Letters from the Public - 1 of 5 — San Jose City Council, January 27, 2026

G O L D E N S T A T E M A N U F A C T U R E D – H O M E O W N E R S

L E A G U E
November 9, 2025
TO: HCDC Members
FROM: Martha O’Connell, GSMOL Regional Manager
Region 1 Zone A-1
RE: Proposals on Changes to the Mobilehome RSO
I urge the HCDC to postpone any decision on the proposed amendments to the Mobilehome Rent Ordinance until a full outreach and education program has been made to the Mobilehome Park residents who right now are unaware of these drastic changes.

There are two exceptions: Updating Provisions to Reflect Current State Law and Modifying Park Registration Requirements. These can and should be voted on tonight.

GSMOL stands firmly opposed to Changes to Decontrol Process for Mobilehome Transfers.

The Park owners have tried for decades to remove this critical component of MH rent control.

This has been rejected by previous City Councils and Commissions.

In a 2-21-17 letter to Mayor and Council, GSMOL Corporate Council wrote, “Prohibiting rent increases at resale, known as ‘vacancy control’, is a main bulwark of the Rent Ordinance.” That Council rejected the Vacancy Decontrol that is now being put forward again.

The GSMOL rent stabilization ordinance handbook states – “ When vacancy decontrol exists, rents skyrocket at the time of sale. Consequently, the price of mobilehomes plummets. For every $100.00 that rent increases, equity decreases by $10,000.00. For many fixed income individuals, such as seniors, the mobilehome is their only asset, in which they have a substantial investment. Consequently, a drastic increase in rents diminishes their investment and they are forced to move out or forfeit their investment.”
For every dollar rent is raised, a perspective buyer must have three dollars or more to be approved to move into a Park. Raising the rent by 10% at resale hurts low-income buyers.

GSMOL Region Manager Region 1 Zone A-1

I urge the HCDC to also reject the Specified Capital Improvement Petition for Landlords. Park owners can, and have, gone through the Petition for Fair Return process to obtain rent increase and capital improvement costs. To allow them to short-circuit that process to pass on costs of up to 3% of the monthly rent is still another blow to the residents and affordable housing. This “stand alone” capital improvement pass through was rejected in 2007 and 2017. It must be rejected now.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

If they can't make money, which they are clearly doing, they can sell the Park to a non-profit, to the residents, or even to the City of San Jose. Some years ago, the City was trying to buy Sunshadow to maintain it as affordable housing The City was outbid.

Why? Because Mobilehome Parks are gold mines. Sources: Warren Buffett and Sam Zell. 72 cities in California have Mobilehome Park rent control. This is critical in areas like San Jose, where rents are sky high. Source
https://mhphoa.com/ca/rso/
Of those 72 cities, even where rents are low compared to San Jose, 34.72% have total vacancy control. No raise in rent to new owners
25% have vacancy decontrol of less than the 10% suggested by Housing.

San Jose residents find affordable housing a serious challenge now. To allow Park owners to raise the rent by 10% for new owners is to add to that challenge.

Mobilehomes have been called the "last bastion of affordable housing in California." Vote no on changing vacancy control and keep them affordable.

Martha O'Connell
GSMOL Regional Manager
Golden State Manufactured Homeowners League
A non profit serving residents since 1962
If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.
– Desmond Tutu

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

From: Glenna Howcroft
To: Nguyen, Mindy
Cc: Glenna Howcroft; Martha O"Connell
Subject: Save Vacancy Control
Date: Thursday, November 13, 2025 5:34:52 AM
I stand in total support of Commissioner Finn's position on this issue.

Do Not Modify Vacancy Control
and,
No on Stand Alone Passthroughs
If the park owners think they are not making enough money there remains options to sell their parks to the Residents, Non-Profits or to the city of San Jose.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Santa Clara Unified School District or of MetroEd | Silicon Valley Career Technical Education.

School districts across Silicon Valley are experiencing declining student enrollment, driven primarily by families being priced out of our region due to unstable and rising rent costs.

Mobile Home communities are one of the last bastions of affordable housing, stability, and opportunity for working families with children. When these protections are weakened, families are forced out, children lose consistency in their education, and our broader community suffers.

I am in complete support of the concerns and recommendations raised by GSMOL (Golden State Manufactured-Home Owners League), the main organization representing mobilehome residents throughout California, and by the dedicated advocacy of Martha O’Connell, a leading voice for resident protections in San José.

Their early alert and leadership have helped educate and mobilize our community around the urgent threat posed by these proposed amendments.

Any amendment reducing rent control and vacancy protections must be firmly rejected. This ordinance must remain unchanged to keep families in place and ensure a stable future for our schools and our city.

For transparency, this message is being copied to City Council Member David Cohen and Mayor Matt Mahan.

Thank you for your attention to this issue and for your steadfast service to our community.

Respectfully,
Jim Canova
Vice President - Santa Clara Unified School District Governing Board and Governing Board Member - MetroEd | SVCTE

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

From: Martha O"Connell
To: martha O"Connell; The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan; Solivan, Erik; Kamei, Rosemary; Campos, Pamela; Tordillos, Anthony; Cohen, David; Ortiz, Peter; Mulcahy, Michael; Doan, Bien; Candelas, Domingo; Foley, Pam; Casey, George; Nguyen, Mindy
Subject: Dictate not dialogue - MH RSO Community "engagement" Date: Thursday, December 4, 2025 2:34:02 PM
Attachments: MOC to Solivan 12-4-25.docx
see attached
Mindy, please forward to HCDC Commissioners
I hope their emails are not still disabled
If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality. – Desmond Tutu
G O L D E N S T A T E M A N U F A C T U R E D – H O M E O W N E R S

L E A G U E

December 4, 2025

TO: Erik Solivan
Director, San Jose Housing Department

FROM: Martha O’Connell, GSMOL Regional Manager
Region 1 Zone A-1

RE: MH RSO – community “engagement”

I am very concerned about the lack of true engagement with Mobilehome Residents about what is probably the most significant change to our RSO in the history of San Jose.

I attended your 11-20- 25 Community Meeting. This was not “engagement.” This was a presentation by Ms Hislop and yourself that was basically “this is it.” No true engagement.

No dialogue but dictate.

We were not allowed to ask questions or make comments in real time in zoom boxes. Chat was not enabled. I know for a fact that, contrary to what Mr. Scott announced at the end of the webinar, not all the questions, which we were not allowed to see, were answered.

Two of the most well -known Mobilehome Resident advocates (and I was not one of them) had their pointed questions ignored.

Items were presented as facts about which there is clear room for debate, but we were not allowed to rebut. Assertions were presented by Housing as facts without sufficient documentation.

GSMOL Region Manager Region 1 Zone A-1

I have been involved in mobilehome issues since 2004. I have never witnessed such a non- transparent and controlled “community engagement.”
Councilperson Bien Doan asked me on 11-19- 25 to have a closed meeting with Ryan Jasinsky (Park owner representative) and you on the RSO changes.

I refuse.

