Manufactured Home Owners Network: Questions & Answers 2-7-2010
John Sisker
www.mfghomeowners.net
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 7, 2010
Manufactured Home Owners Network
Questions & Answers
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(Disclaimers)
Editorials and/or Personal Comments:
Related materials are published with the assumption that they are true
and/or as an expression of Freedom of Speech rights. The following is the
personal opinion of myself, and/or others, and is circulated here for
informational purposes only. It is not intended to render any specific
and/or legal advice, nor to disparage, slander, and/or libel any person
and/or organization. It is simply meant to shed light on a number of growing
concerns.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Notes:
The information contained within this particular circulation in not
connected to or affiliated in any way with the Manufactured Home E-Mail
Net(work) and/or Manufactured Home (Owners) Network. This is simply the
means to circulate the information. It is also the personal opinion of
myself, and/or others, and does not imply any endorsements or connections to
anyone or any organization.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Questions & Answers:
Here is the opportunity to have your concerns addressed on an individual
basis. While I am not a lawyer, I will try to answer each submitted question
to the best of my ability. However, remember that this is just my opinion.
If any additional and/or legal advice seems appropriate, I will tell you
that as well. For those questions submitted that would benefit from
additional input, I have included here. This way, others can add their
comments as well. Therefore, if you have a new question or concern, let's
hear from you. On the other hand, if you want to enhance a question/answer
already addressed, this is the proper forum for that as well.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Subject to Further Distribution:
You are included here on this e-mail distribution list because you either
directly instructed me to do so, and/or you responded to or asked a question
of me and/or the Manufactured Home E-Mail Net(work). Yet, the very concept
of e-mail circulation, and unless indicated otherwise to me personally, is
not considered secure and/or private in nature, and is therefore subject to
further distribution for the express purpose of extracting additional input.
This is for your benefit and is a free service of the Manufactured Home
E-Mail Net(work). However, last names and the actual e-mail address are
removed so others are not bombarded with unnecessary requests. However, at
no time is the actual e-mail address of others sold and/or used in any way
that is not in keeping with the reason it was for receiving for in the fist
place.
Thanks,
John Sisker
===============================================================================================================================
(not to be owner occupied)
Hello,
I was wondering if one of your members could help me?
I am trying to purchase an older MH on some acreage here in Nevada for my
Brother and his family to live in. I am running into a brick wall with
financing options because lenders won�t loan on a MH that won�t be owner
occupied despite the fact that it is on a foundation and converted to real
property. Are there any resources you could provide to help me? We�ve been
trying to get this home since July and my Brother and his family really need
the home.
Shawna
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(try the "Links" section)
Shawna,
That is indeed a hard nut to crack, especially in today's economic times and
real estate conditions. In spite of the mobile home being on private land,
on a foundation, thus really considered real property, lenders normally
require them to be owner occupied. This came about years ago because of so
many foreclosures. In this case thought, at least the land will act as
security, and it should make no difference being a mobile home, because it
is attached to the land (hence real property). However, today, banks have
their own ever changing criteria.
I don't know of any financial institutions who are going to loan on
something like that off hand. However, you might want to look into a
construction loan; that might make a difference and also allow you to do
some fixing up. Meantime, look through the "Links" section of the
Manufactured Home Owners Network at www.mfghomeowners.net. There should be a
few lenders in there worth contacting.
Good luck,
John Sisker
jsi...@sprynet.com
www.mfghomespecialist.net
(714) 536-3850
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(rent control)
I received my rent notice yesterday February 1, 2010. It is always late but
when I send in my rent 5 days after it is received it is considered late!
I've been told everyone knows rent is due on the 1st. I don't pay my bills
until I receive them! Villa Huntington is owned by an investment group so
it is no surprise as to how the park is run. My question is: My rent went
up $40.00 this month as well as sewer. There was a notice for the increase
in sewer but not for the rent. How much time is required to notify a rent
increase?
Thank you,
Joni
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(must give a 90-day notice)
Joni,
By law, a park in required to give a 90-day notice for any increase in rent.
If your park violated this law, bring this to the attention of Senator
Correa, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Manufactured Homes and
Communities and/or Terri King of the Huntington Beach Mobile Home Advisory
Board.
