HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09271994 - 2.2 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel
DATE: September 27, 1994
SUBJECT: Ordinance Providing for a Temporary Stabilization and Control
of Rents within Mobilehome Parks
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION: Pursuant to the Board' s September 20, 1994
directions, consider:
1. Introducing, waiving reading and adoption, by at least a four-
fifths vote, the Ordinance Providing for a Temporary Stabilization
and Control of Rents within Mobilehome Parks .
2 . With introduction and waiving of reading by at least three
votes, fixing October 4, 1994 for second reading (unless waived)
and regular adoption of the aforementioned Ordinance.
FISCAL IMPACT:
County cost of administering and enforcing the ordinance is not
known at this time.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:
On September 20, 1994, the Board directed the County Counsel ' s
Office to prepare an urgency measure and ordinance providing for a
temporary moratorium on rental increases in mobilehome parks in the
unincorporated areas of the County, similar to the moratorium
ordinance adopted by the City of Concord.
The attached ordinance was developed from the ordinance adopted by
the City of Concord, modified for adoption by the Board based upon
facts applicable to the unincorporated area.
The attached ordinance stabilizes rents in mobilehome parks based
upon rental amounts in effect on September 20, 1994 . The ordinance
will remain in effect for 120 days, unless further action is taken
by the Board.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES 444�,
r
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON September 27 , 1994 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED * OTHER
See Addendum A for Board of Supervisors action.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: Iy,y, III NOES: II ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: I ABSTAIN: - MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
September 27, 1994
Orig: County Counsel ATTESTED: Phil Batchelor, Clerk of
cc: County Administrator the Board of Supervisors and
Community Development Dir. County Administrator
Redevelopment Dir.
By: AAJ
n
LTF.14a:\mobi1e.bo1 Deputy Clerk
ADDENDUM A
Victor Westman, County Counsel, presented the staff
recommendations contained in the report and explained the
alternatives to the Board with respect to the adoption of either
an urgency ordinance or a regular ordinance.
The following persons presented testimony for Board
consideration on the proposed ordinance :
Bill Rickard, 710 Treasure Drive, Bay Point;
Martha Mary Willson, 2 Corte Del Bayo, Larkspur;
John Wolfe, 820 Main Street, Martinez;
Gary E. Willson, 2 Corte Del Bayo, Larkspur;
Scott Carter, 2678 N. Main St . #22, Walnut Creek;
Gretchen Carter, 138 Skelly Court, Hercules;
Hal R. Yeager, 89 Baylor Lane, Pleasant Hill;
Barbara Allenza, 261 Magda Way, Pacheco;
Dick Craig, 55 Pacifica Avenue, Bay Point;
Elena Canepa, 320 Blueberry Drive, Scotts Valley;
Joseph E. Schneider, 137 Algiers Way, Pacheco;
Dan Bennett, 169 Valley Hill Drive, Moraga;
Supervisor DeSaulnier moved adoption of recommendation 2 to
introduce the ordinance for further action on October 4 , 1994 .
Supervisor Torlakson seconded the motion.
Supervisor Smith expressed opposition to the motion and he
spoke in support of government using the least obtrusive method
of solving a problem in as rapid a manner possible and he
expressed that this was not the least obtrusive method.
Supervisor Bishop spoke in support of the motion.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that recommendation 2 is
APPROVED.
ORDINANCE NO.
PROVIDING FOR A TEMPORARY STABILIZATION
AND CONTROL OF RENTS WITHIN MOBILEHOME PARKS
The Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa ordains as
follows:
SECTION I . FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
A. Since the late 1970 's, with the establishment of the
Mobile Home Advisory Committee, the County has worked with owners
and residents of mobilehome parks to foster an environment
conducive to the resolution of disputes, including disputes as to
the rents to be charged for a space within a given park. Those
efforts have been largely successful and with regard to rent
increases have been principally aimed at allowing a park owner to
achieve a just and reasonable return from his ownership interest
while ensuring that residents are not subject to exorbitant
and/or unconscionable rent increases that could deny them the
ability to remain in the park.
B. There continues to exist in the unincorporated area of
the County a shortage of new spaces and vacant spaces within
mobilehome parks and said shortage contributes to a low space
vacancy rate within parks in the unincorporated area.