What I have to say I will say in public. I won’t engage in closed door understandings /negotiations from which the Mobilehome Residents are excluded.

The residents want true, transparent engagement, not a webinar controlled by Housing.

Cc: Mayor, Council, HCDC Commissioners
G O L D E N S T A T E M A N U F A C T U R E D – H O M E O W N E R S

L E A G U E
December 8, 2025
TO: Mayor and Council
HCDC Commissioners
FROM: Martha O’Connell, GSMOL Regional Manager
Region 1 Zone A-1
RE: Data Correction to Previous Letter
In a letter dated 11-11-25 titled “Proposed Amendments to the Mobilehome Rent Ordinance - Council meeting 12-2-25” I wrote in pertinent part:
72 cities in California have Mobilehome Park rent control. This is critical in areas like San Jose, where rents are sky high. Source
https://mhphoa.com/ca/rso/
Of those 72 cities, even where rents are low compared to San Jose, 34.72% have total vacancy control. No raise in rent to new owners
25% have vacancy decontrol of less than the 10% suggested by Housing.” CORRECTION TO THIS DATA – many thanks to HCDC Commissioner Dan Finn and a former City of San Jose Housing Department Employee who worked with me to get this data correct
The correct data is
73 cities in California have Mobilehome Park vacancy control. This is critical in areas like San Jose, where rents are sky high. Source
https://mhphoa.com/ca/rso/
GSMOL Region Manager Region 1 Zone A-1
Of those 73 cities, even where rents are low compared to San Jose, 36.9% have total vacancy control. No raise in rent to new owners.

30.1% have vacancy decontrol of less than the 10% suggested by Housing.

The data provided by Housing Director Eric Solivan does not highlight these important figures. Thanks again to HCDC Commissioner Dan Finn and a former City of San Jose Housing Department employee who worked with me to get this data correct

From: Solivan, Erik
To: Nguyen, Mindy; RUBEN NAVARRO; Housing and Community Development Commission 5 Subject: Re: New Questions before this weeks meeting
Date: Tuesday, December 9, 2025 5:54:05 PM
Attachments: image001.png
img-58e927fb-1938-4d8c-85fd-68f692cc5fa3
Manufactured-Housing-Monthly-Insight-May-2025.pdf
Ruben
See my responses below.

Director
Housing Department | City of San José
200 East Santa Clara Street | 12th Floor
San José, CA | 95113
Office: (408) 535-3855
FirstNET: (669) 317-8346
www.sanjoseca.gov/housing

From: Nguyen, Mindy <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, December 9, 2025 at 5:03 PM
To: RUBEN NAVARRO Housing and Community Development
Commission 5 <[email protected]>
Cc: Solivan, Erik <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: New Questions before this weeks meeting
Hi Ruben,

I’ve included Erik in this email who will respond.

Best,

Mindy Nguyen
Interim Senior Development Officer | Housing Department City of San José
200 East Santa Clara Street, 12th Floor
San José, CA 95113

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] Office: 408-534-2961
Website | LinkedIn | Facebook | Instagram | X

From: RUBEN NAVARRO
Sent: Monday, December 8, 2025 4:12 PM
To: Nguyen, Mindy <[email protected]>; Housing and Community Development Commission 5 <[email protected]>
Cc: RUBEN NAVARRO
Subject: Re: New Questions before this weeks meeting

Good afternoon,
I get many questions about housing issues because of all the community work I do. This is why, as Chair of the Housing & Community Development Commission, I am requesting additional documentation, data, and policy justification to complete my review of the proposed MRO amendments. Please forward this email to all commissioners upon receiving it so they can see the questions I asked and request any additional questions before our meeting. I’m hoping this will speed up our meeting, as many speakers are expected.

Please let me know once this has been done.

Also, ok to say you currently don’t have information on any of these questions, so you can get them back to the commissioners as quickly as possible so we have time to review before Thursday’s meeting.

1. Regional Comparison Data – Request for Confirmation and Details The Department referenced reviewing “neighboring municipalities” with vacancy increases ranging from 6% to 12% and stated that 10% is consistent with regional practices and LIHTC rent growth benchmarks Analysis:
* No explanation was given for why San José—one of the most rent-burdened cities in the U.S.—should adopt the same vacancy percentage used in jurisdictions with far lower housing costs.

The
analysis of comparable municipalities related to the practice, as detailed in the staff memorandum, of decontrol procedures and rates. The comparable municipalities included those in the immediate surrounding area, 32 in total, to the City of San Jose. The analysis of decontrol comparable is not an analysis of broader rent-burdens. By way of comparison to other Rent Stabilization Programs, the current MRO year-over-year permissible rent increases of 3% is below that of the Apartment Rent Ordinance (5%), and a similar program,
Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program is 5%. The 3% annual increase will remain in the MRO.
* Staff’s response does not clarify whether these jurisdictions are comparable demographically,

economically, or in terms of rent burden.

Information Requested:

Please provide:

1. A list of all cities staff reviewed, including:
* their resale/vacancy increase percentages, (not available public information) * their annual cap formulas, and (not available public information) * their justifications for those percentages. (See the Staff Memorandum.)

2. A summary explaining why a 10% vacancy increase is appropriate for San José specifically, given our affordability pressures.
(See the Staff memoradnum)

3. Any modeling the Department used to determine whether a 10% increase aligns with the City’s rent- burden profile and General Plan anti-displacement goals.

Given the lack of rent registry and according compliance, which is included in the proposed amendment, the analysis of decontrol is not based modeling it is based on comparable jurisdictions as stated in the Staff Memorandum.

2. Fair Return – Need for Methodology & Measurement Standards Fair return is determined through a petition process by owners; the ordinance outlines how staff conducts analysis when petitions are filed.

Analysis:
* Staff did not identify the objective standards used to determine “fair return.” There are no changes propped
to the Fair Return process.
* No formula, model, precedent, or criteria were provided.

There are no changes propped to the Fair Return process. * Without clear standards, it is difficult to understand how vacancy increases interact with or duplicate the fair-return process.

Information Requested:

Please provide:

1. The actual methodology, criteria, or formulas staff uses when evaluating fair-return petitions.

There are no changes propped to the Fair Return process.

2. Examples (anonymized) of past fair-return determinations.

There are no changes propped to the Fair Return process.

3. Explanation of how a 10% vacancy increase interacts with the fair-return process—i.e., under what circumstances would an owner still qualify for a fair-return increase after receiving the 10% vacancy adjustment?
There are no changes propped to the Fair Return process.

3. Financial Justification – Request for Park Owner Revenue/Cost Validation It is unclear what is being stated or requested.

Staff stated park owners have rising costs and capital needs, but offered no financial data.

Analysis:
* No profit-and-loss data has been shared.

Due the lack of a rent registry and according lack of data no data can be collected or provided.

* No demonstration of need or hardship has been shown.

Due the lack of a rent registry and according lack of data no data can be collected or provided.

* No transparency exists around NOI, capital reserves, or maintenance backlogs.

Due the lack of a rent registry and according lack of data no data can be collected or provided. * A revenue-enhancing policy (10% vacancy increase) is being proposed without providing evidence of financial necessity.

