PUBLIC COMMENT 1
4122124
City Council Members,
I am one of the applicants to be considered for placement on the proposed mobile home committee.
I was, and still am, encouraged by the city's decision to create a committee for the purpose of exploring mobile home issues. This has been a long time needed and I remain cautiously optimistic.
The initial action of simply filling the seats on this committee presents a valuable opportunity for the city to demonstrate a genuine commitment to nurturing a cooperative climate in order to facilitate an effective exchange of ideas.
When I read over the agenda item, I was, at first, pleased to see the balance of park owners/representatives and resident candidates listed. I was also, however, shocked to see Julie Paule listed.
While Ms Paule is undeniably knowledgeable and articulate, she is a professional lobbyist for and employee of V+ MA, Western Manufactured Housing Administration. WMA is a huge, powerful group that represents and advocates exclusively for the interests of mobile home park owners and big investors statewide. Their ultimate goal, according to their literature, is to "abolish rent control." They send representatives to cities around the state whenever some challenge to the local rent stabilization ordinance is being discussed and they use those situations as opportunities to present their own agenda, over and over again and the more articulate and professional their representatives are, the better their chances of success. Another aspect to be considered is the fact that Ms Paule lives in Winchester and her only true connections with the City of Yucaipa are in her professional capacity. Her selection to serve on this committee would constitute a breech of trust for the mobile home residents of Yucaipa.
Ms Paule could be utilized as a resource person or a consultant, just as GSMOL, Golden Mate Manufactured Housing Owners League or other statewide residents' organizations, could, but a seat on this committee would be inappropriate, unfair and divisive.
Park owners. -YES! Park residents... YES! City staff ... YES! Julie Paule ... NO!
Thank you for your consideration.
Jo SUtt
PUBLIC COMMENT 2
4/2?124
City Council Members,
When the moratorium was first presented to me as a representative of YMRA, I had given it very little thought and I had no objections. Can the surface it seems pretty simple; bring in newer homes to replace those older ones that are removed for a variety of reasons. It would upgrade the mobile home park communities and improve the aesthetics of the city ... right? Like I said, "simple.,,
After a good deal of pondering, consulting, inspecting and otherwise researching, I have changed my mind. It is definitely NOT so simple! There would be far more repercussions than I had originally imagined.. An explanation would be quite lengthy and involved so I request that this item be tabled for a short time, however, a delayed vote alone would be of no value. What needs to happen is an actual in -person investigation. A compilation of numbers, codes and regulations culminating in a formal report by city staff would simply not be adequate. I urge council members to venture out into their city and personally tour some of the recently renovated homes and speak with the owners of the parks and any others who actually performed those renovations or are impacted by them. My short explanation would be that, if work on the homes is being properly permitted, inspected and approved by the city inspectors, it should be, at the very least, acceptable by city standards regardless of the year of manufacture.
The board members of YMRA were discussing the pros and cons of a moratorium when Mr. Chen offered to give us a tour of ? of his renovated coaches. We were all pleasantly surprised and grateful to have an opportunity to see them for ourselves and to ask him and his manager questions face to face. He assured us that he would be absolutely available to take council members and city staff on the same kind of fact-finding excursion. I urge you to go, either individually or as a group, and check it out for yourselves.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Jo butt ,yuea, PaO
PUBLIC COMMENT 3
1 From:Victor Chen @gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, April 19, 2024 2:01 PM
To:Public Comment
Subject:Public Comment - April 22nd Meeting
In response to Agenda Item #14 proposing Ordinance No. 466-U:
I just wanted to speak up and remind everyone that these mobile home parks are under heavily subsidized rent control.
The resident that lives in a rent controlled mobile home park does not have the financial wherewithal to purchase a brand new $200,000 mobile home.
Passing this ordinance would be like the City saying “You Can’t drive that early 2000’s Ford F-150 in our city because it’s too old!”
