Home › News › Local News
Royal Palms proposal meets resistance
Owner wants to sell mobile home spaces
An Oxnard mobile home park owner wants to sell individual spaces to tenants, becoming the second landlord to propose a condo-style conversion in the city.
But several residents at the Royal Palms Mobile Home Community — mostly seniors living on fixed incomes — oppose the idea, saying they cannot afford it.
"It's a horrible idea," said Claudia Niell, 83, who has lived at Royal Palms for 24 years.
An attorney for property owner Ezralow Co. of Calabasas said no one would be forced to buy a space. Low-income residents could continue renting their spaces instead of buying them because of state-mandated rent-control laws, he said.
"The main thing is, it's their option," said Mark Alpert, an attorney with the Santa Ana-based law firm Hart, King & Coldren.
Conversions debated
The proposed sale of the park's 153 spaces, just north of the city's Five Points intersection, falls in line with a trend of condo-style conversions in California. Park owners tout the conversions as a path to homeownership. But tenants call them a way to bust rent-control laws.
Owners of the Hollywood Beach Mobile Home Park came close to a conversion this year. But the California Coastal Commission objected, saying the conversion would reduce affordable housing in a pricey neighborhood. Park owners are trying to modify their proposal to appease state regulators.
In mobile home parks, tenants usually own their trailers and rent the space underneath. Royal Palms spaces rent at $354 to $718 a month.
Under a typical conversion, mobile home owners buy their lots and share ownership of common areas, such as clubhouses and landscaping.
According to several Royal Palms tenants, the park's owners can't yet say what the lots would sell for. "You don't buy a car without knowing the price," said Jerry Cox, 69, president of the park's homeowners association.
Cox said he wouldn't be able to buy a lot. Living on military and civil service pensions and Social Security, Cox collects about $1,900 a month, with about $400 going to his monthly rent, not including utilities. On top of that, he owes money for several health-related bills.
"It's not just the cost of land," Cox said Thursday in the park's clubhouse, where nearly a dozen residents gathered to speak about the proposal. He added that property owners would have to establish a new homeowners association and pay dues for park maintenance and operations.
Rent increased 18.6 percent
Alpert, however, said tenants could apply for state grants for low-interest purchase loans. Moreover, many tenants could pass along the homes as assets to their children, creating more wealth for their families.
In 2004, the Royal Palms owners sought a 71.4 percent rent increase from the city's Rent Stabilization Board, arguing they had spent more than $1 million on park improvements. A year later, the board granted an 18.6 percent rent increase retroactive to the date of the application.
Park owners appealed in Superior Court, where a judge upheld most of the board's decision. Park owners now are appealing the case to an appellate court.
Officials with Star Management, which operates the park, announced the proposed sale to tenants at a meeting where Cox was asked to circulate a survey to gauge support among tenants.
In a separate meeting, more than half of the tenants — 77 — rejected the proposal and refused to fill out the surveys, Cox said.
Cox said he relayed the message to Star Management, which then sent the surveys directly to tenants, along with a cover letter dated Oct. 5 that accused Cox of reneging on an agreement to circulate the surveys. Cox said he only agreed to take the surveys so tenants could consider the idea.
As it stands now, the surveys might be a sticking point. State law requires property owners to do a survey that indicates residents' support for converting a mobile home park. But Alpert noted that the law doesn't say a survey must show majority support for the proposal to go forward.
Oxnard Assistant City Attorney Jim Rupp disagreed. "I believe it means it has to be approved by a majority of the leases out there," Rupp said.




Posted by jayeldee on October 30, 2007 at 5:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
A classic example of how over-aggressive rent control eliminates low cost housing instead of saving it. The board's latest decision put the owner in a situation where he has no financial incentive to stay in the park business. If the condo proposal fails, it will eventually make financial sense for him to just shut down the park and sell off the land.
Confiscatory laws produce scarcity, not plenty. Thus has it always been.
(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.