About Sham Conversions

WE WIN: Prop 98 Goes Down! Prop 99 Wins Easily!

98 DEFEATED - YES VOTES 1,342,655 39.0% - NO VOTES 2,091,890 61.0%
99 APPROVED - YES VOTES 2,129,247 62.5% - NO VOTES 1,282,763 37.5%

Sham Conversions in The News: Good Times Weekly in Santa Cruz does a big write up on mobilehome conversions and Prop 98. Overall, pretty accurate and it’s always good to get some press for our side.

In 2007 thousands of residents in mobile home parks were blind sided by Richard Close and his minions at Gilchrist & Rutter with park owner initiated condo conversions. Under these park owner conversions a mobile home park is subdivided into individual lots by exploiting California Government Code 66427.5. Residents are then given a “choice” to buy the land under the home at a price set by the owner or continue renting but without the benefit of rent control. Those who cannot afford to buy will see their rent increase by 20% of the difference between the current rate and the appraised fair market value, per year for the first four years. After four years the owner can raise rents to any level they desire. Those who qualify as low income will be protected from these increases by state rent control although they will still lose most of their home’s equity in the conversion. These park owner initiated mobile home conversions are being forced upon the residents of mobile home parks. Anyone who resists are hit with multi million dollar lawsuits (city and counties who enact ordinances or deny conversion applications) and harassed and threatened (residents of mobile home parks). However, the tables are turning, and it’s time to get informed, get organized, and fight back. READ THIS FIRST: If you’ve been sent a letter of intent to convert by the owner of your mobile home park START HERE

How “In Space” Value Works and
Why Mobile Home Park Conversions Hurt Your Equity

Common Profile of an Older Coach in a Rent Controlled Mobile Home Park

When you purchase a mobile home in a rental park, you pay one price that includes both the home itself and the right to use of the land on which it sits. This is referred to as the “in space” value.

Location of park, condition of park, and strength of local rent control ordinances will increase or decrease the “in space” value of the home. A home in an “A” rated park will cost more to purchase than one in a “B” rated park. A home with low space rent will cost more to purchase than one with high space rent. The final cost is determined by a combination of local market forces such as availability of financing, income levels, cost of living, the cost of comparable mobile homes and the price of real estate.

So when someone purchases a mobile home they are purchasing the total value of homeownership. Not just the home itself.

Common Profile of an Older Coach in a Converted Park

When a park is converted, the lot and the home are separated. This wipes out the “in space” value and transfers the majority of the equity to the owner of the park. What the home owner originally paid to purchase the coach is no longer relevant.

A potential buyer will pay one price for the land and purchase it directly from the owner of the mobile home park and pay one price for the home itself and purchase it directly from the owner of the home.

These are two separate purchases involving two separate forms of financing. The financing options to buy the lot will be better than those available to purchase the home.

Potential buyers will compare the total cost of homeownership in a converted park to those in other parks where you rent, not to Resident Owned Parks. This is because a converted park shares little of the actual and psychological benefits that are found in a true Resident Owned Park (ROP)

Download a Print Quality PDF of this “In Space Value” Document

Why a Converted Mobile Home Park Is NOT A Resident Owned Park

When residents get together to buy their park they permanently lock in the “in space” values of their homes. By purchasing their lot, or more often a share in the park, they no longer have to worry about losing rent control. The homeowners association controls the park directly and everyone has an equal say in decisions involving rules, capital improvements and repairs. Lenders also like the situation as they no longer have to worry that the equity in the homes in which they make loans for will disappear if rent control is abolished. The actual and psychological benefits of a true Resident Owned Park dramatically increase the value of ALL the homes in the park.

When you buy a lot in a converted park you are NOT purchasing a lot in a Resident Owned Park. The owner still controls the park until at least 51% of the lots are sold. Instead of the stability of a resident owned park where everyone has equal stake in the outcome, a converted park is a hodgepodge of renters, owners and speculators. Instead of “all for one”, it’s “every man for himself”.

Those who can afford to buy their lots will enjoy the stability of home ownership, although control of the park itself will still be in the hands of the park owner.

Those that can not afford to buy their lots will continue to rent. Those that meet the requirements to be considered low income will be protected by state rent control laws.

Those that don’t will have their rent increased by 20% of the difference between the current rate and the appraised fair market value, per year for the first four years, at which point the owner can raise the rent to any level they want.

Those that are low income will be protected from the new rent increases but because most of their equity will be wiped out in the conversion they will have little choice but to stay there for the rest of their lives. Those renters that sell their homes will walk away with only a fraction of their investment. In some cases they may still owe tens of thousands of dollars on their mortgage with no hope of paying it off. Some of the homes will be scooped up by speculators, or even the park owner, for pennies on the dollar. Some will be abandoned by their owners who are unable to sell them or afford the ever increasing rents. The end result is a broken community with conflicting interests.

Does this sound like a Resident Owned Park? Does this sound like a community that you would want to invest in?

