Mobile home park law heads to City Council

Deirdre Newman

It took more than 20 motions, but the proposed mobile home park law

is finally on its way to the City Council.

The ordinance, which has been in the works since July, was

approved by the Planning Commission on Monday night.

If the law clears the council on April 5, it would give the city

more authority over the closure and conversion of mobile home parks.

The commission considered the ordinance as a whole and then

considered many of its parts separately. The result is a document

that’s fair for all parties, said Chris Welsh, owner of the Palms

Mobile Home Park.

“The ordinance that was passed made significant progress toward an

ordinance that everyone could live with,” Welsh said.

The City Council supported revamping the city’s procedures for

converting mobile home parks to other uses after residents of the El

Nido and Snug Harbor trailer parks complained that they weren’t being

offered fair compensation for having to leave the parks, which are

being closed.

Irene Shannon, an El Nido resident who was one of the leading

advocates for a new law, said the proposed ordinance doesn’t gives

mobile home owners the compensation they deserve.

“Of course, homeowners currently being evicted are disappointed

that in the future mobile home park closures in Costa Mesa, others

will also lose their investment as well as their homes,” Shannon

said.

The proposed law defines terms such as “closure of a park” and

“conversion of a park.” It requires that a park owner file a

relocation report, and it specifies what must be in the report.

The commission first looked at the ordinance as a whole and

approved moving it up to the council with Commissioners Eric Bever

and Bill Perkins dissenting. Bever said he voted against it because

he feels it ultimately harms the people it intends to help -- mobile

home owners.

“Rather than being fair, the ordinance was extremely liberal in

providing compensation. And as a result, that creates a financial

blow to the park owners,” Bever said. “Then, unfortunately, the

ordinance ultimately hurts all tenants as a result of disincentives

and adversarial relations that are fostered by the ordinance.”

Commissioners proceeded to pull parts of the ordinance out for

separate consideration. One of the most significant dealt with how to

compensate mobile home owners whose homes can’t be relocated. The

original proposal called for the consideration of the market value of

the home in the park and outside of the park in determining the

appropriate payment.

But the commission decided not to consider the value in the park.

Instead, commissioners decided on the greater cost of either value,

Garlich said.

Welsh said the change was a wise one since the original version

violated park owners’ property rights.

“The value [in the park] reflects the value of the land,” Welsh

said. “That’s transferring part of the value from the park owner to

the homeowner and that’s not fair.”

While he applauded the change, Welsh said he wasn’t sure the

environment that inspired the proposed law was the best one for

creating a long-term policy.

Bever shares that concern.

“I think the problem I have is that the foundation of the

ordinance -- it’s rooted in the anger, fear, hatred and frustration

of the El Nido and Snug Harbor closures,” Bever said. “And I think

that foundation is tainting the whole process. Perhaps we should let

this one complete itself and start with a fresh piece of paper.”