C. A substantial number of persons in the unincorporated
area of the County who reside in mobilehome parks are persons on
fixed incomes, including senior citizens and persons of low
income.
D. Through the efforts of the County, the Mobile Home
Advisory Committee, park owners and residents worked together to
develop long-term leases, and many mobilehome owners are parties
to long-term leases .
E. Recently, however, the Board of Supervisors has received
public testimony and written and oral complaints that some parks
within the unincorporated area have been and are charging
increased rental amounts without service improvements . In some
cases, the testimony has been that service levels have actually
decreased in the parks charging the high rents .
F. Such rental increases, especially when coupled with a
lack of service or other justifying factor, create hardships on
mobilehome park residents, and may cause the displacement of park
residents . Such displacements would be detrimental to the public
health, safety and welfare by adversely affecting the lives of a
substantial number of unincorporated area residents who reside in
these mobilehomes .
G. Efforts by the County and leaders in the mobilehome park
industry to obtain voluntary cooperation by landlords to maintain
rents at reasonable and affordable levels have been successful in
many instances, but the problems detailed in the foregoing
paragraphs continue.
H. It is necessary and in the public interest to protect
mobilehome park residents from unreasonable rental increases,
while at the same time recognizing landlords ' need to have rental
increases sufficient to cover increased costs of operation and
maintenance.
I . Therefore, the County is. now studying the feasibility,
practicality and desirability of various measures designed to
address the problems relative to mobilehome park rents within the
unincorporated area.
J. Pending the conclusions of such study and the
development of a more comprehensive response to the problems
involved, the Board finds, for the reasons set forth above, that
it is necessary and in the public interest to institute interim
mobilehome park rent stabilization and control measures as set
forth herein.
SECTION II. DEFINITIONS. The following words and phrases shall
have the meaning set forth in this section unless the context
clearly otherwise requires .
A. "Housing Services" means services connected with the use
or occupancy of a rental unit, including, but not limited to,
utilities, (including cable TV, light, heat, water & telephone) ,
ordinary repairs or replacement, and maintenance, including
painting. This term shall also include the provision of laundry
facilities and privileges, common recreational facilities,
janitorial service, resident manager, refuse removal,
furnishings, parking, and any other benefits, privileges, or
facilities.
B. "Landlord" means and includes an owner, lessor, or
sublessor (including any person, firm, corporation, partnership
or other entity) , who receives or is entitled to receive rent for
the use of any rental unit, or the agent, representative or
successor of any of the foregoing.
C. "Rent" means the consideration, including any bonus,
benefits or gratuity, demanded or received by a landlord for or
in connection with the use or occupancy of a rental unit, or the
assignment of a lease for such a unit, including but not limited
to any monies demanded or paid for parking, furnishings, housing
services of any kind, subletting or security deposits.
D. "Rental unit" means all mobilehomes and mobilehome
- 2 -
ORDINANCE NO. 94/
spaces in the unincorporated area designed for rental use or
actually rented at any time on or after September 20, 1994,
including mobilehomes and mobilehome parks, together with the
land and buildings appurtenant thereto, and all services,
privileges, furnishings and facilities supplied in connection
with the use or occupancy thereof. The term shall not include
the following dwelling units.
1. Spaces or dwelling units in non-profit cooperatives
owned and controlled by a majority of the residents .
2 . Spaces or dwelling units which a government unit,
agency or authority owns, operates, or controls rent or which are
specifically exempted from municipal rent regulation by State or
Federal law or administrative regulations . The rental units for
which rental assistance is paid pursuant to 24 CFR 882 ( "HUD
Section 8 Federal Rent Subsidy Program" ) may be exempted wholly
or partially from the terms of this ordinance on an individual
basis by resolution of the Board pursuant to a written request
from HUD and after notice to the tenant and landlord involved.
3 . Non-profit housing accommodations . These are
housing accommodations operated by an organization exempt from
federal income taxes under Section 501(c) (3) of the Internal
Revenue Code, provided that the gross income derived therefrom
does not constitute unrelated business income as defined in
Section 512 of the Internal Revenue Code.