Senator Correa: senator...@senate.ca.gov
Terri King: tk...@surfcity-hb.org
Good luck,
John Sisker
jsi...@sprynet.com
www.mfghomeowners.net
(714) 536-3850
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(MRL is abused by Senate Committee)
"Dear John,
I have been battling Senator Correa about the MRL lease agreements for over
1 1/2 years. There are 15+ Violations that the Senate Select Committee for
the MRL refuse to answer when presented to them. I am attempting to take
these violations to the press. I went to the GSMOL and discovered that the
same attorney is on both the GSMOL and the Senate Select Committee and he
has told me he will not respond to my email any further. I have taken the
position that the provisions in the MRL states that the only protection of
the mobilehome homeowner is to have "continuous, uninterrupted extensions"
of the original lease and we are not allow that. also the only way a
mobilehome tenant goes to a month-to-month is when the mobilehome owner asks
to do that not the management. I am preparing to present this entire case
with stipulated points of law in the MRL that are and have been in violation
over the years. We have not recourse with the Senate Select Committee
because they have even refused to let me speak at their meetings by not
acknowledging these 15 violations. If you have knowledge of someone I can
contact in a different mobilehome owners association other than GSMOL,
please let me know. Senator Correa stated in the last meeting I attended
when I told him that the Governor stated the mobilehome owners are protected
by the DRE and MRL laws, Correa stated that "the governor isn't here"
meaning he didn't care what the governor said, he rules differently.
Department of Real Estate leasing laws apply and they are never adhered to.
Sincerely,
Mary
Real Estate Broker.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(it's not that black and white)
Mary,
An interesting dilemma you find yourself in, but didn't I warn you of these
very things quite some time ago? Likewise, at this point, I'm not too sure
what you actually expect of me. You mentioned that there are 15+ violations
to the Mobilehome Residency Law, yet, as I said before, there is much more
to these laws than the simply paragraph we as layman see written in some
booklet. Behind every law, is a more detailed interpretation, plus, and just
as important, is the actual intent of the law. Many so called laws are
actually open for interpretation, and could go one way or another in a court
of law. Many times this was just to get something on record to begin with.
Likewise, it was even pointed out to me many years ago, that there are 9-1/2
pages of just indexes of where to find other laws in relation to
manufactured/mobile homes, besides the MRL. So obviously, this not a
do-it-yourself lesson in law; you're now up against the big boys.
And as you can see, that does not necessarily means just the park managers,
owners and/or their political groups. To my way of thinking, if our own
elected and other officials, who are on side, won't even communicate with
you, then something is wrong. Maybe I am not the best person to help your
cause anyway, for I am on the Board of Senator Correa's Manufactured Home
Task Force for Southern California. Likewise, I think what Senator Correa
really meant by... "the [California] governor isn't here" means that this
governor has never been on the side of the manufactured/home residents. The
things we need the most, and will help all the residents, he just veto's.
Likewise, other than the land and park itself, don't put too much confidence
or faith in the Department of Real Estate (DRE). For it is the Department of
Housing & Community Development (HCD) who actually governs mobile home
parks, the MRL, permits, licensing, etc. If your homework is faulty to begin
with, your research inaccurate, and your points have no real or legal merit,
even the press in not going to take notice. To bottom line to all this, and
all the apparent side-steeping by public official in reference to your
acquisitions, is what it is that brought this all about in the first place?
We hear of all the possible violations, but on what? In other words, what is
it that you actually want and expect.
Good luck,
John Sisker
jsi...@sprynet.com
www.mfghomeowners.net
(714) 536-3850
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(protest proposed mobile home park)
-- Residents come out en masse to protest proposed mobile home park --
By Steve Prisament
Staff Writer
ABSECON � Some 60 Absecon Shores residents spoke long and loud at the
Thursday, Jan. 21 City Council meeting � talking out of order, making
accusations and demands, and generally letting members of the governing body
know they oppose putting a mobile home park where land has been cleared near
their Reed Road access to the White Horse Pike.
That would be 59 more residents than attended a Zoning Board meeting in 2008
when Paul Casaccio and his father-in-law, Ralph Clayton, received approval
for the project � which would replace a trailer park near the city�s east
end that has been there since 1928.
Only one resident attended in 2008, according to former Zoning Board
Chairman Chris Seher, who was sworn in as a new city councilman at last
Thursday�s meeting. And that individual supported the project, which calls
for replacing 19 old trailers, two cottages and the remnants of a ship that
contained an apartment and convenience store with 14 double-wide
manufactured homes.
Casaccio spoke first during the public session, often interrupted and
contradicted by those in the audience.
