Sonoma No Condo Conversion Coalition

MHP Disability Rights Dog Case

noreply@blogger.com (SONOCONDO) — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:44:00 +0000

Interesting article about a mobilehome tenants' rights / disability rights / dog rights case in the East Bay. -- DG

East Bay woman fighting to keep home, dog

By Paul Thissen
Contra Costa Times

Posted: 10/30/2009 03:57:43 PM PDT

Updated: 10/31/2009 07:26:29 AM PDT

Click photo to enlarge

Theresa Huerta of Concord, Calif. talks about the stress she is dealing with because of efforts...

CONCORD — Theresa Huerta's brown eyes welled with tears at the prospect of losing Manny.

"If it wasn't for this dog, I don't think I'd be alive," Huerta said.

When someone walks up to the knee-high metal gate outside Huerta's aging single-wide mobile home, Manny runs to see who's there.

When Huerta dreams that she is being "slaughtered," Manny soothes her. His wide eyes watch over her. His imposing, muscular frame makes her feel safe.

"He has brought a little bit of hope back into my life," she said.

She has suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and major depression since being brutally beaten in 2007, according to letters from her doctors. She can't work. Her doctors agree she needs Manny, records show.

But the owners of the mobile home park where she has lived for 19 years say she or the dog must go. She says they just want her out because she spoke out against unsanitary conditions at the park.

Multiple battles

The ensuing battle is now playing out in county, state and federal courts.

Willow Pass Mobile Home Park managers say park rules enacted in 2005 ban dogs of certain breeds, including pit bulls and German shepherds. They also ban mixes that include those breeds.

Park owners say Manny is a pit bull mix. Having him at the park violates their rules, they wrote in letters and court filings.

Huerta rescued Manny in January after he was hit by a car outside a nearby foreclosed home. He would otherwise have been euthanized. She does not know his breed.

Huerta said that she received the new rules in 2005, according to a court filing from the park. But Huerta has not signed a lease since at least 1992, she said, when there was no ban against pit bulls.

And park owners never complained about her previous dog Chico, which she had from 1999 until December, Huerta said. Chico was also a mutt, perhaps a pit bull or German shepherd mix.

Huerta's lawyers say none of this should matter. State and federal disability laws trump park rules.

Courts across the country have been consistent: If doctors declare that a person is disabled and that a dog helps him or her, landlords must accept the dog as a "reasonable accommodation" for the disabled person, said Bruce Wagman, who works with the Animal Legal Defense Fund and is one of Huerta's attorneys. The only exception is if the dog causes an undue financial burden for the landlord.

In an earlier case in California, state courts ruled that a condominium association had to allow a couple who both had mental disabilities to keep their dog, even though association rules banned dogs.

It's no different from requiring wheelchair users to be permitted to have a ramp, Wagman said, or that disabled people be allowed to take drugs that might otherwise be banned.

The park's lawyer, Kenneth Brans, declined to comment on the case beyond saying Huerta's assertions are "groundless" and that the case should be tried in the courts, not the media.

In court papers, Brans and the park have said Huerta has yet to provide adequate documentation that she is disabled, or that her disability requires her to have Manny — a dog of a banned breed — as opposed to any other dog.

Wagman said it's not up to the park to decide what works for a disabled person. Asking Huerta to get a different dog is like asking a disabled person to switch medications, he said.

"The point is, Manny is the dog that works for Theresa," Wagman said. "Manny is the drug that works for Theresa Huerta."

Problems at park

Standing up to authority is in Huerta's nature, she said. At the schools where she worked, she was a union leader.

So it felt natural two years ago when she and a neighbor filed complaints with the state about unsanitary conditions at the park. State inspectors found "the park's portion of the sewer line is substandard and leaking "... the sheet metal has a hole in it where raw sewage is leaking onto the ground." The park had to clean up.

Another neighbor who complained, Martin Alday, has already been evicted for being a few days late to pay his rent. Huerta testified at his eviction hearing. Afterward, she said, the park's lawyer told her, "You're next."

Alday also remembers the conversation. He said the lawyer added, "I know you're the one behind all of this."

The park is no stranger to complaints. Since 2007, six complaints about substandard conditions have been filed with the state Department of Housing and Community Development, said Ken Shryock, a codes and standards administrator in the department. At least two of the complaints resulted in mobile homes at the park being declared uninhabitable, he said, for reasons including a "strong odor of sewage" and "some pretty egregious issues relevant to cleanliness and storage."

