Santa Maria Coalition fighting for Rent Stabilization with funding from GSMOEF

 The North County Manufactured Homeowners Team is not backing down from their fight for mobile home rent stabilization in Santa Maria, with several residents pleading their case during City Council public comment period for the last five meetings.

Despite residents' consistent appearances and their submission of a petition this week with over 450 signatures asking for the council to bring back a formal discussion about rent stabilization and the effectiveness of the current model lease, they say their requests have largely been ignored. 

"Friends keep asking me, 'How long before the City Council will be acting on our questions of rent control for manufactured homes? You keep going and coming back without an answer,'" La Maria Mobile Home Park resident Esther Jensen said at a Tuesday council meeting. "My answer to them is, 'I don’t know, and I wonder if they even care to address the issue. We just know we’ll keep trying until we get some answers.'"

Adopted in 2019, the city's model lease was originally created as a compromise for residents seeking rent control and park owners seeking a return on their investments.

The model lease can be offered as an alternate to a park's regular lease, and requires the Consumer Price Index used to calculate rent increases to be changed from the Los Angeles CPI to that of cities with a population under 2.5 million.

It also requires annual rental increases to be no lower than 2.5% or higher than 6%; leases must have options for terms of five or 10 years; and rental increases upon the sale of a home are limited to 7.5% every five years.

Only six of the city's 15 mobile home parks have agreed to offer the model lease to their residents, but that does not mean all the residents at these parks have signed or even been offered such a lease.

Gary Hall, NSBMHT president and a leading advocate for mobile home space affordability in the city, said that very few residents in Rancho Buena Vista Mobile Home Park where he resides have signed the model lease. He estimates that less than 10 of the 209 spaces have signed on. 

"There's very few people who even bothered, because there's no advantage to it," he said of the model lease.

According to the city municipal code, only the mayor can request that the city manager place items on the agenda. Prior to the creation of council districts in 2017, items could be requested for the agenda if supported by at least three City Council members.

When Mayor Alice Patino was asked whether she has requested a discussion about the model lease or rent control to be placed on the agenda, Patino only said she supports the model lease and believes it to be an adequate answer to rising space rents in mobile home parks. 

"I believe this model lease provides needed rental price predictability for mobile home park residents, while also acknowledging the needs of the park owners," she said. "That policy is the result of nearly a year and a half of numerous meetings among our city staff with mobile home park residents through various representatives and park landlords. We heard from people who want rent control and those who did not want rent control. Residents and park owners made concessions during the negotiating process."

She added that the city will continue to listen from feedback from park residents and owners, as well as continue to encourage and enforce the model lease. Rising rents and prices are an issue statewide, she reminded residents.

"Mobile homes are some of the most affordable housing — and I also am well aware of the concerns of those living on fixed incomes," she said.

Despite a perceived lack of urgency from city officials, Hall and other NSBMHT members are hopeful that the expertise of their newly-acquired attorney, whose time is covered by a $4,000 grant from the Fund for Santa Barbara, will lead the council to agendize the item and consider a rent stabilization ordinance more seriously than in 2019.

[Bruce] Stanton, an attorney for the Golden State Manufactured-Home Owners' League, addressed the City Council on Tuesday along with several local mobile home residents. He urged city leaders to recognize that the unenforceability of the model lease prevents it from being effective.

"Nine parks have no apparent intention of participating since it's purely voluntary, and some apparently didn't offer the model lease to all spaces or waited until other leases were signed to do so," he said. "In sum, the model lease is not working to protect Santa Maria's mobile home residents." 

There are currently 106 cities and counties in California with rent stabilization ordinances in place, according to the league. The city of Santa Barbara could soon be among them after the City Council voted Tuesday to kick-start a temporary rent control ordinance capping annual rent increases at 2% for apartments. 

Video of Ed Fund Mobilehome Townhall on October 23, 2021

 A written summary of this Townhall by Carol Brinkman can be found HERE.

Video of Ed Fund Mobilehome Townhall July 10, 2021

 

Golden State Manufactured-home Owners Education Fund 

presents a

Virtual Mobilehome Townhall 

Featuring 

Bruce Stanton, GSMOL Corporate Counsel 

Saturday, October 23, 2021

10:00 AM

You may attend by Zoom or by telephone - see instructions below.

