HomeMy WebLinkAbout09- Community Development C I T Y OF j A N B E R N A R D I N O
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
8712-1119
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council
FROM: Kenneth J. Henderson, Director of Community
Development
SUBJECT: TRANSMITTAL OF "STATEMENT TO SAN BERNARDINO CITY
COUNCIL"
DATE: January 20, 1988 (7289)
COPIES : City Administrator; Deputy City Administrator -
Development Services; City Attorney; Executive
Assistant to Mayor; Executive Assistant to Council ;
City Clerk; Housing Development Specialist; File
-------------------------------------------------------------
Attached please find a copy of the above referenced. Sally
Wilder, Chairperson of Mobilehome Organization Resident
Enterprises (MORE) has requested that staff forward this
"Statement" for your review prior to the meeting of the Mayor
and Common Council scheduled for January 25, 1988 at 5: 00
p.m.
Please call me at 5065 if you require additional information
or clarification.
Kenneth J. enderson
Director o Community Development
KJH/MLO/lab _n
attachment -
N
2
nqn
STATEMENT TO SAN BERNARDINO CITY COUNCIL
THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE IN HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE
SECTION 18250 HAS STATED AS FOLLOWS:
'THE LEGISLATURE FINDS AND DECLARES THAT INCREASING
NUMBERS OF CALIFORNIANS LIVE IN MANUFACTURED HOMES AND
MOB I LEHOMES AND THAT MOST OF THOSE LIVING IN SUCH
MANUFACTURED HOMES AND MOB I LEHOMES RESIDE IN MOBILEHOME
PARKS. BECAUSE OF THE HIGH COST OF MOVING MANUFACTURED
HOMES AND MOBILEHOMES, MOST OWNERS OF MANUFACTURED
HOMES AND MOB I LEHOMES RESIDE WITHIN MOBILEHOME PARKS FOR
SUBSTANTIAL PERIODS OF TIME. BECAUSE OF THE RELATIVELY
PERMANENT NATURE OF RESIDENCE IN SUCH PARKS AND THE
SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENT WHICH A MANUFACTURED HOME OR
MOBILEHOME REPRESENTS, RESIDENTS OF MOBILEHOME PARKS ARE
ENTITLED TO LIVE IN CONDITIONS WHICH ASSURE THEIR HEALTH
SAFETY. GENERAL WELFARE. AND A DECENT LIVING ENVIRONMENT
AND WHICH PROTECT THE INVESTMENT OF THEIR MANUFACTURED
HOMES AND MOBILEHOMES.'
THE LEGISLATURE'S FINDINGS DISCLOSE SEVERAL FACTORS
WHICH MAKE THE LEAS 1 NG OF SPACE FOR A MOBILEHOME DIFFERENT
FROM AN APARTMENT LEASE OR RENTAL, AND WHY LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS SUCH AS THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, THE COUNTY OF
SANTA BARBARA, THE CITIES OF RIALTO, FONTANA, LOS ALTOS,
PALM SPRINGS, RANCHO MIRAGE, SAN JOSE, WESTLAKE VILLAGE
AND OTHERS HAVE ENACTED MOBILEHOME REGULATION:
FIRST: THERE 15 A SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENT BY THE
LESSEE IN HIS HOME. USUALLY FROM $20,000.00 TO AS MUCH AS
$60,000.00 FOR THE MOB I LEHOME, AND LANDSCAPING
IMPROVEMENTS WHICH BENEFIT THE PARK OWNER, AS HIGH AS
$5,000.00.
SECOND: THERE IS A HIGH COST IN MOVING THE MOBILEHOME
OR MANUFACTURED HOME; USUALLY FROM $2,000 TO = 10,000.00.
