California Mobilehome Owners Resources and Action Association
Around the State
Home
AB 566
Hard Facts
Around the State
Current News & Activities
AB 761 (VACANCY DECONTROL)
Newsletters
What's New
Legislation 2009
Opposed Legislation
Supported Legislation
CMRAA Board of Directors
Join Us
TURN - The Utility Reform Network
Links

45996977.jpg

Lawrence K. Ho / Los Angeles Times
Tom Provenzano, whose home is behind him, looks at an area of the mobile home park that serves some use as a dump. Lawsuits allege that park operators continuously broke the state law that requires them to maintain a clean and safe environment.
Lawsuit contends that Mountain View Mobile Estates didn't make timely repairs related to more than 250 notices of code violations, including those alleging a faulty electrical system.
By Dan Weikel
April 6, 2009
Perched on a hillside near Canoga Park, the residents of Mountain View Mobile Estates have a panoramic view of the western San Fernando Valley. The streets, lined with 156 double-wide and triple-wide homes, are clean and peaceful. Towering rock formations border the park's north side.

The setting is so attractive that a Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Services listing once described Mountain View as a "5-star family mobile home park" with "unparalleled views."
But looks can be deceiving, some residents say.

For the last two years, 27 homeowners in the park have been pursuing two lawsuits in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Mountain View's owner, G.J. Park Associates, and management company, M.A. Cirillo & Associates.

The cases are emblematic of the problems faced by thousands of mobile home park residents in California, and raise questions about the effectiveness of state regulators.

Filed in March 2007 and August 2008, the lawsuits contend that the operators poorly maintained the park for years and failed to make timely repairs related to more than 250 notices of code violations issued by state inspectors since 1999. Those include more than 100 notices alleging that the park had a faulty electrical system -- a key safety issue because of the potential for fire and electric shocks.

"It's like the pretty girl mothers warn their sons about: gorgeous on the outside, rotten on the inside," said Gary Gibson, 62, a 10-year resident of Mountain View who has spearheaded the lawsuits.

Dale B. Goldfarb, a lawyer who represents the owner and the management company, said his clients corrected problems in a reasonable manner and spent several million dollars to fix Mountain View's electrical system as well as other park facilities. He contends that the repairs were a major undertaking that required considerable time to complete before the state housing agency approved them.

"Many of Gary Gibson's claims are unsubstantiated and not terribly significant," Goldfarb said. Mountain View "is a quality park that is well-run."

The first case, which involves Gibson, his wife, Deborah, and three other tenants, is headed for a 10-day trial scheduled to begin today. The plaintiffs seek about $100,000 in compensatory damages each for property losses, plus punitive damages and damages for emotional distress.

The other case, which contains similar allegations, seeks $1.9 million in compensatory damages to be split among 22 park residents, as well as punitive damages and damages for emotional distress. It has not been scheduled for trial yet.

Both lawsuits allege that park operators were negligent, engaged in unfair business practices, failed to keep the park in good working order and deliberately committed continuous violations of the state Mobilehome Residency Law, which requires park owners and residents to maintain a clean and safe environment.

Steven H. Haney, a Los Angeles attorney who represents the Mountain View tenants, said he plans to present the court with at least 254 notices of violations that date to 1999. He says the citations show that the park was fraught with problems and that the operators engaged in a pattern of deliberate misconduct for years to avoid making costly repairs.

Residents say they have had to endure about 60 park-wide electrical outages, at least 20 park-wide water shut-offs, unstable soil, sewer backups and flooded streets during rainstorms. The electrical system was so poor, they say, the park was plagued with power surges, dim lights, damaged appliances and so little electrical current that heaters could not be used in winter and air conditioners could not be used to relieve summer heat.

The tenants allege that park operators took more than six years to make improvements to the electrical system although according to their experts, it should have taken only about 18 months. The work was completed in May 2008.

Haney said he planned to present evidence showing that a previous park manager had warned the ownership in mid-2001 about electrical problems in the park, but that owners told him repairs would not be made -- a decision that prompted him to quit.

In several notices of violation, state inspectors wrote that park owners "willfully failed to comply" with orders to make corrections.

Haney said he would also assert that park owners broke a promise to residents in 2001 not to raise rents unless repairs were made to the park.

The owner's attorney disputed the significance of the violation notices, which he likened to "fix-it tickets" for an automobile. In every instance, Goldfarb said, the violations were either corrected or withdrawn by the state. He further contends that the residents can address only what happened in the park since 2004, which the tenants dispute.

"If these were just fix-it tickets," Gibson said, "why did they spend about $4 million dollars and take 75 months to comply with those fix-it tickets?"

Though the state is not named as a defendant in either case, the lawsuits question whether the Housing and Community Development Department, which regulates more than 4,800 mobile home parks in California, favors park owners over residents in cases involving serious code violations.

Records obtained for the lawsuit show that during the enforcement process, the agency entered into four agreements with the owners of Mountain View rather than strictly enforce code violations related to the electrical system, the most serious of which inspectors in the field considered immediate threats to health and safety.

Residents contend that the agreements were compromises that eased requirements for park owners and that as a result, repairs took far longer than they should have.

Sal Poidomani, a Housing and Community Development supervisor in Riverside who was involved in the Mountain View inspections, could not be reached for comment despite repeated efforts. In the past, agency officials have said that major enforcement actions can take time to resolve and that the agency may grant extensions and give some leeway to park owners as long as the health and safety of park residents are not compromised.