If you have a question for Mr. Stanton, please submit it in advance by email to edfund.gsmoef@gmail.com.   One question per attendee please; if we have time we can do "seconds". 

Meeting ID: 822 0377 7957

Passcode: 315603

Join Zoom Meeting:

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82203777957?pwd=c1F4b3FiTzc5aS9BQVVSd2lwejhJUT09

Meeting ID: 822 0377 7957

Passcode: 315603

OR call in on any kind of telephone:

(669) 900-6833

Meeting ID: 822 0377 7957

Passcode: 315603

Zoom participants:

• Mute/Unmute by clicking on the microphone in the lower left corner
• Hide/Show video by clicking on the camera, next to the microphone
• Raise/Lower Hand by clicking on Reactions at the bottom of the screen

Telephone callers on land lines:

• Mute/Unmute with *6 (Star Six)
• Raise/Lower Hand with *9 (Star Nine)

Please stay on mute at all times unless you are called on.

Please remember to lower your hand when you are called on. 

This meeting will be recorded and possibly published on the Ed Fund's YouTube channel. 

 

 

                                                                  

YOUR RIGHTS BYTES #19

 

NEW CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION (CPUC) DECISION PROTECTS HOMEOWNERS IN PARKS UNDERGOING UTILITY CONVERSIONS

By BRUCE STANTON

GSMOL GENERAL COUNSEL

 

History:

For nearly a decade the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has been holding hearings to consider transferring control of gas and electric systems in mobilehome parks back to the local serving utilities, such as Edison or PG &E.  Over the decades many park owners took over operation of the gas and electric systems in their parks, and created a sub-meter system where the park owner directly bills the residents for their energy use.  This only applies to gas and electric, and not water.  In a sub-metered park the park owner is also responsible to repair or replace the system, and receives energy from the local utility at a discounted rate so as to receive compensation for system repairs and upgrades.  Unfortunately park owners have never been required to account for these “discount” funds, and have simply spent the money however they wish.  And when repairs arose park owners formerly tried to pass those costs on to homeowners.

 

In 1996 GSMOL obtained a landmark decision at the CPUC which is referred to as the “Double-Dip” decision.  It provides that a park owner cannot pass through any costs to repair gas or electric systems in a park to the homeowners, since they are already receiving the utility discounts for that purpose.  Subsequent decisions confirmed that limited pass through of costs related to park common areas, or to that portion of the system between the utility meter and the home which was already owned by the park owner (i.e. “behind the meter”), are permissible.

 

Over the years gas and electric systems have been aging in parks, sometimes creating hazardous conditions and unreliable energy service to homeowners.   Many parks did not wish to spend money for repairs or upgrades, and if the system was too old they tried to give it back to the utility.  But the utility would typically require repair of the system first before taking it back.  Since the park didn’t wish to pay for that, a stalemate ensued, where the utility would not take back the system and the park owner wouldn’t repair it.  As a result, the homeowners suffered.

 

In 2012 a proceeding was opened at the CPUC to consider how a program could be developed to break this statemate and encourage transfer of mobilehome park gas and electric systems back to the serving utilities.  Phase I of that proceeding established a “pilot program” whereby 10% of the State’s mobilehome spaces would be so converted.  The existing systems would be abandoned in the ground and new “line extension” systems installed with new meters.  The cost of the project would be predominantly borne by all of the ratepayers in the State of California, and funded via allowable increases in gas and electric rates state-wide.  In 2018 the CPUC voted in rulemaking proceeding R.18-04-018 to adopt a permanent 10-year program to run from 2021-2030 to facilitate these utility conversions throughout California.

 

In 2020 the CPUC opened Phase II of this proceeding, involving consideration of two issues.  One is referred to as “electrification”, which would require all mobilehome appliances be operated by electric energy only-no gas appliances.  This portion is still to be determined.

