Owner's plans for Soquel mobile home park rejected, affordable housing advocates pleased

"He acknowledged Goldstone stood to profit from the conversion"

Of Course, Goldstone bought this property at a discount due to the rent control ordinance.

Now he wants to claim property rights BS. If he was the original owner like the park in Capitola I would be a little more convinced that he is being harmed. But, unfortunately he is just greedy. MHO

Why people do not leave things alone is beyond me. Mobile home parks from Delaware Ave., Westcliff Drive, 17th Ave., 30th Ave., now Alimur are viewed as instant banks in Santa Cruz. Hush-hush deals to add to the huge list of empty foreclosures that no one can afford cost of living increases; I just don't get it. "Oh, by the way your rent/mortgage is going up next month..."

BigWaveDave wrote:

Of Course, Goldstone bought this property at a discount due to the rent control ordinance.
Now he wants to claim property rights BS. If he was the original owner like the park in Capitola I would be a little more convinced that he is being harmed. But, unfortunately he is just greedy. MHO

That's a really good point you make, and was not touched on in either article. There's a big difference between buying something that you know has conditions or restrictions imposed on it and having them put on after the fact.

Still, if I was a resident of this park, I don't think I'd rest easy. I suspect we haven't heard the last of this.

This will ultimately be decided by the court. The Board of Supervisors can rejoice in their short term victory. They also showed their ignorance in regard to private property rights.

The decision whether to allow Goldstone to proceed, for the supervisors, came down to a county ordinance that requires at least half of a park's residents to agree to the sale. The statute is meant to keep park owners from converting from rental properties to owner-occupied properties simply to subvert local rent control laws.
"The residents must demonstrate some kind of support," said Supervisor John Leopold.
The Alimur conversion was overwhelmingly opposed by tenants.

Why pay for the cow when you can get the milk for free and the county has generous milk-for-votes program.

I have to wonder what park-owner has planned for a legal strategy. Certainly he couldn't have imagined this proposal ever being approved by the supervisors. And I'm sure the application was expensive.

wildman wrote:

This will ultimately be decided by the court. The Board of Supervisors can rejoice in their short term victory. They also showed their ignorance in regard to private property rights.

Remedies to a property rights issue should not come the at the expense of the of homeowners in the park.

wildman wrote:

This will ultimately be decided by the court. The Board of Supervisors can rejoice in their short term victory. They also showed their ignorance in regard to private property rights.

I think the same can be said for the property owner. They bought this property knowing it had restrictions. However, they believe they can disregard these restrictions under property rights and reap profits at the expense of the current tenants. It is a gamble (a greed driven gamble)
The guy in Capitola has a better chance than these Johnny come lately owners considering his family was originally harmed by the implementation of rent control. But how do you come up with an amicable solution? Do I dare use the phrase fair solution?

By the way I think that purchasing the slip/lot is a good solution if the price is fair. There's the rub eh?

Good day

disabuser wrote:

<quoted text>
Why pay for the cow when you can get the milk for free and the county has generous milk-for-votes program.
I have to wonder what park-owner has planned for a legal strategy. Certainly he couldn't have imagined this proposal ever being approved by the supervisors. And I'm sure the application was expensive.

I would imagine that he is planning the same strategy he used in the other cities where he bought rent controlled properties, tried to get around the rent control and ended up suing those cities. I can't tell if he is trying to make money from the properties or just by suing the various jurisdictions that don't give him what he wants. He's no innocent property owner - he's done this before.

Personally, I feel the ideal thing is to own the land under your unit or be in a coop situation.
There is a peace in knowing that the residents alone can decide if their dues need to be increased.
The city has helped other parks convert and I have yet to find someone who has regretted the change.
At first some were not so sure, but after what has
happened in other parks, they were happy they were in control now.
As far as making a profit, who among us does not want to profit from a sale. Maybe the city can help these people become owners through federal monies for such purposes. I do not even look at rental parks when I wanted to purchase a manufactured home,too many unknowns.

