Mobile home park supporter wrote on Sep 1, 2007 10:50 PM:This is ridiculous! Rent control in Oceanside does not have the horrendous results written in this article. It basically allows low income seniors to continue to live in their homes instead of having to be in nursing fascilities. It also provides the required low income housing required by the State of California. Without rent control the city of Oceanside would not meet its requirements and would have to subsidize the building of an equal number of low income units. Mobile home park owners make a profit above that which is enjoyed by most business owners and they are guarnteed that profit every year no matter what the market is like. They are crying crocodile tears because before rent control they often raised rents as much as 100% every years. Do not listen to the arguments of those who want to step on little old ladies and gentlemen who just want to continue to live in their own homes and who pay $290-$800 to rent an unimproved asphalt parking space.

Rent control must go wrote on Sep 2, 2007 5:42 AM:Property owners have a right to raise their rents as needed to cover their costs, taxes. Why does everyone think the world owes them a handout, seniors included.

Chester wrote on Sep 2, 2007 10:16 AM:This writer is very confusing. It appears to me that a property owner who elects to develop otherwise vacant land into a mobile home park and freely invites others to invest in coaches permanently set in place on that property are obligated to the coach owner. Many property owners require as part of the lease that the coaches have their frames altered so they can not be towed away for relocation. In all cases if the property owner elects to use his property for another purpose he should also be obligated to relocate the coaches he allowed onto his property to an equal location entirely at his expense or to buy out the financial interest of the coach owner and pay all relocation expenses incurred by the coach owner. The writer and the land owners he is defending appear to take the position that the coach owner has no rights whatsoever. That is wrong. If the government took that property by eminent domain the land owner would be entitled to fair market value and each coach owner would be entitled to fair market value plus all relocation costs and expenses. The rights of the coach owners can't be cast aside here.

Confusing initiative wrote on Sep 2, 2007 10:37 AM:This initiative doesn't seem fair. It appears as very fundamental. On one hand, it says it will protect people from "eminien domain" abuses (which of course has a tremendous amount of sympathy). On the other hand, it removes an already existing protection put in place by concerned cities to protect the senior citizens. By voting to protect people from property seizure, it will destroy the property rights of seniors. ( I am not a senior, just an observer.) The abuses that caused the rent controls were excessive. Somethng had to be done. Similar to the reasons for Proposition 13,( Howard Jarvis + Gann 1978) We need to do everyone a favor and research this initiative fully.

Strange Bedfellows wrote on Sep 2, 2007 10:41 AM:Why put both in the same initiative. Eminent domain protection and Rent Control already in place. This makes for strange bedfellows. The people who wrote the initiative probably had the best of intentions, but somewhere along the line, the mobile home association or some other large lobby got the rent control part thrown in. That will hurt people on low to moderate incomes. It makes abusing seniors that much easier. Bad.

Bob wrote on Sep 2, 2007 9:22 PM:If a property owner is required to accept rent controls there should be tax breaks to help make up the profit difference. I am sure mobile home park owners would prefer to force out older tenants by raising rents past their income and then sell a new house to new people with greater income and begin the process again. What's fair is to peg mobile home lot rents at half the market rate for apartments as the park owner has no investment in buildings, but the possible uses of the land does go up so half is fair. If some tenants can prove their limited income, there should be a tax break for keeping their rent lower so no one loses their home.

Jean wrote on Sep 3, 2007 2:14 PM:Without rent control - you won't now what do do with all the new homeless - there will be thousands.

Dave wrote on Sep 4, 2007 3:10 AM: Here's a clue for all you greedy Californians... How about repealing the freeze on property taxes...I bet eminent domain would just go away and I'd bet trailer park owners would think twice on dropping rent control if their properties would have to be re-evaluated. California isn't going to crash into the ocean, It is going to financially crash on itself. Congratulations greedy California people!Try not to step on the poor as you fall.

space rent wrote on Sep 4, 2007 6:27 AM:have you seen the prices these scalpers are getting in non-rent control parks? I just moved out of one where the rent went to $650. Now a park of 165 units, you do the math. There are parks in the East county in excess of $1000...greedy greedy greedy! So much for "affordable" housing.