City Council President Lynn Caterson called for order numerous times and
requested civility, saying that Casaccio was asked to attend the meeting to
present his project and answer questions.
A few residents decried the loss of the trees that had been cleared, but the
crowd held its applause and major hooting and hollering to support
references to lower property values because the property is no longer hidden
from sight, and possible higher taxes since individual mobile homes aren�t
taxed.
Caterson told one speaker she might be raising the question, �Does a trailer
park exist in the forest if nobody sees it?�
The speaker replied, �The answer to me is no, it doesn�t.�
Seher told the audience in the public session that went three and a half
hours that the property was a pre-existing nonconforming use for land now
zoned commercial, and the Zoning Board on which he served for 35 years had
no choice but to allow old trailers on wheels to be replaced by mobile homes
on cement pads.
Filling in for City Solicitor Michael Blee, attorney William Gasbarro
clarified matters of jurisdiction for the crowd, sometimes repeating things
several times � for instance, pointing out that the Zoning Board is not
subordinate to the City Council.
While Casaccio said he plans to install well-constructed manufactured homes
that would sell for $125,000 to $225,000, residents of �the Shores,� where
home prices are typically higher, repeatedly called it a trailer park and
said it was not welcome in the neighborhood.
Some said it would bring in families with children that might result in
higher school taxes.
Casaccio said Absecon set the property value using a �cost approach.�
The assessment would be based on the cost of the land and all improvements,
he said. Individual homeowners would not pay real estate taxes.
�I was shocked,� resident Thea Ryley said. �Was anyone notified? Secrecy is
a red flag to me.�
Caterson said that the property has been used as a trailer park �forever.�
�I can�t answer to there being anything new except the new owner,� she said.
�It was all there, except now you can see it.�
Ryley said she didn�t know what effect a development would have on the
schools.
�I know I don�t want to pay for tenants in this trailer park,� she said.
A number of residents said council members should have alerted them to the
proposed development.
�We have people on council who are supposed to be looking out for our
interests,� resident Patrick Lewis said. �Not how to screw us next.�
Other questions raised by residents included traffic and drainage at the
Reed Road-White Horse Pike intersection, fire safety issues such as the
10-foot distance between structures, the safety of having structures so
close to the White Horse Pike, and concerns about possible crime associated
with having �lower-income� housing in the community.
Don Clark said he has lived all his life in Absecon Shores.
�We�re working-class people,� he said. �The people who live there will know
we don�t want them.�
City Administrator Terry Dolan said Tuesday, Jan. 26 that he hopes council
will follow his advice and hire an independent attorney to review the entire
situation.
�The Planning Board is actively involved,� Dolan said, noting that Planning
Board Planner Rob Reid has been �in and out several times seeking
information on the property.�
Planning Board member Glenn Hayden was at Thursday�s meeting, speaking out
from his seat and then taking the microphone.
He said he wanted to make it clear that the Planning Board had nothing to do
with the project, but then vowed that his board would �look into it.�
Seher said the law requires all residents within 200 feet to be notified by
certified mail of any Planning or Zoning Board hearings. Two people said
Thursday they never received notices.
Dolan said Tuesday that he checked the paperwork, and both letters had been
signed for.
He has made the mail receipts and other documents available for residents to
peruse at city hall.
Dolan said he is not taking any side, just looking to assure that everything
was done properly.
Some residents accused council of negligence in allowing the project to
proceed. One yelled out, �Who�s paying you off?�
Caterson agreed that City Council should look into some of the issues raised
by residents.
While the council has no authority over either board, the city
administration does follow through with inspections and paperwork relating
to projects, according to Gasbarro.
Asked if the city was sending a negative message to potential investors in
Absecon by getting involved in a project two years after it had Zoning Board
approval, Dolan said no.
�I don't think so,� he said. �Developers know that some development is
inherently controversial and they proceed with due diligence to protect
themselves.�
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(CMRAA's rebuttal)
I doubt that the protesters have looked into mobile/manufactured homes. In
general a new double wide (approximately 26 x 60 feet) is a three bedroom,
two full bathroom, with living room, dining room, family room, kitchen, and
laundry room. They are well appointed and comfortable - and affordable when
you price them next to regular single family dwellings. At the prices quoted
in your article, the proposed homes are manufactured housing. The exteriors
are a pressed wood product and the interiors are wall board, not thin
paneling, and even have amenities such as fireplaces, sunken living rooms,
and are fully carpeted throughout. I would almost defy anyone to tell the
difference between pictures taken inside regular "stick" homes and those
taken inside manufactured homes. Most are really more comfortable and
spacious than new stick homes. By the way, they even make two story homes
these days.
