The hearing is open to the public.
David Grabill
Law Office of David Grabill
1930 Alderbrook Lane
Santa Rosa, CA 95405
(707) 528 6839 - voice
(707) 780 1585 - fax
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Sequoia Gardens appeal hearing
The oral argument in the appeal of the mhp condo conversion case filed against Sonoma County by the owner of Sequoia Gardens mobile home park will be on June 16 at 1:30 in San Francisco (Division 2). The Court is likely to render a decision in the case within about two months, but it could be longer (or shorter). The 3-judge appellate panel hearing the case will likely include Tony Kline, who worked for a legal aid program for several years then was Gov Jerry Brown's appointments secretary in the '70's, and Paul Haerle who was on Gov Ronald Reagan's staff.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
More on Duroville
Here's an excerpt from the Court's decision in U.S. v. Duro, et al.:
The Park, or Duroville or Los Duros, as it is better known by its residents, is not a business, it is a village; thousands of our fellow human beings call the Park home. It is not nearly as safe or as healthy as we would want it to be; it is, nonetheless, home for a community of people who are poor, undereducated, disenfranchised, and, in many respects, exploited. The Court must also add that, despite these disadvantages, these very same people, based on the evidence at trial, are an honest, hard-working, proud, colorful, and family-oriented community of people committed to educating their children and raising them to be productive and successful members of our society. The evidence at trial indicates that some are undocumented, some are resident aliens, and some are United States citizens; this complicated combination of immigration statuses places many of the residents of the Park in the crossroads of our Nation’s incongruous immigration and agricultural policies that, on the one hand, portend that undocumented workers lack legal status while at the same time predicating the economic efficiency of an agricultural industry on their hard work; it appears to this Court that we have, once again, established a rather“peculiar institution” to service our agrarian needs.
In any event, the evidence at trial clearly established that to accede to the government’s – and now Mr. Duro’s – request to promptly close the Park, without identifying where the vast majority of its residents would then live, would create a major humanitarian crisis. For the Court to close the Park under current conditions would create one of the largest forced human migrations in the history of this State. Unlike another forced migration in this State’s history – the internment of Japanese citizens during World War II – there is not even a Manzanar for these residents to go. [See footnote below] The Court, since the early hearings in this case, has pressed the government to identify and present relocation proposals for the residents of the Park. Although the Court recognizes and applauds the efforts of various government actors, including the United States Attorney himself, to explore potential alternatives, and although the County of Riverside, under the leadership of Supervisor Roy Wilson and his colleagues, and with the support of Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, have together made significant strides in developing and funding potential alternatives, the evidence at trial clearly establishes that any such alternatives are many months, and perhaps several years, away. Moreover, any of the proposed alternatives are further complicated by the immigration issue referenced above. As unsafe and unhealthy as the Park may be – circumstances the Court has observed first-hand through its visits to the park – it nonetheless offers a shelter in place for a people who otherwise have nowhere to go. Until and unless alternative housing is available – alternative housing that is safe, healthy, affordable and truly available to the residents – this Court will not close Duroville.
[footnote] Counsel's concerns about the safety and health conditions at the Park are well taken; however, without any available alternative, counsel's implicit assumption that a forced closure and relocation out of the Park -- presumably employing United States Marshals to compel those who refused to move -- would somehow result in the residents landing in either a safer or healthier location is not only speculative but is, based on the evidence admitted at trial, highly unlikely. The closure sought by the government, in the manner it is sought, is qualitatively different than the forced relocation and internment of Japanese Americans during World War II in that it does not represent in a deprivation of one’s treasured liberty; nevertheless, the parallel between the Court-sanctioned, forced relocation of thousands of vulnerable individuals during a sad chapter in our nation’s history, and the remedy sought by the government in this case, especially when viewed in the context of the precarious immigration status of so many of the residents of the Park, is striking.
The Park, or Duroville or Los Duros, as it is better known by its residents, is not a business, it is a village; thousands of our fellow human beings call the Park home. It is not nearly as safe or as healthy as we would want it to be; it is, nonetheless, home for a community of people who are poor, undereducated, disenfranchised, and, in many respects, exploited. The Court must also add that, despite these disadvantages, these very same people, based on the evidence at trial, are an honest, hard-working, proud, colorful, and family-oriented community of people committed to educating their children and raising them to be productive and successful members of our society. The evidence at trial indicates that some are undocumented, some are resident aliens, and some are United States citizens; this complicated combination of immigration statuses places many of the residents of the Park in the crossroads of our Nation’s incongruous immigration and agricultural policies that, on the one hand, portend that undocumented workers lack legal status while at the same time predicating the economic efficiency of an agricultural industry on their hard work; it appears to this Court that we have, once again, established a rather“peculiar institution” to service our agrarian needs.