The analysis of comparable municipalities related to the practice, as detailed in the staff memorandum, of decontrol procedures and rates it was not an analysis of financial necessity.

Information Requested:

Please provide (aggregated and anonymized if necessary):

1. Net Operating Income (NOI) data trends for mobilehome parks in San José.

Due the lack of a rent registry and according lack of data no data can be collected or provided.

2. Capital improvement backlogs, verified maintenance obligations, and infrastructure needs cited as justification.

Due the lack of a rent registry and according lack of data no data can be collected or provided.

3. Operating cost trends (utilities, insurance, labor, etc.) for the past 5–10 years.

Due the lack of a rent registry and according lack of data no data can be collected or provided.

4. Any financial distress indicators among park owners that staff evaluated before recommending a 10% increase.

Due the lack of a rent registry and according lack of data no data can be collected or provided.

5. Confirmation whether this recommendation is based on verified owner financial data or solely on owner representations.

Due the lack of a rent registry and according lack of data no data can be collected or provided.

4. Outreach and Engagement – Need for Documentation & Comparison to Past Processes Staff stated the ordinance furthers outreach goals, and one online meeting was held on Nov. 20 with chat disabled and curated Q&A.

Analysis:
* Residents and advocates have documented concerns about the lack of transparency and the inability to speak, and I’m still waiting for answers to my previous questions regarding the 11/20 community meeting.

The Housing Department setup an ongoing Community Meeting series in early 2025 with the intention to provide updates and hear feedback from the community on various programs, initiatives, policies the Department is working on. The link to the Housing Department’s Community Meetings is here along with all the recordings, questions, answers and comments received and the transcripts.

The Community Meeting series is open to all members of the public, they are promoted through all social media mediums, as these meetings are hosted by the Housing Department and the format, process for submitting questions, how the department will answers questions, and how all questions are captured and replied too is shared at the beginning of every meeting with all attending members of the public.

The Community Meeting series covers broad range of topics the majority are outside the areas and programs covered by HCDC.
* The packet includes no outreach ledger, no attendance information, and no comparison to outreach in 2017 or 2019–20.

By way of context, the HCDC Work Plan, as approved by the vote of HCDC in September of 2025 (and subsequently City Council in October), followed the July 2024 Council adoption of the Strategic Plan for the Rent Stabilization Program (RSP). As the draft language was created Housing Department Staff began convening small group meetings, one-on-one meetings, community meetings and more community meetings, group meetings, and one-on-one meetings are schedule, planned and will continue as well as mailers to all mobilehome park residents and owners regarding the series of community meetings be convened. * This contrasts sharply with past processes involving multiple focus groups, in-person meetings, and public workshops.

Information Requested:

Please provide:

1. A complete outreach ledger including:
* dates of all outreach events, See Housing Department website * whether notices were provided to each park, See Housing Department website * languages offered, See Housing Department website
* number of residents in attendance, and
* all questions received (not just those answered).See Housing Department website

2. Outreach conducted with park owners.

Conversations were had with HCDC Commission member Ryan Jansiky

3. Comparison against industry-standard mobilehome outreach practices used in past cycles (2017; 2019–2020).

There is no industry standard for outreach practices as the industry of Mobilehome Parks does not state any outreach practices.

4. Explanation of why chat and verbal participation were disabled during the Nov. 20 meeting.

See response to question 4 above.

5. Equity & Affordability Impact Analysis – Request for Modeling Staff did not provide impact modeling. They stated the proposed change “has no impact on current tenants.”
Analysis:

It is unclear what is being stated or requested.
* This omits the documented and direct link between space-rent increases and home equity loss at resale.

It is unclear what is being stated or requested.
* It also omits impacts on buyer eligibility (DTI ratios), seniors on fixed incomes, and lower-income households.
* Any vacancy increase affects both sellers and future buyers—key components of affordability.

Information Requested:

Please provide:

1. Modeling of how a 10% vacancy increase affects mobilehome sale prices (equity erosion).

The analysis of comparable municipalities related to the practice, as detailed in the staff memorandum, of decontrol procedures and rates it was not an analysis of mobilehome prices. By way of context, mobilhome for sale prices have reached record highs in recent years see attached assessment.

2. Analysis of impacts on qualifying buyers (DTI requirements, minimum income thresholds).

The analysis of comparable municipalities related to the practice, as detailed in the staff memorandum, of decontrol procedures and rates it was not an analysis of qualifying users nor would such an analysis provide applicable insights.

3. Senior and fixed-income affordability modeling.

The analysis of comparable municipalities related to the practice, as detailed in the staff memorandum, of decontrol procedures and rates

4. Anti-displacement analysis required under the General Plan.

The analysis of comparable municipalities related to the practice, as detailed in the staff memorandum, of decontrol procedures and rates. Anti-displacement analysis is not applicable to voluntary actions of an owner to sell a unit.

5. Whether staff reviewed academic literature or case law linking rent increases to equity loss.

The analysis of comparable municipalities related to the practice, as detailed in the staff memorandum, of decontrol procedures and rates, it was not a legal review nor is a legal review necessary.

6. Capital Improvement Pass-Throughs – Need for the Actual “Objective Factor Test” An “objective factor test” will determine whether improvements benefit residents.

The existing
capital pass through is not included in the proposed changes. The capital improvements process referenced in the proposed is for special circumstances as requested by Owners that will be subject to the Department’s review.

Analysis:
* No description of this test was provided.

The existing capital pass through is not included in the proposed changes. The capital improvements process referenced in the proposed is for special circumstances as requested by Owners that will be subject to the Department’s review.
* Without transparency, residents cannot understand or appeal determinations.

The existing capital pass through is not included in the proposed changes. The capital improvements process referenced in the proposed is for special circumstances as requested by Owners that will be subject to the Department’s review.
* Pass-throughs have historically been areas of controversy statewide.

The existing capital pass through is not included in the proposed changes. The capital improvements process referenced in the proposed is for special circumstances as requested by Owners that will be subject to the Department’s review.

Information Requested:

Please provide:

1. The actual, written objective factor test.

The existing capital pass through is not included in the proposed changes. The capital improvements process referenced in the proposed is for special circumstances as requested by Owners that will be subject to the Department’s review.

2. Criteria and thresholds for approval or denial.

The existing capital pass through is not included in the proposed changes. The capital improvements process referenced in the proposed is for special circumstances as requested by Owners that will be subject to the Department’s review.

3. Resident appeal rights and process.

The existing capital pass through is not included in the proposed changes. The capital improvements process referenced in the proposed is for special circumstances as requested by Owners that will be subject to the Department’s review.

4. Documentation requirements for owners seeking pass-through approval.

The existing capital pass through is not included in the proposed changes. The capital improvements process referenced in the proposed is for special circumstances as requested by Owners that will be subject to the Department’s review.

7. Rationale for Discouraging Speculation – Clarification Needed Speculation undermines rent stability.

Analysis:
* The ordinance does not regulate investor purchases directly.