1
THIRD: BECAUSE OF THE LARGE INVESTMENT BY THE LESSEE
IN HIS OR HER MOBILEHOME, AND BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF EASY
OR ECONOMICAL MOVEMENT OF THE MOBILEHOMES TO A NEW PARK,
THE LESSEE INTENDS TO REMAIN IN THE MOBILEHOME PARK FOR
MANY, MANY YEARS. THEREFORE, THE MOBILEHOME PARK RESIDENT
IS INCLINED TO PAY UNFAIR RENT INCREASES THAT AN
APARTMENT DWELLER WOULD NEVER PAY. AN APARTMENT
DWELLER, IF HE IS UNHAPPY WITH HIS APARTMENT BECAUSE OF
HIGH RENT, POOR MANAGEMENT, AND FILTHY CONDITIONS, CAN
JUST PACK HIS BAGS AND LEAVE: SUCH 15 NOT THE CASE FOR THE
MOBILEHOME OWNER WHO HAS INVESTED MANY THOUSANDS OF
DOLLARS IN HIS HOME AND MUST PAY A VERY LARGE SUM TO MOVE
HIS MOBILEHOME OUT OF THE PARK. AS COURTS HAVE STATED,
THE MOBILEHOME OWNER IS A 'CAPTIVE TENANT'.
WHAT 15 A MOBILEHOME PARK? LET'S CONSIDER A BRAND
NEW PARK WITH NO MOBILEHOMES YET IN PLACE. AS WE SURVEY
THE PARK WE SEE A CLUBHOUSE, POOL, AND SOME GREEN AREA
AROUND THE CLUBHOUSE. WE SEE STREETS, MANY CEMENT PADS,
AND LIGHT POLES, BUT LITTLE ELSE EXCEPT OPEN SPACE. WE SEE
NO TREES. WE SEE NO GRASS OR BUSHES. WE SEE NOTHING WHICH
IS VERY ATTRACTIVE, SAVE THE CLUBHOUSE. THIS 15 THE PARK
OWNER'S INVESTMENT.
NOW LET'S REVIEW THAT SAME PARK AFTER THE MOBILEHOME
OWNERS HAVE PAID MONEY TO BUY THE MOBILEHOME AND HAVE IT
TRANSPORTED TO THE SITE, AND SPENT MONEY AND LABOR TO
LANDSCAPE THE LEASE SPACE. WE SEE A PARK FULL OF NEW OR
NEARLY NEW MOBILEHOMES WITH VALUES OF BETWEEN $30,000.00
AND $60,000.00. WE SEE GRASS, TREES, BUSHES, STONEWORK,
AND CEMENT WORK AT EACH MOBILEHOME SPACE. THE ONCE
BARREN OPEN SPACE OF CEMETS PAD AND STREETS IS NOW A
BEAUTIFUL PARK WITH EXPENSIVE HOUSING UPON IT. IT HAS
GREAT VALUE, DOESN'T IT?
2
AND WHO HAS INVESTED THE LARGEST SUM OF MONEY IN THIS
MOBILEHOME PARK? WELL, LET'S SEE. THE AVERAGE COST OF
EACH PAD TO THE DEVELOPERS IS GENERALLY AROUND $ 10,000.00,
INCLUDING THE CLUBHOUSE. IN A 200 SPACE PARK THE MEANS
THAT THE PARK OWNERS HAS INVESTED THE TOTAL SUM OF
$2,000,000.00. MAYBE AS HIGH AS $3,000.000.00.
NOW WE TAKE THE MOBILEHOME OWNER WITH A $30,000.00
MOBILEHOME AND WITH LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS OF A MODEST
$1,000.00 A TOTAL INITIAL INVESTMENT OF $31,000.00, BUT WE
MUST REMEMBER THAT THE MOBILEHOME OWNER MUST STILL PAY
HIS MONTHLY MORTGAGE ON THE HOME FOR 15 YEARS. THE TOTAL
PAYMENT 15 $71,915.40. AND SINCE THIS 15 PERSONAL PROPERTY
THE RULE OF 78 APPLIES, AND PAYMENT ON THE PRINCIPAL OF
$30,000.00 15 GREATLY DIFFERED COMPARED TO THE NORMAL
HOUSE MORTGAGE AND THE LOAN BEING PAID BY THE PARK OWNER.
