Comments for AROUND CALIFORNIA - NEWS FOR OWNERS OF MOBILE/MANUFACTURED HOMES http://aroundcalifornia.comocal.org The Coalition of Mobilehome Owners - California The Voice of mobilehome owners in California Mon, 22 Nov 2010 23:56:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 Comment on LOS ANGELES MOBILE HOME PARK TASK FORCE (MHPTF) by Sally Younce http://aroundcalifornia.comocal.org/los-angeles-mobile-home-park-task-force-mhptf/#comment-43 Sally Younce Mon, 22 Nov 2010 23:56:27 +0000 http://comocal.wordpress.com/?p=253#comment-43 I just found out about comocal and have been a mobile home owner in Santiago Estates Riverside since 1996. I had been paying 4% rent increases annually since I signed a new lease in 2006 on a presumed 5 year lease. (BTW, I was never offered anything else.)Last year in 2010 I was informed by a neighbord that her rent wasn't going up at all because she's on rent control. What's rent control? We then brought out my lease to find out exactly when it expired only to see it had said it was a 5 year lease but the term had been written for 14 mos. My neighbor asked about this and I told her that I questioned this at the time I signed it and I was told by the manager my lease contains an automatic renewal clause so I don't have to resign anything every year. Might I add that my increase notices every year said my rent was being increased by 4% per CPI. I knew at this point CPI for 2010 was 0%. I then reviewed all my increase notices since I signed the presumed 5 year lease and they all said CPI was 4% each year. On a year to year lease I would have fallen under rent control. With all the discrepencies in my paperwork I decided to challenge the owner on my lease and increases over the past 4 years.I then calculated my overpayment of rent for each year I was under rent control and what my new base rent would be. I sent a letter to the owner with this information and he called me. He said he didn't owe me anything because I signed a five year lease @ 4% annual increases and since I have been paying it therefore it makes it legal. I challenged him to put that in writing and sign it. The first letter I reviewed from him(which came through the management) said that he did not owe me anything and I have my information wrong and I still have one more year on my 5 year lease and when that expires I can go on rent control. There was just one little problem, he didn't sign it. When I refused to except this unsigned letter he then re issued another letter a couple days letter. Needless to say when I got my signed letter it came with a check for overpayment of rent, my base rent was dropped and I was offered to sign a new lease per annual CPI increase or here's the kicker "ANOTHER MULTI YEAR LEASE". I then called him to ask him what made him change his position but he has never returned my calls. The manager told me "he probably doesn't think you're worth the trouble". I then presumed I had to be the only person that didn't know about rent control because it had been in force in Riverside since 1992. Now this year I see CPI increase is 0.64%. I have seen 2011 rent increase notices from other neighbors where CPI is 3% and some say 4%. We really have no idea what is going on in here anymore with these increases and leases with automatic renewals but when we question the management or residents committee they tell us we're just stirring up headaches for all the residents. We are not going to give up the fight on educating residents in our park about rent control. I just found out about comocal and have been a mobile home owner in Santiago Estates Riverside since 1996. I had been paying 4% rent increases annually since I signed a new lease in 2006 on a presumed 5 year lease. (BTW, I was never offered anything else.)Last year in 2010 I was informed by a neighbord that her rent wasn’t going up at all because she’s on rent control. What’s rent control? We then brought out my lease to find out exactly when it expired only to see it had said it was a 5 year lease but the term had been written for 14 mos. My neighbor asked about this and I told her that I questioned
this at the time I signed it and I was told by the manager my lease contains an automatic renewal clause so I don’t have to resign anything every year. Might I add that my increase notices every year said my rent was being increased by 4% per CPI. I knew at this point CPI for 2010 was 0%. I then reviewed all my increase notices since I signed the presumed 5 year lease and they all said CPI was 4% each year. On a year to year lease I would have fallen under rent control. With all the discrepencies in my paperwork I decided to challenge the owner on my lease and increases over the past 4 years.I then calculated my overpayment of rent for each year I was under rent control and what my new base rent would be. I sent a letter to the owner with this information and he called me. He said he didn’t owe me anything because I signed a five year lease @ 4% annual increases and since I have been paying it therefore it makes it legal. I challenged him to put that in writing and sign it. The first letter I reviewed from him(which came through the management) said that he did not owe me anything and I have my information wrong and I still have one more year on my 5 year lease and when that expires I can go on rent control. There was just one little problem, he didn’t sign it. When I refused to except this unsigned letter he then re issued another letter a couple days letter. Needless to say when I got my signed letter it came with a check for overpayment of rent, my base rent was dropped and I was offered to sign a new lease per annual CPI increase or here’s the kicker “ANOTHER MULTI YEAR LEASE”. I then called him to ask him what made him change his position but he has never returned my calls. The manager told me “he probably doesn’t think you’re worth the trouble”. I then presumed I had to be the only person that didn’t know about rent control because it had been in force in Riverside since 1992. Now this year I see CPI increase is 0.64%. I have seen 2011 rent increase notices from other neighbors where CPI is 3% and some say 4%. We really have no idea what is going on in here anymore with these increases and leases with automatic renewals but when we question the management or residents committee they tell us we’re just stirring up headaches for all the residents. We are not going to give up the fight on educating residents in our park about rent control.

