Vallejo and Buellton.
catherine.saillant @latimes.com
March 21, 2008
Ventura County leaders this week put the brakes on so-called condo conversions of mobile home parks, enacting a law that would withhold approval of such plans unless park owners could prove their tenants support them.
The issue is important to local governments and affordable-housing advocates across the state, who say too many conversions could deplete one of California's last remaining stocks of affordable homes.
"Mobile home parks continue to be one of the most affordable forms of housing that we have in California, and particularly in rent-controlled jurisdictions," said Brian Augusta, a staff attorney for the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation.
Residents of the parks typically own their homes but rent the spaces on which they are located. In a conversion, the park owner is permitted to subdivide the park property and offer each lot for sale.
Proponents say subdividing offers tenants the chance to own the land beneath their homes. But tenant groups and affordable-housing advocates say the conversions allow owners to circumvent local rent control protections and have forced seniors and families out of their homes. Some believe owners suggest conversions mainly to get out from under the rent restrictions.
More than 100 local governments in California have passed laws that limit how much rent can increase at mobile home parks. But under the state's conversion law, local rent control laws become invalid when a single mobile home lot in a park is sold.
Many tenants of mobile home parks have low enough incomes to remain covered by a state rent control program. But housing advocates say the protections in the state program are not as strong as in local ones.
"It is a real problem that needs to be taken care of now before it really does grow way out of control," said Glenn Bell, a Los Angeles affordable-housing advocate.
Last year, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed legislation aimed at closing the rent control loophole in the conversion law and giving local governments more of a say.
A similar bill, SB 900, is expected to make its way through the Capitol this session. But Ventura County's leaders did not want to wait.
Ventura County's new law -- which aims to give tenants more say -- requires a public hearing by the Board of Supervisors if a mobile home park owner is unable to prove that a majority of park residents support conversion. Supervisors can reject an application if that support is not evident.
If less than 20% of tenants support a conversion, an owner's application will be immediately rejected without a hearing.
Ventura's law, which passed 3 to 1 on Tuesday, is patterned after a similar ordinance that Sonoma County supervisors passed last year.
Mobile home park owners went to court to try to overturn Sonoma County's law. The law was upheld at the trial court level, but owners have appealed, said Richard Close, the Santa Monica attorney representing them.
Close said park owners were considering legal action against Ventura County too.
"We believe the ordinance is illegal under state law," he said. "It's meant to prevent subdivisions and conversions in Ventura County."
California has about 5,000 mobile home parks, which provide housing for 700,000 residents. Conversions have taken place or are underway in about 40 locations, including Pacific Palisades, Carson, Palm Springs, Santa Paula, Vallejo and Buellton.
catherine.saillant @latimes.com
Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Yes on Rent Control!
Advisory vote on rent control ordinance
Ventura Star - February 20, 2008
"Yes on rent control in El Dorado," a sign announces, while another at a different mobile home urges: "No Rent Control."
The differing opinions on a rent-control proposal are heard in conversations and seen on signs posted at El Dorado Mobile Estates. And the issue has become a divisive one at the Fillmore mobile home park.
City officials have come up with a plan that includes an advisory vote by the park's residents, who are 55 and older. After the vote, the city could enact an ordinance regulating rent increases at the park.
"They have to vote. That's the key," said Tom Anderson, a resident at the mobile home park for eight years.
Supporters want a rent-control ordinance partly because they are struggling to pay annual rent increases of 4.5 percent.
Opponents, however, say if an ordinance is adopted, the park's management company would change El Dorado into a condominium park or could drop the age restriction for tenants. Residents would have the option to purchase the property beneath their coach if El Dorado were converted into a condominium park.
Although a date has not been set by the city, residents will likely vote in a straw poll by early March, officials say.
The ballots likely will include a draft city ordinance and an alternative offer from Santa Ana-based Star Management, which runs the mobile home park at 250 E. Telegraph Road.