In those cases, the homeowners can be cited. But ultimately the park's owners and managers must ensure the homes there are up to code.

"It's their responsibility," Shryock said.

Nowhere to go

Huerta said she does not know where else she could go if she is evicted. Her only income is $700 per month in disability payments from Social Security, she said. Her monthly rent at the park is $530.

Huerta had worked as a bilingual instructor for the Oakland and Mt. Diablo school districts — until she was attacked.

On Feb. 25, 2007, Huerta went to the Agave Grill and Cantina to relax and dance. She left in an ambulance.

A few minutes after arriving, she was sexually assaulted by a man who put his hands under her skirt, according to a lawsuit Huerta filed. The man denied the claim in a court filing and was never criminally charged in the incident.

A few minutes later, the man's wife and her sister got involved. They beat Huerta up, using fists and a bottle, according to a court filing. She now has a mouth full of fake teeth.

Both women pleaded no contest to battery charges in the attack; one of them also pleaded no contest to assault charges. Restitution hearings continue in the case; one earlier this year was postponed because Huerta had a panic attack, according to court filings. Huerta's civil suit against her attackers and the restaurant is ongoing.

Seeing her attackers in court makes her disability worse, Huerta said, and her doctors say she likely won't be able to work until the court cases are done.

The eviction proceedings don't help.

"I feel like my body's giving out," Huerta said. "It was just one thing on top of another. They're purposefully putting salt on an open wound."

AB566 Vetoed

noreply@blogger.com (SONOCONDO) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 16:09:00 +0000

Many of you have already heard the bad news. Schwarzenegger vetoed AB566 yesterday, saying he didn't like the idea that cities could take the views of residents into consideration and turn down a conversion if most residents oppose it -- even if ALL residents oppose it.

So what's next? Expect the park owners and their lawyers Close and Loftin to step up conversions of mobilehome parks in cities and counties with mobilehome rent control. Cities, stung by recent court defeats, will be reluctant to put up much resistance. Look for rent control ordinances to be watered down (and rents to increase) -- park owners will say 'gimme a big rent increase or I'll do a condo conversion and be exempted from rent control altogether." Mobile home resale values will continue to decline -- potential buyers will ask "why buy a home in a park where it could convert to condo's tomorrow."

What can be done? As Mother Jones said, "Don't mourn. ORGANIZE!." She was talking about labor unions, but the same applies in mobilehome parks. The most effective way for residents to protect their rights is to have a strong residents' association. Your residents association can stand up to park owners who try to convert to condo's. There are still legal protections for residents, but these only work if residents in a park work together to assert their rights. Condo conversions must still be approved by local governments, and local governments can and should insure that no residents will be displaced by condo conversion.

A strong residents' association can help get good city council members elected -- members who will stand up for the rights of mobilehome residents. It can and should work COOPERATIVELY with other residents' associations in the county and in Sacramento to help get laws like AB566 passed, and protect rent control. We have two strong state-wide groups - COMO-CAL and GSMOL - that worked day and night to get AB566 and AB1542 passed. These groups need your support (and member dues). Their officials and lobbyists don't do this work for money -- most are volunteers trying to protect their families and friends and fellow mobilehome residents.

Schwarzenegger vetoed AB566 this year and AB1542 two years ago. In a year, there'll be a new governor (and some new legislators). We need to make sure the next legislature will PASS a condo conversion bill that provides real protections for the one million Californians who live in mobilehomes, and we need to get a governor elected who will SIGN the bill. DON'T MOURN, ORGANIZE!

David Grabill
Law Office of David Grabill
1930 Alderbrook Lane
Santa Rosa, CA 95405
(707) 528 6839 - voice
(707) 780 1585 - fax
dgrabill@gmail.com

LA Times: San Fernando Valley mobile home park residents prevail in lawsuit against owners

noreply@blogger.com (SONOCONDO) — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:45:00 +0000

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-mobile27-2009jul27,0,2043044.story

From the Los Angeles Times 7/26/09

Five residents who alleged they were living under dangerous conditions, including an inadequate electrical system, are awarded a total of $350,000 in back rent.

By Dan Weikel

A judge has ruled in favor of five mobile home park residents near Canoga Park who alleged that the park owner failed to make repairs and allowed dangerous conditions to persist for years, including a faulty electrical system that had been cited more than 100 times by state inspectors.

Based on an eight-day trial held in April, Judge Gregory C. O'Brien sided last week with Gary and Deborah Gibson and three other tenants of Mountain View Mobile Estates, which contains 156 homes tucked into a hillside with a panoramic view of the west San Fernando Valley.

