• Search

• Recent Posts

  • Failure to Maintain Lawsuits – Endeman, Lincoln, Turek and Heater – Since 1987, Endeman, Lincoln, Turek & Heater, LLP has been helping residents fight back against mobilehome park owner neglect and abuse.
  • David Loop Attorney – Helping Residents Buy Their Mobilehome Park – ROP Conversion
  • Buying Your Mobilehome Park – Resident Purchase, Financing and Conversion to ROP
  • Ventura County Mobile Home Park Conversion Ordinances
  • Mobile Home Park Resident Advocacy Groups
  • Hire a Mobile Home Mold Attorney or Lawyer
  • Hire a Mobile Home Attorney or Lawyer – San Diego Area
  • Hire a Mobile Home Attorney or Lawyer – San Jose Area
  • Hire a Mobile Home Attorney or Lawyer – Santa Rosa Sonoma County Area
  • Hire a Mobile Home Attorney or Lawyer – Sacramento Area

• Categories

  • Buying Your Mobilehome Park – ROP Conversion
  • City & County Mobile Home Park Conversion Ordinance
  • Failure to Maintain Lawsuits – Fight Park Owner Neglect
  • Hire a Mobile Home Lawyer – Find a Mobile Home Attorney
  • Mobile Home Park Resident Advocacy Groups
  • Mobile Home Parks Under Threat of Conversion
  • Park Owner Lawsuits Against Cities and Counties
  • Who's Behind The Mobile Home Park Condo Conversions
  • Who's Fighting Against Mobile Home Park Conversions

• Archives

  • July 2008
  • March 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007

• Helpful Links

  • 2009 California Mobile Home Residency Law (Microsoft Word file)
  • 2009 California Mobile Home Residency Law (PDF file)
  • California Senate & Assembly Bill Access
  • California Senate Select Committee on Mobile Homes
  • COMOCAL -Coalition of Mobilehome Owners California - Hands down the absolute best mobile home newsletter out there. Worth the price of membership just for that alone. Started by Frank Wodley and run people who actually live in a mobile home park like yourselves. I urge you to become a COMOCAL member.
  • Failure to Maintain Lawsuits – Endeman, Lincoln, Turek and Heater - Since 1987, Endeman, Lincoln, Turek & Heater, LLP has been helping residents fight back against mobilehome park owner neglect and abuse.
  • GSMOL -Golden State Manufactured-Home Owners League - The oldest and largest advocacy group dedicated to the interests of mobilehome owners. Lobbying group in Sacramento that often spearheads or sponsors some of the most important pro-mobilehome owner legislation. I urge you to become a GSMOL member.
  • Palm Springs View Estates - A wealth of information from a mobile home park as they fight the conversion process. This park is next door the infamous El Dorado Park in Palm Springs
  • Renters Rights Blog - In response to the attacks from apartment and mobile home park owners, this blog exists to unite renters, protect their rights, and provide information and resources to protect people from losing their homes
  • ROP -Mobile Home Park Financing - Since 1992 PMC Financial Services has been providing the financing neccessary to help residents buy their parks.

• Admin

  • Log in
  • Wordpress
  • XHTML

In 2002 California Government Code section 66427.5 was amended to address the 2001 El Dorado decision. AB 930 (Keeley, 2002) clarified that the intent of the resident survey language in 66427.5 was to ensure that all mobile home park conversions were “bona fide” and not merely an attempt to avoid local rent control. Unfortunately AB 930 did not specify how one is to determine that a conversion is bona fide (20% resident support? 50% resident support? 75% resident support?) To fill in the gaps left by the state legislators, California cities and counties are enacting ordinances which flesh out what must be contained in the surveys and factors that may be considered in determining whether a conversion is bona fide. Richard Close and the mobile home park owners he represents claim that the resident surveys they are required to submit under California Government Code section 66427.5 are a meaningless formality of the conversion process and cannot be used to deny an application for conversion. They further claim that ANY conditions imposed by city and counties that go beyond a strict interpretation of California Government Code section 66427.5 constitutes an illegal taking of their property. This is is why all county and city ordinances revolve around the resident survey. Because it is the only tool provided by state law that involves direct participation of mobile home residents it has become the battleground for the conversion process. City and county governments, and mobile home park owners all know that if given the choice residents will overwhelmingly choose NOT to convert their parks.

