Galt councilman wants to look at rent control for mobile home parks

Rent stabilization in mobile home parks is an idea that has floated around Galt for at least 18 months.

Park residents have pushed the idea because, while they own their homes, they don't own the land. While rents have remained steady, they are concerned about what could happen if a company bought one of the local parks and rents skyrocketed.

Rent stabilization, or what some call rent control, has been implemented in cities throughout California. It puts a limit on how much mobile home park owners can charge. Usually it is tied to the cost-of-living through the Consumer Price Index.

While he's not sure of the best approach, Councilman Donald Haines wants to see if Galt is in need of a rent stabilization ordinance and what would be effective.

Haines stressed the ordinance would be a proactive approach because current park owners keep rents reasonable.

"Once someone comes in and starts raising up the rates, it's too late," he said.

Proponents of the ordinance say it will protect the vulnerable owners of mobile homes who are on fixed incomes and cannot handle large increases. They also say the parks' owners would still be able to make a profit.

Opponents argue park owners are already aware of how much their tenants can afford, and an ordinance would take away the owners' property rights.

Three Palms Mobile Estates owner Homer Beldt said he already thinks about what his renters can afford and does not believe Galt needs an ordinance.

He said he has no intention of hiking up the rent, because he knows some low-income residents live in his park. He worries about a rent requirement driving down the property value of his park.

"When you are being fair already, there is no reason to say you can't do that anymore," Beldt said.

Haines plans to ask the Galt City Council to consider funding a study to see whether rent stabilization or another form of assistance is needed for mobile home park tenants. He has not yet decided when he will bring the study item before council.

He hopes a study will show what's happened in the past, what's currently going on and if an ordinance is justified.

Other places with rent stabilization

Modesto
Ordinance: Rent can increase by 100 percent of the Consumer Price Index based on the Western Region CPI, but not more than 6 percent of the base rent annually.

Fremont
Ordinance: Rent is limited to 3 percent.

Sonoma County
Ordinance: Rent can be 100 percent of the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose index for the month of June each year.

Sources: City of Modesto, Sonoma County and Oakland Tribune Web sites

This all came about when a group of tenants approached Haines 18 months ago with concerns about what would happen if Galt's parks changed ownership.

"They have invested their livelihood in these mobile homes. ... People want peace of mind when their investments change hands," Haines said.

He believes some restrictions or an agreement would protect park residents on fixed incomes.

"We are not depriving park owners from getting a reasonable investment, but we are keeping property owners from gouging these seniors," he said.

Haines has met with both the property owners and tenants to see if they could come to a consensus without an ordinance.

Some of the other possibilities include tenants and property owners agreeing to a contract that rents will never increase more than the Consumer Price Index, but he said it is not likely park owners will sign a contract restricting themselves.

The city could provide redevelopment money in exchange for the property owners limiting increases to the cost-of-living.

He at least hopes that by doing a study, it will bring all the parties back to the table.

Contact reporter Maggie Creamer at maggiec@lodinews.com.

Reader Feedback

alf wrote on Oct 18, 2009 1:21 AM:

" sorry, you knew what you were getting into when you moved in. pay like everyone else. we cannot get control for our utility fees, so why should someone get this for their mobile home? "

Report Abuse

gray cloud wrote on Oct 17, 2009 4:21 PM:

" Councilman Haines: Why not a price ceiling on how much you can sell your house for when you are ready ? How about a ceiling on what you get for your car on trade-in ?? Where did you go to school ? University of Pravda ?? "

Report Abuse

dogs4you wrote on Oct 17, 2009 2:34 PM:

" If you think a moble home is a good investment, ask the folks that used to live near the Mossdale Y at the San Joaquin River. A big time flood washed everything away and the Y is no longer.

Just what is a fixed income, from the day I drew my first paycheck, I knew what it would be, and has been my entire working life. Same as today, my wife and I have the same amount coming in from SSI on a monthly basis, and my former employer sends me the same amount each month. We make due with what we have, and thats what I call a fixed income. All depends on how much you have coming in to make life worth while. People that bitch about no money, did you ever work and put money away.