4 . Any space or rental unit exempt pursuant to
California Civil Code section 798 . 17 .
F. "Tenant" means and includes a tenant, subtenant, lessee,
sublessee or any other person entitled to the use or occupancy of
any rental unit.
SECTION III . PROHIBITION OF RENTAL INCREASE DURING TERM OF
INTERIM ORDINANCE.
A. Beginning on the effective date of this Ordinance and
continuing for a period ending 120 days after its effective date,
or until such time as the Board of Supervisors adopts an
ordinance providing for rent stabilization on a permanent or on-
going basis, or until the Board of Supervisors repeals this
ordinance, whichever occurs first, the amount of rent for a
rental unit, -as defined herein, shall not be increased except as
provided in Subsection B. 3, below.
B. During the period of time established in Subsection A,
immediately above, the maximum rent for a rental unit in the
unincorporated area shall be the following:
- 3 -
ORDINANCE NO. 94/
1 . For a rental unit which was rented as of. September
20, 1994, and continued to be rented thereafter to one or more of
the same persons, the rent shall not exceed that in effect on
September 20, 1994 . The level of housing services provided to
the rental unit on that date shall not be reduced during the
period set forth in Subsection A, above.
2 . For a rental unit which was not rented as of
September 20, 1994, but was subsequently rented and continued to
be rented to one or more of the same persons, the rent shall not
exceed the lessor of (a) the rent the unit was offered for or
available for on September 20, 1994; or (b) the rent in effect on
September 20, 1994 for a same or similar unit, so long as such
unit continues to be rented to one or more of the same persons.
The level of housing services provided to the rental unit on the
re-rental date shall not be reduced during the period set forth
in Subsection A above.
3. For a rental unit voluntarily vacated on or after
September 20, 1994 and prior to the end of the period set forth
in Subsection A, above, if the vacancy was voluntary (i .e. , not
the result of an eviction, whether for just cause or otherwise) ,
then the rent may be increased upon the re-rental of the unit.
So long as such unit continues to be rented to one or more of the
same persons, such rent shall not exceed that in effect on the
date the rental is re-rented, nor shall the level of housing
services provided on that re-rental date be reduced during the
period set forth in Subsection A, above.
4 . For rental units vacated other than voluntarily
after September 20, 1994, the rent for such rental unit shall not
thereafter exceed the rent in effect immediately prior to such
involuntary vacation, unless the unit is subsequently voluntarily
vacated. The level of housing services provided prior to such
involuntary vacation shall not be reduced during the period set
forth in Subsection A, above.
SECTION 4 . VIOLATION OF ORDINANCE. It shall be unlawful for any
landlord to demand, accept, receive or retain any payment in
excess of the maximum lawful rents set forth in this ordinance.
Any person violating any of the provisions, or failing to comply
with any of the requirements of this ordinance, shall be guilty
of a misdemeanor. Any person convicted of a misdemeanor under
the provisions of this ordinance shall be punishable by a fine of
not more than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) or by imprisonment in
the county jail for a period of not more than six (6) months, or
by both. Each violation of any provisions of this ordinance, and
each day during which any such violation is committed, permitted
or continued, shall constitute a separate offense.
SECTION 5 . REFUSAL OF TENANT TO PAY A RENT INCREASE. A tenant
- 4 -
ORDINANCE NO. 94/
may refuse to pay any increase in rent which is in violation of
this ordinance and such violation shall be a defense in any suit
brought to recover possession of a rental unit or to collect
rent.
SECTION 6 . RETALIATORY EVICTION. In any action brought to
recover possession of a rental unit or to collect rent, the court
may consider as grounds for denial any violation of any provision
of this ordinance. Further, the determination that the action
was brought in retaliation for the exercise of any rights
conferred by this ordinance shall be grounds for denial.
SECTION 7 . CIVIL REMEDIES. Any landlord who demands, accepts,
receives, or retains any payment of rent in excess of the maximum
lawful rent, in violation of the provisions of this ordinance,
shall be liable (to the extent allowed by law) as hereinafter
provided to the tenant from whom such payment is demanded,
accepted, received or retained, for reasonable attorney' s fees
and costs as determined by the court, plus damages in the amount
of Five Hundred Dollars ($500. 00) or not more than three times
the amount by which the payment or payments demanded, accepted,
received or retained exceed the lawful amount of rent, whichever
is the greater. Enforcement of this section shall be by the
involved parties through ordinary legal proceedings .