3-18-08
Ventura County Passed Conversion Ordinance: Ventura County places conditions on how a mobilehome park can be converted. 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. View PDF

Further Reading:

Los Angels Times Article 3-21-08
Ventura Star Article 3-19-08

In 2002 California Government Code section 66427.5 was amended to address the 2001 El Dorado decision. AB 930 (Keeley, 2002) clarified that the intent of the resident survey language in 66427.5 was to ensure that all mobile home park conversions were “bona fide” and not merely an attempt to avoid local rent control. Unfortunately AB 930 did not specify how one is to determine that a conversion is bona fide (20% resident support? 50% resident support? 75% resident support?) To fill in the gaps left by the state legislators, California cities and counties are enacting ordinances which flesh out what must be contained in the surveys and factors that may be considered in determining whether a conversion is bona fide. Richard Close and the mobile home park owners he represents claim that the resident surveys they are required to submit under California Government Code section 66427.5 are a meaningless formality of the conversion process and cannot be used to deny an application for conversion. They further claim that ANY conditions imposed by city and counties that go beyond a strict interpretation of California Government Code section 66427.5 constitutes an illegal taking of their property. This is is why all county and city ordinances revolve around the resident survey. Because it is the only tool provided by state law that involves direct participation of mobile home residents it has become the battleground for the conversion process. City and county governments, and mobile home park owners all know that if given the choice residents will overwhelmingly choose NOT to convert their parks.

5-22-07
Planning Commission Denies Permit: A resolution of the planning commission of The City of Carson denying tentative parcel Map no. 27014 for the residential conversion of Carson Harbor Village Mobile Home Park. View PDF

Further Reading:
Carson City Official Website

In 2002 California Government Code section 66427.5 was amended to address the 2001 El Dorado decision. AB 930 (Keeley, 2002) clarified that the intent of the resident survey language in 66427.5 was to ensure that all mobile home park conversions were “bona fide” and not merely an attempt to avoid local rent control. Unfortunately AB 930 did not specify how one is to determine that a conversion is bona fide (20% resident support? 50% resident support? 75% resident support?) To fill in the gaps left by the state legislators, California cities and counties are enacting ordinances which flesh out what must be contained in the surveys and factors that may be considered in determining whether a conversion is bona fide. Richard Close and the mobile home park owners he represents claim that the resident surveys they are required to submit under California Government Code section 66427.5 are a meaningless formality of the conversion process and cannot be used to deny an application for conversion. They further claim that ANY conditions imposed by city and counties that go beyond a strict interpretation of California Government Code section 66427.5 constitutes an illegal taking of their property. This is is why all county and city ordinances revolve around the resident survey. Because it is the only tool provided by state law that involves direct participation of mobile home residents it has become the battleground for the conversion process. City and county governments, and mobile home park owners all know that if given the choice residents will overwhelmingly choose NOT to convert their parks.

5-15-07
Ordinance No. 5725: Ordinance Regulating the Conversion of Mobile Home Parks to Resident Ownership Ordinance amending Chapter 25 of the Sonoma County Code (the Subdivision Ordinance) to establish procedures and requirements for the conversion of mobile home parks to resident ownership under the State Subdivision Map Act. View PDF
Updates:

10-17-07: Superior Court Dept 21 upholds Sonoma County Ordinance 5725. Court finds ordinance does not exceed Section 66427.5. View PDF

Further Reading:
Sonoma County Official Website
Fair Housing of Sonoma County Website

In 2002 California Government Code section 66427.5 was amended to address the 2001 El Dorado decision. AB 930 (Keeley, 2002) clarified that the intent of the resident survey language in 66427.5 was to ensure that all mobile home park conversions were “bona fide” and not merely an attempt to avoid local rent control. Unfortunately AB 930 did not specify how one is to determine that a conversion is bona fide (20% resident support? 50% resident support? 75% resident support?) To fill in the gaps left by the state legislators, California cities and counties are enacting ordinances which flesh out what must be contained in the surveys and factors that may be considered in determining whether a conversion is bona fide. Richard Close and the mobile home park owners he represents claim that the resident surveys they are required to submit under California Government Code section 66427.5 are a meaningless formality of the conversion process and cannot be used to deny an application for conversion. They further claim that ANY conditions imposed by city and counties that go beyond a strict interpretation of California Government Code section 66427.5 constitutes an illegal taking of their property. This is is why all county and city ordinances revolve around the resident survey. Because it is the only tool provided by state law that involves direct participation of mobile home residents it has become the battleground for the conversion process. City and county governments, and mobile home park owners all know that if given the choice residents will overwhelmingly choose NOT to convert their parks.