In any event, the evidence at trial clearly established that to accede to the government’s – and now Mr. Duro’s – request to promptly close the Park, without identifying where the vast majority of its residents would then live, would create a major humanitarian crisis. For the Court to close the Park under current conditions would create one of the largest forced human migrations in the history of this State. Unlike another forced migration in this State’s history – the internment of Japanese citizens during World War II – there is not even a Manzanar for these residents to go. [See footnote below] The Court, since the early hearings in this case, has pressed the government to identify and present relocation proposals for the residents of the Park. Although the Court recognizes and applauds the efforts of various government actors, including the United States Attorney himself, to explore potential alternatives, and although the County of Riverside, under the leadership of Supervisor Roy Wilson and his colleagues, and with the support of Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, have together made significant strides in developing and funding potential alternatives, the evidence at trial clearly establishes that any such alternatives are many months, and perhaps several years, away. Moreover, any of the proposed alternatives are further complicated by the immigration issue referenced above. As unsafe and unhealthy as the Park may be – circumstances the Court has observed first-hand through its visits to the park – it nonetheless offers a shelter in place for a people who otherwise have nowhere to go. Until and unless alternative housing is available – alternative housing that is safe, healthy, affordable and truly available to the residents – this Court will not close Duroville.
[footnote] Counsel's concerns about the safety and health conditions at the Park are well taken; however, without any available alternative, counsel's implicit assumption that a forced closure and relocation out of the Park -- presumably employing United States Marshals to compel those who refused to move -- would somehow result in the residents landing in either a safer or healthier location is not only speculative but is, based on the evidence admitted at trial, highly unlikely. The closure sought by the government, in the manner it is sought, is qualitatively different than the forced relocation and internment of Japanese Americans during World War II in that it does not represent in a deprivation of one’s treasured liberty; nevertheless, the parallel between the Court-sanctioned, forced relocation of thousands of vulnerable individuals during a sad chapter in our nation’s history, and the remedy sought by the government in this case, especially when viewed in the context of the precarious immigration status of so many of the residents of the Park, is striking.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Duroville Will Not Close
From today's LA Times...
After seven years of litigation, a federal judge Thursday refused to close the Duroville mobile home park, saying it would result in a "major humanitarian crisis" for thousands of poor farmworkers with no place else to go.
"To close the park under current conditions would create one of the largest forced human migrations in the history of this state," said U.S. District Judge Stephen G. Larson. "Unlike another forced migration in this state's history -- the internment of [Japanese Americans] during World War II -- there is not even a Manzanar for these residents to go."
Read more...
After seven years of litigation, a federal judge Thursday refused to close the Duroville mobile home park, saying it would result in a "major humanitarian crisis" for thousands of poor farmworkers with no place else to go.
"To close the park under current conditions would create one of the largest forced human migrations in the history of this state," said U.S. District Judge Stephen G. Larson. "Unlike another forced migration in this state's history -- the internment of [Japanese Americans] during World War II -- there is not even a Manzanar for these residents to go."
Read more...
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Pay to Play?
From the San Francisco Bay Guardian
April 8, 2009
Fiona Ma claims her mobile home bill is about helping poor people, not the campaign contribution she received
By Tim Redmond tredmond@sfbg.com
Fiona Ma, the California Assembly Member from the west side of San Francisco, has introduced a bill that would limit rent controls on trailer parks — something of a stretch for a district that has no mobile homes and for a politician who has never shown any past interest in the issue.
But several months before she introduced the bill, Ma received $6,200 in campaign contributions from one of the leading mobile home landlord groups.
Assembly Bill 481, introduced Feb. 24, would make it easier for the owners of mobile home parks to raise rents on units that are either sublet or not occupied year-round. It's one of two major bills the park owners are pushing this year. The other, AB 761, by Assembly Member Charles Calderon (D-Montebello), would eliminate vacancy control in parks and allow rents to rise every time a space becomes empty.
Rent control in California mobile home parks is unusual. Trailer residents typically own their units but must pay rent to the park owner for the land beneath them. So mobile home owners — many of them seniors and low-income people — are actually tenants.
Under current law, local rent control ordinances apply to those trailer parks, keeping the cost of living there relatively low. However, the law allows park owners to raise the rent on trailers that function as vacation homes — that are not a principal residence for the owner and aren't rented to somebody else.
Ma's bill would make it easier to define a mobile home as a second residence and would eliminate the provision that protects sublets.