In addition, they are energy efficient. I would estimate that the
gas/electric bills combined run about 100 dollars a month - or less, even
during the winter. Plus, they require minimal maintaining and landscaping.
Mobile home owners are usually upper low income to low middle class income,
and are hard working wage earners. But, even more prevalent are the number
of elderly on low and fixed incomes who own these homes. It is estimated
that nearly 80 percent of mobile home residents fit into this last category
throughout the entire state of California - and the rest of the country for
that matter.
I think those that are against this proposed upgrade of the existing
community look into what it will be when in place, and not equate it with
what it is now.
Gus Colgain,
State President
CMRAA
California Mobile Home Owners Resources and Action Association - a state
non-profit advocacy organization.
408-306-4049
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(my rebuttal)
To Whom It May Concern:
I was asked to respond to the article by Steve Prisament called...
"Residents come out en masse to protest proposed mobile home park." That
request came from Gus Colgain, State President of CMRAA (California Mobile
Home Owners Resources and Action Association - a state non-profit advocacy
organization.) Actually, it is my pleasure to do, for quite possibly my
words will help public officials understand what's actually going on here
with all these conventional home owners protecting as they have. And that
reason is very simply... property values. The bottom line is quite easy to
see from their prospective; they feel if a mobile home park is built close
by, their potential property values will go down. Unfortunately, this has
been the misconception all around the state, and elsewhere for that matter,
and it simply stems from a lack of awareness as to what manufactured homes
actually are today, along with the type and caliber of people who buy them.
But for now, let me give you a little background information in the way of a
true story that took place not too long ago. And that has to do with a new
manufactured home that I put on private land in the City of Lomita,
California. A young couple inherited some property, with an old house on it
originally built in 1924, when their grandmother died. The house was very
old and run down, and would be way too expensive to even consider fixing up.
In that year, it wasn't even insulated. So their alternative was to demolish
it and build a conventional house, or demolish it and replace it with a new
manufactured home.
Cost was obviously a deciding factor for this young couple, so they opted
for the manufactured home. Originally, a major concern to them was how the
neighborhood would actually feel when they discovered that a mobile home
(trailer) would be coming in their nice quite and upscale neighborhood. And
that's apparently the same concept that we have here in reference to the
article by Prisament.
And the neighborhood were indeed quite vocal to this young couple, telling
then... "why do you want one of those tin-sided trailers, especially here in
our nice neighborhood." But the couple had done their homework in this case,
seemingly unlike those in Prisament article, and they knew exactly at they
were doing. In reality, it was on my advice to this couple to just more
forward, for in time the neighbors will see for themselves. You just can't
explain things to those who don't want to listen. And once the manufactured
home was in, everyone was indeed surprised. Their reaction... it doesn't
look like a trailer or mobile home at all.
And it won't, for every manufactured home built today in California must
meet HUD standards, the very same construction codes as any conventional
built house. The only difference is, the manufactured home, originally being
built in a factory under controlled conditions, cost far less. Likewise, not
only was the neighborhood pleasantly surprised, but the property values of
everyone actually increased a bit. For now it is the newest and best looking
home around, far exceeding anything that was already there.
Now Prisament went on to show, for the most part, that these residents were
rather unruly, with idle threats, innuendos, undermining the caliber of the
people involved, and all the typical 'trailer trash type rhetoric of those
seeing things from the wrong perspective. If one does want to look at this
logically, the so-called 'trailer' park was there long before they were, but
now only becomes as issue because it will be seen, not just heard,
Therefore, there is no point for me to even address all the misconceptions
during this meeting, for it's kind of like where I live in Huntington Beach,
California. Once the developers and resorts got in, as so typical, then the
concept changed. This area is too good for the likes of an old 'trailer'
park. Yet, we're still here, and the resorts has been in foreclosure twice
now. Yes, it was a fight to stay where we were, but we held out, and low and
behold, all properties values increased anyway. And none of the new
manufactured homes being used to help upgrade our community are even
considered"green," as will be when this new manufactured home community
comes about. I bet the residents of the conventional housing can even say
that.
Sincerely,
John Sisker
Founding Director,
Manufactured Home Owners Network
www.mfghomeowners.net
(714) 536-3850
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(manufactured homes in cities)
-- Housing Experts Build the Case for Manufactured Homes in Cities --
Routledge Journals
Manufactured housing could solve the affordable homes crisis in urban areas,
but only if planners help local people to overcome their prejudices.