The charge under the mobile home park ordinance is to maintain rent stability. The actions in the market place by some actors to manipulate the administration of the program provision through speculative investments brings into consideration the need for reasonable measures to mitigate the artificial impacts such actions have the rent stability. The Housing Department cannot restrict, limit or otherwise directly or indirectly impact actors in the market place nor are such actions charged to the Housing Department under the mobile home park ordinance.

The actions the
Housing Department is taking on this issue is to within the charge of the ordinance, which is to foster rent stability as described above.

* It is unclear how a 10% vacancy increase mitigates speculation or whether it incentivizes it.

The Staff Memo does not claim the 10% vacancy if to mitigate speculation.

Information Requested:

Please provide:

1. The evidence or analysis linking increases in vacancy to speculation controls.

It is unclear what is being stated or requested.

2. Explanation of how speculative behavior was assessed or quantified in San José.

It is unclear what is being stated or requested.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Thank you so much for your assistance and I look forward for the information to review.

Regards,

Ruben N.

G O L D E N S T A T E M A N U F A C T U R E D – H O M E O W N E R S

L E A G U E

December 9, 2025

TO: Mayor and Council
HCDC Commissioners

FROM: Martha O’Connell, GSMOL Regional Manager Region 1 Zone A-1

RE: MH – MRO – Mixing Apples and Oranges

The Housing Director appears to be mixing apples and oranges in the part of his submission for Proposed Changes to the MH Rent Stabilization Ordinance regarding rent caps for “other affordable housing within the City of San Jose. ”
This mixture of apples and oranges is to the great detriment of the residents in Mobilehome Parks.

On page 5 of his report Director Solivan writes, “The MRO limits annual rent increases based on the rate of inﬂation each year, with that calculation being 3% for most years over the past few decades. This is lower than the current annual rent increase limits for other affordable housing within the City of San José. Landlords of apartment units subject to the Apartment Rent Ordinance may increase rents annually up to 5%.”
Additionally, on pages 3/4 of an email exchange with HCDC Commissioner Escher, Solivan repeats, “I w i l l n o t e t h e f o l l o w i n g f a c t s : i n a l l o t h e r r e n t r e s t r i c t e d h o u s i n g , s u c h a s t h e f eder al and the sta te Lo w Income Housing T ax Cr edits (LIHT C) Pr ogr ams , r ents rise on an annual basis of 5%. Under the mobile home park ordinance rent rises on an annual basis are limited to 3%, therefore, there is inherent inconsistency across affordable housing program.” Such an analysis is ﬂawed and hurts Mobilehome Park residents.

GSMOL Region Manager Region 1 Zone A-1

I repeat, a comparison of apartment and mobilehome rent rates is deeply, deeply ﬂawed and must be rejected.

Mobilehome residents bear the costs of
• All exterior repairs, maintenance, and upgrades to their homes including but not limited to painting, roof repair, window and siding repair, and all other costs normally borne by a single-family home owner.
• All interior repairs, maintenance, and upgrades to their homes including but not limited to plumbing, electrical, painting, appliances, carpeting, pest and rodent control, and all other costs normally borne by a single-family home owner. • Property tax
• Home insurance
• Mortgage
• Trash pickup fees
• Storm drain fees
• Sewer fees
• Landscape maintenance on the lot for which they pay rent I am conﬁdent I have left something off this list of the costs borne by Mobilehome owners.

Apologies to my fellow MH owners.

I note that the timing of exterior repairs is frequently demanded by the Park owner through a compliance letter. Unlike single family homeowners, MH owners frequently don’t have the luxury to save the money up for repairs. They are at the mercy of the Park owners.

I have personally helped many low-income residents who got such a letter and had no money to make the repair in the time frame demanded by the Park owner. I have had to get Rebu ilding Together, Habitat for Humanity, or other agencies involved to save the resident and their home. On another occasion, an extremely low-income elderly Senior lady got a letter about the wiring to her wheelchair lift. Neighbors banded together to help her make the correction and save her from eviction.

Mobilehome rent cannot be compared to apartments or “ other affordable housing within the City of San Jose. ”
I repeat, a comparison of apartment and mobilehome rent rates is deeply, deeply ﬂawed and must be rejected.

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
discussed at our upcoming commissioners meeting. I know that you have been sent requests for information and statements about the proposals from the HCDC Chair, the local GSMOL representative, GSMOL's lawyer and others. To be fair and equitable, since you shared Commissioner Escher's questions along with our meeting agenda it's only reasonable to request that you share copies of all the correspondence at tomorrow's meeting that you or anyone in the housing department have received regarding the proposals being presented to the commission at this month's meeting.

Regards,
Daniel Finn
HCDCMR

Get Outlook for iOS

December 10, 2025

Housing and Community Development Commission
San José City Hall
200 E. Santa Clara St.

San José, CA 95113
Sent via electronic mail

Re: Concerns and Questions Related to Mobilehome Rent Ordinance Changes Dear HCDC Chair Navarro, Vice Chair Dawson, and Commissioners:

We are writing to strongly urge you to recommend against the proposed one-time vacancy increase to the Mobilehome Rent Ordinance (MRO) and the addition of a petition decision appeal process. While the ordinance is decades old, vacancy decontrol was thoroughly considered and declined as recently as 2017. The core questions and concerns that led to that decision remain unresolved today.

The memo asserts that the proposal “expands tenant protections,” “provides additional mechanisms to allow mobilehome park owners to maintain and enhance their parks,” and “balances the needs of mobilehome residents and park owners.” Yet the policy implications decrease affordability, harm residents, and primarily provide landowners a wider menu of options to increase rents. In 2024, the Council set clear priorities to “further the goals of housing stabilization, unit preservation, and outreach and engagement.” A sudden 10% vacancy increase runs counter to those goals and risks destabilizing the very communities the MRO is designed to protect.

Key questions also remain unanswered. What specific costs are park owners unable to address without this 10% increase? Why, specifically, do park owners need further pass throughs on top of existing fair return petitions? Without data showing financial need, the proposal relies on unsubstantiated claims rather than demonstrated evidence. The City cannot evaluate “fair return” or necessity without understanding park owners’ actual income and financial position. As Letter from REAL Coalition to HCDC re Mobilehome Rent Ordinance Changes

Page 2 ends

drafted, the change would create incentives for displacement and undermine the purpose of rent control by encouraging turnover rather than stability.

Mobilehomes remain one of the last pathways to entry-level homeownership in our region. Allowing a 10% rent increase upon each vacancy, as well as an additional opportunity for rent increases from specified capital improvement petitions, threatens their long-term affordability. Over time, these increases will compound, placing mobilehome living out of reach for many low- and moderate-income residents—including seniors and people with disabilities who rely on stable housing costs to remain in their homes.

The proposal also introduces a Petition Decision Appeal Process that assigns unprecedented authority to the Housing Director. The legal basis and policy rationale for concentrating this decisionmaking power are unclear and merit far more scrutiny before any recommendation moves forward.