Download a Print Quality PDF of this “NOT an ROP” Document

IN Space Value of Mobile Homes Chart

Download a Print Quality PDF of this “In Space Value” Chart

Complete Historical Overview: Conversions of Mobile Home Parks to Subdivisions or Condominiums

California State Senate Hearing on Mobile and Manufactured Home Conversions 2/28/07
Download PDF | Watch Video of Hearing

Synopsis of Issue: Within the last few years, a growing number of mobilehome park owners have been utilizing a special provision of the state’s Subdivision Map Act to convert their parks to so-called resident owned condominiums or subdivisions, which thereby exempts the parks from local mobilehome rent control. Condominium interests in mobilehome park spaces must be offered to renting homeowners, and low-income homeowners who cannot afford to buy can continue to rent their spaces under the statute which limits annual rent increases, including “pre-conversion” pass-through fees, to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). However, non-purchasing residents who are not low income no longer have rent control protection upon the conversion and may have their rents increased to higher so-called “market levels” over four years.

Park owners argue this is a property rights issue and that “park condo conversion” – as it is known in the vernacular - is one of the few methods by which they can recapture the market value of their parks in rent control jurisdictions, as well as bring rents for non-buying non-low income residents, who they say are usually able to pay a greater share of their rental housing costs, up to “market.”

Residents claim the state law in question was not originally intended to be used by park owners to convert parks to resident ownership and is now being adapted to allow parks to circumvent local rent control, gentrify affordable housing and economically evict low-moderate income homeowners, many of whom cannot afford the asking prices for their spaces or “condo” interests.

This is fast becoming a major issue in the housing “arena” in many areas of the state and involves the interplay of a number of different laws or regulations, both state and local.

Mobilehome Parks: In California, there are 4,822 mobilehome parks and manufactured housing communities listed on the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s Mobilehome & RV Park website, not including parks owned by public entities. The Select Committee conservatively estimates there are about 700,000 residents living in these parks. In the vast majority of parks, mobilehome residents own their homes but rent the spaces on which their homes are installed from the park on a month-to-month or long-term lease arrangement. Most of the 4,822 listed parks are owned by private investor groups, operators or owners, but an estimated 150 parks are owned by resident organizations or by non-profit organizations.

Local Rent Control: Many mobilehome owners are long-time park residents, often seniors on low or moderate incomes. Since 1977, due to complaints from residents in some parks about high rent increases, and local governments’ concerns about the need to preserve affordable housing in their communities to meet general plan requirements, 102 local agencies (mostly cities), according to figures compiled by the Select Committee from various sources, have enacted some form of mobilehome park rent control in California. Provisions of these ordinances vary by jurisdiction but all allow some form of annual rent increase, usually based on the CPI or a percentage of the CPI for the region. A slight majority of rent control jurisdictions have a vacancy decontrol feature, meaning that upon a vacancy or change of tenancy for a space in a park, the space is ‘decontrolled’ from the rent ordinance. The others have so-called vacancy control, which does not permit the decontrol of a space from the ordinance upon a change in tenancy but may, under some ordinances, allow an additional one-time rental adjustment, such as up to a 10% increase of the current rent. Park residents may feel rent control is the only protection they have from economic eviction, while park owners believe it inhibits the profitability of their investment and resale of their parks. There have been a number of legislative and legal battles over the years. State legislation passed in 1985 (SB 1352 [Leroy Greene]) provides that parks may offer leases to residents with a term of more than one year that are exempt from local rent control. Since SB 1352, there have been several unsuccessful legislative attempts by resident groups to prevent parks from requiring that new residents sign such exempt leases as a condition of tenancy. In 1996 park owners campaigned to pass Proposition 199, a statewide ballot initiative designed to phase out mobilehome park rent control, but the measure was rejected by the voters. Some park owners have successfully sued local governments over their rent ordinances, but in other cases the local governments have prevailed or the issue has been settled. As park rents climb in non-rent control jurisdictions, the rent control controversy continues.

Resident Park Ownership: In the mid-1980’s, as an alternative to problems of increasing park rents for low and moderate income residents or the closure of some parks and displacement of residents, the concept of resident owned parks (ROP), where residents form a homeowners association to purchase a park for sale and convert it to a mobilehome subdivision, condominium, stock co-operative or non-profit ownership, gained in popularity. Between 1984 and 1996, the Legislature, responding to this issue, enacted a number of laws to encourage resident ownership, including a property tax freeze on the initial sale assessed value of parks converted and sold to resident owners, and the Mobilehome Park Resident Ownership Program (MPROP) (SB 2240 [Seymour] 1984), a limited loan program with funding to assist homeowner associations and low-income residents in purchasing their parks. According to figures from HCD, MPROP, with about $3 million in annual funding from a surtax on mobilehome owner registration fees and loan paybacks, has assisted homeowner associations and low-income residents in 75 park conversions since 1985. The Legislature has also enacted various changes to the Subdivision Map Act, exempting or simplifying the ROP conversion process.

Subdivided Lands Act: Due to concerns about the fraudulent marketing of subdivided lands, the Legislature over the years has enacted various provisions of the Subdivided Lands Act, administered by the Department of Real Estate (DRE), to assure that offers to buyers include what was agreed to at the time of purchase. (Business & Professions Code Section 11000 et seq.) The Act applies to most subdivisions and common interest developments, including condominium conversions. These provisions do not address land use, rent or relocation issues, but rather provide a DRE approved public report containing disclosures to prospective buyers of covenants, conditions and restrictions which govern the use of property, assessments and reserves necessary for maintaining homeowners’ associations and common areas, and other related disclosures. After the last remaining subdivided interest is sold, DRE’s jurisdiction ceases.