Been There wrote:

Personally, I feel the ideal thing is to own the land under your unit or be in a coop situation.
There is a peace in knowing that the residents alone can decide if their dues need to be increased.
The city has helped other parks convert and I have yet to find someone who has regretted the change.
At first some were not so sure, but after what has
happened in other parks, they were happy they were in control now.
As far as making a profit, who among us does not want to profit from a sale. Maybe the city can help these people become owners through federal monies for such purposes. I do not even look at rental parks when I wanted to purchase a manufactured home,too many unknowns.

You are sooo right! If only this were a bonafide park conversion, we here in the park would jump at the chance run this park.
Then, our the value of our homes would go up! This way, though, the value of our homes will go down....

There are too many mobile home parks in Live Oak and too many low-income people who blight an otherwise nice place to live. The coaches aren't maintained by the renters of the spaces because a lot of the inhabitants are poor and don't have that much invested. If we are lucky the park dwellers own the crummy coaches, if we are not, the dwellers rent the crummy coaches AND rent the land. Public-entities subsidize some of these parks to make this possible. Look at the park at 17th and Capitola, it was a dump until some non-profit decided every Tomas, Ricardo and Geraldo deserved a nicer place but shouldn't have to pay market rate. By having overly restrictive zoning laws that inhibit housing development and the ill-conceived Proposition 13 that shifts the tax burden on the young, the government makes the housing situation more dire. If we must have mobile home parks, let them be owner-occupied and let the dwellers own the land beneath in addition to owning the coashes, that way at least the park dwellers will have a vested interest in keeping their properties maintained instead of gaming the system to get someone else to subsidize their housing.

bs_spotter.

You are too much.... Utter rubbish.

bs_spotter wrote:

There are too many mobile home parks in Live Oak and too many low-income people who blight an otherwise nice place to live. The coaches aren't maintained by the renters of the spaces because a lot of the inhabitants are poor and don't have that much invested. If we are lucky the park dwellers own the crummy coaches, if we are not, the dwellers rent the crummy coaches AND rent the land. Public-entities subsidize some of these parks to make this possible. Look at the park at 17th and Capitola, it was a dump until some non-profit decided every Tomas, Ricardo and Geraldo deserved a nicer place but shouldn't have to pay market rate. By having overly restrictive zoning laws that inhibit housing development and the ill-conceived Proposition 13 that shifts the tax burden on the young, the government makes the housing situation more dire. If we must have mobile home parks, let them be owner-occupied and let the dwellers own the land beneath in addition to owning the coashes, that way at least the park dwellers will have a vested interest in keeping their properties maintained instead of gaming the system to get someone else to subsidize their housing.

An interesting point of view. I am one of the owners of a home in Alimur. It cost 100,000 to buy my place. I certain FEEL vested here, yet I don't own the space under me...
You are certainly correct, in my opinion, that without ownership it is hard to have pride in your dwelling.
I certainly am benefiting here from rent control in this park, but I hesitate to endorse your description of park home owners as "gaming the system"!
In the altogether, I am not sure you have yet totally understood the topic at hand, re: the owner of Alimur and his proposed conversion.

Okay liberal freaks. Don't you see a problem when a 1957 single wide coach sells for $100K? The appreciation of the housing market is transferring to the owners of coaches worth little or nothing and the property owner is getting screwed. If you really believe that low income housing is where it is at, then limit the price that the coaches sell for to blue book only. Otherwise, the owner should be able to evict everyone and use the land for whatever he wants. If you owned it you would do the same and when he goes to court, he will win so get used to it.

Realist wrote:

Okay liberal freaks. Don't you see a problem when a 1957 single wide coach sells for $100K? The appreciation of the housing market is transferring to the owners of coaches worth little or nothing and the property owner is getting screwed. If you really believe that low income housing is where it is at, then limit the price that the coaches sell for to blue book only. Otherwise, the owner should be able to evict everyone and use the land for whatever he wants. If you owned it you would do the same and when he goes to court, he will win so get used to it.