American Mike wrote on Sep 4, 2007 5:54 PM:Dave. Move. Move anywhere out of California. Please. Prop 13 is the only reason that low and middle class workers can actually own a home and have any hope of it benefiting their future. Prop 13 keeps OUR savings and earnings out of the hands of developers, investors, speculators, and most of all, criminal politicans north of the Southern California border, and even some that reside down this way. The only way Prop 13 will ever be repealed is when it is pried from property owner’s cold dead hands. Why don’t the politicians and developers stop wasting taxpayer monies with their useless measures and propositions that call for it to be repealed? Strange Bedfellows, one word. Bipartisanship. It's just another way both the republicans and democrats ensure nobody gets what they want. It would make too much sense to have it in seperate bills. That would actually give voters a REAL choice.

Taxpayer to Dave wrote on Sep 5, 2007 5:10 AM:Better get your facts right! The only freeze on property taxes is the percentage the government can take. That would be 1 1/2% of the value of the property. In California that is a large percentage because of the value of the property. Besides Dave, if that restriction was lifted the cost to rent an appartment, a home or business property would go up along with the new tax. The effect would be very bad for owners, renters alike and consumers alike. The cost of everything would be driven up by the cost of living and doing business. Not a well thought out plan for all of us greedy Californians!

Prop. 13 + Rent control needed wrote on Sep 5, 2007 7:42 AM:Proposition 13 saved Californians. Probably nobody remembers the horror stories except for those of us who were around in 1978. The situations were straight out of hell. People being reassessed because their neighbor upgraded their home. Seniors living on fixed incomes being forced out of their homes because of those increased taxes. By now, most homes that were owned before 1978 have been sold and resold. Assessments went up. Proposition 13 made it 1 % of the selling price. We MUST keep Prop 13. We must. The eminent domain/rent control initiative is bad. The mobile park owners can still apply for increases, but they have to go before a City Council or County Board ad justify those increases. Reasonable increases are granted. This initiative will drive out the very people that rent control was designed to protect !

Communism doesn't work wrote on Sep 5, 2007 10:59 AM:There is no inalienable right to live in Southern California or in a particular mobile home park. Many people just want something for nothing and are willing to have it taken away from others so that they can have it. This doesn’t work over a long-term: note the fall of the Soviet Union.

Christina wrote on Sep 5, 2007 2:50 PM:Interestingly enough, there will be a meeting at the mobile home park I live in tonight regarding this issue. I have been on the internet all day trying to research this issue as much as possible. We bought our house in December 2006....out right! Our current rent is $650.00 per month. I pay that rent to a man that has too many people on his staff, not enough concern for the tenants that really are happy to be there, and has yet to get rid of the riff raff that has accumulated in the park. My husband and I chose to live in a mobile home.....it wasn't by default, or lack of the ability to purchase a home....This is what we wanted....We signed a 5 year lease with a "guarntee" that our rent would go up....it's only been 9 months, and here we are....I have a question, How do we know what homes in a partk are rent controlled and which aren't? That would be a great thinig to know!

To: Christina wrote on Sep 5, 2007 4:54 PM:You didn't tell us in which city you were. Some cities have more rent-controlled parks than others. Check with the Mobile Home Association in your city. They should be able to help you. Some cities are actually going so far as to purchase the parks from owners and sell the spaces back to the residents (without profit). Good luck.

Mobile Home Parks wrote on Sep 6, 2007 9:33 AM:When you buy your home, you buy a home you can afford and can pay the taxes on. No one comes in a year later and says, OK, now it is going to cost you another $200 a month, do that every year and people start losing their homes. It isn't about senior citizens, or about wanting something for nothing. Those little spaces we rent are not cheap, if there isn't some kind of rent control, how can you buy one and know that you will be able to afford to live in it in a couple of years? If your apartment rent goes up to high, you move, but you can't just move out of your mobile home if they price you out of it. You will have to sell it, and who will buy it if they don't have some reason to believe that they will be able to afford to continue living there? It would be like forcing all of us, who have purchased a place we can afford, into an adjustable rate morgage, at any time our payments could skyrocket and put us out of our homes.

Reardon wrote on Sep 6, 2007 10:32 AM:As a senior, I think it is just terrible how those greedy mobile home park owners force mentally enfeebled seniors to buy a mobile home in their parks at the point of a gun, and those seniors, who lived in the free market all of those active productive years, now demand that the government "protect" them with rent control. Message to the Mobile Park Seniors: People all over America find at some point that they cannot afford their house/car/jewelry or spouse. Buy down, just like the rest of us. Your senior status deserves personal respect and a discounted haircut on Tuesday -- not lifelong discounts in rentals OF OTHER PEOPLES PRPOERTY! Buy your own property if you don't like how others price their property.