Writing in the Winter issue of the Journal of the American Planning
Association (JAPA), two leading urban affairs and planning experts -
Professor Casey Dawkins and Professor Theodore Koebel from the Center of
Housing Research at Virginia Tech in the US - urge urban planning officers
to support proposals for prefabricated homes.
They argue that the planning process discriminates against people on low
incomes unless planners speak up for the design improvements, longevity and
value for money that make manufactured housing a feasible and affordable
alternative to traditionally built homes.
Their new research shows that planners see high land prices and citizen
opposition as the biggest barriers to manufactured housing developments in
urban areas. Dawkins and Koebel want planners to educate their local
communities away from thinking that manufactured housing means 'mobile'
homes, 'trailer parks' and anti-social behaviour. They say planners should
be counteracting these 'not in my back yard' prejudices by highlighting how
modern designs can blend in with existing neighborhoods and provide
permanent dwellings for teachers, firemen and other essential workers.
"Modern prefabricated homes don't have to be the ugly boxes we associate
with out-of-town trailer parks," said Professor Dawkins. "Modern designs are
built to last, and can include pitched roofs, cladding and other attractive
features. They offer the same quality as many site-built homes, but are much
more affordable because they cost less to make."
Information on JAPA is available from: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/rjpa
To view the article for free please visit:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a917603654
Routledge Journals is part of Taylor & Francis, an Informal business, and is
one of the world's leading publishers of academic journals. Taylor & Francis
is dedicated to the dissemination of scholarly information, drawing on
expertise developed since first publishing learned journals in 1798. Taylor
& Francis now publishes over 1,250 scholarly journals, of which more than
340 are produced in association with learned societies and scholarly
institutions. The Company operates from a network of 19 global offices,
including Philadelphia, Oxford, Melbourne, Stockholm, Beijing, New Delhi and
Singapore.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(the perfect solution)
-- A Perfect Solution for the U.S. Housing Crisis --
By Jeff Nielson
Vancouver World Money
Once again, I'm indebted to a reader for inspiring my latest commentary.
Every once in a while, you stumble across an idea which is simply a perfect
fit with a particular scenario. This was what occurred to me this morning,
after reading through a fascinating historical account of the U.S. housing
market � going all the way back to pre-Confederation.
During the course of that discussion, the author, Martin Armstrong also
referred to even earlier crises in other housing markets � including the
property �bubble� experienced by Ancient Rome. It was here that I came
across a 2,000 year old solution which, to the best of my knowledge has not
been suggested by anyone, since the current collapse in the U.S. housing
market began.
Faced with his own foreclosure-nightmare, Julius Caesar came up with a
decisive and practical means to cure the solvency crisis which was at the
heart of that real estate meltdown. Caesar decreed, according to Armstrong,
that all mortgage interest would be canceled. Thus, all mortgage payments
would be credited 100% to principal.
Not only did this decree have the effect of essentially making all
property-owners solvent again, but with 100% of payments credited to
principal, it also meant that (with the exception of extremely �underwater�
mortgages) property-owners would immediately begin building up equity in
their properties again.
What makes this such an interesting solution for the U.S. housing market is
that if we believe the information being provided to us by the U.S.
government and Wall Street banks, this �fix� is much more suitable for
today's U.S. housing market than it was for the Roman market of 2,000 years
ago.
Here's why. While Caesar's solution may (at first glance) seem like a
win/win proposition, there is one obvious loser: the bankers who financed
these mortgages. The problem for Ancient Rome's economy was that in times of
a real estate meltdown, in virtually every scenario in history, these real
estate meltdowns decimate both the assets and income of the banks, as well.
This is why Caesar's solution is such a perfect idea for the U.S. housing
market. Unlike virtually every other real estate meltdown in history, both
the U.S. government and Wall Street are telling us that U.S. big-banks are
making �record profits�. This means that they can easily afford to take the
�hits� to their bottom-lines that would accompany writing off all interest
on their mortgages.
The second reason why Caesar's solution is perfect for the U.S. housing
market is that (thanks to taxpayer subsidies), these same U.S. big-banks are
borrowing all of their own money at 0% interest.
Clearly, if Wall Street banks are raking-in �record profits� due in large
part to the endless supply of free money from the U.S. government (and
taxpayers), while U.S. homeowners are being thrown out into the street, with
their homes confiscated, that these same homeowners are equally entitled (if
not much more entitled) to their own 0% interest loans.