Advocates for mobile home residents have vowed to fight the bill. "In mobile home parks, the park owners have hugely disparate power over residents, most of whom are low income and over 60," David Grabill, an affordable housing advocate and attorney for the Coalition of Mobile Homeowners-California, told us. "Park owners also look for any hook or crook way to get a space out from under rent control or squeeze more rent out of the residents. Residents can't move their homes, can't afford to move themselves, and can't afford lawyers to protect their rights.
"This bill would give park owners a whole new way to threaten and intimidate residents."
Ma insists that her only goal is to promote affordable housing. She told us that mobile homes in Malibu sell for millions of dollars, and that some are used entirely as second residences for wealthy people. "Rent control is supposed to be for low-income people," she said, arguing that if rich mobile homeowners lost their rent control protection, those units would be available for less wealthy people.
As for sublet homes, she said: "If the owners don't need to live there, then they can afford to live somewhere else — and they don't need rent control protection."
Ma at first said she took up the bill because she was on the Assembly Housing Committee and was looking for measures that would promote low-income housing. Calvin Welch, a San Francisco activist who has been working on affordable housing issues for decades, finds that a bit odd.
When Ma was a San Francisco supervisor, Welch told us, "she was missing in action on every significant affordable housing measure. Much of the time, she was on the other side."
When we pressed her, Ma acknowledged that the Western Manufactured Housing Committee, which represents park owners, spoke to her about the bill. The group's Web site goes further, claiming that WMHC sponsored the Ma bill. And campaign finance records show that the WMHC political action committee gave Ma $4,200 on Oct. 27, 2008 and another $2,000 the next day.
Tim Sheahan, president of the Golden Gate Manufactured Home Owners League, which represents mobile home park tenants, told us Ma's comments about million dollar homes are off the mark. "Sure, there are a few sensational anomalies. But that is no reflection on how most mobile homeowners live," he said.
And even if wealthier residents are forced to sell their homes, he noted, "the new residents will have to pay much higher rent. So there's no way this adds to affordable housing."
April 8, 2009
Fiona Ma claims her mobile home bill is about helping poor people, not the campaign contribution she received
By Tim Redmond tredmond@sfbg.com
Fiona Ma, the California Assembly Member from the west side of San Francisco, has introduced a bill that would limit rent controls on trailer parks — something of a stretch for a district that has no mobile homes and for a politician who has never shown any past interest in the issue.
But several months before she introduced the bill, Ma received $6,200 in campaign contributions from one of the leading mobile home landlord groups.
Assembly Bill 481, introduced Feb. 24, would make it easier for the owners of mobile home parks to raise rents on units that are either sublet or not occupied year-round. It's one of two major bills the park owners are pushing this year. The other, AB 761, by Assembly Member Charles Calderon (D-Montebello), would eliminate vacancy control in parks and allow rents to rise every time a space becomes empty.
Rent control in California mobile home parks is unusual. Trailer residents typically own their units but must pay rent to the park owner for the land beneath them. So mobile home owners — many of them seniors and low-income people — are actually tenants.
Under current law, local rent control ordinances apply to those trailer parks, keeping the cost of living there relatively low. However, the law allows park owners to raise the rent on trailers that function as vacation homes — that are not a principal residence for the owner and aren't rented to somebody else.
Ma's bill would make it easier to define a mobile home as a second residence and would eliminate the provision that protects sublets.
Advocates for mobile home residents have vowed to fight the bill. "In mobile home parks, the park owners have hugely disparate power over residents, most of whom are low income and over 60," David Grabill, an affordable housing advocate and attorney for the Coalition of Mobile Homeowners-California, told us. "Park owners also look for any hook or crook way to get a space out from under rent control or squeeze more rent out of the residents. Residents can't move their homes, can't afford to move themselves, and can't afford lawyers to protect their rights.
"This bill would give park owners a whole new way to threaten and intimidate residents."
Ma insists that her only goal is to promote affordable housing. She told us that mobile homes in Malibu sell for millions of dollars, and that some are used entirely as second residences for wealthy people. "Rent control is supposed to be for low-income people," she said, arguing that if rich mobile homeowners lost their rent control protection, those units would be available for less wealthy people.
As for sublet homes, she said: "If the owners don't need to live there, then they can afford to live somewhere else — and they don't need rent control protection."
Ma at first said she took up the bill because she was on the Assembly Housing Committee and was looking for measures that would promote low-income housing. Calvin Welch, a San Francisco activist who has been working on affordable housing issues for decades, finds that a bit odd.
When Ma was a San Francisco supervisor, Welch told us, "she was missing in action on every significant affordable housing measure. Much of the time, she was on the other side."
When we pressed her, Ma acknowledged that the Western Manufactured Housing Committee, which represents park owners, spoke to her about the bill. The group's Web site goes further, claiming that WMHC sponsored the Ma bill. And campaign finance records show that the WMHC political action committee gave Ma $4,200 on Oct. 27, 2008 and another $2,000 the next day.