The memorandum compares the current annual rent increase limits of mobilehomes to that of other affordable housing within the City of San José. Any comparison of apartment rents and mobilehome rents is misleading and harmful, as mobilehome residents bear the costs of regular leveling, all exterior and interior repairs and maintenance, mortgage, home insurance, property tax, fees, and landscape maintenance.

The equity implications are significant. Rent increases pose barriers to wealth-building, homeownership, and long-term stability. In San José, poverty rates among African Americans are more than twice those of white residents, and Black residents make up a disproportionately large share of the city’s unsheltered population. Disparities in homeownership rooted in generations of discriminatory policies and redlining persist today. As the City continues to center “revenue capture” for mobilehome park owners without adequate safeguards, historic inequities will deepen, undermining the stability of some of the only affordable communities in San José.

Mobilehome parks are essential pillars of our affordable housing landscape.

Increasing rents in ways that encourage turnover or displacement risks pushing Letter from REAL Coalition to HCDC re Mobilehome Rent Ordinance Changes

Page 3 ends

residents into homelessness at a time when stability is more critical than ever. We urge you to uphold the intent of the MRO, protect affordability, and recommend against the proposed vacancy increase and new appeal process.

In Community,

REAL Housing Justice Workgroup

About REAL:

The REAL community of Silicon Valley based nonprofit leaders and allies has been meeting since June 2020 to use our positional power to advocate for a more racially-just and equitable society; to establish a peer network of leaders committed to fighting white supremacy and systemic racism in ourselves and our institutions; and to hold each other accountable to the promises we made in the Nonprofit Racial Equity Pledge. The REAL coalition is broadly representative of the nonprofit community including human and community services, behavioral health and health, arts and culture, domestic violence, older adults, food security, education, environmental, farming, legal, disability rights, LGTBQ rights, ethnic, immigrant rights, housing and homelessness, criminal justice reform, urban planning, and intermediary organizations, and others. REAL has 50 core nonprofit members, numerous individual members, and hundreds of active participants in the nonprofit community.

From: Nguyen, Mindy
To: Nguyen, Mindy
Subject: FW: GSMOL Attorney letter on MH Rent Ordinance Date: Thursday, December 11, 2025 11:34:21 AM
Attachments: img-58e927fb-1938-4d8c-85fd-68f692cc5fa3
HCDC Edition Claim Analysis.pdf
Good morning Commissioner,

Please see the following questions posed by Chair Navarro and Director Soliván’s response from the GMSOL letter that was sent yesterday.

Best,

From: Solivan, Erik <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2025 10:56 AM
To: Nguyen, Mindy <[email protected]>; RUBEN NAVARRO Housing and Community Development Commission 5 <[email protected]> Cc: Hislop, Emily <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: GSMOL Attorney letter on MH Rent Ordinance

Ruben see the responses below.

Director
Housing Department | City of San José
200 East Santa Clara Street | 12th Floor
San José, CA | 95113
Office: (408) 535-3855
FirstNET: (669) 317-8346
www.sanjoseca.gov/housing

vacancy increase under San José market conditions?
Sure. See attached.

2. Historical data showing how space rent levels in San José correlate (or do not correlate) with resale prices across parks?
There is not historical
data as stated in the Response Letter.

3. A sensitivity analysis demonstrating how equity outcomes shift under varying rent increases (5%, 7%, 10%)?
It is unclear what is being stated or requested.

Without a replacement analysis, it is difficult for the Commission to assess whether the proposed decontrol rate minimizes harm to homeowners.

It is unclear what is being stated or requested.

2. Claim That Resale Prices “Remain Resilient” Despite Rent Variation The memo asserts that manufactured home resale values in San José remain strong regardless of space rent differences. As this is a key assertion rebutting GSMOL’s equity concerns, additional supporting data would be helpful.

Could staff provide:
* The dataset used to conclude that resale values remain resilient? A report by Berkadia, as a source, was attached to the Response Letter. * Regression or paired-sales analysis demonstrating the absence of a statistically significant relationship between rent levels and home values?
It is unclear what is being stated or requested.

The 1999 City of Fremont Report was a regression
analysis, hence the lack of causal and direct link.
* Summary tables showing resale price trends by park over the past 5–10 years? It is unclear what is being stated or requested.

3. Enforcement and Rent Registry Implementation
The response suggests that enforcement challenges will be minimized due to a forthcoming rent registry and automated tracking. However, details on readiness and rollout are not provided.

Could the Department clarify:

1. What is the timeline and budget for implementing the rent registry? There are no planned budget adjustments for implementation. The timeline is subject to Council Approval.

2. Will the registry be operational before the vacancy decontrol provision takes effect? The Housing Department intends to implement the changes comprehensively. The policy decision of Mayor and Council will determine final planning for execution.

3. What interim enforcement mechanism will exist during the transition period? It is unclear what is being stated or requested.

4. How will the City ensure accurate reporting from brokers, dealers, and private sellers? It is unclear what is being stated or requested.

Given the complexity of turnover tracking, the sequencing of registry implementation appears critical.

4. Legal Risk Assessment
While the memo states that the City Attorney has found no constitutional vulnerability, GSMOL raises concerns about the possibility of renewed litigation.

To ensure the Commission fully understands the risk profile:

Could the City Attorney’s Office provide:
* A written summary of its analysis and reasoning?
City Attorney’s is conducting work product analysis and it will not be shared publicly. The draft ordinance presented to Council will be compliant with any and all applicable laws.

* Examples of similar amendments in other jurisdictions and their litigation outcomes? It is unclear what is being stated or requested. Additionally, HCDC cannot assign work to the City Attorney’s Office.
* An assessment of the likelihood and potential cost of a facial challenge? It is unclear what is being stated or requested. Additionally, HCDC cannot assign work to the City Attorney’s Office.

Even if risk is low, fiscal exposure is still a relevant policy consideration.

5. Scope and Interaction of the Capital Improvement (CI) Pass-Through The Department explains that the CI pass-through is narrowly tailored, but GSMOL correctly notes that fair return law generally evaluates the park’s entire financial condition rather than individual projects.

As noted in the
Response Letter:

This comment reflects a complete misunderstanding of the proposed updates for managing request for capital improvement updates.

1. Recovery of costs related to regular capital improvements - e.g. maintenance and replacement of existing capital improvements – can only be achieved through the fair return petition process. Nothing has been proposed to change this process.

2. If a park owner wants to perform an improvement that provides added benefit to park residents – i.e. flood mitigation or climate resiliency projects, increased energy efficiency – they may petition to recover a pass-through of no more than 3% of resident’s space rent for the amortization period. The petition would go through an administrative process in the Housing Department and residents may contest the petition and participate in the proceeding
under the proposed resident
rent dispute process.

3. A Hearing Officer would determine if there were added safety or energy savings, in which mobilehome lots would benefit from the improvement, and confirm costs and calculations.

For clarity:

Could staff explain:

1. How the CI pass-through interacts with MNOI (“fair return”) petitions? See response above.

2. Whether a park may receive both a CI pass-through and an MNOI increase within the same period? See response above.

3. How “added benefit” improvements will be defined and limited to prevent broad or subjective interpretations?
See response above.