They sued Mountain View's owner, G.J. Park Associates, and its management firm, M.A. Cirillo & Associates, which does business as Star Mobile Home Park Management.

G.J. Park and Cirillo said the park was well-run and that they had spent millions of dollars to make repairs in a reasonable amount of time. But O'Brien disagreed, spelling out his decision in a scathing 31-page opinion scheduled to be filed today in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

The landlord collected the tenants' rent, O'Brien wrote, "for which the tenants received in return endless insults to their sensibilities: Years of noise, mud, dangerous conditions, a studied neglect of simple services, a clubhouse with no furniture, a badly maintained pool and spa, and inexcusably rude, petty and bullying behavior."

O'Brien is a retired Superior Court judge who works for ADR Services Inc., a private arbitration and mediation service in Los Angeles that both sides hired to hear the case.

He awarded the group $350,000 in back rent for four years, or about $90,000 per household, and decided that G.J. Park and Cirillo should pay punitive damages as well as the plaintiffs' attorney fees and court costs.

"Maybe this will give residents of other mobile home parks with landlords like ours a glimmer of hope for some kind of fair play, especially the elderly," said Gary Gibson, 62, a 10-year resident of Mountain View who spearheaded the lawsuit.

Attorney Dale B. Goldfarb, who represents the park owner and management company, could not be reached for comment Friday.

The lawsuit, filed in March 2007, contended that G.J. Park and Cirillo poorly maintained Mountain View for years and failed to make repairs related to more than 250 notices of code violations issued by state regulators since 1999. Those included the inadequate electrical system -- a key safety issue because of the potential for fire and electric shocks.

Steven H. Haney, the tenants' lawyer, alleged that park operators were negligent, engaged in unfair business practices, failed to keep the park in good working order and deliberately committed continuous violations of the state Mobilehome Residency Law, which requires park owners and residents to maintain a clean and safe environment.

Residents testified that since May 2004 they had to endure scores of park-wide electrical outages, at least 20 park-wide water shut-offs, unstable soil, sewer backups and flooded streets during rainstorms. The electrical system was so poor, they said, that the park was plagued with power surges, dim lights, damaged appliances and so little electrical current that heaters could not be used in winter and air conditioners could not be used to relieve summer heat.

The evidence indicated that park operators took more than six years to make improvements to the electrical system.

Though state inspectors eventually signed off on the work, the plaintiffs' expert testified that the repairs -- some completed by an unlicensed contractor -- were haphazard and that the electrical system still doesn't meet national standards.

Residents further testified that their complaints were often met with derision by park staff, who called them "troublemakers" and failed to respond. Gibson's wife testified that she received several anonymous death threats, and Gibson told the judge he was repeatedly harassed, including being denied use of the pool for failing to sign a waiver of liability -- the only resident of whom the demand was made.

"The expectations described by the witnesses were hardly extravagant: End the noise, stop the mud, fix my driveway, restore my view . . ." O'Brien wrote. "For the most part, the resident office managers seem to have a standard reply: 'I'm working on it.' Evidently, they were not."

dan.weikel@latimes.com

Sequoia Gardens appeal hearing

noreply@blogger.com (SONOCONDO) — Sat, 23 May 2009 23:14:00 +0000

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.

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

dgrabill@gmail.com

More on Duroville

noreply@blogger.com (GRABLOGGER) — Sun, 03 May 2009 20:08:00 +0000

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.

Duroville Will Not Close

noreply@blogger.com (GRABLOGGER) — Sat, 02 May 2009 05:28:00 +0000

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...

Pay to Play?

noreply@blogger.com (GRABLOGGER) — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 06:27:00 +0000

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."

Court throws out libel lawsuit by Sam Zell over conditions in his mobilehome parks

noreply@blogger.com (SONOCONDO) — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 16:27:00 +0000

From the San Diego Union Tribune
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."

noreply@blogger.com (GRABLOGGER) — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:16:00 +0000

New Sheriff in Duroville

noreply@blogger.com (GRABLOGGER) — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 16:50:00 +0000

If you thought conditions were bad in your park, check out Duroville

Supervisor Candidates... Zane's on Our Side

noreply@blogger.com (GRABLOGGER) — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 22:08:00 +0000

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.

CoMO-CAL on GSMOL

noreply@blogger.com (GRABLOGGER) — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 21:44:00 +0000

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.