Tim Sheahan, president of the Golden Gate Manufactured Home Owners League, which represents mobile home park tenants, told us Ma's comments about million dollar homes are off the mark. "Sure, there are a few sensational anomalies. But that is no reflection on how most mobile homeowners live," he said.
And even if wealthier residents are forced to sell their homes, he noted, "the new residents will have to pay much higher rent. So there's no way this adds to affordable housing."
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Court throws out libel lawsuit by Sam Zell over conditions in his mobilehome parks
From the San Diego Union Tribune
March 20, 2009 By Greg Moran
March 20, 2009 By Greg Moran
A federal judge has again ruled in favor of the county and Supervisor Dianne Jacob in a defamation lawsuit brought by the owners of mobile-home parks in East San Diego County.
Judge Napoleon Jones ruled that three statements Jacob made in 2002 and 2003 about mobile-home parks owned by MHC Inc. were protected under the state's anti-SLAPP law. That law is aimed at protecting people who speak out from meritless lawsuits aimed at chilling free speech.
MHC, now known as Equity Lifestyle Property, is one of the nation's largest operators of mobile-home parks. Its chairman is Sam Zell, a billionaire who is the head of media conglomerate Tribune Co., which filed for bankruptcy protection this year.
The ruling largely reiterates an earlier ruling by Jones that seemed to end the lawsuit. However, Zell appealed, and last March a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived a portion of the lawsuit that focused on three statements Jacob made.
The supervisor said yesterday that the ruling vindicated her statements.
"Most importantly this is a victory for the residents of the Zell-owned mobile-home parks," she said. "I'm personally grateful for the court for protecting my free speech rights. For the second time."
A lawyer for MHC did not respond to a phone message left yesterday afternoon.
The company sued the county and Jacob in 2003, after the supervisor blasted MHC on air and in print over plans to increase rents at three mobile-home parks – Rancho Mesa and Rancho Valley outside El Cajon, and Lamplighter Village in Spring Valley.
In 2005, Jones threw out most of the suit, ruling that Jacob's statements were protected. But last year the appeals panel, while upholding most of that ruling, sent the case back to Jones for hearings on whether three statements Jacob made were false.
Those statements were that the company lied about fixing a sewage problem, had a reputation for driving out elderly tenants by increasing rents, and that prosecutors might investigate MHC.
In order to win, MHC had to convince Jones that there was a probability it would win its defamation claims at trial. But the judge said the company did not have enough evidence to show it would win.
On the sewage issue, he said the evidence showed that while the company had tried to fix the problem, it was still not fixed when Jacob made her statement.
He also said the company "has not provided any evidence to indicate that it does not have a reputation for raising rents and forcing out residents." And he also said that there was evidence that Jacob had spoken to incoming District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis about the situation and Dumanis had said she might be interested in looking into the MHC situation.
"Everything I said was true," Jacob said yesterday.
The county will now try to recoup costs for defending the suit, said Senior Deputy County Counsel William Johnson. MHC and Zell could also appeal this ruling again, however, but Johnson said he hopes they will not.
"Hopefully they are going to let this one ride," he said. "We've now prevailed on everything."
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Friday, September 26, 2008
Supervisor Candidates... Zane's on Our Side
In the 3rd District race for the Board of Supervisors (in and around Santa Rosa and Rohnert Park), Shirley Zane and Sharon Wright are running for the seat being vacated by Tim Smith who is retiring. Shirley Zane is the Director of the Council on Aging. In February, 2007, the Santa Rosa City Council was waffling on adopting an ordinance to protect residents against abusive condo conversions, 150 of us demonstrated at City Hall. We had planned to have several speakers, but were told only one person could speak. Shirley Zane stood up and spoke eloquently about why the city should adopt a strong ordinance. We all cheered and the Council voted unanimously to adopt our ordinance! Shirley has also been a strong and effective advocate for affordable housing for seniors in the County.
Sharon Wright was supportive of park residents twelve years ago when she was on the Santa Rosa City Council and voted to turning back Home Depot's effort to close the Journeys' End mobilehome park, but she's also accepting campaign contributions from Jeff Meyer, who owns Windsorland Mobilehome Park and is closing it down. [Today in a candidates' debate in Cotati we hear she denied getting contributions from mobilehome park owners].
For these and other reasons, we think Shirley Zane would be our strongest ally on the Board of Supervisors and urge all of you to vote for her.