]]> Comment on Downloads by catherine eldridge http://aroundcalifornia.comocal.org/downloads/#comment-30 catherine eldridge Sat, 23 Oct 2010 01:00:36 +0000 http://comocal.wordpress.com/#comment-30 i did not receive my sept-oct 2010 voice. also, where is the download of frequently asked questions located? i did not receive my sept-oct 2010 voice.

also, where is the download of frequently asked questions located?

]]> Comment on Council sides with mobile home residents, Chino… by Barbara Marlo http://aroundcalifornia.comocal.org/council-sides-with-mobile-home-residents-chino/#comment-12 Barbara Marlo Wed, 25 Aug 2010 01:34:16 +0000 http://comocal.wordpress.com/?p=301#comment-12 Atty Close HAS filed a lawsuit against the City of Chino. We have heard two different amounts; 34 million and 28 million dollars in damages. He also filed a 2nd suit, to overturn the City Council's vote to stop the conversion. We are presently attempting to raise funds to pay our attorney, Will Constantine, to stage an "intervention" at the court proceedings. In a survey conducted by the city, 82% of our residents fall into the low income bracket. In our own survey/petition 93.5% of our residents oppose the conversion on the grounds that when they lose the protection of the City of Chino's rent control, the majority of us will not be able to afford the increased space rent. Atty Close HAS filed a lawsuit against the City of Chino. We have heard two different amounts; 34 million and 28 million dollars in damages. He also filed a 2nd suit, to overturn the City Council’s vote to stop the conversion. We are presently attempting to raise funds to pay our attorney, Will Constantine, to stage an “intervention” at the court proceedings.
In a survey conducted by the city, 82% of our residents fall into the low income bracket. In our own survey/petition 93.5% of our residents oppose the conversion on the grounds that when they lose the protection of the City of Chino’s rent control, the majority of us will not be able to afford the increased space rent.

]]> Comment on Mobile Park Residents Face Eviction – Pulse of the Bay – The Bay Citizen by Rob Melendrez http://aroundcalifornia.comocal.org/mobile-park-residents-face-eviction-pulse-of-the-bay-the-bay-citizen/#comment-7 Rob Melendrez Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:05:39 +0000 http://aroundcalifornia.comocal.org/?p=601#comment-7 This sad situation is playing out all over the country as large development corporations are buying up Mobile Home Parks. Since Mobile Home law is vague and not well defined, there are many loopholes by which clever teams of attorneys and park owners can badger, evict, and eventually seize homes that rightfully belong to the tenants. Please, please educate yourselves! Form homeowner groups! This seizure of property and rights as homeowners must be stopped! This sad situation is playing out all over the country as large development corporations are buying up Mobile Home Parks. Since Mobile Home law is vague and not well defined, there are many loopholes by which clever teams of attorneys and park owners can badger, evict, and eventually seize homes that rightfully belong to the tenants. Please, please educate yourselves! Form homeowner groups! This seizure of property and rights as homeowners must be stopped!