To Reardon wrote on Sep 6, 2007 2:24 PM:Usually, I agree with your posts, but on this one, you are way off base. Between this artical and the one last week on affordable housing, I am amazed at the lack of logic and "if you can't afford it, get out" attitude of the comments. Just clarify for me, where would you like the people who make less than $100,000 a year to live. I get the move out thing, if I can't afford it leave, ok, but who is going to take care of your mom in the nursing home? Who is going to scan your groceries, cook your dinner at Denny's? Did you have a plan for where the childcare provider is going to live while taking care of your big bucks corporate yaya's kids? Where will you put the maids for your fine hotels, the gas station attendands and sandwich makers, your Licensed Nurses, even your middle managers. (I am mid level management in healthcare, I make about $50,000 year, I have a BS in Business Admin. and I can't touch a house in this county)It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that this community needs us lowly servants! I'm not asking to live on the coast with an Ocean view, but I do want some insurance that I will be able to make both my house payment and my space rent on this little mobile home I managed to save enough to buy! Guess what, take away that and we will move, we already have a shortage of Nurses, not enough money in it to live here, soon you will only see those that sneak across the border in your hotels and restaraunts, they won't just be mowing your grass, they will be the school secratary, the business office manager, the bus drivers, the grocery clerk, I could go on, but why bother!

Reardon wrote on Sep 6, 2007 2:32 PM:We did buy down, we bought a mobile home. If we could have bought the land, we would have, but it wasn't an option. I think you are probably right, everyone that can't afford a $500,000 house should move to the mid west. If you are priced out when basic 2 bedroom housing is $1500/mon. you need to get out. Guess that will leave just you important people.

It's a Choice wrote on Sep 6, 2007 3:40 PM:Nobody is forcing mobile home owners to purchase on leased land. It's a choice! Like all other choices, there are upsides and downsides. The main upside is that they can purchase the home for a lower price by not buying the land. The downside is that they do not control the cost of the landlord's property. The mobile home tenants can purchase the coach and the land in many places, but not everyone does. There should be no inherent right to live in a place at the expense of a fair market value to the landlord. Rent control needs to go, or let the ones who want to keep it subsidize those who use it.

To Mobile Home Parks: wrote on Sep 6, 2007 3:45 PM:I think you're missing the point. You didn't buy a property that you could afford. You bought a home on someone elses property. Personally, I think that's a stupid decision with an open ended liability. Possibly you should have purchased something more modest in a different area. However, your decision should not come with the right to limit the landlord's options that are not subject to the terms of the lease. It's not your land! Decisions have consequences.

To Reardon wrote on Sep 6, 2007 5:03 PM:I did buy something I could afford and it came with a 10 year lease. It wasn't a stupid decision in that it allowed me to continue to work and raise my children here. When I bought it, the rents were skyrocketing, my apartment went from $735 to almost $1100 a month in the course of 18 months, whose income jumps like that? Tell me, what can you purchase that is more modest than a mobile home? That is the point, there has to be modest priced housing, or we are in serious trouble. Where are all these people going to go when the land owner prices them out with their greed? They knew they were buying Mobile Home Parks, and that those Home Parks came with certain restrictions and responsibilities, they knew what they were getting when they bought them. So now that land skyrocketed in value, to heck with the rent control THEY KNEW ABOUT when they bought the Parks. You're right, it's not my land, but they bought that land knowing there were restrictions on it. Maybe THEY didn't make a good decision! Maybe they should have bought where they could jack up the price all they wanted, but that isn't what they did, and we need to protect the affordable housing we have. They could always sell, someone else might just want to make a modest profit. Like I should have bought something more modest, they should have bought something more profitable.

To It's a Choice wrote on Sep 6, 2007 5:11 PM:There are very few Mobile Home Parks where you can by the land. My question is still unanswered, where is it you expect that a modest income earner should live? Where do you put the retired person who can't take massive rent increases. You will have nothing in SD County but the big wigs. What kind of community are you going to have? Dinner will be mighty expensive at that Jack in the Box, that is if they can get anyone to work there. Just how far do you drive for a Jack in the Box job?