Sharon Wright was supportive of park residents twelve years ago when she was on the Santa Rosa City Council and voted to turning back Home Depot's effort to close the Journeys' End mobilehome park, but she's also accepting campaign contributions from Jeff Meyer, who owns Windsorland Mobilehome Park and is closing it down. [Today in a candidates' debate in Cotati we hear she denied getting contributions from mobilehome park owners].
For these and other reasons, we think Shirley Zane would be our strongest ally on the Board of Supervisors and urge all of you to vote for her.
CoMO-CAL on GSMOL
From the Coalition of Mobilehome Owners - California Newsletter:
GSMOL & ROP, Inc.
[UPDATE: Maurice Priest and GSMOL have now apparently severed all ties]
When something is wrong, those having the ability to take action also have the responsibility to take action.
This article is about the Golden State Mobilehome Owners League ("GSMOL"), and Resident Owned Parks, Inc. ("ROP"). GSMOL describes itself as a "nonprofit charitable trust corporation, dedicated to preserving mobilehome ownership as affordable, quality housing through legislative efforts, and organization and education of individual home owners and dwellers." ROP is a corporation in the business of acquiring and operating mobilehome parks throughout California. Maurice Priest is corporate counsel and lobbyist for GSMOL. He is also the President and Director of ROP. ROP is incorporated as a non-profit under California law.
We have previously written about Mr. Priest, GSMOL's corporate attorney and lobbyist in Sacramento. Mr. Priest has been involved with GSMOL for approximately 28 years. We feel he essentially controls much of what GSMOL does. Although there are other reputable non-profit organizations helping residents purchase their parks, GSMOL only promotes ROP, Inc. The ROP website states in bold letters "the only park purchase program endorsed by GSMOL." In fact, ROP often uses GSMOL chapters to "get a foot in the door" with resident groups hoping to buy the park where they live.
Mr. Priest founded ROP seven years ago, and he runs it today, along with his wife Diane, whom he hired to handle property management of the ROP parks. We believe his primary goal with ROP is to make money – lots of it – as an owner and operator of mobilehome parks in the State of California, and not to promote quality affordable resident ownership.
The reason that GSMOL endorses ROP is obvious. Mr. Priest controls GSMOL, and he's the president and chief operating officer of ROP, Inc. GSMOL's endorsement of ROP is self-serving – it's Mr. Priest's way of using GSMOL's name to gain trust and credibility for ROP, Inc.
We feel GSMOL violates its obligation to members by supporting ROP's acquisition of mobilehome parks. There are a number of concerns:
ROP, Inc. ownership of a mobilehome park is not true resident ownership. ROP ownership of mobilehome parks is, in practice, no different than ownership by a for-profit entity. According to what residents have told us:
> Rents go up dramatically when ROP buys a park, even though ROP purports to be an affordable housing corporation that keeps rents low.
> Residents have no more say in how the park is operated under ROP than under a for-profit owner.
>"Resident Owned Parks" is a catchy name, but only a name. ROP, Inc. is the park owner, with Maurice and Diane Priest in control. The residents do not own the park.
> Park maintenance is no better (and maybe even worse) than under for-profit ownership.
> ROP usually claims it will turn over ownership of a park to a residents' association after 30 years, and after it pays off the bonds used to buy the park. In the fine print, the claim probably includes conditions: the resident association must first obtain 501(c)(3) tax exempt status from the IRS, but it's extremely difficult for an association serving the interests of residents of the park to qualify for that status under the current tax law (who knows what the law will require in 30 years).
No one knows exactly how this transfer of ownership will work out; the first park “turn-over” by ROP to a residents’ association won’t happen for many years. It appears that as a park owner, ROP reserves the right to refinance or extend the bonds beyond the 30 years. This could delay the transfer of a park to a resident association indefinitely.
> Like many for-profit park owners, ROP pressures residents to sign 'long term' leases which take away the protection of local rent control. ROP promises not to raise rents more than a few percentage points each year, then tries to slip in additional charges. In one park, ROP is trying to bill residents extra for the utilities for the clubhouse and common areas.
> Management expenses under "non-profit" ROP are likely to be no less (and may even be more) than management expenses in for-profit parks. Residents have to pay these expenses along with the increased mortgage debt service when ROP takes over a park.
In recent years, residents in several parks have mobilized to try to stop ROP from purchasing their parks. In January 2007, we wrote about Westwind Mobile Park in Clearlake, where the ROP purchase would have resulted in a 40% rent increase. Later that year, residents in Forest Springs (Grass Valley), voted 78% to 22% to keep ROP out.