]]> Comment on WMA Code of Ethics by Brett Jones http://aroundcalifornia.comocal.org/wma-code-of-ethics/#comment-2 Brett Jones Sat, 05 Jun 2010 09:22:15 +0000 http://comocal.wordpress.com/?p=143#comment-2 Interesting info! Too bad many park owners/management, do everything but follow rules like this. If memory serves me right, my park owners are members of the WMA, egregiously violate these rules in all of their 20 parks throughout California. My compliments Frank & his people for putting together this blog site Interesting info!
Too bad many park owners/management, do everything but follow rules like this.
If memory serves me right, my park owners are members of the WMA, egregiously violate these rules in all of their 20 parks throughout California.
My compliments Frank & his people for putting together this blog site

]]> Comment on City of Poway to Sell Mobile Home Park to Hometown by fawodley http://aroundcalifornia.comocal.org/city-of-poway-to-sell-mobile-home-park-to-hometown/#comment-4 fawodley Fri, 04 Jun 2010 18:23:20 +0000 http://comocal.wordpress.com/?p=167#comment-4 Thanks Suzanne for your thoughtful comment, you are the FIRST to post a comment and I do appreciate it - I hope others will read it and respond,   Frank A. Wodley President, CoMO-CAL Home:  818-886-6479 Toll Free: 800-929-6061 email (alt):  comocal@yahoo.com Mailing:  P.O. Box 4821 Chatsworth, Ca. 91313 Thanks Suzanne for your thoughtful comment, you are the FIRST to post a comment and I do appreciate it – I hope others will read it and respond,   Frank A. Wodley President, CoMO-CAL Home:  818-886-6479 Toll Free: 800-929-6061 email (alt):  comocal@yahoo.com Mailing:  P.O. Box 4821 Chatsworth, Ca. 91313

]]> Comment on City of Poway to Sell Mobile Home Park to Hometown by Suzanne Angeo http://aroundcalifornia.comocal.org/city-of-poway-to-sell-mobile-home-park-to-hometown/#comment-3 Suzanne Angeo Fri, 04 Jun 2010 18:01:05 +0000 http://comocal.wordpress.com/?p=167#comment-3 Does anyone know if Hometown America has ever attemped MHP "condo-conversions", where MHP landowners subdivide the lots to get rid of rent control and maximize their profits at the expense of the residents? While the City of Poway may not be under rent control, this story does not go far enough in explaining the difference between residents owning their spaces (subdivision) and owning the Park (Resident Owned as non-profit). Did Poway Royal residents want a subdivision, or did they want Resident-Owned non-profit ownership? Maybe the reporter didn't have the time to research this, or maybe it's just ignorance. A similar situation occurred in Marin County, but with a different outcome. The City of Novato held title to Marin Valley MHP for several years, and has begun the title transfer process directly to the residents, who will own the park as a non-profit. Instead of owning subdivided spaces, each resident will own an undivided interest in the Park. This is the ideal situation where residents themselves own and have control of the Park, and instead of "rent" they pay a space fee that covers the Park mortgage loans, HOA dues etc. Property taxes and space fees are kept low, and affordable housing is preserved for one of the most expensive housing markets in the US - Marin County. The MHs in Marin Valley may be more expensive than in other parts of the state, but the prices are very low compared with the typical "real estate" house in Marin. We know people who live there, and they are very pleased! Does anyone know if Hometown America has ever attemped MHP “condo-conversions”, where MHP landowners subdivide the lots to get rid of rent control and maximize their profits at the expense of the residents? While the City of Poway may not be under rent control, this story does not go far enough in explaining the difference between residents owning their spaces (subdivision) and owning the Park (Resident Owned as non-profit). Did Poway Royal residents want a subdivision, or did they want Resident-Owned non-profit ownership? Maybe the reporter didn’t have the time to research this, or maybe it’s just ignorance. A similar situation occurred in Marin County, but with a different outcome. The City of Novato held title to Marin Valley MHP for several years, and has begun the title transfer process directly to the residents, who will own the park as a non-profit. Instead of owning subdivided spaces, each resident will own an undivided interest in the Park. This is the ideal situation where residents themselves own and have control of the Park, and instead of “rent” they pay a space fee that covers the Park mortgage loans, HOA dues etc. Property taxes and space fees are kept low, and affordable housing is preserved for one of the most expensive housing markets in the US – Marin County. The MHs in Marin Valley may be more expensive than in other parts of the state, but the prices are very low compared with the typical “real estate” house in Marin. We know people who live there, and they are very pleased!

]]>