4. Whether a list of eligible and ineligible CI categories can be provided? See response above.

This will help ensure the mechanism cannot be expanded beyond its intended scope.

See response above.

6. Projected Frequency of CI Petitions
The memo indicates that CI petitions will be infrequent. However, without data on the age, condition, and expected replacement cycles of park infrastructure, the Commission cannot independently verify this.

Could the Department provide:
* Any inventories or assessments documenting the current state of infrastructure across San José’s mobilehome parks?
The Housing Department does not have authority
to conduct site assessments of private
property.
* Estimated CI costs expected over the next 10–20 years? It is unclear what is being stated or requested.
* A projection of anticipated petition frequency under the new rules? It is unclear what is being stated or requested. Fair Return petitions have no rhythm or form to be
make predictions upon.

Again, thank you all so much. I really appreciate it and since this is an important item for so many people, I want to make sure we have all the information necessary.

Ruben N.

On Wednesday, December 10, 2025 at 03:18:21 PM PST, Nguyen, Mindy <[email protected]
> wrote:

Good afternoon Commissioner,

Please see this letter from Counsel of GMSOL, Bruce Stanton along with the Department’s response. These will be printed along with the other public comments on this item for the meeting, and posted online at 2pm on Thursday, prior to the meeting. I will share the link when the public comment packet available.

For HCDC, we collect public comment up until 12pm on the day of the meeting, as noted in the agenda.

Best,

From: Martha O'Connell >
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2025 9:57 AM
To: martha O'Connell Maguire, Jennifer
<[email protected]>; The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan <[email protected]>; Kamei, Rosemary <[email protected]>; Campos, Pamela <[email protected]>; Tordillos, Anthony <[email protected]>; Ramirez, Lucas <[email protected]>; Cohen, David <[email protected]>; Ortiz, Peter <[email protected]>; Mulcahy, Michael <[email protected]>; Doan, Bien <[email protected]>; Candelas, Domingo <[email protected]>; Foley, Pam <[email protected]>; Casey, George <[email protected]>; Nguyen, Mindy <[email protected]>; Alcala Wood, Susana <[email protected]>
Subject: GSMOL Attorney letter on MH Rent Ordinance

[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more]

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

see attached letter from the Corporate Counsel of GSMOL, Bruce Stanton

Martha O'Connell
GSMOL Regional Manager

If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality. – Desmond Tutu

Claim: $100 increase in rent = $10,000 loss of Equity
$100 10,000.00$
Year Count Slot Rent Rate of Rent Increase Year Count Unit Equity Bureau of Labor and Statistics - inflation rate averaged out from 1979 to 2025 Year 1979 $100 Year 1979 10,000.00$
Year 1980 103.00$ 3.00% Year 1980 10,308.40$ 3.084% Year 1981 106.09$ 3.00% Year 1981 10,626.31$ 3.084% Year 1982 109.27$ 3.00% Year 1982 10,954.03$ 3.084% Year 1983 112.55$ 3.00% Year 1983 11,291.85$ 3.084% Year 1984 115.93$ 3.00% Year 1984 11,640.09$ 3.084% Year 1985 119.41$ 3.00% Year 1985 11,999.07$ 3.084% Year 1986 122.99$ 3.00% Year 1986 12,369.12$ 3.084% Year 1987 126.68$ 3.00% Year 1987 12,750.58$ 3.084% Year 1988 130.48$ 3.00% Year 1988 13,143.81$ 3.084% Year 1989 134.39$ 3.00% Year 1989 13,549.17$ 3.084% Year 1990 138.42$ 3.00% Year 1990 13,967.02$ 3.084% Year 1991 142.58$ 3.00% Year 1991 14,397.77$ 3.084% Year 1992 146.85$ 3.00% Year 1992 14,841.79$ 3.084% Year 1993 151.26$ 3.00% Year 1993 15,299.52$ 3.084% Year 1994 155.80$ 3.00% Year 1994 15,771.35$ 3.084% Year 1995 160.47$ 3.00% Year 1995 16,257.74$ 3.084% Year 1996 165.28$ 3.00% Year 1996 16,759.13$ 3.084% Year 1997 170.24$ 3.00% Year 1997 17,275.98$ 3.084% Year 1998 175.35$ 3.00% Year 1998 17,808.77$ 3.084% Year 1999 180.61$ 3.00% Year 1999 18,357.99$ 3.084% Year 2000 186.03$ 3.00% Year 2000 18,924.16$ 3.084% Year 2001 191.61$ 3.00% Year 2001 19,507.78$ 3.084% Year 2002 197.36$ 3.00% Year 2002 20,109.40$ 3.084% Adjustment to Equity Year 2003 203.28$ 3.00% Year 2003 20,729.57$ 3.084% 10,729.57$ Year 2004 209.38$ 3.00% Year 2004 21,368.87$ 3.084% 11,368.87$ Year 2005 215.66$ 3.00% Year 2005 22,027.89$ 3.084% 12,027.89$ Year 2006 222.13$ 3.00% Year 2006 22,707.23$ 3.084% 12,707.23$ Year 2007 228.79$ 3.00% Year 2007 23,407.52$ 3.084% 13,407.52$ Year 2008 235.66$ 3.00% Year 2008 24,129.40$ 3.084% 14,129.40$ Year 2009 242.73$ 3.00% Year 2009 24,873.56$ 3.084% 14,873.56$ Year 2010 250.01$ 3.00% Year 2010 25,640.66$ 3.084% 15,640.66$ Year 2011 257.51$ 3.00% Year 2011 26,431.41$ 3.084% 16,431.41$ Year 2012 265.23$ 3.00% Year 2012 27,246.56$ 3.084% 17,246.56$ Year 2013 273.19$ 3.00% Year 2013 28,086.84$ 3.084% 18,086.84$ Year 2014 281.39$ 3.00% Year 2014 28,953.04$ 3.084% 18,953.04$ Year 2015 289.83$ 3.00% Year 2015 29,845.95$ 3.084% 19,845.95$ Year 2016 298.52$ 3.00% Year 2016 30,766.40$ 3.084% 20,766.40$ Year 2017 307.48$ 3.00% Year 2017 31,715.24$ 3.084% 21,715.24$ Year 2018 316.70$ 3.00% Year 2018 32,693.34$ 3.084% 22,693.34$ Year 2019 326.20$ 3.00% Year 2019 33,701.60$ 3.084% 23,701.60$ Year 2020 335.99$ 3.00% Year 2020 34,740.96$ 3.084% 24,740.96$ Year 2021 346.07$ 3.00% Year 2021 35,812.37$ 3.084% 25,812.37$ Year 2022 356.45$ 3.00% Year 2022 36,916.82$ 3.084% 26,916.82$ Year 2023 367.15$ 3.00% Year 2023 38,055.33$ 3.084% 28,055.33$ Year 2024 378.16$ 3.00% Year 2024 39,228.96$ 3.084% 29,228.96$ this would be the unit equity today - IF - the argument held mathematical truth 378% 392% 25% Actual Adjusted unit equity based on the Claim Increase $100 Slot Rent
Increase $100 Slot Rent
YOY - Year 1 to Year 46 Increase
Assumptions
Brief Analytical Assessment
Date: December 11, 2025
To: San Jose City Council, Honorable Mayor, and Housing From: Roberta Moore, HCDC D10 Commissioner
RE: VII. A. Proposed Amendments to the Mobilehome Rent Ord.