A committee of concerned residents in Windsor Mobile Country Club (Windsor, California), waged a long, hard-fought battle to stop ROP's purchase of their park. Although unable to stop the purchase, they succeeded in forcing a big reduction in the $217 monthly rent increase sought by ROP (reduced to $117 and less for the lowest income residents). Resident Leader Donna Helwig tells us "It's still too high, people on fixed incomes just cannot afford that kind of a jump in their rent. Although Mr. Priest says that no one ever loses their home in an ROP park, we believe some people have just walked away from their homes because they couldn't afford it. The disruption created by ROP's purchase of the park has caused home values to plummet, and home sales are almost at a stand-still." According to Ms. Helwig, "it's only been two months since ROP took ownership of the park, and the Priests are already crying poor. They say they don't have the money to put someone in the office full time, although ROP receives $125,000 per year just to manage the park."
We often hear from residents in parks acquired by ROP. Residents of Creekside MHP (Shingletown) and Sunny Oaks (Los Osos) have organized to oppose ROP management practices in those parks. One homeowner group has retained an attorney, the other is taking legal action against ROP. All these residents can't be wrong!
There are other non-profits which do a good job of managing their parks and keeping rents affordable. A number of parks in the Sacramento area are owned as co-op's by their residents. They are much more affordable than other parks in the area (including parks owned by ROP). We've written about Palm Terrace (Aptos) in September 2006 and Lakeshore Estates (Oregon) in April 2007 – where residents purchased their parks with the help of Deane Sargent of PMC Financial Services. We've also heard good reports from residents assisted by non-profit Millennium Housing and Carlsberg Management Company, among others.
We believe it is a serious conflict of interest for GSMOL to support Mr. Priest's park acquisition efforts, while not supporting efforts by these other entities. In contrast to what we understand about ROP-owned parks, these other entities strive to keep rents low. They try to give residents a meaningful voice in management decisions about their parks, and they support efforts by residents to acquire ownership of their parks. It's also misleading for GSMOL to claim, without qualification, that ROP's ownership of a park is in the best interests of its residents. There are many residents in ROP-owned parks who would disagree.
ROP owns and operates five or six parks around the state and pays its President, Maurice Priest for his work in acquiring and operating these parks (we haven't been able to find out how much). We've seen records indicating Mr. Priest also gets paid about $100,000 per year by GSMOL – which claims to represent and advocate for mobilehome park residents. So Mr. Priest gets paid when he runs a company that owns mobilehome parks and also gets a handsome GSMOL salary for supposedly advocating on behalf of mobilehome park residents. How can he be a strong advocate for residents when he's running a company that owns mobilehome parks all over the state? How can GSMOL claim to be working hard to protect the rights of mobilehome park residents when its attorney and chief lobbyist runs a company that owns and operates mobilehome parks all over the state?
Mr. Priest has, in the past, helped to get good legislation passed. But many of the bills he pushes are "no brainers," like SB 1107 (Correa 2008) which requires park owners to comply with state and federal laws relating to handicapped access and disability discrimination – laws that they have always been required to comply with. More ominously, GSMOL'S high priority bill this session – SB 900 -- would have made it easier for park owners to subdivide their parks into condominiums. Condo conversions would harm thousands of mobilehome park residents -- wiping out most or all of their home equity and dramatically raising their rents. Priest and GSMOL pushed strongly to get that bill approved. We believe it would have benefitted Priest's company – ROP – but would have increased the pace of mobilehome park condo conversions around the state, discouraged local governments from enforcing rent control ordinances and harmed the park residents that GSMOL claims to support.
We have asked GSMOL's leadership many times to discuss these issues. Bob Hites and Frank Wodley talked with GSMOL President Tim Sheahan, about this at the GSMOL Convention in January 2008. At that time, Tim said the Board of Directors was "working on it." Nine months later, nothing has changed. In fact, we heard that Mr. Priest was given a raise by GSMOL.
GSMOL members, and mobilehome park residents across the state, deserve to know what their money is being used for. GSMOL claims to be the "go to" advocate for mobilehome owners. Maurice Priest, GSMOL's attorney and lobbyist, should be beyond reproach. Mr. Priest and GSMOL should both strive to high ideals befitting their roles.
To that end, we urge GSMOL and ROP, Inc. to immediately open their books and give a full accounting of all compensation paid to Mr. Priest, his wife, and other persons working for these organizations. GSMOL should immediately stop its exclusive endorsement arrangement with ROP and encourage mobilehome owners to carefully investigate ALL the “park purchase” options available to them. There are many different approaches to resident ownership. Each park’s situation is unique; what might work well for residents in one park might not work for the residents of another.
These are serious concerns, and we believe they must be immediately addressed. GSMOL must become transparent, and must be accountable to its members. If GSMOL ignores these obligations, then we believe mobilehome owners across the state should not continue their support for GSMOL. In other words, we recommend that GSMOL members not renew their memberships and others not join GSMOL unless we can be assured that GSMOL will truly and vigorously represent us in our parks, our cities and in Sacramento.