 

The remaining issue in Phase 2 focused on “consumer protection”, specifically “examining ways to protect residents of mobilehome parks from unreasonable rent increases or evictions following a park’s participation in the Mobilehome Utility Conversion Program.”  The concern is that a park owner would allege that because its system was now modernized, the value added to the park, and to the residents, would justify rent increases, and cause evictions if residents could not pay the higher rents.

The Decision:

On August 20, 2021, the CPUC adopted Decision 21-08-025, which contained the following Order requiring new language to be inserted in the written agreement to be signed by park owners when utility conversion projects are initiated:

 

             1.      The consumer protection language recommended in the CPUC Staff Proposal issued on February 12, 2021, is adopted with modifications.

             2.      Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, Southern California Gas Company, Bear Valley Electric Service Inc, Liberty Utilities (CalPeco Electric) LLC, PacifiCorp, and Southwest Gas shall add the following language to the Mobilehome Park (MHP) Utility Upgrade Program Agreement (MHP Program Agreement) that is signed by MHPs participating in the MHP Utility Conversion Program:

The MHP residents are intended third party beneficiaries with respect to the protections contained in this clause, and shall have the sole right to enforce this clause:

The property owner(s) and/or the resident shall not raise the rent of a unit or space because of the increased value of the unit due solely to infrastructure improvements provided by the Mobilehome Park (MHP) Utility Conversion Program (MHP Conversion Program or Program).  Allowable factors for rent increase include, but are not limited to, an increase in property taxes, operation and maintenance costs, and/or amortizing costs of property improvements other than those made by the MHP Conversion Program.  The owner(s) of the MHP shall provide notice of this protection from rent increases due to participation in the MHP Conversion Program in writing to each MHP resident within 3 days of transfer of the MHP infrastructure to the utility following program completion.  That notice will include the current contact information for mobilehome resources, including but not necessarily limited to the Mobilehome Assistance Center and the Mobilehome Residency Law Protection Program:

Mobilehome Assistance Center (Complaints)

Phone: 1-(800) 952-8356

E-mail:  MHAssistance@hcd.ca.gov

Mailing Address:  P.O. Box 278690, Sacramento, CA 95827-8690

Mobilehome Residency Law Protection Program (Complaints)

Phone: 1-(800) 952-8356

E-mail: MRLComplaint@hcd.ca.gov

Mailing Address:  P.O. Box 278690, Sacramento, CA 95827-8690

Participating utilities shall update the contact information for these resources in the MHP Program Agreement and notices as needed.

             3.      The utilities shall require Mobilehome Parks (MHP) participating in the MHP Utility Conversion Program to inform their residents in writing of the consumer protections adopted in this decision, including up-to-date information on the MHP resources identified in the consumer protection language set forth in Ordering Paragraph 2.  Specifically, the utilities will include the language adopted in this decision in the updated MHP Program Agreement and will provide a written reminder of this notice requirement to the MHP owner upon transfer of the system to the utility.  

             4.      Within 45 days of the issuance of this decision, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, Southern California Gas Company, Bear Valley Electric Service Inc, Liberty Utilities (CalPeco Electric) LLC, PacifiCorp, and Southwest Gas shall submit a Tier 1 Advice Letter to the Commission’s Energy Division in compliance with this decision.  That Advice Letter shall include an updated Mobilehome Park Utility Upgrade Program Agreement that contains the consumer protections adopted in this decision, including a description of the specific information that participating MHP owners will provide to residents, as well as a discussion of methods the MHP owners may use to communicate these protections to their residents.”

 

A number of objections to the Decision by WMA, the park owner’s trade organization, were not accepted.

 

This important Decision offers critical protections to any homeowner in a park which is undergoing a utility system conversion.  Homeowners in those parks are encouraged to be looking for these required communications, and to report to GSMOL any park owner violations of the above Order. 

 

The full text of this Decision can be viewed by clicking on the “Proceedings” tab on the CPUC website for R.18-04-018.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-3-

 The Ed Fund is pleased to present a

 

VIRTUAL TOWNHALL

Friday, September 10, 2021
1:30 PM

featuring

MATTHEW WEISE

Field Operations Manager for the Division of Codes & Standards within Housing & Community Development (HCD)

He will speak on the MPM (Mobilehome Park Maintenance) Program, HCD inspections, and the complaint process.