The reward for this policy (which would benefit all homeowners) is that far
fewer homeowners would be pushed into foreclosure, and because the vast
majority would all be building-up equity again, there would not be the huge
incentive for homeowners to walk-away from their mortgages. This combined
effect would nearly end the continued build-up of housing inventories (see
�More Nonsense in U.S. Housing Numbers�).
The obvious fairness and inherent symmetry of allowing U.S. homeowners the
same 0% free-ride on their loans that Wall Street banks have capitalized on
for the last 18 months would seem to eliminate any possible objection to
this plan...unless the financial health of the U.S. financial sector is not
what Wall Street, the U.S. government, and the media talking-heads claim it
to be.
I would encourage every American with a mortgage to contact their
Congressman, and demand equal treatment with Wall Street: their own 0%
mortgages. Clearly, after Wall Street has received its $10 trillion in
hand-outs/loans/guarantees, it is time that the American people received
their bail-out � as opposed to the make-believe housing-fixes which the U.S.
government has engaged in to date.
There could be no possible objection to this proposal from either the Obama
regime, or the opposition Republicans � assuming they still have some
slight, sentimental attachment to the notion that they work for the American
people.
I eagerly look forward to feedback from my American readers as to how their
Congressmen responded to this perfect solution.
Disclosure: none
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(money for this old place)
Hi, John:
I came across your website while searching for local mobile home
manufacturers. What a great service you offer for all of us. I'm writing
you for advice/ideas because I am one of the many residents who has been
caught in the Huntington Harbour Estates Park fiasco.
I'm sure you know all the horrid details covering the last three years. I
own a very old, in need of every repair, 1973 mobile home. I have called
several dealers to see if they would offer even a small amount of money in
order to secure the space for one of their new homes and no one is
interested.
I cannot afford to stay here. I thought perhaps, you could guide me toward
businesses (I couldn't find anything online) that specialize in removal and
clean-up of these old homes. Can you think of any way I could possibly
realize any money for this old place?
I appreciate any help you can give me.
Karen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(Huntington Beach, California)
Hi Karen,
I can certainly understand your frustration, especially in Huntington
Harbour Estates. However, what you seek is a scenario of long ago, and that
particular park makes conditions even worse. It was just a few years ago,
before the real estate market, and economy, were hit hard, plus the fact
that instead of the park residents getting together and purchasing the park
themselves, a real estate speculator stepped in and bought the park out from
under you. Yet, that's a whole different story; how it turns out, no one
knows at this time. But with a projected rent of $2,141 a month, we can all
see what's coming.
No dealer, even the one I'm associated with (Modular Lifestyles), would be
interesting in any space in that park at this time. Years ago, dealers would
indeed pay top dollar just to get a space in that park, hence purchasing an
older home such as yours. That just doesn't happen anymore, especially that
now it would be the dealers responsibility to pay the rent each and every
month. And in Huntington Harbour Estates, that would certainly be a foolish
investment, for no one know what is going to happen, even if it will remain
a mobile home park at all in the near future.
The same holds true in a way with the older mobile homes. Once removed from
that space, it would be heading for the scrap yard. It is a pre HUD built
home, no parks will take it, no banks will loan on it, and the state won't
even issue an occupancy permit on it. In other words, at one time it was
worth something because of the space and location. But now that the park
carriers a big question mark over it, it makes the home practically
worthless.
Now I'm sure this is something you did not want to hear, but I have a
feeling you're not all that surprise with the answer. Right now, I don't
know of any dealer who would even want that home for free, for it is just
not even a sound investment, considering that they then pay the rent.
However, if you just want out, and a few bucks in your pocket, why not
approach the new management/owner of the park? Depending on their ultimate
goal for the park itself, maybe they will take it off your hands for a few
bucks just for the space.
Good luck and let me know what happens. It would be interesting to see what
the park itself says.
John Sisker
Founding Director,
Manufactured Home Owners Network
www.mfghomeowners.net
jsi...@sprynet.com
(714) 536-3850
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(blowing in the wind)
Hi, John:
Thank you so much for the time and courtesy you gave my request. If nothing
else, you clarified what I had been told. Any of us who have told
management that we will not be staying have until June to leave at which
time if we haven't been able to move we then can "negotiate" with
management.......something similar to having a root canal I'm assuming.