Although the above article was written by CoMO-CAL, its content is supported by many others around the state.
GSMOL & ROP, Inc.
[UPDATE: Maurice Priest and GSMOL have now apparently severed all ties]
When something is wrong, those having the ability to take action also have the responsibility to take action.
This article is about the Golden State Mobilehome Owners League ("GSMOL"), and Resident Owned Parks, Inc. ("ROP"). GSMOL describes itself as a "nonprofit charitable trust corporation, dedicated to preserving mobilehome ownership as affordable, quality housing through legislative efforts, and organization and education of individual home owners and dwellers." ROP is a corporation in the business of acquiring and operating mobilehome parks throughout California. Maurice Priest is corporate counsel and lobbyist for GSMOL. He is also the President and Director of ROP. ROP is incorporated as a non-profit under California law.
We have previously written about Mr. Priest, GSMOL's corporate attorney and lobbyist in Sacramento. Mr. Priest has been involved with GSMOL for approximately 28 years. We feel he essentially controls much of what GSMOL does. Although there are other reputable non-profit organizations helping residents purchase their parks, GSMOL only promotes ROP, Inc. The ROP website states in bold letters "the only park purchase program endorsed by GSMOL." In fact, ROP often uses GSMOL chapters to "get a foot in the door" with resident groups hoping to buy the park where they live.
Mr. Priest founded ROP seven years ago, and he runs it today, along with his wife Diane, whom he hired to handle property management of the ROP parks. We believe his primary goal with ROP is to make money – lots of it – as an owner and operator of mobilehome parks in the State of California, and not to promote quality affordable resident ownership.
The reason that GSMOL endorses ROP is obvious. Mr. Priest controls GSMOL, and he's the president and chief operating officer of ROP, Inc. GSMOL's endorsement of ROP is self-serving – it's Mr. Priest's way of using GSMOL's name to gain trust and credibility for ROP, Inc.
We feel GSMOL violates its obligation to members by supporting ROP's acquisition of mobilehome parks. There are a number of concerns:
ROP, Inc. ownership of a mobilehome park is not true resident ownership. ROP ownership of mobilehome parks is, in practice, no different than ownership by a for-profit entity. According to what residents have told us:
> Rents go up dramatically when ROP buys a park, even though ROP purports to be an affordable housing corporation that keeps rents low.
> Residents have no more say in how the park is operated under ROP than under a for-profit owner.
>"Resident Owned Parks" is a catchy name, but only a name. ROP, Inc. is the park owner, with Maurice and Diane Priest in control. The residents do not own the park.
> Park maintenance is no better (and maybe even worse) than under for-profit ownership.
> ROP usually claims it will turn over ownership of a park to a residents' association after 30 years, and after it pays off the bonds used to buy the park. In the fine print, the claim probably includes conditions: the resident association must first obtain 501(c)(3) tax exempt status from the IRS, but it's extremely difficult for an association serving the interests of residents of the park to qualify for that status under the current tax law (who knows what the law will require in 30 years).
No one knows exactly how this transfer of ownership will work out; the first park “turn-over” by ROP to a residents’ association won’t happen for many years. It appears that as a park owner, ROP reserves the right to refinance or extend the bonds beyond the 30 years. This could delay the transfer of a park to a resident association indefinitely.
> Like many for-profit park owners, ROP pressures residents to sign 'long term' leases which take away the protection of local rent control. ROP promises not to raise rents more than a few percentage points each year, then tries to slip in additional charges. In one park, ROP is trying to bill residents extra for the utilities for the clubhouse and common areas.
> Management expenses under "non-profit" ROP are likely to be no less (and may even be more) than management expenses in for-profit parks. Residents have to pay these expenses along with the increased mortgage debt service when ROP takes over a park.
In recent years, residents in several parks have mobilized to try to stop ROP from purchasing their parks. In January 2007, we wrote about Westwind Mobile Park in Clearlake, where the ROP purchase would have resulted in a 40% rent increase. Later that year, residents in Forest Springs (Grass Valley), voted 78% to 22% to keep ROP out.
A committee of concerned residents in Windsor Mobile Country Club (Windsor, California), waged a long, hard-fought battle to stop ROP's purchase of their park. Although unable to stop the purchase, they succeeded in forcing a big reduction in the $217 monthly rent increase sought by ROP (reduced to $117 and less for the lowest income residents). Resident Leader Donna Helwig tells us "It's still too high, people on fixed incomes just cannot afford that kind of a jump in their rent. Although Mr. Priest says that no one ever loses their home in an ROP park, we believe some people have just walked away from their homes because they couldn't afford it. The disruption created by ROP's purchase of the park has caused home values to plummet, and home sales are almost at a stand-still." According to Ms. Helwig, "it's only been two months since ROP took ownership of the park, and the Priests are already crying poor. They say they don't have the money to put someone in the office full time, although ROP receives $125,000 per year just to manage the park."