Hmm...

Well you may be right. It IS a very strange thing when a coach made in 1957 goes for 100k. And you sure are right, the reason for it rent control.

When I bought my coach in 2003, that's what I paid - 100k! It was indeed made in 1957! How about that?

If the Owner's conversion of Alimur goes through, my coach will sell for about 5k...I'll lose 95k.

And well, I am go out on a limb and say that wouldn't be too good for me.

I guess that me makes me a liberal freak. But at least I can discuss things in a civil fashion, eh?

Realist wrote:

Okay liberal freaks. Don't you see a problem when a 1957 single wide coach sells for $100K? The appreciation of the housing market is transferring to the owners of coaches worth little or nothing and the property owner is getting screwed. If you really believe that low income housing is where it is at, then limit the price that the coaches sell for to blue book only. Otherwise, the owner should be able to evict everyone and use the land for whatever he wants. If you owned it you would do the same and when he goes to court, he will win so get used to it.

I'll tell you what, Realist.

I'll sell you my home for the 100k I paid for it - a real offer - I'd love to leave this park.

Then you can figure out whether the owner's conversion is a good idea or not, and I'll be on my way.

Fair enough?

Tim you paid way to much for your coach unbeleivable !! I'm lucky I live in Rodeo Mobile Estates and I bought a brand new one in 2004 for $180,000.
Now about these parks mine is a senior park with that said most of the people who live in my park are very old...and have old old coaches.
I was fortunate to have gotten in this park at the age of 49....lucky I guess. These seniors can't afford to buy the land nor so they want to. Space rent is alot cheaper for them and me, and to buy the land you have to have a substantial down payment. Manufactured homes, mobile, or coaches do not gain value like a home does, in most cases you lose value so it is not for everyone.

A couple of years ago they wanted us to buy our land but of course the owner of the park said NO DEAL.

MobileSally wrote:

Tim you paid way to much for your coach unbeleivable !! I'm lucky I live in Rodeo Mobile Estates and I bought a brand new one in 2004 for $180,000.
Now about these parks mine is a senior park with that said most of the people who live in my park are very old...and have old old coaches.
I was fortunate to have gotten in this park at the age of 49....lucky I guess. These seniors can't afford to buy the land nor so they want to. Space rent is alot cheaper for them and me, and to buy the land you have to have a substantial down payment. Manufactured homes, mobile, or coaches do not gain value like a home does, in most cases you lose value so it is not for everyone.
A couple of years ago they wanted us to buy our land but of course the owner of the park said NO DEAL.

Sally -

yes, 100k is a lot but less than the 180k you paid! But maybe yours wasnt' made in 1958! still, it really was the going rate in 2003.

take care!

Tim Norton wrote:

<quoted text>
Sally -
yes, 100k is a lot but less than the 180k you paid! But maybe yours wasnt' made in 1958! still, it really was the going rate in 2003.
take care!

I guess you did not understand, I bought mine BRAND NEW as in 2004. No one lived in it before me so that is the point I was trying to make.( I still think you over-paid). But oh well....

Hey Tim Norton, I don't you fully understood my post. Too many park dwellers are gaming the free market housing system by having their rents artificially kept low by rent control and having non-profits subsidize their coaches at less then market value. If park dwellers paid market rate to own their spots and buy their coaches, then these parks wouldn't become as blighted because people would have pride in their homes and know the value of them. Mobile home space rent control is nice for renters but it really is a subsidy extracted out of the land owners by the government. I am not a complete right wing free market nut either. I would rather see my tax $$$ subsidize better schools and vocational training then pay somebody's else's rent. Give people the option to better their earning power and if they don't take advantage of opportunites then its their own fault. Sick people and old people excepted of course.