Your Rights Bytes #13 - The Other FAQ, Part One

EDITOR's NOTE:   The Mobilehome Residency Law (MRL) Handbook published by the Senate Select Committee on Manufactured Home Communities includes a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section which is based upon questions that were submitted to the Committee over the years.   Stephanie Reid had a large part in developing this FAQ, which you can still get in the 2020 MRL Handbook, along with information on other State laws pertaining to manufactured homes and a very helpful Directory of Community Resources, listed according to Counties (also compiled by Ms. Reid).    The MRL Handbook is often available at no charge from your State Senator's district office, or you may order a copy for the cost of mailing by calling the Senate Select Committee's publications office at 916-651-1538.   The Handbook is also available to search online at the Senate Select Committee website:  
https://mobilehomes.senate.ca.gov/sites/mobilehomes.senate.ca.gov/files/2020_mrl_final_version.pdf

Over the next three Rights Bytes, Stephanie Reid shares with us "The Other FAQ", other questions that she received when she was on staff with the Select Committee.

There were many questions I received over the years that never made it to the official FAQs list, but they are just as interesting. 

· When I guided mobilehome owners to call their own city or county services, they would often ask, “But how do I know whether I live in the City or the County?”  The quick, easy answer was: “If you call 9-1-1 and a police car arrives, you live in the City.  If a sheriff’s car arrives, then you live in the County.”

· Many MH residents were very frustrated at not finding legal help at the highest levels.  They were downright angry when I told them I couldn’t help them beyond explaining the law to them.  They would ask, “If you can’t give legal advice or defend my rights before the park manager, then what the heck is the Select Committee for?”  (Sometimes they didn’t say “heck”.)  I was in a corner, but the only thing I could do was come out with the truth.  I told them to join GSMOL or contact a local tenants’ rights group.  This is was the hardest subject to discuss because I had to defend my job, and there was no way I could help other than give them phone numbers.  My answers were no help at all.

· One MH resident was so mad at me that he was going to make sure I was fired.  He emailed me, “Two months ago, I sent you a list of laws that need to be added to the MRL.  You have done nothing.  I demand to see your office budget and salary.”  This resident never called me but preferred to email instead.  If he wanted to document our conversation, well then that worked in my favor too.  I told him that I did not “make” the laws, but as staff I advised the Senators on necessary additions or amendments to the MRL.  And that a two-month turnaround from bill proposal to enactment was not possible.  (There are extremely rare occasions when this happens, but it usually is because of a disaster, or other life-threatening problem that needs a codified resolution.)  I had responded to each of his proposed “laws”, noting that each was either already in statute, or were already part of Title 25, or were not solvable by legislative action but by arbitrator or in civil court.  This got him madder.  When he demanded to see my budget and salary, I consulted with Senate Rules Committee staff.  They advised me on how the Open Records Act worked:  that the requestor would have to identify exactly which budget time periods they were requesting.  Rules asked me to forward the email conversation to them and they would follow up.  I never heard from the resident again.

· It was painfully obvious to me the huge gap that MHP residents fell into when it came to legal assistance.  Numerous times I was asked, “Can you call the park managers and tell them to stop harassing me?”  The unfortunate answer was always “No.”  These were honest, sincere residents who needed – as I called it – a legal bodyguard.  I would spend as much time on the phone with these callers as they wanted.  Sometimes I would see their problem from a different perspective, which sometimes helped, sometimes not.  On occasion I would risk my job and say “Now, you didn’t hear this from me……”, or “I can’t tell you what to do, but I could tell you what I would do.”  The closer I got to retirement, the easier it was for me to help them this way.

· The Senate Townhalls were always useful, but unfortunately I could not pick the cities where the Townhalls were held.  That was up to the Senators who wanted them in their districts.  Residents often asked, “When will there be a mobilehome conference near me?  They are always so far away.”  I had the interest and the energy to have those Townhalls all over the state, but as it turned out, they happened to always be in Southern California.  MHP residents in the rest of the state definitely felt left out.  I would tell the residents that they have to ask their representatives for a Townhall.  A few times I would get calls from legislative staff from other parts of the state, but either they held the Townhall on their own, or it never happened at all.  There were times during the “election cycle” when I would get calls from staff, but other than that there just wasn’t the interest, I guess.