SECTION 8. SEVERABILITY. If any provision or clause of this
ordinance or the application thereof to any person or
circumstances is held to be unconstitutional or to be otherwise
invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity
shall not affect other ordinance provisions or clauses or
applications thereof which can be implemented without the invalid
provision or clause or application, and to this end the
provisions and clauses of this ordinance are declared to be
severable. Further, the Board declares that if the urgency
nature of this ordinance is invalidated, it intends the ordinance
without the urgency provisions to remain valid and effective and
that it would have passed the ordinance even without the urgency
provisions . Therefore, the Board directs that this ordinance be
treated and published, effective and operative, as both an
urgency and non-urgency ordinance.
SECTION 9 . DECLARATION OF URGENCY. This Ordinance is hereby
declared to be an urgency ordinance for the immediate
preservation of the public safety, health, and welfare, and shall
take effect immediately upon its adoption. The facts
constituting the urgency of this ordinances 's adoption are set
forth herein n Section I and in this section. The Board of
Supervisors finds and determines that said findings, including
the findings regarding existing housing supply and hardships to
persons of fixed or limited incomes, and the possible
displacement of such persons, represent a serious threat to all
- 5 -
ORDINANCE NO. 94/
economic segments of the community and especially to senior
citizens, persons on fixed incomes, and persons of low income.
SECTION X. EFFECTIVE PERIOD, PUBLICATION. This ordinance becomes
effective immediately upon passage by four-fifths vote of the
Board as provided in Government Code section 25123. If this
ordinance is passed by less than four-fifths vote of the Board,
it shall become effective thirty days after passage (on second
reading) . This ordinance shall continue in effect for a period
ending 120 days after its effective date, or until such time as
the Board of Supervisors adopts an ordinance providing for rent
stabilization on a permanent or ongoing basis, or until the Board
of Supervisors repeals this ordinance, whichever occurs first.
Within fifteen days of passage, the Clerk shall publish this
ordinance once the names of the Supervisors voting for and
against it in the a newspaper
published in this County.
PASSED on by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Chair, Board of Supervisors
ATTEST: Phil Batchelor, Clerk
of the Board of Supervisors
and County Administrator
By:
Deputy Clerk
(Seal)
LTF
14 .ordmob.994
6 _
ORDINANCE NO. 94/
June 16, 1994
Sun Valley Tenants
125 Sahara Drive
Pacheco, CA 94553
To all it may concern,
When management and homeowner's representatives'
negotiated the current lease agreement, we expected inflation to
grow at a faster pace. With inflation moving at a 3% annual gate, we
would like to offer the following as an option to all tenants who
signed the three year lease.
Extend current lease to expire January 31, 1999 with an
increase in rents as follows:
February 1, 1995 15.00
February 1, 1995 18.00
February 1, 1997 20.00
February 1, 1998 .25.00
Except for pass thrus, all other provisions will remain the same.
Pass thrus will be limited to State and Local taxes or other charges.
THERE WILL BE NO PASS THRUS FOR ANY CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PARK.
This program will also be available to "the few tenants who did
not sign the lease agreement. July 31, 1994 will be the cut off date
for anyone wishing to participate in this program. Thank you for
your attention regarding this matter.
in erely,
Jesse D. Yohanan
Westates Management
a
September 26, 1994 URGENT A#7 .
Dear Supervisor DeSaulnier,
Re;Mobile Home Park Rent Control
This is to let you know that as a Contra Costa County park
owner, we have received absolutely no notification about your
proposed rent moratorium on for TOMORROW' S Board of
Supervisor' s agenda.
We only know of it through reading the article in the
September 9, 1994 West County Times as the Supervisors forge
ahead with a rent moratorium, and a rent control ordinance,
We are a family owned and operated Park. We are offended by
your false stereotyping of us and other small park owners as
"corporate park owners" and "self-serving" . in reality it
could be that you are the self-serving one with great
interest in being reelected. The system is breaking down as
you attempt to destroy our right to due process in that we
have been given no notice of the proposed moratorium.
