Agenda Summary - Manufactured Housing Committee


Marriott Hotel, Grand Ballroom Salon G
Anaheim, California
October 10, 2007
2:30pm – 4:00pm
Presiding:
Norma Scantlin, Chair
David Hale, Vice Chair
Larry Heine, Vice Chair
Frank Nelson, Committee LiaisonC.A.R. Staff:
Natalie Cardenas
I.   Opening CommentsII.   2007 Legislative UpdateA.  AB 285 (Garcia), Mobilehome Park Rent Control Exemption for Owners of Vacation Homes – This bill, sponsored by the Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association (WMA), would exempt manufactured housing units in mobilehome parks from locally enacted rent controls if the unit is a vacation home.  As introduced, the bill would have exempted any manufactured housing unit from locally imposed rent control if it is not the sole residence owned by a homeowner.  However, the bill failed passage in the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee.  The author and sponsor agreed to limit the exemption to vacation homes, defined as a residence where the owner does not use or occupy for more than 180 days in a calendar year.  AB 285 has become a 2-year bill.  C.A.R. Position – WatchB.  AB 460 (Cook) Mandatory Inspections for pre-1976 Mobilehomes – This bill, sponsored by the Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association (WMA), would require interior and exterior inspections of mobilehome units for sale in a mobilehome park if the unit was built prior to 1976.  If the unit does not meet inspection standards, park owner would be permitted to require sellers to correct the violations or compel the seller to remove the mobilehome unit prior to sale.  As introduced, C.A.R. took a Not Favor position on the bill because it would have created a “point of sale” requirement on sellers of pre-1976 mobilehomes.  The bill is currently in the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee.  Due to opposition, the author never brought the bill before the Committee for a vote.  It has become a 2-year bill.  C.A.R. Position – Not FavorC.  AB 1111 (DeSaulnier) Changes in Age Restrictions in Mobilehome Parks – This bill, sponsored by the Golden State Mobilehome Owners Association (GSMOL), would require a majority approval from park residents in a senior mobilehome (55 yearsof age or older) park if the park management wants to convert the park to “all ages”.  The bill further permits local governments to adopt local ordinances to prevent senior mobilehome parks from converting to parks open to all ages.  The bill was held in the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee without a vote.  It has become a 2-year bill..  C.A.R. Position – WatchC.  AB 1309 (Calderon) Vacancy Decontrol for Mobilehome Park Rent Control– This bill, sponsored by WMA would establish vacancy decontrol for manufactured housing units sold in mobilehome parks subject to a local rent control ordinance.  Vacancy decontrol permits park management to bring space rent up to market rent if the unit is voluntarily vacated due to sale of the unit.  Once new residency is established, the space rent for the unit would be subject to local rent control provisions.  C.A.R supports AB 1309 because vacancy decontrol ameliorates some of the negative impacts of rent control.  C.A.R. successfully co-sponsored the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act in 1995 to create vacancy decontrol for stick built rental units subject to a local rent control ordinance.  At that time, mobilehome park rent control was excluded from Costa Hawkins in order to secure passage.  Now, WMA hopes to provide mobilehome parks with vacancy decontrol.  The bill passed out of the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee on May 9, 2007.  It is currently on the Assembly Floor.  The bill must be acted upon by the Assembly by end of January.  C.A.R. Position – SupportD.  AB 1542 (Evans) Local Control on Mobilehome Park Conversions to Resident Owned Parks – This bill, co-sponsored by the City of Napa and Sonoma County, would remove existing exemptions for mobilehome parks converting to resident owned parks from local government approval or conditions.  Under the Subdivision Map Act, if a mobilehome park is proposed tobe converted to another use, such as stick-built housing or commercial development, local governments can impose restrictions and conditions on that conversion.  In some cases, these restrictions have the net effect of prohibiting the conversion.  In 1991, the Legislature adopted an exemption for park conversions to resident-owned, based on concerns by residents and conversion specialists who successfully argued that local restrictions made it impossible for residents to purchase their units.  At that time, the Legislature enacted statewide rent control for low-income residents who do not purchase their unit-space and provided a four-year phase in of rents to market rate for moderate-income residents who chose not to purchase.  However, GSMOL and local cities have complained that resident-owned park conversions are now being initiated by park owners who want to get out of the mobilehome park business due to local rent controls.  As amended, AB 1542 deletes the existing requirement that subject subdividers to a hearing by the appropriate legislative body for the purpose of approving the subdivision map. The bill also requires local rent control measures to remain applicable to the rental of any mobilehome space when a resident chooses not to purchase their lot. C.A.R. continued to oppose AB 1542 because it attempts to maintain existing price controls that create undue financial burdens on park owners that contribute to the decline in mobilehome parks in California.  The billwas passed by the Legislature with the bare minimum votes required and is now on the Governor’s desk.  C.A.R. Position – OpposeE.  SB 541 (Alquist) Asset Test for Residency Qualification – This bill, sponsored by GSMOL, would prevent park management from denying tenancy to prospective park residents based soley on whether tenant can satisfy minimum income requirements for residency.  