John Lindblom – Record-Bee staff
LAKEPORT ? The Lake County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday concluded an afternoon-long session on proposed rent control for mobile home parks by appointing a task force to study the complex issues involved.
Along with board chair Anthony Farrington and Supervisor Rob Brown, the study group will include representatives from both the renters and mobile home park owners side of the issue.
The renters will be represented by the Lake County Alliance for Affordable Housing and Western Mobilehome Association (WMA). Mobile home park owners will be represented by the Golden Gate Mobile Home Owners League (GSMOL) and mobile home park owners from both inside and outside the area. Community Development Director Mary Jane Fagalde will also be asked to serve on the task force.
Farrington said that the task force will be looking at: (1) the rent stabilization issue in an effort to develop a resolution that is agreeable to all parties; and (2) a possible county takeover of responsibilities for inspecting all mobile home parks throughout the county.
There are 94 mobile home parks in Lake County ? 43 of which are owned by non-residents of the county ? and 2,946 mobile homes.
The difficulty of establishing an acceptable rent level is compounded by the concerns of the county”s large population of tenants living on fixed income versus the profit-making interests of the owners who are seeing their overhead costs rise exponentially.
“What we”re looking for is a more level playing field,” said Farrington. “Some park owners don”t have a good relationship with their residents and are jacking up the rent on a regular basis. The catalyst for us is to try to protect those folks who are on fixed incomes, make sure the amenities are in place and you are not having double-digit rent increases on an annual basis.”
Also complicating the matter is what Farrington referred to as “a few bad apples” among mobile home park owners who take amenities ? swimming pools, clubhouses ? away from their tenants.
Such examples, said Farrington, “are significant when someone comes in and pays rent and is supposed to have those amenities.”
Farrington said that the board is trying to take a nonregulatory, win-win, approach rather than invoke a stabilization process in which owners would be limited to raising rents by only 3 percent a year. In view of the owners” increased costs for such things as labor, asphalt and insurance, he acknowledged “that is a concern.”
One size of rent control, Farrington agreed, would not fit all ? meaning some mobile home park owners would fare better than others if rents come under regulation. There could be casualties.
“But each park is a different park,” he said. “Some park owners own their property outright and those who are not tilted with a heavy mortgage would not be affected much. The ones who would have the potential to hurt the most are the park owners who have outstanding balances and financing on the land.
“But if we do it as a volunteer measure, there will not be any casualties. We”ll reach an agreement that provides protection. Agreement with the county, in itself, would be protection.”
He also suggested longer leases as protection for both the owners and the renters.
In a supervisors” chamber filled to capacity by a crowd that appeared about 50-50, renters and mobile home park owners, Tuesday afternoon”s session was almost peaceful.
“Listening to this thing today, I really empathize with the small mom and pop parks that are doing their best,” said Robert Fleak, assistant regional manager for GSMOL, which represents eight Northern California counties. “In 10 years in all the parks I”ve been around I”ve only had two parks where the people thought their managers were the greatest thing since apple pie. But the bottom line (for owners) is net profit.”
Fleak said that most of the state south of the Bay Area has rent control standards in place.
“Right now, Sonoma (County) is about the farthest north where there is an ordinance,” he added. Other northern counties, he said, are too spread out and their parks are too small to effect an ordinance.
“We saw this once before, probably 10 or 12 years ago,” said mobile park owner B.J. Walls. “The problem with rent stabilization is that it doesn”t solve or address what the people are complaining about. What ends up happening is that you”re trying to save money by taking shortcuts and the tenants suffer.”
Sid Arton and his family own an upscale mobile home park occupied by retired professional people who pay $520 to $620 a month for a small patch of space. He cautioned that any county-imposed rent ordinance could have deleterious effects for the county.
“We want to make sure they know the costs,” said Arton. “Our park is a high taxpayer. Don”t mix apples and oranges.”
Contact John Lindblom at jlwordsmith@mchsi.com.