"My clients worked with the state agency in the process. They complied with all the state's requests, and the state signed off on the improvements," Goldfarb said. "It takes a long time to do that kind of work."

The overhauled electrical system now meets state standards, Goldfarb said, and has "no problem" meeting the electrical demands of tenants, many of whom, he added, are "relatively happy."

Haney contends that, though improved, Mountain View's electrical system still doesn't fully comply with state regulations and that the operators are no more vigilant about code violations today. He noted that soon after the electrical work was finished, the park lost power: A ground squirrel had gone through a large hole in a transformer's enclosure and caused the equipment to fail. Poorly maintained transformer covers are code violations.

In late February, state inspectors issued violation notices at Mountain View related to 24 streetlights. Because the park has been slow to make repairs, Gibson said, some tenants have taken it upon themselves to install or replace bulbs in some of the lamps so they can light their streets at night.

dan.weikel@latimes.com

Rent-hike bid denied for mobile home park

2:00 a.m. April 5, 2009

— A city panel that regulates rents at mobile home parks has rejected a request from the owners of the 346-space Cavalier Mobile Estates to raise rents substantially.
The Oceanside Manufactured Home Fair Practices Commission voted 3-1 Thursday not to permit a rent increase at Cavalier, one of the larger mobile home parks in the city.
Residents of the park on Oceanside Boulevard just west of Interstate 5 pay an average monthly rent of $252. The park owners applied to raise monthly rents to an average of $600, although their attorney, Mark Alpert, sent a letter the day before the meeting saying the owners would accept $320.
More than 100 people filled the meeting room Thursday at City Hall at the start of the five-hour hearing.
Alpert said at the meeting that the mobile home park's 42 investor families should be allowed to raise rents to increase their investment return and make up for inflation over the years.
John Neet, an appraiser hired by the owners, said market-rate rent for the spaces, without rent control, would be $900.
Michael Normandin, head of a mobile home owners association, said most residents would be forced to leave if rents were raised to $600.
Neet said that increase would allow property owners to put the ocean-view park to a “higher and best use,” such as condominiums.
The mobile home park owners can appeal the commission's decision to an administrative judge.
Earlier in the evening, the commission approved giving 17 Oceanside mobile home parks their usual annual rate increase – 75 percent of the Consumer Price Index. This year, the increases amount to 2.93 percent per month.

Goleta’s Mobile Home Parks Down But Not Out

Residents Can’t Give Up Just Because City Council Did


Thursday, March 26, 2009
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy,
                                    Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
When the Goleta City Council voted unanimously last month to approve a development agreement for condominium conversion in the Rancho Mobile Homes, it did so despite vehement opposition—from mobile home park residents and non-park citizens of Goleta as well.
Rancho Mobile Homes is owned by mogul Daniel Guggenheim, and condo conversion is the latest in a series of machinations aimed at circumventing the rent control ordinance enacted by the County of Santa Barbara several years ago to protect the residents of Goleta’s mobile home parks. According to Mr. Guggenheim, a significant rate of return on his investment in the park, which the rent control law guarantees to him, is not sufficient; he also considers it his due to extract in profits whatever he deems desirable from his park’s residents.
On the evening of February 17, the mayor and City Council defended their decision to execute the conversion by contending that they had been “pushed against a wall” and had no other option but to submit to Mr. Guggenheim’s prerogatives. To mitigate the fallout from their unpalatable decision, they said they had negotiated on their behalf better terms—on the contract between the city and Guggenheim’s attorneys—than the State of California would have.
However, the vast majority of the park’s population is not buying this rationale. Residents’ reasons for rejecting the condo conversion are persuasive. Most simply are not in a position to continue paying the mortgages on their coaches in addition to the financial obligations inherent in owning a small strip of land, which consists fundamentally of hookups for access to utilities. Throw in a monthly association fee and taxes, and approximately 80 percent of existing tenants find those financial responsibilities out of their reach. Add to this dilemma the state of our current economy and a tried history of limited institutional financing for mobile home owner wannabes, and it becomes clear that the agreement has created a conundrum for most of the people who reside in Rancho Mobile Homes.
Those unable to purchase their lots will be relegated to low or very low income status for the duration of their park occupancy in order to retain their rent control status.
Others who do not choose to convert their homes will have the option to continue to rent their spaces. Space rent for these residents will be capped at approximately $800 for seven years. After that, prices for space rent will be raised to market rate.
Another deleterious effect of condo conversion is the impact it could have on Goleta’s other three rent-controlled mobile home parks—Wayside Village, University Mobile Home Park, and Santa Barbara West Senior Mobile Home Park. Rancho Mobile Homes lies mostly within the jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission, a California entity designed to protect the quality of life of its residents, and has the ability to impact the agreement in positive ways if an appeal is taken to it. The other parks enjoy no such protection. As such, then, the establishment of condo conversion at Rancho Mobile Homes sets an ominous precedent for the other parks.
Meanwhile, the residents of Rancho Mobile Homes have a legal stance that may waylay the agreement. According to park resident and former attorney John Douglas, the conversion does not comply with state law as a bona fide conversion because it does not possess resident support.
We have hope despite the City Council’s agreement to come to agreement with Mr. Guggenheim.

************************************************************