You may attend with Zoom, or call in from any kind of telephone.  

Meeting ID: 867 8629 1553
Passcode: 640694

Join Zoom Meeting
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86786291553?pwd=RzAycmpUYzhXNlV3cFRySWNacjJiQT09
Meeting ID: 867 8629 1553
Passcode: 640694

OR call in from any kind of telephone:
 (669) 900-6833
Meeting ID: 867 8629 1553
Passcode: 640694

If you have a question for Matt to answer at the Townhall, you may submit it in advance to Anne Anderson at a.bushnell.anderson@gmail.com

Please submit your question before September 1.

There is no need to RSVP for this event. 
 

Availability of Park Facilities - JULY UPDATE - Bruce Stanton

 To:  All GSMOL Leaders/Members

 Fr:  Bruce Stanton, Corporate Counsel

 Re:  AVAILABILITY OF COMMON AREA FACILITIES AS COVID-19 RESTRICTIONS END

 At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, GSMOL received many questions and concerns from members regarding closure of clubhouses, pools and other common area facilities, and the issuance of “stay-at-home” and “shelter-in-place” orders at State and local levels.  GSMOL recommended Members obey government orders and avoid the risk of using common area facilities during pandemic conditions for their own health and well-being.  GSMOL also advised that due to these unique conditions, County Health Orders and the Governor’s Emergency Declaration take temporary precedence over the Mobilehome Residency Law (MRL) Civil Code 798.24 obligation to make common area facilities “open or available” to park residents “at all reasonable hours”.  There were then significant health reasons for keeping facilities closed, and depending upon local County guidelines, common area facilities might still be prohibited from being completely “open and available”.  The virus was not the fault of anyone, including the park owners, and we all should listen to and follow health directives being issued by government leaders during these challenging times. 

GSMOL’s initial messages were relevant for the times, when much was still unknown, vaccines were months away and a strict “shelter-in-place” was ordered throughout California.  We now find ourselves in far different circumstances, with a majority of Californians vaccinated and the State’s economy re-opened as of June 15^th.  County health orders are being modified to allow limited “in person” gatherings and the re-opening of indoor establishments.  The “stay-at-home” Order has been lifted.  Under these circumstances it is reasonable to expect that common area facilities in mobilehome parks mustre-open in compliance with what each County allows.   GSMOL’s concern is that some park owners might use the pandemic as a convenient excuse to keep common area facilities closed, regardless of what the local County allows.  To do so is not “reasonable” under Civil Code 798.24, and amounts to a violation of the MRL, with a possible $2,000.00 penalty per violation if  found to be “willful” under Civil Code 798.86.

A park owner is a “business” just like a restaurant or a retailer.  When a County allows ”businesses” to resume limited operations this applies to park owners as well, and management should allow clubhouses, laundry facilities and pools to re-open subject to safety protocols required by the County.  This may include limited occupancy, sanitization, mask-wearing and social distancing.  A park owner is well within its right to limit usage according to what the County requires.  But concerns about the cost or labor involved in such a re-opening should not be the basis for keeping facilities locked up.  It is still management’s obligation to follow the County guidelines and the MRL, and to take whatever steps are available to re-open.  Management and its employees might need to be trained in proper safety procedures and become more vigilant about the number of persons using the facilities.  But this “extra work” would not justify a discretionary closure of facilities.  Park Owners should be guided by what the County allows, rather than the cost to implement County safety protocols.

There can be many “moving parts” to this issue, and conditions are sometimes changing day-to-day.  Vigilance and adoptability are required.  But we can now recommend the following advisory policy for GSMOL members:

1. Follow and closely monitor health Orders issued by your County.  Look for any Order which allows businesses to resume “indoor” or “outdoor” activities.
2. If your County confirms businesses can resume “indoor” operations, ask management in writing to re-open consistent with those County health guidelines. 
3. If you receive no response, or receive a reply contrary to County health guidelines, contact your County to obtain written verification that the park IS able to re-open its facilities safely in compliance with County guidelines.
4. Relay the County response to park management and now demand that they re-open facilities.
5. If management refuses, make a claim for a “service reduction” pursuant to a local rent stabilization ordinance (RSO) or consult with an attorney re: possible breach of contract or MRL violations.  One can also file a claim with the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) under the new Mobilehome Residency Law Protection Program (MRLPP).