Reardon wrote on Sep 6, 2007 6:38 PM:When I was in the height of my earning phase, I lived on an acre in North Poway, with pool and stables. I bought down in my seniorhood to a small home on a golf course and I support that home by continuing to work -- albeit at a more leisurely rate. At 74, I am moving toward the end of my working potential, and will again buy down to a condo -- which is the first rung of the ladder where beginning families get their feet wet in the housing market, modest wage-earners live, and seniors who want some control over their expenses, end their lives if they have not paid off their homes or made wise investments. I might even rent a home on a yearly lease-- but at no time would I consider buying a coach that cannot be moved, latched to the ground of someone else who owns the land and controls my ability to sell or move. There is nothing wrong with mobile homes, my daughter has lived in one for more than 15 years -- but she lives in one on more than 2 acres that she owns. People who buy into situations where there are uncontrollable factors, have no complaint when the uncontrollable gets really uncontrollable. It was that way when they bought. Nothing changed, except they want protection from their own flawed earlier decisions.

To reardon from Taxpayer wrote on Sep 7, 2007 5:34 AM:You like so many others are speaking from a point of success that many have not shared! I like you, have been somewhat successful and thus do not live in a mobile home park or appartment with rents going up. BUT, I do know people that do live in those situations. You are right in saying that it was their choice BUT in many cases it was the only thing they could afford to buy that has at least a small portion of investment quality and hope for a payback. AND many of these mobile home parks do offer long term controls when people enter into the agreements. The problem comes when the owners watch the rents going up everywhere else but they are restricted by prior agreements. Then all of a sudden they can't afford to stay in business! Greed is what it is called. No more, no less! I don't have an easy answer to this problem BUT I can tell you that your position and mine to a lesser extent is unusual and in this case you are at least partly wrong! These people, seniors and others deserve some protection, from that greed.

To Reardon wrote on Sep 7, 2007 9:50 AM:We had controlled factors, now you want to change them. That is the problem. You want to say it is our fault for buying a mobile home, but the reality is that those land owners knew what they were buying, which was property with limitations. Just like I knew that I would always pay rent. I took that into consideration, including modest increases allowed by my lease and the rent control laws it falls under, therefore I don't feel my decision was flawed. I do feel that it is a mistake to remove the restrictions that allow for moderate priced housing. I think it is great that you can move down to a condo, there are some nice retirement homes out there as well, but not everyone can afford them. My question to you remains, if we don't have a plan for affordable housing, where will modest income earners live? Society needs the modest income earner, they provide vital services, so it is truley unrealistic to keep telling them, if you can't afford to live here move. So what is your realistic answer to where these people should live?

Reardon wrote on Sep 7, 2007 10:54 AM:To To Reardon: I thought I had answered the question -- condos. You can buy a condo in a really nice neighborhood for under $200,000 in this market. While $200K is not zero, you can't get zero anywhere, and $200,000 is not bad for the quality of life in San Diego County. You can rent that same condo in a nice neighborhood for under $1,000 a month. For retireds, there are several single-family homes for sale in the retirement section of Rancho Bernardo (Seven Oaks) for less than $400,000. No one ever said that fully tattooed high school dropouts would ever be able to buy a home, but there are plenty of alternatives for everyone other than mobile homes.

To Reardon wrote on Sep 7, 2007 11:24 AM:You are misinformed, you can not touch renting one of those condo's for under $1250 month, my daughter just recently rented one in a somewhat safe neighborhood and that was the best we could find. I have shopped for condo's, even these apartment condos are starting at $325+. $400,000 homes are not reasonably priced for a senior citizen, and none of your misguided pricing comes anywhere close to the affordability of a $120,000 manufactured home. It's great that you have made it so well, but that is not the case for most people. You are not dealing in reality. It is a sad thing that you think so little of people who are not as financially blessed. We aren't asking you for a dime, we just want to continue to live in our little mobile homes under the same agreements that we bought them under.