The County constantly notifies us about taxes, inspections,
increased permit fees , and other, notices requiring our
immediate compliance. Why then are we kept in the dark about
what is occurring at meetings of the Mobile Home Task Force
and the proposed rent moratorium?
Our private property rights are very much affected when rent
control is imposed. We immediately loose 25% of the value of
our family investment.
As property owners and Contra Costa County property tax
payers we are being denied due process. That is illegal. .
Sin .ey,
he Frizzell am "
Marina Mobile Manor RECEIVED
cc: Hoard of Supervisors
SEP 2 6 1994
CLERK ONTRA OF
SUPERVISORS
Tn Inn' OH G'C : R V6. 9Z d3S ZOLZ8SZ80V : QI HSS3A1.J39 ZO
To: -Supervisor Tom Powers,
Reference: -Mobile Home Parks
Dear Mr. Powers,
You will I trust excuse me for corresponding with you,
but my speech impediment I beleave hampers me from giving my
true feeling to what I am about express.
On September 20th. 1994 at the Supervisors meeting, I
requested a moratorium be placed on all Mobile Home Park
rents within the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County.
My reasons for this are simple, rent stabilization will
not be obtained without a great deal of expession by the
following: -
1 . . . . . Park Owners who have gouged their residents, will
obviously object to any form of rent stabilization.
2. . . . . Residents may have apprehension as to their future,
even with rent stabilization.
3. . . . . I am positive all Park Owners will require a return
on their investment.
There are many more problems, which no doubt you are going to
encounter before you must make a very tricky decision.
Therefore a moratorium on rents must be implemented back to
September 20th. 1994. Thank you.
Sincerely,
°
Doug. Platt, resident of the Willows Mobile Home Park.
September 26, 1994 URGENT
Dear Supervisor DeSaulnier,
Re;Mobile Home Park Rent Control
This is to let you know that as a Contra Costa County park
owner, we have received absolutely no notification about your
proposed rent moratorium on for TOMORROW' S Board of
Supervisor' s agenda.
We only know of it through reading the article in the
September 9, 1994 West County Times as the Supervisors forge
ahead with a rent moratorium, and a rent control ordinance.
We are a family owned and operated Park. We are offended by
your false stereotyping of us and other small park owners as
"corporate park owners" and "self-serving" . In reality it
could be that you are the self-serving one with great
interest in being reelected. The system is breaking down as
you attempt to destroy our right to due process in that we
have been given no notice of the proposed moratorium.
The County constantly notifies us about taxes, inspections,
increased permit fees , and other notices requiring our
immediate compliance. Why then are we kept in the dark about
what is occurring at meetings of the Mobile Home Task Force
and the proposed rent moratorium?
Our private property rights are very much affected when rent
control is imposed. We immediately loose 25% of the value of
our family investment.
As property owners and Contra Costa County property tax
payers we are being denied due process . That is illegal.
cere
he Frizz 11 Fily
Marina Mobile Manor
cc: Board of Supervisors
RD OF SuPgRVISORS
CIERKCO 0,COSTA CO.
September 26, 1994 URGENT 7(.11.14
t <�
��
Dear Supervisor DeSaulnier,
�•rr
Re;Mobile Home Park Rent Control
This is to let you know that as a Contra Costa County park
owner, we have received absolutely no notification about your
proposed rent moratorium on for TOMORROW'S Board of
Supervisor' s agenda.
We only know of it through reading the article in the
September 9, 1994 West County Times as the Supervisors forge
ahead with a rent moratorium, and a rent control ordinance.
We are a family owned and operated Park. We are offended by
your false stereotyping of us and other small park owners as
"corporate park owners" and "self-serving" . In reality it
could be that ,you are the self-serving one with great
interest in being reelected. The system is breaking down as
you attempt to destroy our right to due process in that we
have been given no notice of the proposed moratorium.
The County constantly notifies us about taxes, inspections,
increased permit Fees , and other, notices requiring our
immediate compliance. Why then are we kept in the dark about
what is occurring at meetings of the Mobile Home Task Force
and the proposed rent moratorium?