Well actually, if that F-150 is well maintained, that is a perfectly good, affordable option for someone that might not be able to afford a newer F-150.
And homes, unlike cars, can be remodeled. An ugly, boarded up house can be turned into an upscale residence with the proper permitting and work. It’s a good, affordable option for someone that might not be able to afford a newly constructed house. It’s good for the consumer, local contractors, local suppliers, and local business.
The reality is, there are many old, dilapidated coaches sitting abandoned and untouched. If we increase the restrictions, making it financially unfeasible and harder to replace the areas that need work, these areas will continue to be abandoned and grow worse with time.
We need to be realistic and say, okay, we are in a housing shortage. People need affordable housing more than ever. Just because a house is a little bit older, doesn’t mean it can’t be a great home.
PUBLIC COMMENT 2
1 From:Landa Hernandez @gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, April 19, 2024 5:15 PM
To:Public Comment
Odenance No 466-U would destroy what we in Yucaipa mobile homes have worked so hard for, a chance to have a place to retire to and a peace we so longed to have. This ordinance would not only steal that from us but would diminish our lively hood. Please do not take what we have left in life. DO NOY ALLOW
THIS ORDINANCE
PUBLIC COMMENT 4
1 From:Landa Hernandez @gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, April 19, 2024 5:15 PM
To:Public Comment
Odenance No 466-U would destroy what we in Yucaipa mobile homes have worked so hard for, a chance to have a place to retire to and a peace we so longed to have. This ordinance would not only steal that from us but would diminish our lively hood. Please do not take what we have left in life. DO NOY ALLOW
THIS ORDINANCE
PUBLIC COMMENT 5
April 21, 2024
Dear Mayor and City Council members,
I recently submitted an application for the Yucaipa Mobile home Park Committee, and I'm feeling a bit perplexed after reviewing the agenda for the City Council meeting on Monday April 22, 2024. It seems there may be some discrepancies between what was initially communicated in the City posting in the News Mirror and what is being considered now regarding the qualifications of applicants. I’m hoping the city provide some clarification on why there is now a departure from the initial vision outlined in the public notice. It would certainly help to alleviate any confusion among the local applicants and your constituents on this matter.
In the January 29th issue of the News Mirror, the city's notice clearly outlined the composition of the committee, stipulating that 5 members should be Yucaipa mobile home park residents and 2 members should be Yucaipa mobile home park owners/owner representatives. This led me to believe that the committee would consist entirely of local park owners and residents who have direct, intimate interactions with our community. It's disheartening and mystifying to see that this seems to have shifted.
I've noticed a significant change in council meeting agenda verbiage wherein it now specifies five Yucaipa Mobile Park residents under Rent Control, not mentioned previously that I recall in the public posting, and two Yucaipa Mobile home Park Owners or Owner representatives who need NOT be residents of the City of Yucaipa. This change raises questions about the city's priorities and whether the selection process is truly reflective of the needs and interests of our local mobile home communities.
The two applicants local park owner/representatives Richard Hess and Mitch Emerson, hold a direct stake in the matters impacting our city. However, the potential appointment of Julie Paule, a state lobbyist and Executive Committee member of WMA, to this committee raises concerns regarding whether the city is prioritizing the interests of the Yucaipa community or yielding to the influence of larger statewide organizations. Of particular concern are the lobbying efforts by such organizations advocating for the abolition of rent control in Mobile Home parks statewide, among WMA's various lobbying endeavors.
How can someone who doesn't reside in Yucaipa fully understand and advocate for the concerns of all our 4,200 plus mobile home residents? I'm struggling to comprehend why the city would consider the candidacy of an individual who doesn't even reside here. It seems counterintuitive to consider someone who lacks direct involvement with this city’s mobile home residents and owners on a regular basis.
It almost appears as though the discrepancy between the language used in the original public posting and the current agenda wording has been altered to suit a statewide mobile park owner association lobbyist/representative application, potentially neglecting one of the two local owners or their representatives – individuals who actively contribute to our community by living, working, shopping or dining in this city.