Reardon wrote on Sep 7, 2007 12:33 PM:To To Reardon: Misinformed? Hardly! I am a Realtor who owns such a condo and rents it to a young couple for $875 a month. The going rate for those condos, on the golf course in a quiet community that the NCTimes calls "upscale" is $950 but I like the young couple, they are both working and struggling, and they have rented from me for years. There are several units for sale at less than $215,000...including my own. $400,000 may not be reasonably priced for some senior citizens but Seven Oaks is filled with thousands of senior citizens for whom the $400,000 price is right. I checked the prices on the MLS just before posting. Yes, nothing can touch a $120,000 mobile home in price, but the subject of this discussion is that the reasonable price can come with other inherent problems, including uncontrollable factors. Pay your money and take your choice, but as a 30+ year Realtor and an Expert Witness, as well as a landlord and multiple condo owner, I am not certain you are in a good position to call me "misinformed."

Reardon wrote on Sep 7, 2007 3:27 PM:To To Reardon: Misinformed? Hardly! I am a Realtor who owns such a condo and rents it to a young couple for $875 a month. The going rate for those condos, on the golf course in a quiet community that the NCTimes calls "upscale" is $950 but I like the young couple, they are both working and struggling, and they have rented from me for years. There are several units for sale at less than $215,000. $400,000 may not be reasonably priced for some senior citizens but Seven Oaks is filled with thousands of senior citizens for whom the $400,000 price is right. I checked the prices on the MLS just before posting. Yes, nothing can touch a $120,000 mobile home in price, but the subject of this discussion is that the reasonable price can come with other inherent problems, including uncontrollable factors. Pay your money and take your choice, but as a 30+ year Realtor and an Expert Witness, as well as a landlord and multiple condo owner, I am not certain you are in a position to call me "misinformed."

Reardon wrote on Sep 7, 2007 5:02 PM:Let me address rent control for a second. Rent control in mobile home parks protects current residents from major rent increases, but it stops future mobile home developers from wanting to increase the pool of future "affordable housing." Worse, rent control diminishes the money the existing park owner has for making repairs -- and if the park happens to be zoned commercial (as many are), then rent control makes it more likely that the park will eventually be closed, and turned into a huge and very profitable shopping center, further reducing the pool of "affordable housing." Rent control is eating your seed corn – it fills the stomach at the expense of the future. Politicians love rent control because it assures current votes and leaves the problems for future administrations when the current politicians are collecting their pensions.

Bill2 wrote on Sep 9, 2007 10:23 AM:What we need is more mobile home parks like the one I live in. The property is purchased WITH the mobile home which can then be replaced with a newer model or used as is. The park is operated under a home owners association and fees are less than $300 per month, which pays for all upkeep of utilities, streets, large meeting hall, olympic size swimming pool (with solar heating) etc. I have a friend living in another mobile park where she pays $731 per month for a small patch of dirt. At 132 spaces that equals $96,492 per month income for the owner. I would hardly call that hurting. Residents have to fight for any improvements to streets etc. Only really serious problems get fixed on an as needed basis. Greed does not constitute hurting.

RobertM wrote on Sep 9, 2007 11:56 AM:A mobile home park owner who cannot raise rents could develop his land into condos or other uses. If the government wants cheap mobile homes on that land it could buy the land at a fair price (not by eminent domain) and use it for whatever it wants. An alternative is for the mobile home owners to band together and offer a fair price to buy the land.

Maybe initiative has a big hook in it wrote on Sep 9, 2007 12:59 PM:Slipping the Mobile Home Parkj rent de-control into the vrery popular eminent domain initiative is sly, to say the least. There ought to br a law against sneaking some dubious item into a very popular one. Maybe it is because, in this case, the BIG GUNS did not want this Eminent Domain Initiativer to pass, so they put a fishhook into it. The mobile home is safe place to be. It is reasonable. People can depend on their costs, whereas iof lifted, the ownersd would sell and new owners would be oh so anxious to recoup their investment. This is a complicated initiative.

Watch out for this one wrote on Sep 9, 2007 1:43 PM:There are more than 2 ways that a government can sieze property. For instance, they can do a clever job of "zone-busting" and place an incompatible use within a zone. Voila ! The people. businesses, homes, property, are dorced out. Very clever indeed. It will not do any good to take away the "eminent domain" ability, because governments have already found a nasty ugly way around it. Just try to be one of those within a zone where "zone-busting" is taking place. There will be nothing in the way to stop the thievery ! At least when threre are actual laws to be followed strictly, we are all better off. Watch out for this one !