Our private property rights are very much affected when rent
control is imposed. We immediately loose 25% of the value of
our family investment.
As property owners and Contra Costa County property tax
payers we are being denied due process . That is illegal.
Sin#e eY,
0441
he Frizzell am "
Marina Mobile Manor RECEIVED
cc: Hoard of Supervisors SOARC)or
SEP 2 6 1994
CLERKCONTRA COSTA CgORS
CO-
Tn• A b6, 9Z d3S 7.0ZZ8SZ80b: QI t1SS3Ald 139 ZO
RECEIVED (� ? rl-1 9�D/,vrf 7>R. :2. 31
SEP 2 6 1994 ylo4 cf{F-ro CA yS'37-3
CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �� 1
CONTRA COSTA CO.
i>
,9
u-rhr Zip-
.,4k
AY� eta
x Z7 4'rA
ov�
0--4�1441
�Ml11Qf48[7
RENTAL HOUSING ASSOCIATION A member of the California Apartment Association
September 23, 1994
Supervisor Tom Powers, Chair
Contra Costa Board of Supervisors
County Administration BuildingRECEIVED
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553-1229 - -
- SFP 2:6W
RE: Mobile Home Rent ControlCLEt's_ '�, �OF SUPEF�VISORS
CogTA CO.
Dear Supervisor Powers:
On Tuesday, September 27, you will considering an emergency
ordinance to freeze rents in mobile home parks. This proposal
is part of an apparent overall direction to adopt a mobile
home rent control ordinance "or procedure" for Contra Costa
County.
The Rental Housing Association is adamantly opposed to rent
control. It does not protect housing opportunities for
seniors or low income persons. A 1994 study by the Real
Estate and Land Use Institute at U.C.-Berkeley concluced that
rent control has, in fact, casued a loss of housing available
to those two census groups. The study compared these census
groups for Berkeley/Alameda County and Santa Monica/Los
Angeles County.
Further, has the Board considered the cost of creating a rent
control bureaucracy? The Task Force considered three
virtually identical ordinances. CoCoMOA's (which was drafted
by GSMOL, the state mobile home tenant's group) and which
is the basis for the Fremont and Milpitas (AKA Concord)
ordinances. The Concord City Council was told by GSMOL
representatives that the administrative costs for the
Milpitas (Concord/Fremont/GSMOL) ordinance were very low.
So how much will a mobile home rent control ordinance cost
the County? Let's use a mobile home rent control ordinance
which is actually more lienient (thereby creating fewer
hearings, disputes, etc. ) and has been in effect since
1980 (thereby creating a economic/legislative history) . That
ordinance is from the City of Hayward.
3333 Vincent Road, Suite 220 o Pleasant Hill, California 94523- (510) 932-3234- Fax (510) 932-4678
-2-
According
2-According to a staff report from the City of Hayward, the
cost to administer the rent control program in Hayward for FY
1993-94 was $159,589: But let's be more specific. The cost to
administer the mobile home rent control (yes, Hayward has
both forms of rent control) is $68,816. . .and that does not
include $86, 197 in what is termed "common costs. "
The largest single component is the cost for employee
services. Assuming an even split of common costs, is the
County prepared to spend $111,914 to administer a mobile
home rent control program? A program which by the very
wording of the ordinance is more restrictive than the City
of Hayward's. By the way, the per space fee to administer
the program in Hayward is $37.91-- which by law is passed
on to the tenants.
Why enact a mobile home rent control ordinance which covers
everyone to solve the problems of a few? For example, park
closures are a direct side effect which the Board may have to
face given the proposed ordinances. It would appear that
voluntary agreements and/or mediation between parks owners
and tenants would be the prudent approach.
Yes, the RHA recognizes there are distinct differences
between mobile home parks and fixed structure rental housing,
but also remember all it takes is two weeks' notice and three
votes on the Board and the whole scenario changes. Rent
control does not work. We strongly urge the Board to reject
the proposed ordinances and work on more equitable process to
resolve the issue.
Resp
7ctfully,
�i�v
Paul A. Stewart II
Executive Director
cc: Board of Supervisors
PAS/pas