Subdivision Map Act: Like zoning and use permits, the subdivision map process is a local land use planning tool. Although the original state Subdivision Map Act dates from 1907, the Act was significantly strengthened by the Legislature in the 1970’s to include, among others, lot-splits and condominium conversions. In 1980, the Legislature enacted a provision specifically giving local governments the power to regulate the subdivision of a mobilehome park to another use, including requirements that the displacement of mobilehome residents be mitigated (Government Code Section 66427.4) (SB 1722 [Craven] ). Therefore, before individual lots in a park could be sold and converted to a resident-owned subdivision or condominium, the Subdivision Map Act required a subdivision map to be filed and approved by the local jurisdiction, which could impose its various own conditions on the map to mitigate economic displacement of non-purchasing residents, such as relocation assistance, assurance that a majority of residents supported the conversion, etc. But park conversion consultants contended that by imposing “unreasonable” conditions on the subdivision map, some local governments were actually hampering ROP conversions by making it more expensive for residents to buy and operate the park. Hence, the Legislature enacted Government Code Section 66428.1 in 1991, exempting, with certain exceptions, a park conversion where two-thirds of the mobilehome owners in a park support it from parcel, tentative or final map requirements (AB 1863 [Hauser]). Due to continuing concerns from some resident groups and conversion consultants, in 1995 the Legislature further diluted the power of local governments to regulate the conversion of parks to resident-owned condominiums or subdivisions with the enactment of Government Code Section 66427.5 (SB 310 [Craven]). This provision did not have a homeowner support requirement but established a minimum state standard for mitigation of the economic displacement of non-purchasing residents, as previously described. (See Government Code Section 66427.5, attached). By establishing a state rent formula for low-income residents, Section 66427.5 thereby pre-empted a local rent ordinance from regulating rents in a converted ROP park. This is the provision, now being used by park-owner driven resident conversions, which is the center of debate on the “park condo” issue.

El Dorado Case: In 1993, the park owner of the El Dorado Mobile Country Club, a 377-space mobilehome park in Palm Springs, filed a tentative subdivision map with the city as a first step in converting his park to resident ownership. This was the first known case of a park converted to resident ownership by a park owner, as contrasted with most ROP conversions, which had been initiated by resident homeowner associations. The City of Palm Springs, concerned about allegations that the conversion was a “sham” driven by a park owner whose motive, according to some park residents at the time, was to sell a few lots in the park to circumvent the city’s rent control and other local regulations, imposed several conditions on the map. These included, among others, that the map would not be effective (meaning the park would not be exempt from city rent control) until 50%-plus-1 of the lots were sold to residents. The El Dorado park owner sued the city, claiming the effective date of conversion was when one lot was sold and that the city had exceeded its authority under the state’s Subdivision Map Act to impose more stringent requirements for a park conversion, as it might do for other kinds of conversions, such as conversion of an apartment to a condominium. Although the city won the first round, the park appealed, and the 4th District Court of Appeal reversed (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd., v. City of Palm Springs, 2001). The appellate court ruled that the city was limited by the state’s Subdivision Map Act and opined that the question of whether there should be more protections in the statute to prevent “sham” resident conversions by park owners was a legislative, not legal, issue.

The Keeley Bill: As a result, AB 930 (Keeley, 2002) was introduced to permit local governments to impose additional requirements on the conversion of a mobilehome park to a ROP subdivision or condominium. The bill was heavily lobbied and debated, with mobilehome owners, housing advocates and local governments supporting the bill and park owners opposing it. As finally passed and signed by the Governor, the Keeley bill allowed local governments to require park owners as part of the map act process to provide the city with “a survey of support” indicating resident support for a proposed ROP conversion and included un-codified language stating the bill was intended to assure such conversions were “bona fide” in accordance with the El Dorado case. Because the language was not clear, there are differing views on whether a city can deny a “park condo conversion” if the survey showed little or no resident support for the conversion. (See un-codified language as an addendum to Section 66427.5, below)

Epilogue: Within the last year and a half, a number of mobilehome parks have either notified their residents of the park’s intent to convert or have actually applied to local governments for a map to convert their rental parks to a park condominium under Government Code Section 66427.5. The Select Committee has been able to document 12 such parks to date statewide, although a newspaper article has quoted Sheila Dey, Executive Director of the Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association (WMA), a park owner industry association, as using the figure of 30 parks (WMA members) that are planning such conversions (Daily Breeze, [Torrance, CA], Sunday, January 28, 2007 article by Gene Maddus). To date, park-owner initiated conversions appear to be taking place in Buellton, Carson, Ojai, Vallejo, Sonoma County, Santa Rosa, Healdsburg, Santa Cruz County, Rohnert Park, and San Luis Obispo County. Some local governments have placed temporary moratoriums on these conversions, although at least one jurisdiction is reportedly being sued by a park owner over the moratorium.