Other Questions and Answers re: Civil Code 798.24 Common Area Facilities Availability/Hours:

Question:  Can a park use Civil Code 1942 (b) to keep common area facilities permanently closed?

Answer:  NO.  Civil Code sec. 1942.9 (b), enacted in January, 2021 as part of SB 91, states that a landlord who temporarily makes a service or amenity unavailable in compliance with federal, state or local public health orders/guidelines is not in violation of a rental agreement and has not reduced services under an RSO.  The key is that the closure must be “in compliance with” government orders.  If State or local government allows facilities to re-open, a park owner is NOT “in compliance” with those Orders if facilities remain closed, and this law cannot be an excuse for failing to re-open.

Question:  Must a park re-open outdoor facilities like a pool, even if indoor facilities are not re-opened?

Answer:  YES, if the County allows.  In March 2021, the City of Hayward decided in favor of residents who applied for a rent reduction under the Hayward RSO due to a pool closure.  The City found the park owner did not re-open the pool when the County allowed it to do so, and thus triggered a “service reduction” under the Ordinance.  Each resident was awarded a one-time rent rebate equal to 1.5% of the monthly rent for those months when the pool remained closed contrary to County health orders.

Question:  Can a park owner keep common area facilities closed due to “maintenance”?

Answer:  YES, but only for a “reasonable” time.  With or without COVID-19, it is reasonable to temporarily close a common facility for “maintenance” as long as (a) there really is “maintenance” happening; and (b) the temporary closure does not exceed a “reasonable” time to complete the “maintenance”.  Indefinite closures with no evidence of any “maintenance” and no communication to residents about the scope and length of the “maintenance” are not “reasonable” and could trigger a violation of Civil Code 798.24.  That section contains a one-sentence, simple statement whose plain meaning is clear, and any continuing closure for undefined “maintenance” violates both the letter and spirit of 798.24.  Where such a closure exists, residents should request in writing: (1) the reason for the closure and (2) the estimated time for re-opening.  Park owners should not be allowed to claim “maintenance” as a ruse to keep common area facilities closed so as to reduce their costs of operation.  If no satisfactory response is received, residents should either file a service reduction claim under their local RSO, or file a complaint with the HCD MRLPP as noted above.

Question:  What if hours of an amenity have been changed, and what hours are “reasonable”?

Answer:  Depending upon the park’s location and the season of the year, it might be reasonable to limit hours of a clubhouse, pool or laundry room during months when darkness and/or inclement weather could pose a safety concern.  But any restricted hours which do not allow residents who work to use facilities during the week or on weekends is clearly NOT reasonable.  Hours might be reasonably reduced from 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 during the winter.  But a reduction to 5:00 p.m. would not seem “reasonable”, since it excludes some residents from any ability to use the facilities.  And during summer months maximum daylight hours should be “reasonably” observed.  8:00 or 9:00 p.m. is typical. 

Video of Ed Fund Virtual Townhall on April 10, 2021 featuring Bruce Stanton

 The first presentation on our new Ed Fund YouTube Channel is the Virtual Townhall held on April 10, 2021, featuring GSMOL General Counsel Bruce Stanton.  

Ed Fund Virtual Townhall July 10 2021

 Golden State Manufactured-home Owners Education Fund

presents a

Virtual Mobilehome Townhall

General Summer Mobilehome Law Update and Q & A

featuring

Bruce Stanton, GSMOL General Counsel

Saturday, July 10, 2021

10:00 AM

Zoom Meeting ID: 843 9303 4511

Passcode: 864074

Join Zoom Meeting on the web:

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84393034511?pwd=S2J0WjJ6RFI5dG5kczRvSjF6UzZZUT09

OR

Dial in on any kind of telephone:

(669) 900-6833

Participants on landline phones: 

mute/unmute with *6 (Star Six) 

raise/lower hand with *9 (Star Nine)

The meeting will be recorded, and we hope to post it on YouTube. 