While Julie Paule's application highlights her purported expertise in MRL law, Yucaipa city ordinances, and prior involvement in the city's Mobile Home Rent Control, I have significant reservations regarding the potential conflicts of interest inherent in her status as a lobbyist and non-resident. My primary concern revolves around whether her allegiance lies with the best interests of Yucaipa's mobile home residents or the special interest group she represents.
Conversely, while a local resident serving on the committee may currently lack extensive knowledge of the MRL and City Ordinances, there exists ample opportunity for self-education and contribution to informed discussions. By familiarizing ourselves with these crucial aspects, we can undoubtedly become invaluable assets to any roundtable deliberations. Thank you for taking my concerns into consideration."
Sincerely,
Petice Huntington
Northview Mobile Park resident and Mobile Home Park committee applicant.
PUBLIC COMMENT 6
April 20, 2024
Dear Mayor Beaver and Esteemed City Council,
We, the members of the Yucaipa Mobile home Residents Association (YMRA), representing approximately 4,270 households, have an urgent message for you regarding the upcoming ordinance that threatens our community’s well-being and access to affordable housing.
Ordinance No. 466-U is currently on the agenda for the City Council meeting on April 22, 2024. This ordinance aims to establish a moratorium for the installation of mobile homes greater than twenty years old in our city’s existing 42 mobile home parks.
We are concerned about the lack of public engagement and transparency surrounding this ordinance. It was introduced publicly in a special meeting on April 9, 2024, through an urgency ordinance, without any prior notification to the public. There should have been ample opportunity for public input before such a serious decision was made. The urgency of this ordinance is unclear to us and raises concerns about the motives behind its expedited passage.
Furthermore, recent developments regarding Ordinance No 429, which passed on September 6, 2023, indicate a troubling trend. This ordinance facilitates the potential conversion of mobile home parks into mixed-use apartment developments, effectively overturning previous protections for mobile home residents. It appears to be part of a larger agenda of aggressive urbanization, which threatens the existence of our homes and community.
The implications of Ordinance No. 466-U is dire for us:
(1) Limited Relocation Options: Ordinance No. 429 already establishes the policy for us, owners of older mobile homes, to inevitably be pushed out.
Ordinance No. 466-U will only further restrict us, making it impossible for us to relocate our homes anywhere else in the city of Yucaipa.
(2) Decreased Resale Value: The prohibition of mobile homes older than 2005 under Ordinance No. 466-U will significantly diminish the property resale value of existing homes. Ordinance No. 429 has already forecasted our displacement, and now with the introduction of Ordinance No. 466-U, the city is essentially saying, ‘Not only will we displace you, but your home will
also be worthless to sell.’ This leaves us nowhere to turn, forcing us to sell at reduced prices or abandon our properties altogether.
(3) Economic Burden: Mandating the purchase of newer mobile homes places an undue financial burden on us, especially for seniors over 55 and low- income individuals who depend on this kind of affordable housing. By pricing us out of our homes, the city is exacerbating the economic challenges faced by vulnerable members of our community.
We cannot stand idly by while our home and lifestyle are threatened. We come together as a community and urge a “No” vote on Ordnance No. 466-U.
Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.
Sincerely,
YMRA, Yucaipa Mobile Home Residents Association
Email: [email protected]
www.yucaipaymra.com
PUBLIC COMMENT 7
1 From:tslaick ymra @gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 21, 2024 3:21 PM
To:Public Comment
Subject:Public comment: Agenda item #14 - Adoption of Urgency ordinance number 466-U
April 21, 2024
To: The honorable mayor, city council members, administrative officials, related city staff and committees
From: Tony Slaick, Yucaipa 92399
Former Chairman of the Yucaipa Mobilehome Residents' Association, (YMRA)
Regarding: Opposition to Agenda Item number 14 - Adoption of Urgency ordinance number 466-U, Establishing a temporary Moratorium for the installation of mobile homes Greater than 20 years old in the city's 42 existing mobile home parks.