Attachment I

Section 66427.5 of the Government Code:
66427.5. At the time of filing a tentative or parcel map for a subdivision to be created from the conversion of a rental mobilehome park to resident ownership, the subdivider shall avoid the economic displacement of all nonpurchasing residents in the following manner:
(a) The subdivider shall offer each existing tenant an option to either purchase his or her condominium or subdivided unit, which is to be created by the conversion of the park to resident ownership, or to continue residency as a tenant.
(b) The subdivider shall file a report on the impact of the conversion upon residents of the mobilehome park to be converted to resident owned subdivided interest.
(c) The subdivider shall make a copy of the report available to each resident of the mobilehome park at least 15 days prior to the hearing on the map by the advisory agency or, if there is no advisory agency, by the legislative body.
(d) (1) The subdivider shall obtain a survey of support of residents of the mobilehome park for the proposed conversion.
(2) The survey of support shall be conducted in accordance with an agreement between the subdivider and a resident homeowners’ association, if any, that is independent of the subdivider or mobilehome park owner.
(3) The survey shall be obtained pursuant to a written ballot.
(4) The survey shall be conducted so that each occupied mobilehome space has one vote.
(5)The results of the survey shall be submitted to the local agency upon filing of the tentative or parcel map, to be considered as part of the subdivision map hearing prescribed by subdivision (e).
(e) The subdivider shall be subject to a hearing by a legislative body or advisory agency, which is authorized by local ordinance to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the map. The scope of the hearing shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section.
(f) The subdivider shall be required to avoid the economic displacement of all nonpurchasing residents in accordance with the following:
(1) As to nonpurchasing residents who are not lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, the monthly rent, including any applicable fees or charges for use of any preconversion amenities, may increase from the preconversion rent to market levels, as defined in an appraisal conducted in accordance with nationally recognized professional appraisal standards, in equal annual increases over a four-year period.
(2) As to nonpurchasing residents who are lower income households, as defined in Sec. 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, the monthly rent, including any applicable fees or charges for use of any preconversion amenities, may increase from the preconversion rent by an amount equal to the average monthly increase in rent in the four years immediately preceding the conversion, except that in no event shall the monthly rent be increased by an amount greater than the average monthly percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for the most recently reported period.

AB 930 (Keeley, 2002), Un-codified Intent Language:
SEC. 2. It is the intent of the Legislature to address the conversion of a mobilehome park to resident ownership that is not a bona fide resident conversion, as described by the Court of Appeal in El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1153.
The court in this case concluded that the subdivision map approval process specified in Section 66427.5 of the Government Code may not provide local agencies with the authority to prevent non-bona fide resident conversions. The court explained how a conversion of a mobilehome park to resident ownership could occur without the support of the residents and result in economic displacement. It is, therefore, the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act to ensure that conversions pursuant to Section 66427.5 of the Government Code are bona fide resident
conversions.

Attachment II

Some Issues for Possible Discussion relating to “Park Condo Conversion”:

1) Is there a need to change the statute – Government Code Section 66427.5?

2) How can the interests of park owners in selling their parks and making a reasonable return on investment be reconciled with the need to prevent the loss of affordable housing for low and moderate income park residents?

3) When Section 66427.5 was enacted in 1995 to limit local discretion, were park owner driven conversions contemplated by the Legislature? Should the statute be clarified to apply only to resident-owned driven conversions?

4) If the Keeley language relating to the “survey of support” requirement is not clear, should the statute provide that local governments may require a certain percentage of resident support be evidenced in the survey as a condition of granting a map?

5) Does the current statute sufficiently protect mobilehome park residents, who cannot afford to purchase a condo “interest,” from eventual economic eviction? Do residents who are not defined as low-income but who are below the region’s median income need to be protected?

6) One of the concerns voiced about park-owner initiated conversions is how the homeowners’ association is set up. Does the park owner have a controlling interest in the association until homeowners or park residents actually purchase a majority of the condo interests?

7) Doubts heard about park condo conversions also stem from the fact that parks in most cases will not disclose prices of the spaces or condo interests to residents until the process is approved by DRE. This may be due to a State Subdivided Lands Act requirements that prices cannot be provided to prospective buyers until the DRE public report is released, which is often at the end of the conversion process. Should the law be changed to allow at least disclosure of tentative prices at the front end or local map approval stage?

8) Some low-income residents in the El Dorado Park in Palm Springs have been able to obtain MPROP loans to purchase condo interests. Proponents of condo conversion contend MPROP loans may be available to assist low-income residents in future “park condo conversions.” Is there enough MPROP funding to assist low-income residents in up to 30 or more parks that may convert to the condominium form of resident ownership?

Disclaimer

This blog is fashioned in the American tradition of citizen activism and political rebellion. It uses a mix of humor, satire, common sense, anecdotes, analogy and facts to inform, enlighten and inspire “the movement”.

Like Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” I make no claims of impartiality. This is not a bipartisan effort. I have a definite point of view. If you feel a particular post is inaccurate or offends your sensibilities, then post a rebuttal comment or start your own blog.

I try my best to make this site as accurate and up to date as possible. However, the mobile home conversion movement is very young and things change very quickly. If you feel that some information is missing from certain posts or that your particular park or situation is not represented, then write an update and email it to me.

When talking about the specific people involved I try my best to separate unbiased facts from opinions. I will sometimes use hyperbole to entertain and illustrate deeper truths.

The information on Sham Conversions is accurate to my knowledge. However, do not use the information on Sham Conversions as your sole guide on matters of law.

The materials and information on this web site are for informational and entertainment purposes only and should not be considered legal advice.

In other words don’t do anything that could mess up your own situation without consulting a lawyer (other than Richard Close) first.