I'm going to "give it a rest" for some weeks (mainly to retain my sanity)
and see what is blowing in the wind at that time.
I have no compunction in simply advertising the home as "free" to a licensed
contractor who will do a pull-out and clean up for scrap value.
Isn't it sad that nice people suddenly have to find those such as Burham (or
"The Snake" as I refer to him out of ear-shot of my grandchildren) in our
lives............lesson to be learned here.
Again, thank you, and enjoy the Super Bowl!
Karen
P.S. Yes, I will let you know the progress of this Soap Opera!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(wrong address)
John,
You have the wrong address for the PA-MHOA. If there is someone operating
this at this location, they have no authority.
Deborah
Programs Coordinator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(I have no way of knowing)
Deborah,
Thanks for this information, but unless someone in that area sees fit to
inform me of such changes, I would have no way of knowing. In other words, I
have to rely on each state to keep up with their own information and let me
know so I can indeed change such information on my website - if appropriate.
Likewise, it is also necessary when updating such data, that the person
informing me of such changes, actually has the authority to do so, thus
eliminating a free-for-all in some type of power struggle.
I will circulate this notice in the next circulation of the Manufactured
Home E-Mail Net(work), so hopefully Pennsylvania and other states will take
notice and inform me of any and/or all changes.
Thanks again,
John Sisker
jsi...@sprynet.com
www.mfghomeowners.net
(714) 536-3850
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(not in operation at this time)
Oh I understand very well. I am the founder of PAMHOA and the last location
for our office was in Chester County. PAMHOA is not in operation at the
present time... no one came forward to carry on. The address you have is
for a former Treasurer who was dismissed. I am not sure how to direct you.
PAMHOA was never officially closed. I supposed with all the hard work that
went into this over the years there was always the hope that we would find
the magical person to take this on.
Let me know if I can be of further assistance.
Deborah
Programs Coordinator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(change or delete it)
Deborah,
Based on this information, I can either change all contact information to
you, or simply eliminate the PAMHOA reference altogether. What do you think?
John Sisker
jsi...@sprynet.com
www.mfghomeowners.net
(714) 536-3850
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(is your state organization's information correct?)
For now, I would eliminate it. I no longer have a phone # for the
organization. As you can see from my email, I have gone into another
field!! Still doing lots of housing!!
Deborah
Programs Coordinator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(check out www.mfghomeowners.net/Associations to find out)
Thanks Deborah,
The PAMHOA has now been eliminated.
John Sisker
jsi...@sprynet.com
www.mfghomeowners.net
(714) 536-3850
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(why is the sister, and not the brother, contacting me?)
Hi John, have a question, My brother lives in a mobile home in Escondido CA
and Code Enforcement there documented a violation of "There is an unapproved
hazardous wire attached to the security light at the rear exit. Remove the
hazardous wire." Now my brother wants to put in a sensor light so that the
light goes on automatically. He thinks that the sensor lights are not
allowed on the mobile homes, but after reading the statement from the report
it seems it was just a loose wire of some kind that was a fire hazard. Would
you agree? Since we own the mobile home on rented space it would be silly
for us not to be allowed to have a sensor light.
Maureen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(why would a senor light not be allowed?)
Maureen,
I don't see why a senor light would not be allowed, after all, it just a
regular light with a different switch. "An unapproved hazardous wire"
implies to me, that a light is allowed, it is just not wired correctly,
and/or something unauthorized has been attached to it.
I hope this helps.
John Sisker
jsi...@sprynet.com
www.mfghomeowners.net
(714) 536-3850
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(piece-meal information leads everyone in the wrong direction)
It turns out that this simply inquiry was actually a lot more involved than
was originally presented here. Unfortunately, this is all too often a common
occurrence with some residents, presenting just piece-meal information in
order to get a consensus of what they want to hear and do. Yet, once a few
more questions are asked, the story mysteriously changes, and the original
inquiry has very little to do with reality. By not being honest and up front
to begin with, many people trying to help, end up spinning their wheels with
suggestions and advice that they thought would help. Yet, once the truth was
known, the original advice actually had very little to do with the reality
of the situation. In fact, when these residents did not hear what they
wanted, then they started hitting up all the organizations, but
unfortunately with the original piece-meal story.
My suggestions for anyone needing help and/or advice. Get to the point.
Don't make up a side story almost unrelated to the actual situation, and
present all the facts - good or bad. The answer will eventually be what it
is anyway, but if one wastes everyone else's time, additional support may be
very slow in coming, if at all. We're here to help if we can, but we all
need to have the actual facts before we can do any good.
