Noozhawk tells MHProNews.com the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission in California is considering an ordinance that would require MHC owners to file for a closure permit if they are selling their community, and to pay all residents market value for their homes. Commissioner C. Michael Cooney says the measure is not to prevent the land from being sold, but to smooth the relocation process for the residents. There are 20 land lease communities (LLCs) in the unincorporated areas of Santa Barbara housing thousands of people. State law allows local jurisdictions to manage community closures and mandate reasonable relocation costs. Homeowners claim they should receive fair market prices for their dwellings because homes more than four years old are unlikely to be moved at all. Community owners respond that paying market value for each manufactured home would make selling the land nearly impossible. Derek Watson, attorney for La Cumbre Mobile Home Park, says La Cumbre loses millions of dollars because of rent control. He says the commissioners should consider methods to build and maintain MHCs instead of making it more costly for the owners.
(Photo credit: Giana Magnoli/Noozhawk–Santa Barbara County Planning Commission)
8 thoughts on “Selling your LLC? “Buy All the Homes,” says the County”
Jimh3098
When a home is purchased or brought into a mobile home park the resident enters into a lease. Though often state law is to the contrary, the resident is under the impression that he has invested in a secure location for his home.
Closing a park may be a smart business strategy for management but it often hits the people who can least afford a hit on the small slice of the American Dream that they have captured. The park closings tend to economically devastate their home owners.
Park closings only happen for two reasons.
1- The park owners business plan has failed. It doesn’t matter if that failure is due to changing market conditions, government regulation, rent controls, inflation, or poor operating practices. The business has failed.
2- Management finds that the real-estate has a better, higher possible use that can make for a fatter bottom line, rather than continuing to operate the park.
Either way the reason for the park closing is in no way the responsibility of the home owners. So, why shouldn’t the park owners be held responsible for the potential loss by a home owner that leased in good faith?
Park home owners are, generally, among the least able members of our society to defend their rights under the law. They need regulations like this to keep the scales of justice fair and balanced.
TLamb
I have never seen or heard of one “park closing” in my 10 years in the business! If a business fails, the bank forecloses & a new owner comes in. Generally, when this happens, many homeowners have already moved their homes to a new location.
Boevine13
A couple of points here:
1. Having a MLS that can accurately provide home values as a neutral third party could help both community owners and home owners resolve this a little more quickly. It may mean more money to homeowners but it also might mean lower legal fees’ and hassles. Maybe that is pie in the sky thinking on my part.
2. The other point is to me one of our critical weaknesses as an industry and that is our adversarial attitude toward residents. It seems to me as long as they pay their rent and shut up we like them but god forbid they complain or expect existing laws and legislation to be enforced then they become some enemy. Doesn’t make sense that you would treat customers this way.
Jimh3098
Unfortunately this has been the MO of our business for decades. The major builders have always considered the dealer or park owner their customer and with some notable recent exceptions, have treated the end users of their product as a necessary evil, to be dispatched as economically as possible
Tony
JimH,
Back again to share your sunshine take on the glories of manufactured housing, Jim? It just seems hard to imagine that your gloomy view of our Industry can come from someone who supposedly has earned his keep in our ranks.
Every business and profession has its bad actors, none are exempt, so neither is MH. That said, the bad tend to get flushed out over time. We run regular articles on those who break the law, get caught and get the keys tossed after they plead or are found GUILTY.
Which means that generally the better actors are those who are the longer term players. In the MHC world, most owners know that they have to treat their residents fairly and honestly or risk losing them.
So if you believe that big government is the solution to every problem, all I can tell you is look to the past. Government keeps growing, we have over a million laws on the books, and still bad people do bad things.
And good people do the right things.
Let’s never, ever toss the baby out with the bath water. Let’s not kill a good industry due to over-regulation. This article is a prime example of a misguided regulation in the making.
Jim, let me suggest you read at least one Inspiration blog post a day for the next year, along with some Zig Ziglar, See You at the Top. I’ll bet you’ll feel better!