As Journey stated, not much appreciation in a mobile home, depreciation, well that`s another issue. "

Report Abuse

smokeater8 wrote on Oct 17, 2009 11:09 AM:

" I find it interesting that Councilman Haines wants to keep rent to the Consumer Price Index. In the past he has voted to raise water and sewer rates at a rate higher than the CPI. Aren't there fixed income seniors living in regular homes that can't afford those increase? Seems like a double standard. "

Report Abuse

galt citizen wrote on Oct 17, 2009 11:08 AM:

" Are you kidding!? Another fricken study? how much is that going to cost the city of galt? Where does it stop? big brother just needs to mind their own business. this is a free enterprise. Why don't you focus on the current economy in this town? Galt Frostie, the yogurt shop, Lampost Pizza and Work Gear all closed in the
last week. this place is turning into a ghost town. Same old empty campaign promises to bring in new business and retain the ones we have. "

Report Abuse

CaptainGort wrote on Oct 17, 2009 8:54 AM:

" Journey-
That depends. A "mobile" home on a rented lot- I agree. But a "manufactured home" on a lot you OWN is an entirely different matter. Then, its a "location, location, location" thing. I own a manufactured home on a waterfront lot on the Delta. Its (still) worth about a half million dollars. I paid about 200k in 2002 for it.
Not a bad deal. Once a factory-built house (all now built to the highest standards of code and workmanship) is
transported to the site and placed on its foundation, it becomes permanent. It is hard to tell them from site-built. "

Report Abuse

Journey wrote on Oct 17, 2009 8:35 AM:

" PS - a mobile home is always a bad investment. Like a car, it depreciates until it is worth nothing. "

Report Abuse

Journey wrote on Oct 17, 2009 8:32 AM:

" When you rent, you are at the mercy of the landlord so you know right up front that the fee can (and will) go up. As the infrastructure ages, costly repairs are going to be necessary and will have to be paid by the owner. These costs must be passed on to the residents. Look, it's a business and if the business owner can no longer afford to run it, he is forced to shut down. At that point, the residents will be forced to pull up stakes and move on. Just because you are a senior (and I am) doesn't mean that somebody owes you a spot to live on. "

Report Abuse

CaptainGort wrote on Oct 17, 2009 8:27 AM:

" In Marin- there are several "mobile" home parks. All came into being decades ago. The "mobile' homes renting those spaces are of similar age...and have all been landscaped in place, added onto, etc...no longer moveable. Really, they are now permanent. Well, when real estate prices exploded in Marin, even the prices of these (im)mobiles increased dramatically
while their space rental did not. They became the only affordable way to live in Marin. This put equity in the (im)mobile homeowners pocket, but not the parkowners. Then the parkowners got the bright idea that they could jack the rents way, way up. That made the resale value of the (im)mobile drop way down- a transfer of value to the parkowner. The alternative was to clear out the (im)mobiles and put up site-built homes. The fight still goes on.... Who do YOU think should benefit from the increase of real estate value due to its prime location: the renter or the landowner????? "

Report Abuse

CaptainGort wrote on Oct 17, 2009 8:08 AM:

" So- if I were among those (im)Mobile home owners, I'd band together and try to band together, create a consortium corporation, and BUY the park. Then, they can do whatever they want with it. "

Report Abuse

CaptainGort wrote on Oct 17, 2009 8:04 AM:

" Well- a mobile home park is- by definition- a private enterprise. Somebody has a big piece of property, installs utilities and infrastructure on it, then rents "spaces" where people can place their mobile homes. This is just like a yacht harbor. If ya don't like the place- leave for another. BUT: Most "mobile homes" today are anything but mobile- they are VERY costly and difficult to relocate. So the "move if ya don't like it" option kinda fades away and the park owner has you by the short ones....much like the houseboat harbors in sausalito! "

Report Abuse

Comments on this story are now closed.

Archives

Story Tools

Indexes