Mobile home ordinance might drive some away

After attending the Costa Mesa Planning Commission meeting on Monday

and listening to our new commissioner Eric Bever, and reading Deirdre

Newman’s story in Wednesday’s Daily Pilot; I cannot help but comment

on Bever’s statements and recommendations.

It doesn’t seem like Bever has done his homework -- or maybe he’s

just biased against mobile home park residents. As he read his list

of reasons why our city should not adopt a Mobile Home Conversion

Ordinance, he sounded like he got his script from those organizations

that defend mobile home park owners.

Of all the Planning Commission meetings and study sessions, there

have only been two or three park owners in attendance to protest the

ordinance and Costa Mesa has 21 mobile home parks.

Bever commented at the Planning Commission meeting that the

attempt to endorse a Mobile Home Conversion Ordinance for the City of

Costa Mesa all came about because of the emotions of the residents of

El Nido and Snug Harbor Village, who are being evicted from their

parks to allow for park closure. In Newman’s article, he is quoted as

saying it is rooted in “the anger, fear, hatred and frustration of

the El Nido and Snug Harbor closures.” Strong words from a

commissioner who hasn’t held office long enough to know us or who we

are.

Bever needs to realize what we have been going through since it

was announced to us during the Christmas holidays of 2002 that we

would be losing our homes, which some of us have lived in as long as

28 years. I would ask the commissioner how he would go through what

we have gone through for more than a year and not have any emotions

or anger. The old adage holds true: Commissioner, “You should walk a

mile in our shoes before you pass judgment.”

Also, I would like to inform the commissioner that this ordinance

does not benefit the residents of El Nido and Snug Harbor Village, as

our esteemed City Council has already shot us down. This ordinance is

to give some protection for the residents of the other 19 mobile home

parks so maybe they won’t have to endure the anger, pain and

frustration that we have experienced. This city should realize that

mobile home parks are about all we have as far as affordable living.

Remember November!

DICK MATHERLY

Costa Mesa

I walked away from Costa Mesa’s Planning Commission on Monday

night, frankly, disappointed. After months of work by city staffers,

numerous discussions at regular commission meetings, study sessions

and City Council meetings -- including input by parties on both sides

of the issue -- the city was on the cusp of actually passing a

meaningful ordinance. This would have provided protection to those

living in Costa Mesa’s 21 mobile home parks when a park owner wanted

to close it and use it for other purpose.

The park owners had many concerns with this ordinance and I have

to admit some of them were valid. But then the commission started

dissecting it, piece by piece, and after changing and dropping a few

key provisions it was a shell of what was originally intended. There

is a clause making the ordinance void in the case of a park

bankruptcy. It doesn’t take a genius lawyer to file the right

paperwork and make use of that ploy by using inflated values and

shell companies. Without going into detail, two mileage thresholds in

the proposed ordinance were changed from 30 and 50 miles to 50 and

75. I hope you park dwellers like the Inland Empire, because that’s

where you’re going after Costa Mesa spits you out. And one provision,

probably the most important, would have provided fair market value

compensation to the home owner if the home is not able to be

relocated.

The City Council will consider the majority Planning Commission’s

recommendations on April 5. Hopefully they will restore it back to a

meaningful document, but experience tells me not to hold my breath.

TERRY SHAW

Costa Mesa