"This is inciting nerves and dislikes," resident Ray Brown said as he walked his Chihuahuas, Chica and Pete'e. "It pits neighbor against neighbor."
Brown, 63, moved to El Dorado in August 2006 because it was a mobile home park for older people. He said he's not mad at management's desire to change the park and respects the right to pursue that. But if the park is converted into a place for all ages, Brown said, he will leave.
"I'm disabled with a heart problem," he said. "I just can't have all the excitement and clamor that come with kids."
Having an all-age park could bring in families of three to five people per home, and they are more "economically viable," said Mike Cirillo, president of Star Management.
"From the owner's perspective, the new (people) have an ability to pay higher rents," he said.
Star Management opposes a rent-control ordinance and considers condominium conversions a viable economic option, according to Cirillo.
The park, which has about 420 residents, is not low-income, and people who have seen rent increases agreed to them in their leases, he added.
Anderson, who said he is neutral on the issue and believes rent control is not the answer for everything, is working on the offer with Cirillo. He said the offer could include lower annual rent increases and an agreement not to convert the park to an all-age property.
John Ohngren, 60, who supports an ordinance, said he is struggling to pay rent because of changing circumstances in his life. His wife died in July. He said it is a financial squeeze to meet rent increases and pay for medication and other essentials. A rent-control ordinance would be a big help, he said.
"It makes sense," Ohngren said. "I could see (rent) going to $1,000. That's crazy."
Cirillo said Star Management recently started a program at El Dorado to assist seniors struggling financially. Depending on their circumstances, they can receive monthly rent credits, he said. Several applications have been received, he said.
Richard Schuck, an 82-year-old resident, said he hopes an ordinance is passed soon. Higher rents "will price a few out of the park," he said.
Ventura Star - February 20, 2008
"Yes on rent control in El Dorado," a sign announces, while another at a different mobile home urges: "No Rent Control."
The differing opinions on a rent-control proposal are heard in conversations and seen on signs posted at El Dorado Mobile Estates. And the issue has become a divisive one at the Fillmore mobile home park.
City officials have come up with a plan that includes an advisory vote by the park's residents, who are 55 and older. After the vote, the city could enact an ordinance regulating rent increases at the park.
"They have to vote. That's the key," said Tom Anderson, a resident at the mobile home park for eight years.
Supporters want a rent-control ordinance partly because they are struggling to pay annual rent increases of 4.5 percent.
Opponents, however, say if an ordinance is adopted, the park's management company would change El Dorado into a condominium park or could drop the age restriction for tenants. Residents would have the option to purchase the property beneath their coach if El Dorado were converted into a condominium park.
Although a date has not been set by the city, residents will likely vote in a straw poll by early March, officials say.
The ballots likely will include a draft city ordinance and an alternative offer from Santa Ana-based Star Management, which runs the mobile home park at 250 E. Telegraph Road.
"This is inciting nerves and dislikes," resident Ray Brown said as he walked his Chihuahuas, Chica and Pete'e. "It pits neighbor against neighbor."
Brown, 63, moved to El Dorado in August 2006 because it was a mobile home park for older people. He said he's not mad at management's desire to change the park and respects the right to pursue that. But if the park is converted into a place for all ages, Brown said, he will leave.
"I'm disabled with a heart problem," he said. "I just can't have all the excitement and clamor that come with kids."
Having an all-age park could bring in families of three to five people per home, and they are more "economically viable," said Mike Cirillo, president of Star Management.
"From the owner's perspective, the new (people) have an ability to pay higher rents," he said.
Star Management opposes a rent-control ordinance and considers condominium conversions a viable economic option, according to Cirillo.
The park, which has about 420 residents, is not low-income, and people who have seen rent increases agreed to them in their leases, he added.
Anderson, who said he is neutral on the issue and believes rent control is not the answer for everything, is working on the offer with Cirillo. He said the offer could include lower annual rent increases and an agreement not to convert the park to an all-age property.