· This is how I blew up my office budget once.  I had become so energized by the response and educational value of the printed MRLs and FAQs that I was going to make sure that everyone had a copy.  For two years in a row I overspent my postage allotment, and finally the Senate slashed it to the bone.  I knew at some point I would get in trouble for the overspending, but at least I was able to get the book into a lot of hands.  I was especially hellbent on getting the books to park operators.  They would kindly call me, “I am a park manager and I have 300 homes in my park.  Can you send me 300 MRL books?”  I was encouraged by these requests, but I had to say “no” after my postage budget was pulled.  I don’t regret for a minute mailing out these books, but it was right at the time when many agencies were not printing their valuable consumer books any longer and instead posting them right to the internet.  This direct-to-internet publishing affected me too because I had a great office library of valuable printed materials from other agencies and eventually I could not get hardcopy updates anymore.

· Some MHP problems were not solvable by enforcement of the law or regulation because they were simply a matter of two residents who disagreed.  I got this call every now and then: “The man next door smokes on his porch and the smoke floats into my home.  I have told him to stop but he won’t.  Where is the law that says his smoke can’t come into my home?”  Here was my answer: If your park is a “no-smoking” park, then tell the manager that your neighbor is violating the park rule.  If your park does not have a no-smoking policy, then you will have to work the problem out with your neighbor.” 

·And there were other numerous neighbor-on-neighbor problems whose answers were not in the MRL or Title 25.  A resident asked me to make a trip to her MHP where she lived in Los Angeles.  She said, “The children play handball against the side of my mobile.  Please tell them to stop.”  When I told her that she needed to tell the children herself or tell their parents, she said she didn’t want to because she lived alone and was scared to confront them.  I told her that it just wasn’t my place to represent her.  She hung up disappointed, and I felt sorry for her.    

--Stephanie Reid


Your Rights Bytes #12 - Rejected Home Buyers


Question:  Can the park’s income requirements on prospective buyers prevent a resident from selling their home?

Background:
Over the years, I received calls from mobilehome park residents who felt that the park manager was purposely blocking the sale of their home by unfairly rejecting the residency application of their potential buyers.  Although indeed there were cases where a park manager would derail a sale for unscrupulous reasons, in most cases a residency application was rejected because the potential buyer did not have the sustained income to qualify for long-term residency.
Most of the people who called me were not aware that this very screening process happens in nearly every pre-rental review of apartments, single-family rental housing, and even commercial properties.  I would explain to callers that property managers routinely screen potential tenants to determine if they would be able to afford future rent increases, as well as upcoming pass-thru fees for future infrastructure repair or replacement.  In a large mobilehome park where infrastructure upgrades have been delayed for years, repairs or replacement of sewer, roads and lighting could cost well over a million dollars.  Residents would not only be paying their base rent, but be charged for a portion of the infrastructure repair costs.
Although most of the cases were the same, there were some cases where the facts proved the manager’s position.  One day a manager called me to chew me out because he felt that I was giving encouragement to a realtor to resist the manager’s decision.  (It was always my style to stay on neutral ground, and to listen objectively and to learn.)  In this case, the potential buyer had proof of plenty of funds to purchase the mobilehome.  However, their funds were not their own, but their elderly parents’.  In addition, the buyer had no employment history.  Further, the prospective buyer had a poor tenancy record, as reported by former landlords, which had caused chronic complaints from other residents.  The manager denied residency to this potential buyer not only because their income could not be guaranteed, but to avoid trouble for other residents – and a possible eviction. 


Answer: Yes.  The sale of a mobilehome located in a mobilehome park is a three-party, not two-party transaction.  The buyer and seller must not only agree to the terms of the sale of the homes, but the buyer must be approved for residency in the park by the park owner/management.  Management can withhold approval on the basis of: 1) the buyer’s inability to pay the rent and charges of the park, and 2) the buyer’s inability to comply with park rules and regulations as indicated by prior tenancies (see Civil Code Section 798.74).  Although guidelines used by other landlords or public agencies for rental housing may be more lenient, many park owners impose higher income requirement to assure buyers will be able to afford future rent increases without causing the park problems such as evictions. 

[Editor’s Note:  However, in 2019 the State Legislature passed SB 274 by Senator Bill Dodd.   This made changes in the Mobilehome Residency Law section 798.74 to allow a prospective buyer to supply other proofs of ability to pay besides income.  This makes it more likely that the buyer will be approved even if their income alone does not qualify them.] 

--Stephanie Reid, formerly on staff with the Senate Select Committee on Manufactured Homes and Communities


                            The  “Double My Donation”  Pledge During this season of giving, the Ed Fund has graciously offered to match ANY ...