Thanks for All Your Help Defeating Prop 98

noreply@blogger.com (GRABLOGGER) — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 05:25:00 +0000

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!!

Chronicle Slams Prop 98

noreply@blogger.com (SONOCONDO) — Mon, 05 May 2008 04:57:00 +0000

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

Prop 98 - the Hidden Agenda

noreply@blogger.com (SONOCONDO) — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 22:00:00 +0000

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
Proposition 98 is a deceptive measure that a group of wealthy landlords placed on California's June 3, 2008 ballot. These landlords want you to believe the measure is only about 'eminent domain', but Prop. 98 is full of hidden provisions that would hurt Californians:

Prop. 98 attacks renters by eliminating renter protections and rent control.
Prop. 98 guts important environmental protections like laws we need to combat global warming, and protect our land, air, water and coasts.
Prop. 98 jeopardizes the quality of our drinking water and our ability to secure new water sources to protect our environment and fuel our economy.
Prop. 98 will result in frivolous lawsuits, higher taxpayer costs, and hurt our economy.

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]

Yes on Prop. 99 - The Homeowners Protection Act
Proposition 99 is the straightforward solution we need to protect against eminent domain abuse. Prop. 99 prohibits government from using eminent domain to take a home to transfer to a private developer. Unlike the landlords' Prop. 98, Prop. 99 is eminent domain reform with NO HIDDEN AGENDAS.

Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car listings at AOL Autos.

Rent Hike Slashed at Windsor Mobile Country Club

noreply@blogger.com (GRABLOGGER) — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 06:00:00 +0000

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

New Ventura County ordinance restricts mobile home park 'condo' conversions

noreply@blogger.com (SONOCONDO) — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 19:33:00 +0000

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

See: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-mobile21mar21,1,4547272.story

Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.

Yes on Rent Control!

noreply@blogger.com (SONOCONDO) — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 20:26:00 +0000

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.

Evans is Legislator of the Year

noreply@blogger.com (SONOCONDO) — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 06:44:00 +0000

(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.

Jarvis / WMA Ballot Initiative

noreply@blogger.com (GRABLOGGER) — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:35:00 +0000

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.

Santa Rosa Press Democrat: In killing Evans' bill, governor sides with mobile home park owners

noreply@blogger.com (SONOCONDO) — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:48:00 +0000

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.

Governor Vetoes Evans Bill Protecting Affordable Mobile Home Housing

noreply@blogger.com (SONOCONDO) — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 14:06:00 +0000

The Governor vetoed a bill by Assemblymember Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa), Chair of the Assembly Democratic Caucus, to protect seniors and working families now living in mobile home parks by regulating the conversion of mobile home parks from rentals to resident ownership.

"This veto is reckless and cold-hearted," said Evans. "Hundreds of thousands of seniors and working families now face being put out on the street. They were counting on the Governor and he really let them down."

AB 1542 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 also provide local governments in jurisdictions with a local rent control ordinance the opportunity to review and approve applications to convert mobile home parks.

There are about 40 pending mobile home park conversions in varying locations across California, including the cities of Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park, Hayward, Vallejo, Buellton, Carson, Ojai, and San Luis Obispo. Several cities and counties have adopted moratoriums to give the State Legislature time to act on AB 1542.

"I'll keep fighting for mobile home residents," added Evans. "This isn't over. The problem isn't going away. There is nothing stopping developers and land speculators who want to turn mobile homes into condominiums. A lot of people are going to get screwed. Condo ownership is not an option for people of modest means."

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.

"Mobile homes are an alternative to conventional home ownership," concluded Evans. "Residents own their mobile home but rent the space upon which the home is situated. Even though these homes are called 'mobile,' they are difficult and costly to move. That's why over 100 communities have rent control ordinances to keep rents affordable."

AB 1542 passed the Assembly 41-32 and the Senate 21-16. It is sponsored by the City of Santa Rosa, the County of Sonoma, and the League of Cities. It is supported by the California State Association of Counties, the Sonoma Housing Advocacy Group, the Golden State Manufactured-Home Owners League, the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, and the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California.

A copy of the Governor's veto is available online at http://gov.ca.gov/pdf/press/AB%201542%20veto%20message.pdf.

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

Governor Schwarzenegger: Protect Affordable Mobile Home Housing

noreply@blogger.com (GRABLOGGER) — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 05:35:00 +0000

By Noreen Evans
Member, California State Assembly
[From the California Progress Report 9-28-07]
Hundreds of thousands of seniors and working families who rent spaces in mobile home parks across California live in fear they will lose their homes. Fortunately the Governor has the chance to put their fears to rest by signing legislation that I authored, Assembly Bill 1542.