Housing Got it Right
The Housing Department got this recommendation right by evaluating the reality of the situation. Those who want to protect predictable rents and privately owned housing, will support their recommendation and vote yes for this amendment.

Predictable and Obtainable Housing Ownership
How does San Jose keep the mobilehome buyers’ expenses predictable and preserve the ability for people who make lower income to buy these homes? To accomplish these goals, San Jose would do the following:

1. Protect the mobile home parks from development.

2. Reduce the need for fair return hearings that can substantially increase rents on all renters.

3. Build more mobilehome parks to increase supply.

Impact of Vacancy Control
The reality is Vacancy Control subsidizes those with money and doesn’t help those without money. If this doesn’t make sense, consider how Vacancy Control impacts 2 buyers:
• In 2010, Gladys paid $60,000 with $3,000 down and has a monthly loan payment of $299 per month. She had to earn about $16,000 per year to qualify.
• Today, Mary could buy a mobile home for $250,000 with a $50,000 down payment. Her monthly loan payment would be $1,244 per month, and she would have to earn about $54,000 per year. People paying $350,000 need to make about $80,000 per year to qualify.

Source: Realtor.com and Mortgage Calculator

In the same park, a fair return hearing like the $140 per month per space recently awarded would be much harder on Gladys than on Mary.

Vacancy Control Eliminates Predictable & Obtainable Housing Vacancy Control is the strictest and most damaging form of rent control.

Argentina eliminated rent control and rents dropped. Source:
https://www.cato.org/commentary/javier-milei-ended-rent-control-now- argentine-real-estate-market-coming-back-life

Economists know rent control constricts supply which then increases price. If 5 people (higher demand) are trying to buy 1 home (limited supply) then the price will go up. This is why 90% of Economists (including the most liberal) agree rent control decreases the quality and quantity of affordable housing.

Source: American Electronics Association, More Information:
https://www.multihousingnews.com/how-rent-control-reduces-the-affordable- supply/

Vacancy Decontrol Protects Fixed Income Residents
Vacancy Decontrol protects those with lower income who most need it by allowing owners to charge new buyers more money. The new buyers, like Mary, can afford more than those who have been there awhile and paid less.

With Vacancy Decontrol, the owners, are less likely to do a fair return hearing and get $140 more from each space.

Another real-life example is with my renters and Vacancy Decontrol. The people living in #2 paid below market rent for 10 years because with Vacancy Decontrol, I could charge more to new renters to cover the increasing costs.

The new renters could afford the increase more than the long-term renters. If there was Vacancy Control, #2 would have been increased the maximum amount every year and paid market rent within 5 years. Because of Vacancy Decontrol, they paid less than 72% of market rent.

Vacancy Decontrol Preserves Mobilehome Park Housing
How long will mobilehome parks remain more “affordable” without Vacancy Decontrol? Overly restrictive ordinances, like Vacancy Control, do not allow for real market conditions. The result will be either the loss of good park operators to faceless corporations that maximize profits or park closures. [External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more] From: Sabyl Landrum
To: Nguyen, Mindy
Cc: Tristia Bauman; Nuemi Guzman
Subject: Public Comment mobile home rent ordinance meeting 12/11/2025 Date: Thursday, December 11, 2025 11:58:57 AM
Attachments: Outlook-ssf4la1o.png

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Good Morning,
I write to make comment in regard to proposed ordinance changes to SJMC 17.22 These proposed changes were made without engaging the impacted community and I want to express concern over both the process and potential unintended consequences to these changes.

Mobile homes are a lifeline to families seeking both affordable housing options and home ownership. But because "mobile" is not an accurate descriptor of this housing, and relocating mobile homes is in reality not an option for most households or homes, the leaseholds attached to mobile home residencies place residents in a position of vulnerability.

San Jose has more mobile home communities than any other city in California.

Any change to these ordinances poses a risk of either displacing households or causing households to lose wealth and equity that they worked hard to build and maintain. The impact of even allowing an exception to rent increase ordinances on sale of a mobile home means the value of those mobile homes will decrease, and households will lose equity, impacting their housing stability moving forward.

We strongly encourage the city to take a step back, engage impacted communities, and reevaluate the impact of these changes before proceeding with changes to this ordinance.

Sabyl Landrum | she/her

Supervising Attorney | Housing
[email protected] | p 408.380.2192
lawfoundation.org | LinkedIn | Facebook

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Law Foundation of Silicon Valley
4 North Second Street, Suite 1300
San Jose, CA 95113

Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain information that is confidential and protected by the attorney/client or other privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this communication (or an employee or agent of the intended recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient), or if you believe that you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, including any attachments, without reading or saving them in any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e- mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege.

December 10, 2025

Sent via electronic mail
Dear HCDC Chair Navarro, and Commissioners,
I am writing to share my perspective regarding the proposed amendments to the Mobilehome Rent Ordinance (MRO). Given the significance of some of these changes and the lack of information and clarity, I am urging you to recommend against the changes to the decontrol process and the limited specified capital improvement pass through.

There is No Evidence or Analysis to Demonstrate that Changes to the Decontrol Process Are Needed or That They Serve a Public Purpose
The December 4 staff memorandum does not identify the specific problem this proposal seeks to address or how it aligns with the priorities outlined in the memorandum. Subsequent communications from the Director attempt to clarify the rationale. In his December 3 email, the Director described the proposal as “a release valve for mobile home park owners to capture additional revenue with no impacts on any current tenant rents.” In a letter dated December 10 to the GSMOL, he further stated that the change is needed because of:

1. Deferred infrastructure investment and increase capital needs. Staff has provided no assessment of the conditions of San Jose’s mobilehome communities, their infrastructure, or their capital needs. Nor has the Housing Department provided analysis demonstrating whether a 10% increase at vacancy would generate meaningful revenue to address such needs.

2. Administrative Burden Associated with Fair Return Petitions. The MRO already includes a fair return mechanism and places the burden of proof on owners to demonstrate need. Only one of the two petitions referenced in the Director’s letter is publicly available on the Housing Department’s website, and in that case, the requested increase was denied — indicating that the park was already receiving a fair return. If a significant number of successful petitions
demonstrated that owners could not receive a
fair return under current rules, policy adjustments might be warranted. The current record does not support this.

3. Assertion that San José’s Has One of the Strictest Ordinances. Owner revenue under rent stabilizations programs depends on two elements:
(1) allowable annual increases, and
(2) vacancy control/decontrol provisions.