John Ohngren, 60, who supports an ordinance, said he is struggling to pay rent because of changing circumstances in his life. His wife died in July. He said it is a financial squeeze to meet rent increases and pay for medication and other essentials. A rent-control ordinance would be a big help, he said.
"It makes sense," Ohngren said. "I could see (rent) going to $1,000. That's crazy."
Cirillo said Star Management recently started a program at El Dorado to assist seniors struggling financially. Depending on their circumstances, they can receive monthly rent credits, he said. Several applications have been received, he said.
Richard Schuck, an 82-year-old resident, said he hopes an ordinance is passed soon. Higher rents "will price a few out of the park," he said.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Save Rent Control Alert
From: Coalition for Economic Survival <contactces@earthlink.net>
To: anvil95993@yahoo.com
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 06:16:20 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Opposition to Anti Rent Control Measure Grows With Key Endorsements
To: anvil95993@yahoo.com
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 06:16:20 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Opposition to Anti Rent Control Measure Grows With Key Endorsements
The year's hottest artists on the red carpet at the Grammy Awards. AOL Music takes you there.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Evans is Legislator of the Year
(SACRAMENTO, CA) Assemblymember Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa), Chair of the Assembly Democratic Caucus, is pleased to announce that she has been named "Legislator of the Year" by the Golden State Manufactured-Home Owners League (GSMOL), an association of mobile home residents across California.
"This is a true honor for me," said Evans. "We need to protect mobile homes because they provide valuable affordable housing to our working families and seniors. I´ll keep fighting the good fight."
Evans was honored for her authorship of Assembly Bill (AB) 1542 last year, which was vetoed by the Governor. This legislation would have closed a loophole in current law allowing mobile home park owners to subdivide and convert mobile home parks into condominiums, to avoid local rent control, and to potentially make huge profits in the process. It would have also provided local governments with rent control ordinances the opportunity to review and approve applications to convert mobile home parks.
"There is no greater threat to mobile home owners than the condo conversion of mobile home parks," said Tim Sheahan, President of GSMOL. "Assemblymember Evans has a thorough grasp of this issue and authored a bill that was strongly opposed by park owners and other landlord groups. She earned recognition as our ´Legislator of the Year´ for her efforts to protect mobile home owners and to preserve affordable housing in California."
As "Legislator of the Year," Evans received a plaque from GSMOL featuring two real boxing gloves. She proudly keeps the award in her office at the State Capitol.
"I´ve never fought so hard to get a bill out of the Legislature," said Evans. "It was a true labor of love. Mobile home residents deserve a lot of credit for helping me convince other legislators to support this bill. I hope the Governor sees things our way this year. We have to keep the pressure on!"
Current law allows a mobile home park to be subdivided into residential ownership. But there are no safeguards for local governments to ensure that conversions serve the public interest. If one parcel in a mobile home park is sold, the phase-out of rent control begins for the remaining park residents except for low-income tenants. After 4 years spaces not rented to low-income tenants at the time of conversion can be rented at market rate. This means that a space rented for $600/month today could cost $1,000 to $1,500 in just a few years.
There are 40 pending mobile home park conversions in varying locations across California. Several cities and counties adopted moratoriums to give the State Legislature time to act on AB 1542.
AB 1542 was sponsored by the City of Santa Rosa, the County of Sonoma, and the League of Cities. Along with GSMOL, it was supported by the California State Association of Counties, the Sonoma Housing Advocacy Group, the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, and the Building and Construction Trades Council of California.
Further information about AB 1542 is available online at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov.
"This is a true honor for me," said Evans. "We need to protect mobile homes because they provide valuable affordable housing to our working families and seniors. I´ll keep fighting the good fight."
Evans was honored for her authorship of Assembly Bill (AB) 1542 last year, which was vetoed by the Governor. This legislation would have closed a loophole in current law allowing mobile home park owners to subdivide and convert mobile home parks into condominiums, to avoid local rent control, and to potentially make huge profits in the process. It would have also provided local governments with rent control ordinances the opportunity to review and approve applications to convert mobile home parks.