Mobile home parks provide valuable affordable housing. An alternative to conventional home ownership, they are an anomaly because most residents own their mobile home, but rent the space upon which the home is situated. And, although these homes are called "mobile," in reality they are difficult and costly to move. This helps explain why over 100 communities across the state have adopted rent control ordinances to keep rents affordable.

Recently, however, mobile home park owners have discovered a loophole in state law that allows them to convert one or more of their spaces to condominium ownership and avoid the application of local rent control on the remaining rental spaces. This is a particularly severe problem in communities where land values are high. Conversions maximize profits for park owners, while forcing seniors and working families out of their homes with no other local place to go.

AB 1542 closes the loophole in state law by keeping local rent control in place upon conversion. It also enables local governments in jurisdictions with rent control ordinances to review and approve applications to convert mobile home parks, just as they now do with applications to convert to a non-residential use.

Current law was written to provide mobile home park residents the opportunity to buy the land on which they live. AB 1542 does not change that. In fact, my legislation preserves the current law exempting conversion from local oversight if 2/3 of the park residents sign a petition in favor of the conversion. AB 1542 is written to strike a balance between an outright ban on conversions and no regulation at all. It simply provides that if a park is subdivided and converted to resident ownership, the current residents who do not or cannot buy their space are protected by local rent control until the time that they move out. Upon a change in residency, the park owner would then have the right to raise the rent on the space.

Under current law, condominium conversions divide residents into winners and losers. Winners are the residents who can afford to purchase their spaces. Losers are the lower income residents who can't afford to buy and are often forced out of their homes because of the conversion. AB 1542 allows residents to buy their spaces without hurting their neighbors.

AB 1542 awaits the Governor's signature or veto. This is a very real opportunity for him to make a difference for hundreds of thousands of Californians who will lose their homes if park conversions continue. Right now, there are roughly 40 pending mobile home park conversions across California. If the Governor vetoes this bill, many more will surely occur and put our seniors and working families out on the street.

Please join me in urging the Governor to sign AB 1542. You can contact the Governor through his website or call (916) 445-2841. Many people are counting on him to do what is right and just. Make your voice heard to help make sure that he does the right thing.

Noreen Evans was elected to the California State Assembly in November of 2004, representing the people of Napa, Solano, and Sonoma counties. She is Chair of the Assembly Democratic Caucus and works directly with the Assembly Speaker and the leadership team to identify and implement the Assembly Democrats legislative agenda. Evans is a member of Assembly committees on the Budget, Government Organization, Judiciary, and Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials; the Budget Subcommittee on Natural Resources; and the Select Committees on Foster Care. As a member of the Law Revision Commission, she studies intricate legal problems to resolve deficits in our laws and identifies major policy questions for legislative attention.

noreply@blogger.com (GRABLOGGER) — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 06:25:00 +0000

AB 1542 Supporters Rally in Sacramento

noreply@blogger.com (SONOCONDO) — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 06:24:00 +0000

Thanks to all the other folks who worked on organizing the rally in Sacramento today to support AB 1542. We had close to 200 people there, although we were kinda spread out and some folks left before the LA group arrived.

Thanks also to Santa Rosa City Councilmember John Sawyer and City Attorney Brien Farrell for coming over and showing their support, and to all the folks from GSMOL who attended.

The good part was all of the folks who rode 2 hours each way to stand patiently out in the hot sun for 2 hours and sang and cheered but never get to see or hear the Governor or any of his staff. And that was also the bad part.

Our two busses left just as Reverend Ron Tan, GSMOL President Tim Sheahan and folks from LA were arriving... and that's when the really good part started. We were able to see the Governor's Chief Staff person on this bill. Eight of us spent about 40 minutes with him and had a very constructive discussion about the bill and how it would help local governments preserve affordable housing and protect seniors with limited incomes from possibly losing their housing.

Rev Tan and Tim Sheahan were very eloquent about the fear and apprehension that folks living in mobilehome parks have to live with knowing their park owner's trying to convert the park to condominiums, or may decide to try a conversion in the future.

Please continue sending those cards and letters to the Governor urging him to sign AB1542. Augustine said several times that no decision had been made about the bill; that it was one of the most controversial bills that the Governor had to decide about after this legislature. So we've got some work to do still.