A Note About the Use of the Phrase “Sham”

Little did we know until we got a cease and desist letter from Gilchrist & Rutter that the word “sham” had a legal meaning when applied to park conversions to resident ownership. We at www.shamconversions.com use the phrase strictly as a metaphor as do many reporters and elected officials. So to clears thing up we thought it would be appropriate to define “sham” as it applies to conversions.

“Sham” Conversions – The Court’s Definition
In El Dorado, the Court of Appeal defined a “sham” conversion as one in which a park owner sells a single unit and prices the remaining units at prohibitively expensive amounts merely to claim that local rent control laws no longer apply. We at www.shamconversions.com do not imply in any way that the park owner initiated conversions carried out by Gilchrist & Rutter are illegal or fit the court’s definition of “sham”.

“Sham” Conversions –Our Definition
We use the phrase “sham” as a metaphor. Much in the same way you would use the phrase “railroaded”, “hoodwinked”, or “poppycock” we use the phrase “sham” to express our feelings about a situation that we have little control over and that we feel is fundamentally unfair. Why would we think this? When a park owner decides to convert his park, the residents are told several things:

  • The owner has a right to convert the park and there’s nothing you can do to stop it
  • You will be given the “choice” to buy your lots at an undetermined price or continue renting.
  • Those that “choose” not to buy, but are low income, will be protected by California state rent control.
  • Those that “choose” not to buy, but do not qualify as low income, will see their rent increase by 20% of the difference between the current rate and the appraised fair market value, per year for the first four years. After four years the owner can raise rents to any level they desire.
  • You will be given a resident survey of support. It will ask you if you support the conversion or not. However, you will also be told that the results carry no weight and that the conversion will happen even if 100% of the residents oppose it

It is from our personal experience with the conversion process that we claim the use of “sham” to described how we feel about the concept of park owner initiated conversions that discount the feelings and wishes of the residents themselves, robs us of our equity and tears apart our communities.

Thanks and good luck,

Clay Butler

Creator of Sham Conversions

Contact

Name: Clay Butler
Address: PO Box 245 Capitola, Ca 95010
Phone: 831-477-9029 ( between 8am and 5pm Pacific Standard Time)
Email: info@shamconversions.com

Want to contribute to Sham Conversions? We need dedicated individuals who would like to send in updates on what’s happening with their mobile home park conversion, their city and their county. I can be a simple as cut and paste updates or sending links to important articles. Any contribution is appreciated and will be credited.

Thanks

Defeat AB 1309 - Protect Mobile Home Rent Control

AB1309 will eliminate mobile home rent control when a home is sold. That means if you were to try and sell your home your equity will be wiped out and your home will be nearly worthless.

We Win! AB1309 DEAD - Update 1-29-08
AB 1309 required 41 supporting votes to pass the Assembly Floor, and neither the author, Assemblyman Charles Calderon, or the WMA lobbyists could find 41 Legislators to vote “yes”. Therefore Assemblymember Calderon decided not to bring the bill up for a vote, and the bill is now dead. Thanks to everyone who wrote their representatives to voice your opposition.

Special Note: If the members of the the California State Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development hadn’t voted for AB1309 in the first place it never would have made it to the Assembly Floor. These two Democrats voted for it and put all mobile home residents in jeopardy.

Karen Bass
Dem-47 (916) 319-2047
Assemblymember.Bass@assembly.ca.gov

Sandre R. Swanson
Dem-16 (916) 319-2016
Assemblymember.Swanson@assembly.ca.gov

History

AB1309 is Authored by Charles Calderon and was voted on by the California State Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development

These people voted for it (Booo!) Let them know how unhappy you are.

Bonnie Garcia - Vice Chair
Rep-80 (916) 319-2080
Assemblywoman.garcia@assembly.ca.gov

Karen Bass
Dem-47 (916) 319-2047
Assemblymember.Bass@assembly.ca.gov

Sharon Runner
Rep-36 (916) 319-2036
Assemblywoman.Runner@assembly.ca.gov

Sandre R. Swanson
Dem-16 (916) 319-2016
Assemblymember.Swanson@assembly.ca.gov

This people voted against it (Yeah!) Go thank them.

Loni Hancock
Dem-14 (916) 319-2014
Assemblymember.hancock@assembly.ca.gov

Gene Mullin
Dem-19 (916) 319-2019
Assemblymember.mullin@assembly.ca.gov

This person was absent ( Huh?) Ask her why.

Lori Saldaña - Chair
Dem-76 (916) 319-2076
Assemblymember.Saldana@assembly.ca.gov

ASSEMBLY JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
1020 “N” STREET #104
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814

Vote YES on Prop 99 - The Homeowners Protection Act for Real Eminent Domain Reform While Protecting Rent Control

UPDATE 6-04-08 WE WIN: Prop 99 Wins Easily!
99 APPROVED - YES VOTES 2,129,247 = 62.5% - NO VOTES 1,282,763 = 37.5%

California Prop. 99 “The Homeowners Protection Act (AKA: HOPA)” will constitutionally protect homeowners from having their homes taken by eminent domain without sacrificing rent control or needlessly tying the hands of local governments ability to enact intelligent land and water use planning solutions.

A coalition of homeowners, business, labor, cities, counties and environmentalists are supporting this straightforward and powerful eminent domain reform aimed for the June 2008 ballot.