Dear All,
I am the former Chairman (of 6 years), of the Yucaipa Mobilehome Residents' Association (YMRA)
If this matter is being considered as a 45-day moratorium or is fully and permanently implemented as an ordinance, some clear points should be taken into account:
You have a well-written submission from the Yucaipa Mobilehome Residents' Association that explicitly describes some of the multiple disadvantages to mobile home park owners as well as park residents, if this ordinance were to pass. This letter is also in support of opposing the adoption of this ordinance.
If the City Council is concerned with substandard, old, and dilapidated mobile homes being brought into the city and believe that is incompatible with the public health and safety of city residents, then (This Ordinance No. 466-U) Number 1, item D:
(It is stated that) there were as many as 44 'set-down' permits in one park alone and roughly 30 percent of those permits had expired without final inspection from the City's building and Safety department, yet nearly 30 percent of these mobile homes are tenant- occupied.
(Section E) City staff has received numerous complaints from various mobile home park tenants of these homes in which they occupy, that they have nonfunctioning electrical, plumbing and heating, holes in floors, and leaky roofs.
2 The easy solution (that does not necessarily solve the alleged problem), is to ban set- downs of mobile homes older than 20 years (Currently proposed). To be reasonable and fair, however, it should not be based on age, it should be based on quality and condition, compliance, oversight, inspections up to and including a final inspection, as well as aesthetics, and more than likely some other factors.
Park owners do not always intend to keep new move-ins as park-owned homes. It's typical to sell the home to a resident, create an owner-occupied home, and allow a park owner to recoup his investment and move on to upgrade another space and continuously improve the park.
If a park owner is required to bring in late-model mobile homes, this process becomes cost-prohibitive as there is little to no supply of late-model homes that can be found at a price that a park resident would be willing to pay; pricing people out of what would otherwise be affordable housing.
If a park owner then had to keep the home, it would be nearly impossible to recover costs (on a timely basis/useful life of the home/depreciation) from monthly space rents. Coming full circle, this would result in a park owner abstaining or refraining from making investments in what would otherwise be regular and nearly systematic upgrades to the park.
Allowing older mobile homes in a park might not be ideal, however, if it is a step in the improvement process cycle that can perpetuate upgrades, refinement, and enhancement while keeping affordability for park owners as well as residents, this is reasonable and practical.
Affordable housing might not be the best thing for cities, but it's needed.
Furthermore, I live in a 1977 double-wide at Hillcrest Mobile Estates. It's a beautiful 1500+ sq foot, 3 bedrooms, 2 bath mobile home. Your proposed ordinance, in effect, will reduce the value of my home by tens of thousands of dollars. I do not plan on moving or selling my home, however, if I did, the city would have dictated a price decrease just by passing this ordinance.
This would destroy the value of nearly every mobile home in all the Yucaipa mobile home parks, as the option to sell or move a mobile home would basically have been confiscated by the city itself.
The solution: This is an enforcement issue. No permit should expire without inspection or at least an updated/submitted new plan. It seems obvious and simple enough that every home brought in should be inspected to meet some identifiable minimum standards once in place, refurbished, and/or completed.
3 If a mobile home is occupied before final inspections, there should be consequences/fines/etc. to the park owner/owner of the home.
Consider making it a requirement that park owners upgrade with newer homes than the existing year home, up to the 20-year-old point, then, any home within the 20-year time frame to the current year.
Would park owners be receptive to offering a six month to a year limited warranty or the purchase of a home warranty policy?
I submit that the city reconsider and reject this proposed confiscatory policy and consider some of the more reasonable, achievable, and manageable suggestions for solutions as offered here, as well as the many other unexplored possible remedies available.
Thank you.
