Home › News › County News
Mobile-home rent-control bill vetoed
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS
More from County News
SACRAMENTO — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill on Friday that would have preserved rent-control protections for residents of mobile home parks that are partially converted to condominium ownership.
The bill had been closely watched in Ventura County, where the owners of at least four parks have begun proceedings to convert to condominiums.
"It feels like a kick in the solar plexus," said Supervisor Steve Bennett of Ventura when informed of the veto. Bennett had helped mobilize local government officials across the state in support of the bill, AB1542, by Assemblywoman Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa.
In a statement released by her office, Evans called the veto "reckless and cold-hearted," saying that thousands of seniors and working-class families "now face being put out on the street. They were counting on the governor, and he really let them down."
In his veto message, Schwarzenegger noted that statewide rent controls for those classified as low-income will remain in place.
"While the bill's intent is to preserve low-income housing, it also extends rent control in certain circumstances to mobile-home owners in much of the state no matter what their income level," he wrote. "It is unclear what state interest is served by the extension of rent control to those who do not have an economic disadvantage."
Under existing law, when an owner converts a park to condominium ownership, the park is freed from local rent-control ordinances as soon as a single unit is sold. At that point, those classified as low-income are still covered by the state law, but the rent for all others can be raised in stages over four years to whatever market conditions will allow.
Bennett called that a formula to allow a transfer of wealth from moderate-income residents to the owners of their parks.
"Somebody who is a few dollars over the low-income threshold can now watch their rents go up dramatically," he said. "The statewide standard is so inadequate."
More than 300 cities and counties in the state have enacted mobile-home rent-control ordinances in recognition of the unique economic circumstances of those residents. They own their homes but not the land under them, which means the value of their property is largely dependent on the predictability of future rents.
Schwarzenegger said he understands the "uniqueness" of their situation.
"I understand the importance of having stability in your living situation," he said. "This need for stability was eloquently expressed by the many seniors throughout California who have written to me on both sides of this bill."
Schwarzenegger urged lawmakers next year "to find a solution that provides true balance for all the stakeholders involved."
Bennett said he appreciated the governor's invitation to revisit the issue.
"We've got to get back in the saddle and go after it again," he said.
In the meantime, Bennett said, he would ask the county's lawyers to continue to research steps the county might be able to take.
Posted by deandrsn on October 13, 2007 at 7:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
One good reason why I no longer live in California!!
Posted by rebel123 on October 13, 2007 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mobile home condos....what a scam. This is going to put hundreds if not thousands of seniors in California out of a place to live. What the hell is wrong with this state? The "bottom line" mentality that allows people to justify sucking as much profit out of any ownership possible while providing less for their "customers" and in fact making it impossible for the residents to live is appalling.
Posted by Face on October 13, 2007 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It seems by the governor's statements that A. "..noted that statewide rent controls for those classified as low-income will remain in place." and B. "It is unclear what state interest is served by the extension of rent control to those who do not have an economic disadvantage." speak for themselves. There is no "putting grandma to the curb" going on here. Calling someone a pig because they want full value for their asset (land) is infantile. Allow anyone to use "rent control" as a reason to live cheaply results in places like Washington D.C. where frequently couples making over 200K a year are still living in subsidized housing.
Posted by horsespinner on October 13, 2007 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
strike one for sociaists. Question, does the cost of maintaining, taxes, insurance, and utilities say unchanged for the land under a trailer park? Does the value of the land adjacent to the park remain stable? Maybe we can legistate the future and stop all values and kill gobal warming as well.
Posted by Jacksprat on October 13, 2007 at 1:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I moved from Californa when the mobile home park where I lived got a large increase under the rent control law and at that time the board also noted that the oweners could come back the next year for another one, since they did not quit get all they wanted. I could no longer afford to live there. So now more and more of the mobile homes owners will have to find a place to go. No affordable housing left any more in CA.
Posted by spokenit on October 16, 2007 at 7:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I dont think living cheaply is the word. Most places dont deserve the amount of rent they are getting. Its called greed! CA is not going to be afforable for the working class anymore. Its going to go to the gimmie gimmie gimmie's and the Richer then Rich. They will all live together in a happy bucket of California s***
Posted by fraubro on October 19, 2007 at 2:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I voted for you Arnold...never again! This bill was about many thousands of people who NEED affordable housing vs. big money greed. Arnold went to the dark side. His campaign to get elected was all a lie.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.