If passed:
Prop. 99 “The Homeowners Protection Act” will prohibit the government from using eminent domain to take a home to transfer to another private party. It will also override the Trojan horse anti rent control Prop 98 if that should pass also.

View PDF of Prop. 99 - The Homeowners Protection Act

Vote NO on Prop 98 -The California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act - Stop the Jarvis Anti Rent Control Trojan Horse Initiative

UPDATE 6-04-08 WE WIN: Prop 98 Goes Down!
98 DEFEATED - YES VOTES 1,342,655 = 39.0% - NO VOTES 2,091,890 = 61.0%

If you RENT a space in a MOBILE HOME PARK or currently ENJOY RENT CONTROL PROTECTIONS of any kind then you’ll want to Vote NO on Prop. 98 “The California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act (AKA: CPOFPA” on the June 2008 ballot

Prop. 98 will eventually eliminate rent control for all properties in California. Under this proposition rent control will be eliminated every time a property is vacated by the original tenants. View PDF of the CPOFPA

Articles:
Los Angels Times 1-28-08
San Francisco Chronicle 11-18-07

Mobile Home Owners: This will mean that if you live in a rent controlled mobile home park, and you were to sell your home, the next person would no longer receive the same rent protections that you had. This means your home will be devalued dramatically. In some cases it may be worthless. Thousands of mobile home owners will lose millions of dollars in equity overnight.

Renters: After you move, the property you rented will no longer be protected by rent control. This will continually shrink the pool of affordable rentals until there are none.

There is no reason to eliminate affordable housing in a state that is increasingly becoming the least affordable places to live in the world except to line the pockets of already wealthy property owners. If we want to protect our farmland then let’s do it honestly instead of through a Trojan Horse Proposition that is really designed to eliminate affordable housing and rob thousands of mobile home owners of their equity.

Download an easy to print PDF document explaining the DANGERS of The California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act and why you should SUPPORT Prop. 99 “The Homeowners Protection Act” instead.

Don’t take our word for it. Read the Prop. 98 - The California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act for yourself.

A Non Partisan Review:
The Legislative Analyst’s Office has been providing fiscal and policy advice to the Legislature for more than 65 years. It is known for its fiscal and programmatic expertise and nonpartisan analysis of the state budget. The office serves as the “eyes and ears” for the Legislature to ensure that the executive branch is implementing legislative policy in a cost efficient and effective manner.View their opinion of Prop. 98 - The California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act

The true purpose of Prop. 98 is to abolish rent control in California – making it extremely difficult for thousands of seniors and widows on fixed incomes, single mothers and working families to find adequate housing they can afford. The measure would also gut renter protection laws, such as laws requiring the fair return of rental deposits and laws requiring 60-day notice before forcing tenants out of their housing.

Other Threats from Prop 98 “The California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act”

Threaten water quality and supply. Drafting errors in the The California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act would be locked into the Constitution and could prohibit the acquisition of land and water through eminent domain to develop public water projects – threatening many future water projects intended to preserve clean drinking water, protect existing water resources, and secure additional water supply. The Association of California Water Agencies says the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act “could derail needed groundwater and surface water storage projects around the state” and calls this flaw in the measure “cause for alarm.”

Hurt the environment and stop regulations that protect our neighborhoods. In the definitions section is a clause that would prohibit laws and regulations that “transfer economic benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the private owner.” Because the courts have ruled that virtually all land-use decisions and environmental laws transfer economic benefit from one party to another, the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act would prohibit countless laws that protect our land, air, water and laws that protect our neighborhoods and home values.

Who’s Supporting The California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act?

Follow the Money: The Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association and their allies contributed $1,500,000 (one and a half million) to the initiative. The California Farm Bureau, the second biggest contributor, gave $200,000 (two-hundred thousand). When the vast majority of funding comes from anti-rent control groups do you really think this is about saving family farms?

Below are the main groups advocating the elimination of rent control and affordable housing programs in California:

The California Farm Bureau Federation
The California Farm Bureau Federation is a non-governmental, non-profit, voluntary membership California corporation that’s purpose is to protect and promote agricultural interests throughout the state of California and to find solutions to the problems of the farm, the farm home and the rural community.

Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association
(WMA) is a nonprofit organization created in 1945 for the exclusive purpose of promoting and protecting the interests of owners, operators and developers of manufactured home communities in California. Usually behind most lawsuits that try to overturn local mobile home rent control policies. Targets are generally very small towns that do not have the resources to fight their deep pocket legal assault. They have never one a fight honestly. They win through capitulation when the local government runs out of money to keep fighting them in court.

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
The folks behind Proposition 13. If the government is trying to collect taxes they are usually there to try and stop it. Sounds good until you realize we really do need billions of dollars for schools, police protection, fire protection, flood control, consumer and workplace safety, libraries, etc. How we are going to pay for all this doesn’t seem to be a concern for the HJTA.

The California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights
(CAPPPR) is a coalition of family farmers, community and taxpayer advocates committed to exposing the dangers and abuses of eminent domain — government’s taking of private property from unwilling sellers.

This post from the Berkeley Property Owners Association sums up the anti-rent control position nicely.

Who’s Against The California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act?