The bill would require park management to consider the purchaser’s financial assets,such as stock portfolio, savings account, or real property, if the applicant chooses to provide such information.  The bill passed out of the Senate but failed passage in the Assembly.  The author placed SB 541 on the Assembly Inactive File.  C.A.R. Position – WatchF.  SB 900 (Corbett) Mobilehome Park Conversions to Resident Owned Parks – Sponsored by the City of Napa and Sonoma County, this bill would remove existing exemptions for mobilehome parks converting to residentowned parks from local government approval or conditions.  This bill was identical to AB 1542 (Evans), as introduced.  It passed out of the Senate but was never heard in the Assembly.  It has become a 2-year bill.  C.A.R. Position – OpposeG.  SB 981 (Padilla) Mobilehome Parks, Prohibiting Fees – As introduced, C.A.R. opposed SB 981 which would have required mobilehome park management to maintain the premises with funds acquired only through rent and not through fees or“pass-throughs.” By eliminating a park owner’s ability to “pass through” expenses the bill encouraged park owners to reduce the level of services and amenities offered to their residents. Due to C.A.R.’s opposition, the author amended SB 981 to exempt local rent control ordinances that currently permit “pass-throughs” for the maintenance of the park. Unfortunately, the amendments did not remove C.A.R. opposition because the bill would not have applied to local governments that did not have an existing pass-through provision in their local rent control ordinance, nor would it apply to local governments without rent control. SB 981 continued to take away a mobilehome park owners’ ability to pass on costs for maintenance and improvements that cannot be paid with regular rent assessments. As amended in September 2007, the bill now pertains to health care coverage. C.A.R. Position – Watch as AmendedIII.   Eminent Domain Initiatives and RentControl – In June 2008, two competing initiatives will, in all likelihood be before the California electorate to address eminent domain abuse in response to the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Kelo vs. New London, Connecticut.  The Kelo case, where a single-family homeowner whose property was taken by the city to give to a private developer sparked the push for legislative reform of the use of eminent domain and redevelopment.  Last year, California voters narrowly rejected Proposition 90, which would have prohibited the taking of property for “public purpose”.  C.A.R., along with business and local government groups opposed Proposition 90 because it would have prohibited eminent domain for a private purpose and require local governments to pay property owners for loss of value due to a legislative taking. With the failure of Proposition 90, the Legislature, the League of California Cities, as well as the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association vowed to introduce eminent domain reforms in 2007.  Efforts to pass legislation to reform eminent domain were ultimately unsuccessful.  However, both the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the League of California Cities have put forth competing initiatives on eminentdomain, both of which are in the signature collection process.  It is expected that both will be on the June 2008 Primary ballot.  Both measures should qualify for the ballot by the January 2008 C.A.R. Directors meeting, where a policy positioncan be determined.  C.A.R. has traditionally not taken a position on a ballot initiative unless it has actually qualified.The League of Cities sponsored initiative will provide single-family, owner occupied properties with limited protection from eminent domain.  Other properties, such as multi-family, non-owner occupied, or commercial properties would not be protected.  The Jarvis Initiative would protect all residential property owners, small businesses, farms and churches from eminent domain from eminent domain unless it was for a public use.  In addition, the Jarvis Initiative would also prohibit government from setting the price at which owners can sell or rent their property, thus eliminating rent control in California.  Should the Jarvis Initiative win majority support, rent control would be phased out though a vacancy de-control process for all apartments and mobilehome parks in the state.  Some have argued that the Jarvis Initiative would also preclude inclusionary zoning ordinances that mandate price controls through deed restrictions on ownership units in new subdivisions.The prospect of eliminating rent control in California has energized some in the “shelter” community to take proactive steps to helpqualify the Jarvis Initiative.  Both the Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association (WMA) and the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles (AAGLA) have invested PAC resources to qualify the Jarvis Initiative.  However, the California Apartment Association (CAA), who like C.A.R. does not take positions on ballot initiatives until they are qualified, has expressed reservations about the strategy of taking on rent control at the ballot box.  CAA has questioned whether the JarvisInitiative can pass in California, where a strong consumer-protection lobby can galvanize voters concerned with high housing costs and protections for seniors and disabled to oppose the initiative.  Should the Jarvis Initiative fail, it could put wind in the sails of legislators to propose bills to weaken the Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act, according to CAA.  C.A.R. will determine whether to take a position on the Jarvis Initiative as well as the initiative proposed by the League of CaliforniaCities during the January 2008 Board of Directors meetings, assuming both qualify.
IV.  Other business