John Sisker
jsi...@sprynet.com
www.mfghomeowners.net
(714) 536-3850
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(unlawful detainer assistance)
I was searching the Internet for some information regarding defending myself
against a UD I was served with last week. Even though I have the money for
an attorney, finding one has been for naught. That said, I am well versed
in the law, but lack some key information to back up my case.
Note: I am not the only person in the community (Pecan Community
Association, represented by the Loftin Firm). We have been in contact with
Tim at GSMOL, but he is extremely busy of late in some rent review hearings,
etc.)
To summarize, I have requested, every year, for 10 years a 12-month lease. I
have been denied that (by no response) for all but one year when, as a
result of a settlement, my landlord was forced to give me one (PCA
vs ---------, UE 012083, CA Superior Court). The following year (2005) it
was back to ignoring my requests for a lease. With the lack of a lease, I
have continued to pay my agreed upon payment of $565.88, plus an additional
volunteered amount of $100, every month.
With the recent hard times, I became unemployed and behind on my rent. When
I was given a 3 & 16-day notice, I offered a cashiers check for 5 months
rent (I was behind 5 months) at $665.88 per month. The check was denied and
I have been served with a UD on the basis that since 2005 I have been a
month-to-month and they can charge me whatever they want.
The plaintiff's attorney insists that they do not ever have to offer me a
lease and that they have been and are within their rights to charge me
whatever they want (currently $1,000, last year $950, the previous year
$850).
If I can simply find one case showing precedence that I am correct and they
are not, then I can not only make them accept my payment, but I can sue for
damages and put an end to the torture they have inflicted upon this park.
Thanks in advance for any help you can provide.
Paul
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(a lease doesn't have to be offered)
Dear Paul:
First of all, thanks for contacting me at the Manufactured Home Owners
Network at www.mfghomeowners.net. However, I do need to point out that I am
not a lawyer, so can't speak from actual case law. Yet, from my
understanding, park owners are not required to offer a lease if they don't
want to, but if they do, then they have to offer a long-term lease (12
months or longer), a short-term lease (under 12 months), and a month to
month tendency. Without a some type of lease, then you are automatically on
a month-to-month tendency.
In fact, the park I live in, Pacific Mobile Home Park in Huntington Beach,
has not offered a lease in over 10 years now, hence everyone is
automatically on a month to month tendency. Likewise, the law allows the
park owners to raise the rent to any amount that they want, and every 90
days if they saw fit. Yet, many residents somehow think a lease makes them
immune from this type situation, but with so many hidden pass-throughs in a
lease, one never really knows what they will be paying at any period of time
anyway.
However, either way, if the rent is late 3 times in any given one years
period, the park can start legal eviction procedures. If they are really
serious about this, they will not accept any future checks or monies, for
then they would need to start the eviction procedure all over again. So
unless you can find a lawyer who can find a loophole in this law, it seems
that the park is quite serious with this, especially with serving you an
unlawful detainer and not accepting your checks.
Other than trying to make nice, and come to some type of compromise with the
park, it looks like this park is quite serious with their intent. I know
that this is something you did not want to hear, but facts are facts, and
unfortunately now you need to play the hand your dealt. On the other hand, I
obviously do not know the settlement agreement in your case UE 012083, but I
have a feeling that the park owner feels they are no longer under any
obligation to do anything agreed to prior to this time, or you would not
have been served with this unlawful detainer.
Good luck,
John Sisker
Founding Director
Manufactured Home Owners Network
www.mfghomeowners.net
jsi...@sprynet.com
(714) 536-3850
===============================================================================================================================
Sincerely,
John Sisker
Founding Director
Manufactured Home Owners Network
www.mfghomeowners.net
jsi...@sprynet.com
www.mfghomespecialist.net
(800) 724-6644 & (Phone ID: 714.536.3850)
Fax: (801) 365-8205
(714) 536-3850
Be sure to click on and read all pages setting forth disclaimers, copyright&
trademark notices, responsibility statements, etc. within the Manufactured
Home (Owners) Network at www.mfghomeowners.net under the Structure,
Responsibility & Statements sections.
No matter how you became affiliated to this particular e-mail circulation
list, to stop receiving e-mail from the Manufactured Home E-Mail Net(work),
send an e-mail message addressed to jsi...@sprynet.com or simply reply with
the word 'Remove' in the Subject line.