Government Code Section 66427.5 was initially designed to restrict local government’s ability to regulate mobilehome residents converting the property to privately owned slots and to aid the residents in bringing their property up to market value. The side effect was the creation of a loophole through which politicians, including District 3 Supervisor Brooks Firestone and State Assembly Member Noreen Evans, argue mobilehome park owners are converting their parks to bypass local rent control and diminishing affordable housing.

 

On May 1, the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to support Evans’ A.B. 1542 that seeks to close the loophole and prevent the loss of affordable housing and the displacement of residents who do not qualify for low-income rent protections.

 

“The protections of mobile home park renters are very complicated and necessary. And recent legislation which was actually designed to help mobile park renters opened a loophole that actually worked against them,” Firestone said.

In the Ranch Park survey, some 69 percent of all residents responded. Of the 69 percent, 72 percent supported the conversion.

While there is no indication that the Ranch Park conversion is a “sham” conversion, Buellton Planning Director Marc Bierdzinski said that the primary concerns voiced by Ranch Park residents during the legally required displacement assessment, created by A.B. 930 in 2002, were about the cost of the unregulated slots and how much rent would increase over the next four years. Existing law states that once the conversion is approved, an appraisal is conducted and the value of the slots is then determined. Residents choosing not to purchase their plots at market value may not be evicted, but are subject to four-year incremental rent increases to bring the rent up to market value. The only residents exempt from such rent raises are low-income residents.

Neither Government Code Section 66427.5 nor A.B. 1542 requires these figures to be estimated before residents are asked to comment on their desire to convert the park into privately owned slots.

 

“The cost of the rental space is very important,” Evans said. “But the problem is that the bill, as it is, is a bit of a compromise.”

 

That compromise has left residents and City Council members with limited information on potential economic displacement of residents.

“This loophole had reared its head in this case and the best advice the county lawyers could give to the locals was get a lawyer and that sometimes leaves the layman out hanging,” Firestone said.

 

Buellton City Manager Steve Thompson agreed that the information was insufficient, but the law was followed by the Ranch Park owner and its lawyers. “We’re not real thrilled about moving ahead blindly either, but with the circumstances at that time, the city didn’t have any choice but to move forward with the approval of the application,” he said.

While A.B. 1542 does not require slot-cost or rent-increase estimates before a resident survey and the subsequent City Council vote to approve a conversion application, it does remove restrictions that prevent local governing bodies from intervening and protecting the affordable housing that mobilehome parks provide.

 

According to the analysis report for A.B. 1542, there are 4,822 mobilehome parks and manufactured communities in California that provide housing for some 700,000 residents. Of those 4,822 locations, an estimated 150 are owned by resident organizations operating privately owned slots, according to a background paper published by the Senate Select Committee on Mobile and Manufactured Homes.

 

While no government officials contacted about the issue had statistics confirming that the conversions are adversely affecting affordable housing in California, representatives from Evans’ office said the bill is designed to prevent the erosion of affordable housing by empowering local governments to intervene and protect the rent costs at such estates.

The bill will now go before the State Senate for discussion and vote.