We often hear from residents in parks acquired by ROP. Residents of Creekside MHP (Shingletown) and Sunny Oaks (Los Osos) have organized to oppose ROP management practices in those parks. One homeowner group has retained an attorney, the other is taking legal action against ROP. All these residents can't be wrong!
There are other non-profits which do a good job of managing their parks and keeping rents affordable. A number of parks in the Sacramento area are owned as co-op's by their residents. They are much more affordable than other parks in the area (including parks owned by ROP). We've written about Palm Terrace (Aptos) in September 2006 and Lakeshore Estates (Oregon) in April 2007 – where residents purchased their parks with the help of Deane Sargent of PMC Financial Services. We've also heard good reports from residents assisted by non-profit Millennium Housing and Carlsberg Management Company, among others.
We believe it is a serious conflict of interest for GSMOL to support Mr. Priest's park acquisition efforts, while not supporting efforts by these other entities. In contrast to what we understand about ROP-owned parks, these other entities strive to keep rents low. They try to give residents a meaningful voice in management decisions about their parks, and they support efforts by residents to acquire ownership of their parks. It's also misleading for GSMOL to claim, without qualification, that ROP's ownership of a park is in the best interests of its residents. There are many residents in ROP-owned parks who would disagree.
ROP owns and operates five or six parks around the state and pays its President, Maurice Priest for his work in acquiring and operating these parks (we haven't been able to find out how much). We've seen records indicating Mr. Priest also gets paid about $100,000 per year by GSMOL – which claims to represent and advocate for mobilehome park residents. So Mr. Priest gets paid when he runs a company that owns mobilehome parks and also gets a handsome GSMOL salary for supposedly advocating on behalf of mobilehome park residents. How can he be a strong advocate for residents when he's running a company that owns mobilehome parks all over the state? How can GSMOL claim to be working hard to protect the rights of mobilehome park residents when its attorney and chief lobbyist runs a company that owns and operates mobilehome parks all over the state?
Mr. Priest has, in the past, helped to get good legislation passed. But many of the bills he pushes are "no brainers," like SB 1107 (Correa 2008) which requires park owners to comply with state and federal laws relating to handicapped access and disability discrimination – laws that they have always been required to comply with. More ominously, GSMOL'S high priority bill this session – SB 900 -- would have made it easier for park owners to subdivide their parks into condominiums. Condo conversions would harm thousands of mobilehome park residents -- wiping out most or all of their home equity and dramatically raising their rents. Priest and GSMOL pushed strongly to get that bill approved. We believe it would have benefitted Priest's company – ROP – but would have increased the pace of mobilehome park condo conversions around the state, discouraged local governments from enforcing rent control ordinances and harmed the park residents that GSMOL claims to support.
We have asked GSMOL's leadership many times to discuss these issues. Bob Hites and Frank Wodley talked with GSMOL President Tim Sheahan, about this at the GSMOL Convention in January 2008. At that time, Tim said the Board of Directors was "working on it." Nine months later, nothing has changed. In fact, we heard that Mr. Priest was given a raise by GSMOL.
GSMOL members, and mobilehome park residents across the state, deserve to know what their money is being used for. GSMOL claims to be the "go to" advocate for mobilehome owners. Maurice Priest, GSMOL's attorney and lobbyist, should be beyond reproach. Mr. Priest and GSMOL should both strive to high ideals befitting their roles.
To that end, we urge GSMOL and ROP, Inc. to immediately open their books and give a full accounting of all compensation paid to Mr. Priest, his wife, and other persons working for these organizations. GSMOL should immediately stop its exclusive endorsement arrangement with ROP and encourage mobilehome owners to carefully investigate ALL the “park purchase” options available to them. There are many different approaches to resident ownership. Each park’s situation is unique; what might work well for residents in one park might not work for the residents of another.
These are serious concerns, and we believe they must be immediately addressed. GSMOL must become transparent, and must be accountable to its members. If GSMOL ignores these obligations, then we believe mobilehome owners across the state should not continue their support for GSMOL. In other words, we recommend that GSMOL members not renew their memberships and others not join GSMOL unless we can be assured that GSMOL will truly and vigorously represent us in our parks, our cities and in Sacramento.
Although the above article was written by CoMO-CAL, its content is supported by many others around the state.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Thanks for All Your Help Defeating Prop 98
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!!
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!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