Thanks for your comments,
Tony
Jimh3098
Tony –
Your disbelief in my background is very much like the right wing birthers denying that our president is a citizen. It is easy out to to deny one that has a different opinion is a legitimate participant in the discussion.
I’m sorry that my honest opinion seems to irk you. Most park owners know that they have to treat their residents fairly and honestly or risk losing them. But that has not stopped a growing number of park closings across the country. That is the issue here.
When a business fails, its customers should not have to pay for that failure. If park owners are not required to give a fair market value to residents when their business plan fails or they make the decision to use the land for a higher profit purpose, then they are making the residents carry a devastating loss.
Americans are sick and tired of any business that rips off of their share of the American dream. A park closing that refuses to fairly compensate the home owners is no better than the Wall Street fat cats and greedy bankers that have brought this country’s middle class to its knees.
Your indication that big government is not the solution to every problem is nothing more that an effort elicit the emotion of the current political battles raging across the country. This has nothing to do with government spending. No one is asking government to compensate home owners. These rules are designed to level the playing field and not permit the landlord and unfair advantage.
Tony
JimH,
Sorry, but I’ve never met anyone in the biz that sounds like you do since I began in 1981. That’s a fact, not a ploy. Your perspective reads like an anti-MH worldview, which was pointed out to me by readers, one of whom thinks he knows you. Anyone who cares to read a sampling of your prior posted comments can come to their own conclusions.
That said, as you know, we have routinely permitted your comments, which should be more than fair to you, and I would acknowledge you’ve never used foul language or done such that would cause us to block your comments.
Bottom line, you are welcome to comment within our guidelines, even if we disagree routinely. Thanks,
Tony
Jimh3098
Tony –
There you go again. Attacking the messenger and ignoring the message.
Pointing out that the king has no cloths on is patriotic, not treason.
Just answer two questions directly, please.
1 – Do you think it is fair for a park owner to sell a home, sign a lease, or otherwise induce homeowner investment in their park and then expect that they can close the park and not be responsible to fully compensate those homeowners?
George Allen recently declared our “home and lot” efforts, competition with site builders, as a failed experiment. That seems to be corroborated by 90% of our street dealers vanishing over the last few years. This leaves manufactured housing’s highest and best future in the land lease sector.
2 – When a park closes and residents are not fully compensated. how do you believe that effects the public image of our business?
Like you I truly believe that the manufactured housing revolution must include home owners (satisfied customers). Booting people out of their homes, without consideration for their investment in our industry, leaves us in a dreadful aura.
When a home is purchased or brought into a mobile home park the resident enters into a lease. Though often state law is to the contrary, the resident is under the impression that he has invested in a secure location for his home.
Closing a park may be a smart business strategy for management but it often hits the people who can least afford a hit on the small slice of the American Dream that they have captured. The park closings tend to economically devastate their home owners.
Park closings only happen for two reasons.
1- The park owners business plan has failed. It doesn’t matter if that failure is due to changing market conditions, government regulation, rent controls, inflation, or poor operating practices. The business has failed.
2- Management finds that the real-estate has a better, higher possible use that can make for a fatter bottom line, rather than continuing to operate the park.
Either way the reason for the park closing is in no way the responsibility of the home owners. So, why shouldn’t the park owners be held responsible for the potential loss by a home owner that leased in good faith?
Park home owners are, generally, among the least able members of our society to defend their rights under the law. They need regulations like this to keep the scales of justice fair and balanced.
I have never seen or heard of one “park closing” in my 10 years in the business! If a business fails, the bank forecloses & a new owner comes in. Generally, when this happens, many homeowners have already moved their homes to a new location.
A couple of points here:
1. Having a MLS that can accurately provide home values as a neutral third party could help both community owners and home owners resolve this a little more quickly. It may mean more money to homeowners but it also might mean lower legal fees’ and hassles. Maybe that is pie in the sky thinking on my part.