"There is no greater threat to mobile home owners than the condo conversion of mobile home parks," said Tim Sheahan, President of GSMOL. "Assemblymember Evans has a thorough grasp of this issue and authored a bill that was strongly opposed by park owners and other landlord groups. She earned recognition as our ´Legislator of the Year´ for her efforts to protect mobile home owners and to preserve affordable housing in California."
As "Legislator of the Year," Evans received a plaque from GSMOL featuring two real boxing gloves. She proudly keeps the award in her office at the State Capitol.
"I´ve never fought so hard to get a bill out of the Legislature," said Evans. "It was a true labor of love. Mobile home residents deserve a lot of credit for helping me convince other legislators to support this bill. I hope the Governor sees things our way this year. We have to keep the pressure on!"
Current law allows a mobile home park to be subdivided into residential ownership. But there are no safeguards for local governments to ensure that conversions serve the public interest. If one parcel in a mobile home park is sold, the phase-out of rent control begins for the remaining park residents except for low-income tenants. After 4 years spaces not rented to low-income tenants at the time of conversion can be rented at market rate. This means that a space rented for $600/month today could cost $1,000 to $1,500 in just a few years.
There are 40 pending mobile home park conversions in varying locations across California. Several cities and counties adopted moratoriums to give the State Legislature time to act on AB 1542.
AB 1542 was sponsored by the City of Santa Rosa, the County of Sonoma, and the League of Cities. Along with GSMOL, it was supported by the California State Association of Counties, the Sonoma Housing Advocacy Group, the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, and the Building and Construction Trades Council of California.
Further information about AB 1542 is available online at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Jarvis / WMA Ballot Initiative
The new Jarvis initiative -- with major funding from the WMA park owners association -- includes a ban on mobilehome park rent control and other local government efforts to preserve and expand affordable housing under the guise of protecting people from "eminent domain" abuses by local government.
In their recent propaganda about condo conversion of mobilehome parks, the park owners and their attorneys have been claiming that lower income residents in parks converted to condo's will be protected for life against any rent increases (other than CPI) by "state rent control." Even the governor seems to have been snookered by this claim, which is why he said he decided to veto AB 1542. But while they're telling residents "don't worry," the park owners have been contributing millions to get the Jarvis / WMA initiative on the ballot. And that initiative -- if it passes -- will wipe out the rent control provision in the STATE condo conversion laws. So low income residents in parks converted to condo's would have NO protection against rent increases under the Jarvis / WMA ballot initiative. Low income residents of condo-converted parks will actually be the hardest hit if the initiative passes. The owners of those parks will jump at the chance to force low income residents to move out so they can sell their spaces as condo's.
The Jarvis / WMA people have now gathered enough signatures to get the initiative on the ballot for the June, 2008 election. If it passes, then hundreds of thousands of mobilehome residents in California will have their rents increased dramatically. We need to start soon to educate people about the hardship that this initiative will cause if it passes.
The California League of Cities is also gathering signatures to put a counter initiative on the June ballot which will limit cities' ability to use eminent domain, but which will not affect local (or state) rent control and other affordable housing programs. We should support this proposition and make sure that it gets more votes than the Jarvis / WMA initiative. More details will follow soon.
In their recent propaganda about condo conversion of mobilehome parks, the park owners and their attorneys have been claiming that lower income residents in parks converted to condo's will be protected for life against any rent increases (other than CPI) by "state rent control." Even the governor seems to have been snookered by this claim, which is why he said he decided to veto AB 1542. But while they're telling residents "don't worry," the park owners have been contributing millions to get the Jarvis / WMA initiative on the ballot. And that initiative -- if it passes -- will wipe out the rent control provision in the STATE condo conversion laws. So low income residents in parks converted to condo's would have NO protection against rent increases under the Jarvis / WMA ballot initiative. Low income residents of condo-converted parks will actually be the hardest hit if the initiative passes. The owners of those parks will jump at the chance to force low income residents to move out so they can sell their spaces as condo's.
