Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Facebook
Twitter
Google+1
del.icio.us.
Digg!
Yahoo! Buzz
Diigo
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Yahoo!
Myspace“We’re under attack,” said Ken Tatro, president of Monarch County Mobile Home Owners Association, to the crowd packing the clubhouse of Goleta’s Rancho Mobile Home Park on December 3. During the meeting, which addressed the accelerating “conversion” of California’s mobile home parks into condos, local mobile home owners heard Democratic State Assembly hopefuls Susan Jordan and Santa Barbara City Councilmember Das Williams comment on rent control.
Paul Wellman
Susan Jordan
Area mobile home owners and advocates organized the event in response to a recent U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that declared Goleta’s rent control ordinance-in place since 1979-“unconstitutional.” This ruling followed a lawsuit (similar to others appearing all over California) that had been filed against the City of Goleta by Rancho Mobile Home Park owner Daniel Guggenheim, who claimed rent control was unjustly depriving him of a significant revenue. The ordinance that has been found unlawful had artificially kept rent affordable in local mobile home parks. Guggenheim can now do away with vacancy control-a form of rent control that restricts a landlord’s ability to raise rent upon a tenant’s move-out-and is also entitled to lost earnings due to his inability to increase rent since purchasing the park in 1997. The amount of compensation has yet to be specified.
The danger of losing vacancy control, says event organizer Jim Richard, is that a guaranteed spike in rent between tenants makes it impossible for mobile home owners to find buyers for their units after they move out. Mobile homes, after all, remain a low-cost housing option only if affordable space exists for them to occupy. Now, says Richard, “Mobile homes are cheap to buy, but too expensive to own.”
Guggenheim, claimed the tenants, followed a statewide pattern and set out to overwhelm a small town with lawsuits it could not afford to fight simply to boost his profits. Tenants were eager to hear how Jordan and Williams-both hoping to replace current State Assemblymember Pedro Nava-would address their plight.
Jordan-winning the coin-toss-spoke first and took a moment to address head-on any raised eyebrows surrounding her candidacy. “One thing I have to clear up from the very beginning: I am married to Pedro Nava.” Jordan then explained her empathy for park life. “I was raised by a single mother, I shared a bedroom with her until I went to college; so I understand low-income housing.” She went on to describe her success in fighting the greater government policies that threaten mobile home owners and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in particular, saying, “I have taken on this governor three times, and I have beat him three times.” Jordan advised tenants to find strength in numbers. “You need a very strong regional coalition. You need the support of surrounding cities.”
Paul Wellman
Das Williams
Williams, in his turn to speak, also described his ability to understand low-income lifestyle. “I’m a local kid,” he said. “I was once one of these Isla Vista kids. You know those little street urchins who go dumpster diving? That was me.” Williams explained his commitment to protecting “the California Dream,” which he believes to be characterized by opportunity, social equity, and prosperity, and asserted his respect for mobile home parks, saying, “There is no such thing as a higher or better use of space than affordable housing.” The councilmember advised tenants to “throw up every roadblock” possible to decrease incentives for conversion. Williams suggested a requirement that landowners who convert their spaces into condos provide tenants with “displacement assistance” of $10,000, effectively destroying the profitability of condo conversion.
Tenants present were grateful for the attention given by these politicians, but angry at being still ignored by Guggenheim. One tenant stated, “I want to know if the owners and managers are here; and if not, why not? It’s important that they see us here, stand up, and answer our questions.”
Previous Month
Comments
Dumpster diving street urchin?? WTF?
4Oceans (anonymous profile)
December 10, 2009 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
First of all, any time you rent, you are at the mercy of whomever owns the property. They have the right to raise the rent to whatever they wish, whenever they wish. They have the right to tell you whether you can have visitors, overnight guests, where you can/can't park, what kind of car you can have visible on/in front of your property, whether you can have a pet (basically, this one is a "never" in SB County), if you can stay there another month, what color screen door you can have, what flowers or bushes you are allowed, etc.
In other words, renting is a fools paradise.
I am in favor of property owners having the right to do as they wish with their property within reason. I'd venture to say a toxic waste dump, horrifically ugly commercial/condo buildings, or animal sacrifices would be things that might be considered unacceptable, but for the most part, people should be able to do what they want with their property for the most part.
I think rent control, while it seems like a great idea on the surface, ends up benefiting no one in the long run. The landlord is going to hate it for obvious reasons, but lets look at what it does for tenants.
False sense of security. Look at all these people, terrified...and rightly so...that they are going to end up essentially homeless. All these years they were lulled into a false sense of security, believing that they actually owned something, when in fact, they are just renters, and one day that landlord IS going to find a way around that law.
Landlords have lawyers. Sharp lawyers. Little old people on fixed incomes are lucky to have dinner and make the rent out of the same SS check...and worse, nobody really cares about them. In our society, if you don't have kids, or aren't a kid, you don't count. In fact, it's amazing the media is even covering this issue, considering these are seniors who are at risk.
Holly (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2009 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
When a friend retired several years ago and he & his wife were considering selling their old house in town and buying a nice newer mobile in one of those parks on Old Mill, I told him not to, and told him why. "You'll be a renter, nothing more. You own nothing but the expense and responsibility of the mobilehome. You'll have to get rid of your two old large dogs, you'll be told what to do at every turn, and you are always at risk of 'condo' conversion. Don't do it."
They sold and moved to a beautiful home in Washington State on 10 acres instead. Good decision.
What needs to happen is for the people themselves to all get together, buy land, and develop it with their mobilehomes themselves. Invest in your own life and future, don't throw $ out the window making a landlord richer, while you have NO safety for your future.
When these parks and other substandard housing decrease in value as a result, things will change. They will NOT change by begging, coercing, cajoling, or passing more laws. All these things do is put a lid on the pressure cooker and one day, it is inevitable that it WILL explode...and voila! More homeless people.
You can't squeeze a tube of toothpaste forever and not expect to have a mess eventually, and you can't put the toothpaste back in. Anyone who wonders where all the homeless are REALLY coming from has only to look at our history of closing all the SRO hotels, reasonably priced shelter, and our culture of permanent tenancy, as opposed to home ownership.
I fear for these poor people...their future is not going to be good, safe, or stable
Holly (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2009 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And as for Pedro Nava, he and anyone associated with him need to go. And be sure he doesn't get elected to the Attorney General post he covets.
Holly (anonymous profile)
December 11, 2009 at 1:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"All these things do is put a lid on the pressure cooker and one day, it is inevitable that it WILL explode...and voila! More homeless people."
And more animals that will go to the shelters. Obviously the government-coerced spay/neuter laws that Nava and the board of supervisors is pushing don't take that factor into account.
It is interesting that in an area that has long taken pride in its progressive politics so many of the working-class people live in constant fear.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
December 13, 2009 at 3:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)