Organizations in opposition to Prop. 98: (List courtesy of yubanet)

Senior:
AARP
California Alliance for Retired Americans
Gray Panthers California

Business:
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
The California Housing Consortium

Public Safety:
California Police Chiefs Association

Education:
California Teachers Association
California School Boards Association

Homeowners:
League of California Homeowners
Golden State Manufactured-Home Owners League, Inc. (GSMOL)
California Mobile Homes Resource and Action Association
Coalition of Mobile Home Owners- California
Resident Owned Parks, Inc. (ROP)
California Coalition for Rural Housing
Alimur Park Homeowners Association
Butte County Mobile-Home Owners Association
GSMOL Chapter 1613
GSMOL Chapter 1279
GSMOL Chapter 708
Homeowners Association of Cameron
Mobile Estates
Mobilehome Residents Alliance of Nevada County
Mobile Parks West Homeowners Association
New Frontier Homeowner Association
Neighborhood Friends
Palos Verdes Shores Homeowners Association
Santa Ana Mobile Home Owners Association
Windsor Group
Mobile Home Owners Coalition

Agriculture:
Western Growers Association

Water:
Association of California Water Agencies

Consumer:
Consumer Federation of California

Labor:
State Building and Construction Trades Council
AFSCME 2712
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Marin County Building and Construction Trades Council

Renter Advocates/Housing Providers:
Eminent Domain Reform Now-Protect Our Homes
Housing California
California Housing Consortium (CHC)
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Coalition for Economic Survival
Eviction Defense Collaborative
Sacramento Mutual Housing Association
Inquilinos Unidos
Just Cause Oakland
San Francisco Tenants Union
Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights
Council of Tenants - Los Angeles
Eviction Defense Network
Lincoln Place Tenants Association
Oakland Tenants Union

Environmental:
National Wildlife Federation
California League of Conservation Voters
Natural Resources Defense Council
Planning and Conservation League
Environmental Defense
Defenders of Wildlife
Greenbelt Alliance
Healthy Homes Collaborative
Mariposans for the Environment and
Responsible Government
Wild Heritage Planners

Public Interest/Community:
League of Women Voters of California
Western Center on Law and Poverty
Community Advocacy Center
Inner City Law Center
Los Angeles Community Action Network
Miracle Mile Action Committee
Our City
Union de Vecinos
Los Angeles Community Legal Center and Educational
One Stop Immigration Counselor

Ethnic:
Black, Asian, Minority and Ethnic Renaissance CDC

Government:
League of California Cities
California State Association of Counties
California Special Districts Association
California Chapter of the American
Planning Association
California Redevelopment Association

Faith:
California Church Impact
St. Anthony Foundation

Alerts

California State Assembly and Senate Bills

Defeat AB1309 - Protect Moblie Home Rent Control
This bill will eliminate mobile home rent control when a home is sold. That means if you were to try and sell your home your equity will be wiped out and your home will be nearly worthless.

We Win! AB1309 DEAD - Update 1-29-08
AB 1309 required 41 supporting votes to pass the Assembly Floor, and neither the author, Assemblyman Charles Calderon, or the WMA lobbyists could find 41 Legislators to vote “yes”. Therefore Assemblymember Calderon decided not to bring the bill up for a vote, and the bill is now dead. Thanks to everyone who wrote their representatives to voice your opposition. Read more>

California Ballot Propositions for 2008

Vote NO on Prop 98 -The California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act - Stop the Jarvis Anti Rent Control Trojan Horse Initiative
This Trojan Horse proposition will permanently eliminate all rent control in California forever and hinder local governments ability to enact intelligent land and water use planning solutions.

WE WIN: Prop 98 Goes Down! Prop 99 Wins Easily!

State Ballot Measures 100.% ( 23398 of 23398 ) precincts
reporting as of Jun. 4, 2008, at 4:01 a.m.

98 DEFEATED - YES VOTES 1,342,655 39.0% - NO VOTES 2,091,890 61.0%
99 APPROVED - YES VOTES 2,129,247 62.5% - NO VOTES 1,282,763 37.5%

Vote YES on Prop 99 - The Homeowners Protection Act - Real Eminent Domain Reform While Protecting Rent Control
The Homeowners Protection Act will constitutionally protect homeowners from having their homes taken by eminent domain without sacrificing rent control or needlessly tying the hands of local governments ability to enact intelligent land and water use planning solutions.

WE WIN: Prop 98 Goes Down! Prop 99 Wins Easily!

State Ballot Measures 100.% ( 23398 of 23398 ) precincts
reporting as of Jun. 4, 2008, at 4:01 a.m.

98 DEFEATED - YES VOTES 1,342,655 39.0% - NO VOTES 2,091,890 61.0%
99 APPROVED - YES VOTES 2,129,247 62.5% - NO VOTES 1,282,763 37.5%

Quick Links
California Mobile Home Residency Law
Advocacy Groups

COMOCAL - Coalition Of Mobilehome Owners - California
Hands down the absolute best newsletter out there. Worth the membership just for that alone. Started by Frank Wodley, COMOCAL is the new kid on the block making waves. They have an active Yahoo groups forum and are easy to get a hold of by phone or email. Run by people who actually live in a mobile home park like yourselves. I urge you to become a member.

CMRAA - California Mobilehome Resource and Action Association

John Sisker’s Site: Manuractured Home Owners Network

Neighborhood Friends
Full of piss and vinegar this young non-profit orgnanization embodies the best elements of citizen activism. Dedicated to preserving affordable mobile home park living.