2. The other point is to me one of our critical weaknesses as an industry and that is our adversarial attitude toward residents. It seems to me as long as they pay their rent and shut up we like them but god forbid they complain or expect existing laws and legislation to be enforced then they become some enemy. Doesn’t make sense that you would treat customers this way.
Unfortunately this has been the MO of our business for decades. The major builders have always considered the dealer or park owner their customer and with some notable recent exceptions, have treated the end users of their product as a necessary evil, to be dispatched as economically as possible
JimH,
Back again to share your sunshine take on the glories of manufactured housing, Jim? It just seems hard to imagine that your gloomy view of our Industry can come from someone who supposedly has earned his keep in our ranks.
Every business and profession has its bad actors, none are exempt, so neither is MH. That said, the bad tend to get flushed out over time. We run regular articles on those who break the law, get caught and get the keys tossed after they plead or are found GUILTY.
Which means that generally the better actors are those who are the longer term players. In the MHC world, most owners know that they have to treat their residents fairly and honestly or risk losing them.
So if you believe that big government is the solution to every problem, all I can tell you is look to the past. Government keeps growing, we have over a million laws on the books, and still bad people do bad things.
And good people do the right things.
Let’s never, ever toss the baby out with the bath water. Let’s not kill a good industry due to over-regulation. This article is a prime example of a misguided regulation in the making.
Jim, let me suggest you read at least one Inspiration blog post a day for the next year, along with some Zig Ziglar, See You at the Top. I’ll bet you’ll feel better!
Thanks for your comments,
Tony
Tony –
Your disbelief in my background is very much like the right wing birthers denying that our president is a citizen. It is easy out to to deny one that has a different opinion is a legitimate participant in the discussion.
I’m sorry that my honest opinion seems to irk you. Most park owners know that they have to treat their residents fairly and honestly or risk losing them. But that has not stopped a growing number of park closings across the country. That is the issue here.
When a business fails, its customers should not have to pay for that failure. If park owners are not required to give a fair market value to residents when their business plan fails or they make the decision to use the land for a higher profit purpose, then they are making the residents carry a devastating loss.
Americans are sick and tired of any business that rips off of their share of the American dream. A park closing that refuses to fairly compensate the home owners is no better than the Wall Street fat cats and greedy bankers that have brought this country’s middle class to its knees.
Your indication that big government is not the solution to every problem is nothing more that an effort elicit the emotion of the current political battles raging across the country. This has nothing to do with government spending. No one is asking government to compensate home owners. These rules are designed to level the playing field and not permit the landlord and unfair advantage.
JimH,
Sorry, but I’ve never met anyone in the biz that sounds like you do since I began in 1981. That’s a fact, not a ploy. Your perspective reads like an anti-MH worldview, which was pointed out to me by readers, one of whom thinks he knows you. Anyone who cares to read a sampling of your prior posted comments can come to their own conclusions.
That said, as you know, we have routinely permitted your comments, which should be more than fair to you, and I would acknowledge you’ve never used foul language or done such that would cause us to block your comments.
Bottom line, you are welcome to comment within our guidelines, even if we disagree routinely. Thanks,
Tony
Tony –
There you go again. Attacking the messenger and ignoring the message.
Pointing out that the king has no cloths on is patriotic, not treason.
Just answer two questions directly, please.
1 – Do you think it is fair for a park owner to sell a home, sign a lease, or otherwise induce homeowner investment in their park and then expect that they can close the park and not be responsible to fully compensate those homeowners?
George Allen recently declared our “home and lot” efforts, competition with site builders, as a failed experiment. That seems to be corroborated by 90% of our street dealers vanishing over the last few years. This leaves manufactured housing’s highest and best future in the land lease sector.
2 – When a park closes and residents are not fully compensated. how do you believe that effects the public image of our business?
Like you I truly believe that the manufactured housing revolution must include home owners (satisfied customers). Booting people out of their homes, without consideration for their investment in our industry, leaves us in a dreadful aura.