EQUITY BUILD UP IS EXTREMELY SLOW. NO EQUITY IS BUILT UP
UNTIL THE 12TH THROUGH 15TH YEAR OF THE LOAN FOR THE
MOBILEHOME OWNER. HE IS MERELY PAYING INTEREST ON THE
LOAN.
IN THIS PARK THEN, THE LESSEES HAVE INVESTED A MINIMUM
OF $71,915.40 EACH, OR A TOTAL PARK AMOUNT FOR 200 SPACES
OF A STAGGERING $14,383,080.0011 1 MUST REMIND YOU THAT
MOST MOB I LEHOMES ARE PRICED IN EXCESS OF $30,000.00, AND
THAT THIS SUM OF = 14,000,000.00 IS USUALLY 50 TO 1002 MORE.
AS YOU CAN EASILY UNDERSTAND YOURSELF, THE
MOBILEHOME OWNERS HAVE INVESTED AT LEAST = 14,000,000.00.
THE PARK OWNER BETWEEN 2 MILLION AND 3 MILLION DOLLARS.
AND WE HAVEN'T EVEN INCLUDED THE = 1,000 PER SPACE FOR
LANDSCAPING WHICH AMOUNTS TO A PALTRY $200,000.00.
50 WHO HAS REALLY INVESTED LARGEST SUM OF MONEY IN
THE PARK? HANDS DOWN, THE MOBILEHOME OWNERS ARE THE
LARGEST INVESTORS IN THIS MOBILEHOME PARK: 7 TO 1 .
3
0
IT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE, AND
THE WISE CITIES AND COUNTIES PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, THAT
BECAUSE OF THIS LARGE INVESTMENT MOBILEHOME OWNERS ARE
ENTITLED TO HAVE THEIR INVESTMENT PROTECTED FROM GREEDY
PARK OWNERS THROUGH SOME FORM OF REGULATION.
NOW YOU WILL HEAR TODAY FROM OWNERS REPRESENTATIVES
THAT LOW RENTS MAKE IT MORE ATTRACTIVE TO SELL OUR HOMES
IF WE WANT TO MOVE. AND YOU WILL HEAR THAT THAT IS UNFAIR
BECAUSE IT MEANS THAT THEIR PARK WILL NOT HAVE AS GOOD A
RESALE VALUE AND THAT THEY WILL LOSE MONEY ON LESS RENTS
COLLECTED. WHILE WE BENEFIT BECAUSE WE CAN SELL OUR MMES
AND MAYBE ACTUALLY MAKE A PROFIT!!
ACTUALLY WE ARE NOT MAKING A PROFIT, WE ARE MERELY
GETTING BACK THE INTEREST PAYMENTS MADE ON THE LOAN
BECAUSE OF THE RULE OF 78. REMEMBER EQUITY BUILD UP ON
MOBILEHOMES 15 EXTREMELY SLOW.
UNDER REGULATION THE PARK OWNER WILL STILL MAKE A
PROFIT IF THE PARK 15 SOLD, AND WILL MAY MAKE A PROFIT ON
THE RENTS. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REGULATION AND
NON-REGUALT I ON IS THAT JUST PERHAPS WE MIGHT GET OUR
INVESTMENT BACK INSTEAD OF LOSING MONEY ON OUR
INVESTMENT.
THE REAL ISSUE IS THIS: IS THIS COUNCIL GOING TO ALLOW
THE PARK OWNERS AN UNLIMITED PROFIT ON THEIR INVESTMENT.
WHILE THE MOBILEHOME OWNERS, DUE TO OVER MARKETS RENTS
CREATED BY BEING 'CAPTIVE TENANTS', HAVE THEIR INVESTMENT
ERODED, AND RECEIVE NO PROFIT AND USUALLY SUFFER A LOSS
WHEN THEY SELL THEIR HOMES TO GET AWAY FROM OUTRAGEOUS
RENTS?