Respectfully submitted,
Tony Slaick
PUBLIC COMMENT 2
1 From:tslaick ymra @gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 21, 2024 3:44 PM
To:Public Comment
Subject:Public comment: Agenda Item number 13, Mobilehome Park Committee Appointments
April 21, 2024
To: The honorable mayor, city council members, administrative officials, related city staff and committees
From: Tony Slaick, Yucaipa 92399
Former Chairman of the Yucaipa Mobilehome Residents' Association, (YMRA)
Regarding: Agenda Item number 13, Mobilehome Park Committee Appointments - Opposition to the appointment of Julie Paule from Western Manufactured Housing Communities (WMA)
Dear All,
I've pretty much laid low since resigning from the YMRA board after 6 years of volunteer service. Since resigning and seeing a new city manager and council come in, I felt confident that the new administration would develop and source information from the best advisors and industry experts, as well as the people in their orbits with good knowledge relating to the various issues that must be addressed.
Unfortunately, not all experts are forthcoming and some have interests that lean heavily on their biases. Considering this, and with all due respect, I feel the City Council was misled, and therefore, this renewed my interest in participating in the discussions.
My understanding is that during the last Biennial Review of the Yucaipa Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance and Administrative Rules, mobile home park Industry/organization representatives that represent park owners had made their case for changing our ordinance. One effort, in particular, was to amend the rules that allow (basically) automatic annual space rent increases from 80% of the Consumer Price Index to 100%, citing that a park owner cannot stay current with inflation when only receiving 80% of the annual inflation.
2 My understanding is that the industry representative, specifically, Julie Paule from Western Manufactured Housing Communities (WMA), made her pitch for the city's annual mobile home park space rent to increase from 80% to 100% based on the perception that this is an obvious fact.
Unfortunately, and sadly, this was misrepresented by omitting the fact that Capital Improvement costs are 'stripped out' of the annual rent increase amount and recovered and paid for separately from park residents. (E.g. - A street paving job could easily be $500,000/a half million dollars. This is paid for separately by the park residents over the useful life of the improvement).
Although this is also known by city staff, my understanding is that this was not disclosed as part of the industry group's presentation, therefore resulting in a 20% increase in the park resident's space rent, without considering/adjusting the other side of the equation.
As a consequence, park residents not only have an undue rent increase of 20% that will now compound for years to come, but also will continue to pay for Capital Improvement expenditures separately, hence creating a condition of 'Double-Dipping', meaning that park residents will now pay twice for the same services.
Feeling disenchanted, as I felt the new council was mislead, I am compelled to speak out and bring some enlightenment.
WMA may be a good organization for park owners, however, in my view, history and experience has shown that when it comes to mobile home park residents, they are unlikely to give their support, and even propose unfair moves to the detriment of park residents.
Julie Paule, representing mobile home park owners through WMA, a well-funded organization that advocates and lobbies for mobile home park owners, was successful with her efforts to convince the city council that increasing the rent cost to residents was fair at 100% of the CPI. This will now collectively cost mobile home park residents tens of thousands of dollars more each year for the rest of their lives, while they also continue to pay Capital Improvement costs separately.
As an applicant for the new Mobilehome Park Committee, there seem to be serious red flags that would disqualify Julie Paule from consideration on this committee.
3 1) The above-mentioned case
2) Julie Paule does not live in Yucaipa and has an interest, as well as (basically) a mandate to influence policy throughout California. It makes no sense for a (mobile home park owner organization's) lobbyist with a proven bias, to help determine our local policy.
Currently, there are two very qualified alternative park owner/representative choices who have also applied for a position on the Mobilehome Park Committee. Mr. Richard Hess and Mitchel Emerson, are both well-known, credible, active in our community, and have personal interests in seeing our local community prosper.
Thank you so much. I am looking forward to seeing the selection of a well-rounded, objective, Mobilehome Park Committee and the advancement of great ideas and fruitful discussions.
Respectfully submitted,
Tony Slaick