People are forgotten wrote on Sep 10, 2007 7:26 AM:What this initiative seems to forget is people, at least on the Rent Control side. Rent control was put in place to help with price gouging. The same way that Prop 13 was put in place in 1978. If they can confuse the voters and lump the rent control in with what they call "Eminent Domain" control, then big business and the lobbies win again. Don't think for a minute that the eminent domain abuse will be gone forever, they will just call it by another name - "zone-busting" or some other method.

Jim wrote on Sep 10, 2007 5:40 PM:Not all mobilehome parks are low income housing. Not all mobilehome park residents are low income seniors. For those low income seniors who live in mobilehome parks, it should be the City's repsonsibility to subsidize them. Rent control allows a very large number of people who are not low-income to coat tail the plight of low income seniors. If the issue is addressing the needs of low income seniors, then provide a remedy which applies to low income sentior - only. Since when in this society is it the duty of the individual business person to subsidize the needy. If there is an obligation - its is the government's obligation; not that of the small or medium size business persons. No other business charges less for the same servie or good to a low income person. Groceries are the same; gas is the same; all other services are the same price for all. Low income seniors can get the housing equivelent to food stamps if appropriate. Address the real problem

ParkOwner wrote on Sep 13, 2007 6:35 PM:Being a park owner I find it very disturbing that most of the comments relate to how rich I am... $500 per month by X number of spaces. Unfortunalty everyone seems to think that there is only 1 side to and income statement the income side. Those who pay rent to someone else always seem to think that my business must have fallen out of the sky with my name on it or the business fairy flew by and gave it to me. That is far from the truth, in retrospect, some other investment would have yielded far less grief and a much greater return.

Disappointed wrote on Sep 22, 2007 10:00 AM:Few comments were written in the spirit of solving the matter at hand, if decontrol is allegedly the answer, where will the working class, those living on fixed incomes and the retired end up? I think it's easy to sit back on our educations and opportunities and forget where those less fortunate than ourselves come from...what little they have to live on and how impossible relocating to the "Midwest" would be when living paycheck to paycheck. For every person who "makes it" in this world, there are at least 10,000 who don't. Those people are our police officials, fire/paramedic and ems workers, nurses, teachers and those who repair our roads. Without these, meagerly compensated, workers there would be no state of california. Sure each of them could become realtors or landowners if they tried really really hard. But the truth is, whenever there is a saturation in ANY industry market or other, it drives the price for compensation way down. A little thing called supply and demand. The fact that very few people are actors, business owners, landowners and such makes it possible, NOT right, but possible for those people to enjoy extremely high incomes and the wealth to live just about any place they wish. From what I read no one was asking for a mansion in the hills, just the ability to continue filling your wine glass, caddying for you at your golf club/resort, paving your streets, turning your power back on when a live goes down, caring for you when you get sick. And yes, at some point, despite your amassed wealth you will get sick. Then again, I'm sure that with your monies you could air-vac in a nurse from Nevada or Arizona. Because believe me you, they wont be driving to your pristine, unaffordable, area for 45K a year. And when the pot holes and street signs begin to deteriorate due to the salty air, I'm sure you again could air-vac in someone to take care of that. Sounds a little ridiculous doesn't it? Well it's just as ridiculous as telling someone to up and move or learn to cope when their income doesn't meet your requirement or standard. On behalf of all those people I'd like to apologize to you for the inconvenience of having the basic needs of california met. Shame on them for trying to make a difference and just filling a need. I suppose the state of california or our government should begin "refugee" funds for the less fortunate people so that you can increase property rates, build expensive condo/townhome developments.

ParkOwner wrote on Oct 5, 2007 11:42 AM:To Disappointed... In the spirit of solving the matter, where is your fix? Your fix is like everyones elses fix, take it away from someone else to give it to someone else. I have not found it yet and if you do, please let me know where it is where I can complain about the price of gasoline and get it regulated, the price of a movie and get it regulated or the price of food and get it regulated... Your off-handed comments about golf carts, wine glasses and ammassed wealth are nothing more class welfare. As for my ammassed wealth if you can call it that, I have earned it, I work for it every day, most of the time 6 or 7 days a week while watching your rear sit down, letting the weeds grow while you drink your 18 pack of Natural Light every evening... You are not there when the homeowner approachs me after they have lost their job and I float them rent for 6 months until they get back on their feet and repay, I guess your crystal ball must have been turned off that day.