***NO RSVP IS REQUIRED***  

You may send questions for Bruce Stanton to me in advance at a.bushnell.anderson@gmail.com

Anne Anderson

GSMOEF Townhall Coordinator

Q & A from Ed Fund Virtual Townhall April 10, 2021

Golden State Manufactured-home Owners Education Fund 

Notes from Q&A Session Following Ed Fund Virtual Townhall with GSMOL Attorney Bruce Stanton on April 10, 2021

Compiled by Carol Brinkman

1.      Is Park management required to clean after clubhouse use due to COVID? Our park manager says he is not cleaning. The answer is likely “Yes”, but check your city or county’s rules and guidelines for specific requirements.  Park management which does not follow County health guidelines or reasonable safety protocols is very unwise given virus conditions.  Any written COVID waiver the park owner might ask you to sign will not protect the park from its own negligence if it fails to take reasonable precautions to protect residents.

2.      Can we force the park to open their books? Our park is moving from sub-metered utilities to direct assessment, and we feel the reduction in rent he is offering is too little compared to other parks in our area. Civil Code 798.41 allows utilities to be billed separately according to usage, which encourages conservation. Rent reduction shall be equal to the average amount charged by park management for that space during the prior 12 months. The problem is park owners seldom calculate costs on a space-by-space basis as this section appears to require, but simply divide the utility usage by the number of park spaces. There is no known court decision which construes this requirement.  But the park has an obligation to show how their calculation is made. Utility companies seldom want to get involved, citing privacy issues. If the rent reduction is unreasonable, residents have the right to have a meeting and challenge it with management. Provide evidence of what comparable local parks are charging. You might have to go to court to prove that the 798.41 rent reduction is inadequate.

3.      Can I initiate a willful violation in small claims court without actual damages – as a test case? My park is slow to open facilities and refuses to heat our pool. Small claims court is always an avenue of relief. Advantages are it is quick (6-8 weeks to get to trial), cost is minimal (less than $100 to file) and no lawyers are allowed. You can argue your case yourself. It is just you and the landlord. If you win, you can use that decision as a “sword” or precedent for other residents to bring the same case. The disadvantages are that your time is court is very short: you must argue your case efficiently.  And if you lose the case there is no right of appeal for the plaintiff, while the defendant can appeal the case to Superior Court for a brand new trial.  The court has a calendar and usually hears 10-25 matters daily. The difficulty will be calculating the value of a service reduction for facilities not re-opening when County guidelines allow for it.  Damages must be proven with certainty.  It is doubtful that a “willful violation” penalty would be awarded without actual damages being proven.

4.      How do I get a copy of a COVID Common Area Facility Waiver of Liability? Every park will likely have its own waiver form; there are templates available to park owners.  You would likely receive this as a mass mailing without needing to ask for it.

5.      Was the process to change our park rules legal? Park owner did not meet with residents as a group but met with 3-4 persons at a time over several weeks. Then he asked us to sign the new rules. Do we have to sign the new rules? NO, you are never required to sign the park rules and shouldn’t.  Pursuant to Civil Code 798.25 new rules  take effect 6 months later, except rules relating to common area facilities take effect 60 days later.  If you do sign them they take effect immediately instead of after the waiting period. Also, signing them could be construed as having signed a contract, which residents should avoid.  The unique pandemic conditions may prevent “in person” meetings. The question is whether the park owner reasonably accommodated the residents by meeting in small groups; more information is needed. The park owner might claim he met separately with residents for their safety during the pandemic.

6.      Our park association puts on events. Do we need to require masks, proof of vaccination, waivers etc. How protected is the Association and residents?  Your Association must comply with park rules, and the County health guidelines. If the park has no rules then what you do will be an added layer to park regulations.  You might make a list of safety “Protocols” for members to follow. If you require a waiver (which is a little heavy handed) make it simple, so as not to completely discourage attendance.