4-17-07
Energency Mobile Home Park Conversion Ordinance Public Hearing. View PDF

7-17-07
Mobile Home Park Conversion Ordinance 305 enacted. View PDF

Further Reading:
East Palo Alto Official Website

In 2002 California Government Code section 66427.5 was amended to address the 2001 El Dorado decision. AB 930 (Keeley, 2002) clarified that the intent of the resident survey language in 66427.5 was to ensure that all mobile home park conversions were “bona fide” and not merely an attempt to avoid local rent control. Unfortunately AB 930 did not specify how one is to determine that a conversion is bona fide (20% resident support? 50% resident support? 75% resident support?) To fill in the gaps left by the state legislators, California cities and counties are enacting ordinances which flesh out what must be contained in the surveys and factors that may be considered in determining whether a conversion is bona fide. Richard Close and the mobile home park owners he represents claim that the resident surveys they are required to submit under California Government Code section 66427.5 are a meaningless formality of the conversion process and cannot be used to deny an application for conversion. They further claim that ANY conditions imposed by city and counties that go beyond a strict interpretation of California Government Code section 66427.5 constitutes an illegal taking of their property. This is is why all county and city ordinances revolve around the resident survey. Because it is the only tool provided by state law that involves direct participation of mobile home residents it has become the battleground for the conversion process. City and county governments, and mobile home park owners all know that if given the choice residents will overwhelmingly choose NOT to convert their parks.

03-06-07
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors passes emergency moratorium temporarily halting all mobile home park conversions. View PDF

04-17-07
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors extends emergency moratorium halting all mobile home park conversions until February 2008. View PDF

07-07-07
Paul Golstone Trust, owner of Alimur Mobile Home Park in Soquel, California, files a $15,582,000 lawsuit against Santa Cruz County. Paul Goldstone is represented by Richard Close of Gilchrist and Rutter. View PDF

08-07-07
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors passes ordinance (Chapter 14.08) to establish requirements and procedures to comply with state laws related to the conversion of mobile home parks to resident ownership. View PDF

08-07-07
As expected, the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors denies Paul Goldstone’s lawsuit. Paul Goldstone continues with lawsuit. View PDF

Further Reading:
Santa Cruz County Official Website

In 2002 California Government Code section 66427.5 was amended to address the 2001 El Dorado decision. AB 930 (Keeley, 2002) clarified that the intent of the resident survey language in 66427.5 was to ensure that all mobile home park conversions were “bona fide” and not merely an attempt to avoid local rent control. Unfortunately AB 930 did not specify how one is to determine that a conversion is bona fide (20% resident support? 50% resident support? 75% resident support?) To fill in the gaps left by the state legislators, California cities and counties are enacting ordinances which flesh out what must be contained in the surveys and factors that may be considered in determining whether a conversion is bona fide. Richard Close and the mobile home park owners he represents claim that the resident surveys they are required to submit under California Government Code section 66427.5 are a meaningless formality of the conversion process and cannot be used to deny an application for conversion. They further claim that ANY conditions imposed by city and counties that go beyond a strict interpretation of California Government Code section 66427.5 constitutes an illegal taking of their property. This is is why all county and city ordinances revolve around the resident survey. Because it is the only tool provided by state law that involves direct participation of mobile home residents it has become the battleground for the conversion process. City and county governments, and mobile home park owners all know that if given the choice residents will overwhelmingly choose NOT to convert their parks.

05-01-2007
RESOLUTION NO. 26829 – Resolution of the council of the city of Santa Rosa urging the California legislature to amend government code section 66427.4 and to repeal government code section 66427.5 View PDF | Website

05-08-07
Conversion Ordinance 3831 – Santa Rosa city council adds chapter 19-76 to the Santa Rosa city code which outlines the conditions and procedures that a park owner must follow when converting a mobile home park to residential ownership. View PDF | Website

Further Reading:
Santa Rosa City Government Official Website