4
IT IS M.O.R.E'S POSITION THAT SINCE WE ARE BY FAR THE
LARGEST INVESTOR IN THE MOB I LEHOME PARK THAT WE ARE
ENTITLED TO MAKE A PROFIT OFF OUR INVESTMENT JUST AS MUCH
AS THE PARK OWNER IS ENTITLED TO MAKE A PROFIT OFF HIS
INVESTMENT. INVERSE CONDEMNATION IS A TWO-WAY STREET.
AND BASED UPON THE FINDINGS OF THIS STATE'S LEGISLATURE WE
ARE ENTITLED TO PROTECTION OF OUR INVESTMENT WHICH
INCLUDES A RIGHT NOT TO LOSE MONEY IN OUR INVESTMENT.
THE PARK OWNERS ALWAYS SAY THEY ARE ENTITLED TO A
PROFIT. CAN THIS COUNCIL NAME ANY OTHER BUSINESS
ENTERPRISE IN THIS COUNTRY THAT THE GOVERNMENT SAYS MUST
MAKE A PROFIT, AND IF IT DOESN'T WERE GOING TO MAKE SURE IT
DOES?
NOT EVEN STATE REGULATED UTILITIES, SUCH AS EDISON,
ARE GUARANTEED A PROFIT IF THEY UNWISELY OR FRIVIOUSLY
EXPEND THE REVENUE RECEIVED FROM THEIR CUSTOMERS. SINCE
WE HAVE A LARGER INVESTMENT THAN PARK OWNERS, WE ARE
ENTITLED TO BE INSURED THAT THEIR UNWISE INVESTMENTS DO
NOT CAUSE OUR INVESTMENT TO DIMINISH.
ALL WE ARE ASKING IS THAT PARKS BE REGULATED LIKE A
PUBLIC UTILITY, AND THAT THE INCREASE IN RENTAL RATES BE
JUSTIFIED BASED UPON THIS STATE'S FINDINGS THAT WE HAVE
MADE A SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENT, WE CANNOT CHEAPLY MOVE
OUR INVESTMENT, AND THAT WE GENERALLY RESIDE FOR LONG
PERIODS OF TIME, AND THAT OUR INVESTMENT IS ENTITLED TO
PROTECTION_
IT IS BASIC HUMAN NATURE THAT WHEN GIVEN UNBRIDLED
POWER, THE HOLDER OF THE POWER TENDS TO CORRUPT. AT THE
PRESENT TIME IN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARD I NO THERE IS
UNBRIDLED POWER IN THE HANDS OF PARK OWNERS TO
ECONOMICALLY BROWBEAT THE MOBILEHOME OWNER AND GIVE HIM
A CHOICE: PAY THE UNJUSTIFIED RENTS OR LOSE ON HIS
5
INVESTMENT. WHO ON THIS COUNCIL WOULD WELCOME SUCH A
CHOICE?
AS TO THE YUCIPA PLAN, IT'S MAIN FLAW IS THAT IT DOES
NOT PROTECT OUR INVESTMENT. WHEN WE 60 TO SELL OUR COACH
TO A BUYER WE WILL LITERALLY HAVE TO GIVE OUR COACH AWAY
WITHOUT PROFIT TO OFFSET THE UNCONTROLLED RENTAL
INCREASES. THIS WOULD BE INVERSE CONDEMNATION AGAINST
6,000 MOB I LEHOME OWNERS IN THE C 1 TY OF SAN BERNARD I NO.
OUR VIEW IS THAT THESE 6,000 MOB I LEHOME OWNERS ARE
ENTITLED TO MAKE A PROFIT JUST AS MUCH AS ARE THE PARK
OWNERS, AND THAT ONLY THROUGH REGULATION CAN BOTH THE
PARK OWNERS AND THE MOBILEHOME OWNERS BE GIVEN A CHANCE
TO INSURE A PROFIT ON THEIR INVESTMENT.
