Mobile Home Park Conversion (Ordinances)
Submitted by: tribex21
7 February 2007 - 9:14pm
I'm looking into Mobile Home Park Conversion Ordinances in California. Specically wondering whether anyone is aware of any particularly strong local (city/county) ordinance(s)... building on the framework of the Subdiv. Map Act and other state requirements as opposed to merely duplicating those regulations. I'd appreciate any leads on particularly cities/counties to research further.
Thanks!
»
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
County's Conversion Ordinance Upheld in Court
Sonoma County's Mobilehome Park Conversion Ordinance was recently upheld in court. For a copy of the ordinance or the Order After Hearing, please email me at jriley1@sonoma-county.org
Mobile Home Park Conversion Ordinance
We adopted one post-El Dorado and post-Keely. email me at jriley1@sonoma-county.org for a copy :-)
Mobile Home Park Conversion Ordinances
The State Subdivision Map Act is quite specific and takes away any discretion a city has on these types of projects. If cities try and go above and beyond State law, they get sued (see El Dorado Palm Springs v. City of Palm Springs (2002)). So, other than moratoriums, I think most ordinances you see will mimic State law. Hope this helps.
Yes, Marc-- Cities up an
Yes, Marc--
Cities up an down the state are being sued for mobile home park conversion ordinances. They are all being sued by the same lawyer--the notorious Richard Close of Santa Monica. That is his M.O.,to sue cities.
The fact that lawsuits have been filed, does not mean they will succeed. In fact, I know of none of these lawsuits where the park owner has prevailed against the city (correct me if I'm wrong). On the other hand, some of the lawsuits have been thrown out, where the cities have won the case.
So--it is meaningless, to bring up the fact, that Richard Close is suing tons of cities. That is what he does.
Please See My Comment Date
Please note that my comment date was early 2007, before new legislation was proposed or adopted. At that time, the Map Act did govern for lease to ownership conversions (per our City Attorney). Please refer to later posts by others which updates the information I provided.
Please "correct me if I'm wrong": Refer to the case I cited, El Dorado vs. Palm Springs. The park owner won.
Marc
deleted
deleted
Lawsuits against cities by mobile home park owners
Yes, Marc. The park owner won in El Dorado case. That was before the Keeley bill, however.
(What city are you in, by the way?)
Since then, most cases have not been settled. However, the lawsuit against Sonoma County (again, by lawyer Richard Close, always that same attorney) was dismissed in court. See http://shamconversions.com/2007/12/16/sonoma-county-sued-by-owners-of-se... for more info.
However, it seems that very recently the owner of two MH parks in Carson prevailed in L.A. Superior Court (Judge Chalfant, Bench 85) against the City of Carson, in a conversion case. The city is appealing. So, now the score in these lawsuits (not counting El Dorado, which was under different law), is 1 to 1, a tie.
You can see Judge Chalfant's ruling against the city of Carson at:
http://home.znet.com/myweb/CarsonRuling.pdf
Any opinions, on how good the chances are of this ruling being overturned on appeal?
Mobilehome Park Conversion Ordinances
California Government Code section 66427.5 was amended to address the El Dorado decision. It now calls for a resident survey to be submitted at the map approval hearing. The purpose of the survey is to determine, inter alia, whether the proposed park conversion is bona fide or merely a sham to avoid local rent control. A number of cities and counties have therefore enacted ordinances which flesh out what must be contained in the surveys and factors that may be considered in determining whether a conversion is bona fide. I currently represent the City of Capitola which recently enacted a conversion ordinance. The Counties of Santa Cruz and Sonoma have likewise enacted conversion ordinances which are the subject of pending lawsuits.
I have another question
I have another question about this subject.
First--I think there is a very good chance of getting much better state law concerning this issue in 2011. AB1542 passed both houses of the legislature, and would be the law now, if not for the action of one man--Schwarzenegger's veto of it. New gubernatorial elections will be held in 2010, and a new governor, most likely a Democrat, will take office in January 2011, and very likely sign a new such law by the legislature.
Now, for the question part. If a mobile home park owner files his initial application for conversion now,is he exempt from new legislation, if it becomes law after his initial application has been filed, even though his park has not yet been converted?
Or--would the new state law become effective immediately for all parks under threat of conversion, even if the process has already begun?
Does anyone know of
Does anyone know of something that happened in the city of Carson recently, with their MH park conversion ordinance?
I heard a rumor, but cannot find info on it on the web.
I found out more about this,
I found out more about this, although I just mentioned it in another post.
Judge Chalfant of L.A. Superior Court ruled against the City of Carson, which was sued by MH park owner James Goldstein.
The city is appealing.
Does anyone here know more about this? What chance do you think the city has of winning the appeal?
Edit--I found a copy of the ruling on the web. You can see it at:
http://home.znet.com/myweb/CarsonRuling.pdf
So, for those who read it, I would be curious about your opinion, whether or not you think this judge's ruling will stand, or whether it will be overturned on appeal?