GSMOL -Golden State Manufactured-Home Owners League, Inc
The oldest and largest advocacy group dedicated to the interests of mobilehome owners. Very active lobbying group headed by Maurice Priest in Sacramento where they often spearhead or sponsor some of the most important pro-mobilehome owner legislation. I urge you to become a member of GSMOL today.

State of California

Glossary of Terms Used by the California State Legislature
Ever wonder about what terms like “Across the Desk”, “Inactive File” or “Parliamentary Inquiry” mean. This is the place to start.
California Senate & Assembly Bill Access
California Senate Select Committee on Mobile Homes
Housing and Community Development (HCD)

Search Senators and Assembly Members Home Pages and Addresses
Department of Real Estate (DRE)

Citizens’ Guide to Planning
Guide to Mobilehome Park Purchases by Residents
Find California Code
Official California Legislative Information
Search California Bills
Search California Statutes
California Business Portal - Limited Liability Companies
California Secretary of State - Bus Search
California Secretary of State - Business Portal
Cal Dept of Corp - Securities Regulation Division

Financing Mobile Homes

California Mobilehome Park Resident Ownership Program (MPROP)

CalVet Financing

VA Financing

Activists Kit

We’re just beginning to build our Activist Kit. Below you will find the steps you must take when your park is threatened with conversion as well as some great handouts that explain how conversions hurt your equity. More to come.

What To Do When You Get a Letter of Intent To Convert

1. If you don’t already have one you must form a homeowners association. If you don’t, your park owners, with the help of their attorneys, will recruit a few sympathetic residents and set up a sham homeowners association to control the issue in the park.

At this point you should also get a lawyer who specializes in mobile home law to help with the following steps. Ask the lawyer about fees. Perhaps they will take you as a pro bono case. Some lawyers work through non-profits that provide free legal services to seniors or low income people.

2. You must notify your city council or board of supervisors. Tell them about the proposed conversion and that the residents are against it.

An uninformed city council or board of supervisors can be a disaster for park residents.

On November 23, 2007, the Encinitas City Council approved conversion of The Sands Mobile Home Park. Council told residents state law governing mobile home parks restricted its decision.

“We are a country of laws, and we need to follow those laws, and those laws dictate the decisions we are making tonight,” Mayor James Bond said.

The council voted 4-1 to approve the conversion. Councilwoman Teresa Barth said her opposition to the measure was symbolic given the applicable state requirements. “I voted with the people on this one,” she said after the meeting.

Had they been educated on the matter the Mayor may have known that placing conditions or restrictions on mobile home park conversions, or denying them if they conflict with local planning goals is actually in compliance with state law, not against it.

3. You must send a letter to the park owners and their attorney asserting your rights as a homeowners association. You can ensure that the park owners and their attorneys are required to deal with your homeowners association directly in all matters involving the conversion process.

Use this Sample Letter.
This letter was written and successfully used by the Board of the Alimur Park Homeowners Association and their attorney Terry Hancock.

4. You must negotiate the terms of the resident survey. This will not be easy as the park owners will want to write a survey that ensures a favorable outcome for their position. They will want to include demographic questions and other unrelated fluff to confuse residents. They will try to include an “undecided” option to the resident survey to capitalize on this confusion. They will tell you the survey is meaningless. They will tell you can safely vote yes on the conversion without consequences. Do not allow this! The survey is probably the most important vote you will make in your life. Always keep in mind that the survey of support is the only tool prescribed by state law that requires input from the residents before a conversion can be approved. With the support of your local government, a majority no vote on the survey can legally stop the conversion. Therefor, the survey should contain only one question; Do you support the conversion or not.

Use this Sample Resident Survey.
This survey was written and successfully used by the Board of the Alimur Park Homeowners Association and their attorney Terry Hancock to define the resident survey. It includes justifications and additional requirements. It took several rounds of negotiations and several months get an easy to understand resident survey approved by all parties.

Print Quality Flyers for Easy Distribution

In Space Value Document1. Download a Print Quality PDF of “How Mobile Home Park Conversions Hurt Your Equity” Document

Excerpt: When you purchase a mobile home in a rental park, you pay one price that includes both the home itself and the right to use of the land on which it sits. This is referred to as the “in space” value.

Location of park, condition of park, and strength of local rent control ordinances will increase or decrease the “in space” value of the home. A home in an “A” rated park will cost more to purchase than one in a “B” rated park. A home with low space rent will cost more to purchase than one with high space rent. The final cost is determined by a combination of local market forces such as availability of financing, income levels, cost of living, the cost of comparable mobile homes and the price of real estate…

Why a Converted Mobile Home Park is NOT and ROP2. Download a Print Quality PDF of “NOT an ROP” Document

Excerpt: When you buy a lot in a converted park you are NOT purchasing a lot in a Resident Owned Park. The owner still controls the park until at least 51% of the lots are sold. Instead of the stability of a resident owned park where everyone has equal stake in the outcome, a converted park is a hodgepodge of renters, owners and speculators. Instead of “all for one”, it’s “every man for himself”…

Why a Converted Mobile Home Park is NOT and ROP3. Download a Print Quality PDF of “Mobile Home In Space Value Comparison” Document

Excerpt: How “In Space” Value Works. The Cost of Mobile Home Ownership Is Dependant On Factors That Have Little To Do With The Home Itself …