THE REAL REASON WHY PARK OWNERS ARE AGAINST
REGULATION 15 THAT UNDER REGULATION THEY ARE MERELY
GUARANTEED A FAIR PROFIT IF THEY INVEST WISELY.
WITHOUT REGULATION THE OWNER IS GUARANTEED AN
UNFAIR PROFIT WHETHER THE INVESTMENT I S WISE OR UNWISE
BECAUSE WE ARE HELD CAPTIVE AND CAN'T MOVE WITHOUT
SUFFERING SEVERE ECONOMIC LOSS.
SOME PARK OWNERS HAVE BEEN DESCRIBED AS GUERILLA
INVESTORS. BUYING A PARK, RAISING THE RENTS, AND THEN AS
RAPIDLY AS POSSIBLE SELLING THE PARK TO MAKE A LARGE
PROFIT. THE NEW BUYER OF THE PARK IS WILLING TO PAY MORE
THAN THE PARK IS REALLY WORTH ONLY BECAUSE HE KNOWS HE
CAN SQUEEZE THE TENANTS BECAUSE THE TENANT IS FACED WITH
THE CHOICE OF PAYING $25.00 TO $45.00 A MONTH MORE OR
LOSING HIS INVESTMENT. OF COURSE THESE GUERILLA TACTICS
CAN ONLY OCCUR IN CITIES WITHOUT REGULATION !I
6
WE DON'T WANT CHARITY; WE DON'T WANT SYMPATHY FOR
OUR SITUATION; WE SIMPLY WANT A FAIR SYSTEM. OBVIOUSLY
REGULATION IS LAWFUL. COURT AFTER COURT HAS 50 STATED.
DESPITE, THE PARK OWNERS RELIANCE ON THE SANTA BARBARA
CASE, THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES WILL FIND
THAT THE SANTA BARBARA ORDINANCE IS ALSO CONSTITUTIONAL
UPON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS NO PUBLIC TAKING OF PROPERTY
OF THE PARK OWNERS PROPERTY; JUST AS THEIR IS NO PUBLIC
TAKING OF PROPERTY WHEN UTILITIES ARE REGULATED BY
GOVERNMENT BECAUSE A FAIR PROFIT 15 POSSIBLE EVEN THOUGH
NOT GUARANTEED. WHY IT IS ACCEPTABLE TO REGULATE
UTILITIES? BECAUSE WE ARE 'CAPTIVE' CUSTOMERS.
THE STATE LE615LATURE HAS STATED THAT WE ARE
ENTITLED TO HAVE OUR INVESTMENT PROTECTED AND HAS
ALLOWED LOCAL REGULATION OF MOBILEHOME PARKS BECAUSE WE
ARE CAPTIVE TENANTS. FURTHER, IT HAS DONE SO WITH THE
KNOWLEDGE THAT PARK OWNERS AND MOBILEHOME OWNERS ARE
ACTUALLY INVESTMENT PARTNERS IN THE MOBILEHOME PARK.
EACH WITH A VALUABLE AND PROTECTABLE INTEREST.
IF THIS COUNCIL TURNS AWAY FROM 6,000 OF ITS CITIZENS,
AND THEIR LARGE INVESTMENT, IN FAVOR OF UNRESTRAINED
PROFIT FOR THE 50 OR SO ABSENTEE OWNERS WHO HAVE A
SMALLER DOLLAR INVESTMENT, THEN THIS COUNCIL HAS MADE A
DRAMATIC STATEMENT. THE STATEMENT 15 THAT THIS COUNCIL
PERFERS THAT A FEW PROFIT WHILE THE MAJORITY OF INVESTORS
SUFFER, EVEN THOUGH THE STATE LEGISLATURE HAS DECLARED
THAT MOBILEHOME OWNERS ARE SPECIAL CLASS OF PROPERTIED
PERSONS ENTITLED TO PROTECTION.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED/,
SALL,Y�WILDER
r
CC: THE SUN NEWSPAPER
7