Annual Rent Increases: Based on the MHPHOA data referenced by staff:
• 45 jurisdictions have more restrictive annual increases than San José, largely because they do not provide a guaranteed floor.
• 16 are less restrictive and provide a greater annual increase. • 26 require further analysis because they allow a 100% of the CPI but the cap is lower than 7%.

Because annual rent increases generate the largest share of owner revenue, San José’s 3% floor makes its ordinance less restrictive than many jurisdictions.

Vacancy Control/Decontrol Provisions. Reviewing the Vacancy Decontrol Provisions:
• 31 jurisdictions do not allow any vacancy decontrol (stricter than San José). • 39 jurisdictions allow greater increase than San José. • 29 allows some level of decontrol but lack clear definitions.

To accurately assess strictness, both components must be considered together. San José already provides comparatively strong annual rent growth; it is not clear why an additional 10% decontrol increase is needed.

Rent Increases Allowed in the Low-Income Housing Program Are Not Comparable In the December 3 email, the Director states: “in all other rent restricted housing, such as the federal and the state Low Income Housing Tax Credits Programs (LIHTC), rents rise on an annual basis of 5%. Under the mobile home park ordinance rent rises on an annual basis are limited to 3%, therefore, there is inherently inconsistency across affordable housing programs.” However, the LITCH program and the MRO serve fundamentally different populations and operate under different financial structures. Mobilehome residents may carry mortgages, pay taxes, fund repairs, and absorb all maintenance costs for their homes. LIHTC tenants do not bear these obligations; they pay rent and utilities.

Because the financial responsibilities and risks to residents are not comparable, the LIHTC rent adjustment structure does not provide a meaningful justification for changing the mobilehome vacancy control provision. The two programs are not analogous, and using LIHTC as a benchmark does not support the proposed policy change.

Capital Improvement Rationale Requires Supporting Data
If the proposal is intended to support capital improvements, staff should provide information demonstrating both the need and whether the proposed 10% increase would meaningfully address it. The Housing Department’s 2017 evaluation of the MobileHome Opt-In program concluded that modest vacancy increases would not resolve deferred maintenance in older parks and that larger parks were already well maintained. Without updated data or analysis for the current proposal, it is unclear if a 10% would help address capital improvement needs or simply provide mobilehome park owners with a greater financial return.

To evaluate this proposal, staff should provide:
• A clear explanation of the problem this proposal seeks to solve and how it balances both resident an owner interests
• If the goal is to generate maintenance revenue:
– an assessment of the current condition of mobilehome communities to establish need, – revenue projections based on turnover rates, and
– an evaluation of whether projected revenue would materially support and sustain needed improvements
This information and analysis are necessary to determine whether the proposed solution is solving the identified problem.

Specified Capital Improvement Petitions Process Lacks Sufficient Detail This amendment lacks a clearly stated policy objective, and it remains unclear how “added benefit to residents” will be defined or applied. The Director’s December 3 email refers to an “objective factor test applied by the Housing Department,” but this test has not been shared publicly. The December 10 letter to the GSMOL offers some additional explanation, but it introduces new elements, such as a petition process involving a Hearing Officer who would determine whether an improvement provides safety or energy benefits. As a result, it is difficult to reconcile exactly how the process will work.

To increase clarity and predictability, staff should publish a single memorandum outlining the full program and how it will be implemented. The public should not be required to interpret multiple emails or letters to understand the proposal. At a minimum, the memorandum should include:
• What problem this change intends to resolve and how it supports MRO goals • Publication of the “objective factor test” or language that defines an “added benefit to resident.”
• A complete description of how it will be implemented
• Duration of the 3% adjustment, with an example illustrating how it would be applied When a similar proposal from the mobilehome owners was presented to the City in 2017, additional considerations were identified and may still be relevant:
• Residents income levels and ability to absorb capital improvement pass-throughs. In 2014, it was determined that 58% of mobilehome parks households were likely to be very low-income (VLI), and that 76% of the City’s VLI households were cost-burdened. This analysis could be updated. (Community and Economic Development Committee Memorandum, November 16, 2017)
• Possibility of establishing a Resident assistance program. In 2017, some park owners expressed a willingness to establish a program for residents who could not afford the increases.

Providing this information in a clear, consolidated format would improve transparency and allow residents, owners, and policymakers to better understand the rationale, impacts, and feasibility of the proposed amendment.

Other Considerations

• Is the registration dataset complete, or should fields such as sale price be added? • Will residents retain access to judicial review after exhausting the Director appeal process? And finally, when will the draft redlined versions of the ordinance or regulatory amendments be released for public review, how long will they be available for comment, and what outreach plan will be conducted?

In summary, the staff memorandum does not provide sufficient information to fully understand the proposed changes. Given the scope and implications of these changes, and the information provided to date by the Housing Department, I urge you to recommend against the proposed specific capital improvement petitions.

Finally, in his December 4 email, the Director acknowledged that the Department does not have access to key data, including rent schedules and unit-level tracking. This information is necessary to support changes to vacancy decontrol. Therefore, I also urge you to recommend against the proposed changes to the decontrol process for mobilehome transfers. Staff should return at a future date, once the data systems are in place and the required analysis has been completed to assess the need and potential impacts of such changes.

Thank you for your work on this important issue and for considering these recommendations.

Respectfully submitted,

Jacky Morales-Ferrand

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
their ordinance, else a facial attack potential would be revived. For many years San Jose has been able to rely upon the 2-year statute of limitations bar to protect the mobilehome ordinance from a facial attack, ever since a facial attack by Mobileparks Westpark failed in the 1990s. Opening any Ordinance provision could revive that possibility. The fact that no one has ever challenged other ordinances that have been amended does not mean there is no risk. I posed this very question to a very knowledgeable law firm in San Francisco who represents local jurisdictions in connection with rent control issues and challenges. I worked with attoreny Fran Layton on the U. S. Supreme Court case of Yee v. City of Escondido in 1990. She is an acknowledged expert in the field. Her response, as seen from the attached email, is that any provision which is amended could indeed be subject to a facial attack without protection of the statute of limitations. The City shall certainly need to rely upon the opinion and advice of its own Attorneys. But dismissing the risk as "inaccurate" without full analysis of the prevailing case law from knowledgeable legal professionals, and careful consideration, is not only dangerous, but reckless. A proper review of case law shall confirm that.

5. It is hard to reconcile the representation that infrastructure is failing in many San Jose parks, prompting a need for a separate capital improvement pass through procedure, and then turning around and saying that such petitions "tend to be infrequent". If the need is truly present as alleged, then we can expect the opposite of infrequency. It is MNOI petitions that are infrequent, because they require park owners to open their books.

Mr. Solivan is welcome to disagree with me, but I take great offense to being accused by him, a non-practicing attorney with no apparent experience in my field of specialty, of peddling inaccuracies.

Bruce E. Stanton, Esq.

Law Offices of Bruce E. Stanton
10556 Combie Road, Suite 6727Auburn, CA 95602
Telephone: (408) 691-9692
If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.

If an
elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality. – Desmond Tutu

San Jose City CouncilJanuary 27, 2026

San Jose City Council
January 27, 2026