7.      Do we have to sign a new lease when this one expires? NO!  Once a lease term expires a mobilehome tenancy automatically becomes month-to-month. Furthermore, if you sign a long-term lease (longer than one year) you lose the protection of rent control now (and in the future) if your city/county has (or gets) a rent stabilization ordinance. You cannot be evicted for refusing to sign a lease. There are 7 specific reasons for eviction in California and failure to renew a lease is not one of them. Per MRL 798.56 the 7 reasons for eviction are: 1) Failure to pay rent 2) Conduct that constitutes a substantial annoyance to other residents 3) Failure to comply with a reasonable rule and regulation that is part of the rental agreement 4) Failure to comply with local or state laws relating to mobilehomes within a reasonable time after notification of non-compliance 5) Conviction of prostitution or certain felonies committed on the premises  6) Condemnation of the park and 7) Change of use of the park.

8.      We have a long-term lease in a rent-controlled jurisdiction and the park owner is bumping up the rent before the lease expires (and we are eligible for rent control protection). Can he do this? It depends on the terms of your lease. Does it have a “market catch up clause” which states that near the end of the lease the park can raise rent to market value”?  If it does, then increases dictated by your rent stabilization ordinance will be applied to the space rent that exists at the end of the lease. An RSO does not establish the amount space rent should be (high or low) but it does regulate the increases allowed each year. That increase is applied to the base rent at the time the RSO becomes effective.AB 2782 that GSMOL sponsored and helped pass in 2020 helps stem the tide of rapidly increasing MH space rent increases. It closes a state loophole that allows long term leases to be exempt from rent stabilization ordinances. It ends that exemption. All leases of any length signed on or after February 13, 2020 shall no longer be exempt from local RSO (Rent Stabilization Ordinance) which means the local RSO rent increase will apply to protect those residents regardless of what the lease provisions might say. The local RSO will effectively pre-empt the lease! All leases with a term of 12 months or longer signed before February 13, 2020 will remain exempt from rent control until they expire or until January 1, 2025, whichever comes first.

9.      In my park which has a rent stabilization ordinance, park owners are raising rents more than 10% at point of sale of a mobilehome. Is this legal? You must read your rent control ordinance to see what is allowed. If it has a “Vacancy Control” provision regulating resale rent increases, the park owner is restricted in the amount he can raise rent at point of sale.

10.  Can a park owner bill separately for utilities (garbage, sewer etc.) from rent? Yes, but he must adjust the space rent accordingly pursuant to Civil Code 798.41, and cannot charge more than the rate as if the resident was served directly by the utility.

11.  If park owners challenge AB 2782 (i.e., park conversion protection and long-term lease exemption from RSO), does this law stand or does it stop until it is adjudicated? To stop the law, one must get a court injunction which will enjoin the effect of the law pending trial, and then prove the new law is unenforceable.  Without an injunction it will remain enforceable.

12.  Does HCD keep a record of space rents in California to help determine what “market value” or average rents in my area are?  No, HCD does not. You can review a local real estate Multiple Listing Service which lists space rents for mobilehome homes for sale. There are also services such a “Mobilehome Village” which might provide you with information.  Or you can hire an appraiser.

Ed Fund Virtual Townhall February 19 2021

Golden State Manufactured-home Owners Education Fund (GSMOEF)presents a

VIRTUAL TOWNHALL

featuring

BRUCE STANTON, GSMOL Corporate Counsel

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 19

1:30 PM

He will talk about the new State legislation related to MH parks, and COVID-19 issues impacting MH owners.

 

All Mobile/Manufactured Home Owners are invited - you do not have to be a GSMOL member.

This will be a Zoom meeting, but if you don't do Zoom, you can call in from any kind of telephone.

We are not requiring RSVPs, so no need to reply unless you have a question.  Just be there!  Feel free to share this announcement with other MH owners you know.  

We will have Q & A after Bruce's talk.     

HERE IS THE ZOOM LINK:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89834388157?pwd=MGdiSW1WTmwrcUhCa3JIZzIrL1RFUT09
Meeting ID: 898 3438 8157
Passcode: 370570

Or CALL FROM ANY KIND OF TELEPHONE:
(669) 900-6833
Meeting ID: 898 3438 8157
Passcode: 370570