The Jarvis / WMA people have now gathered enough signatures to get the initiative on the ballot for the June, 2008 election. If it passes, then hundreds of thousands of mobilehome residents in California will have their rents increased dramatically. We need to start soon to educate people about the hardship that this initiative will cause if it passes.
The California League of Cities is also gathering signatures to put a counter initiative on the June ballot which will limit cities' ability to use eminent domain, but which will not affect local (or state) rent control and other affordable housing programs. We should support this proposition and make sure that it gets more votes than the Jarvis / WMA initiative. More details will follow soon.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Santa Rosa Press Democrat: In killing Evans' bill, governor sides with mobile home park owners
From the 10/17/07 Santa Rosa Press Democrat:
In vetoing AB 1542 -- a modest attempt at compromise in the latest battle over mobile home park conversions -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger put a desire for process ahead of the needs of people.
In a message, Schwarzenegger said he was vetoing the legislation by Assemblywoman Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa, because he preferred a "comprehensive approach to ensure that low-income individuals and families are protected, homeownership opportunities are affordable to those who choose them and stability of the home and property is preserved."
We agree with that. What we don't agree with is the governor's apparent willingness to abandon some current mobile home renters -- including senior citizens -- to the flaws in the existing system while the state waits for that perfect "comprehensive approach" to come along. California can't wait. Across the state, between 40 and 50 mobile home parks, including several here in Sonoma County, are in the process of being converted.
Evans' bill did not seek to block those conversions from occurring. Her legislation merely would have allowed local governments to have a voice when a mobile home park owner seeks to subdivide and convert lots to private ownership. Under current law, local rent-control ordinances -- such as those in Santa Rosa and Sonoma County -- are invalid as soon as a single unit is converted to private ownership.
Those most vulnerable to losing out are those renters who are unable to buy the lot under their mobile homes but don't qualify for the special state protections in place for low-income renters. Many of these individuals are at risk of seeing their rents soar and being forced out. It's unfortunate that Schwarzenegger is willing to accept that risk.
If the governor is determined to have a uniform system, he should raise the income requirements for mobile home renters covered by post-conversion rent control and ensure there's enough money in the system to provide low-interest lending assistance to all those who chose to buy their units.
If he's not willing to ensure such a process, he should side with protecting people.
In vetoing AB 1542 -- a modest attempt at compromise in the latest battle over mobile home park conversions -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger put a desire for process ahead of the needs of people.
In a message, Schwarzenegger said he was vetoing the legislation by Assemblywoman Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa, because he preferred a "comprehensive approach to ensure that low-income individuals and families are protected, homeownership opportunities are affordable to those who choose them and stability of the home and property is preserved."
We agree with that. What we don't agree with is the governor's apparent willingness to abandon some current mobile home renters -- including senior citizens -- to the flaws in the existing system while the state waits for that perfect "comprehensive approach" to come along. California can't wait. Across the state, between 40 and 50 mobile home parks, including several here in Sonoma County, are in the process of being converted.
Evans' bill did not seek to block those conversions from occurring. Her legislation merely would have allowed local governments to have a voice when a mobile home park owner seeks to subdivide and convert lots to private ownership. Under current law, local rent-control ordinances -- such as those in Santa Rosa and Sonoma County -- are invalid as soon as a single unit is converted to private ownership.
Those most vulnerable to losing out are those renters who are unable to buy the lot under their mobile homes but don't qualify for the special state protections in place for low-income renters. Many of these individuals are at risk of seeing their rents soar and being forced out. It's unfortunate that Schwarzenegger is willing to accept that risk.
If the governor is determined to have a uniform system, he should raise the income requirements for mobile home renters covered by post-conversion rent control and ensure there's enough money in the system to provide low-interest lending assistance to all those who chose to buy their units.
If he's not willing to ensure such a process, he should side with protecting people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
