Legal Cost Rising wrote on Jun 22, 2008 6:52 PM:So how much will it cost the tapayers to take the park owner to court saving 60 people $400 each? I hope it is less than the $24,000 to park owner stands to gain.

City Should Do Right wrote on Jun 22, 2008 9:45 PM:The city has a responsibility to fight this increase because it is against the law. Just like every law --from murder to a traffic ticket--the city must enforce the law and sometimes that costs money. The city should try to get legal fees from this guy because he is constantly trying to challenge the law, bcause the city has the responsibility to enforce the law.
And especially when they law threatens old. poor people.

May wrote on Jun 22, 2008 10:09 PM:This is totally unreasonable. With everything else rising so quickly how can they expect people to dole out MORE than what they are already paying. I say this mobile home park manager is a very callous man.

John wrote on Jun 22, 2008 11:58 PM:The city should buy the park and convert it to low income housing. Most pay more than $300 a month.

shame on that owner wrote on Jun 23, 2008 1:10 AM:so now he decided to get retroactive rent... now? He should have applied it when the $10 increase was approved... not years later. You snooze, you lose. Turns out price gouging for seniors and the poor is not ok, even in Oceanside. Good for the city.

jvc wrote on Jun 23, 2008 1:13 AM:What? People are upset with the high
price of petrol but that is not the
a big deal in comparison to the cost of housing! The cost of housing today is tantamount to stealing! We must find out why rents are so high! As a society,
we just cannot continue to enrich one group of society like owners of rental
property while spending most of our paychecks on rent! Maybe housing price
control is the answer to greed!Or, every housing owner should show the profit margin to each unit that is being rented!IS CAPITALISM FUNDAMENTALLY ABOUT THE GOUGE IN TODAY'S AMERICA?Is America today just about making the rich just richer...
the new standard of the American Dream?

Greed wrote on Jun 23, 2008 1:20 AM:Greed. Greed. Greed. Nothing more & nothing less. Just Greed.

Sick.

p.s. To City of Oceanside: Good Luck!! A good old fashioned buttwhoopin is called for - certainly!! Spank 'em hard!!!

FP wrote on Jun 23, 2008 3:58 AM:We are proud of ourselves again.....
SUE SUE SUE

Enough already wrote on Jun 23, 2008 6:44 AM:First of all the mobile park owner was allowed to add $10 per month back in 2005 per a judges ruling. He goes to court to fight that ruling and ultimately looses on appeal. The renters would have been paying the $10 if the appeal didn't occur so maybe they should have started to put that money away and maybe the city should have been telling them that. The biggest problem with this whole thing is the cities involvement with mobile home parks. Let them fight for themselves, I don't see the city sending in attorneys for apartment renters and homeowners. The people living in these parks have been paying peanuts for years and getting away with it. City should bud out, I don't want city money to pay for private property suits.

enough already wrote on Jun 23, 2008 6:53 AM:Lets face it the city council wants mobile park residence votes. For those crying about the city enforcing the law. What about the mobile home park at I-5 and Oceanside Blvd. The aggreement with the city was that any improvements such as the street entrance for the Sprinter was to paid by the mobile park. The owner would have been able to charge the residence per the leases they signed. The city gave into them, not following the aggreement, and paid for the entire improvement along with NCTD.

Socialism wrote on Jun 23, 2008 6:54 AM:Ever wonder why you don't see new mobile home park developments? And why existing ones fall into disrepair? Same reason the Soviet Union dissolved.

Wow wrote on Jun 23, 2008 7:24 AM:Comparing mobile homeparks to the Soviet Union? There are no new mobile home parks because the cities do not want them. Fair enough.

joecitizen wrote on Jun 23, 2008 7:39 AM:Silly sheeple! Don't you know that the government knows what's best for you? It is the mobile home park owner's civic duty to lose money every month so that elected officials can buy votes and get re-elected. Don't you know that private property rights no longer exist, especially in the people's republik of kalifornia?

Wait a ninute wrote on Jun 23, 2008 7:49 AM:I agree taxpayers should be paying court costs to help citizens. These people are taxpayers too, Maybe the city should work out an agreement of a payment schedule for the homeowners living in the park. I believe the company may be entitled to have the back payments. I don't think they should beee greedy about it. I moved from Oceanside a few years back because the politics were more than I could stand. Maybe a few of you addressing this article should get a grip or leave too. Oceanside has always been the step-chlld of San Diego County. Carlsbad is the darling. And that's my opinion for the day.

Bad City wrote on Jun 23, 2008 7:54 AM:This is between the owner and the residents - leave my tax dollar out of it. Instead, spend the money picking up the shopping cart that has been laying on CITY OWNED PROPERTY on Douglas Drive across from the CITY OWNED golf course - it has been there over 6 weeks - as well as the new one now laying on North River and Douglas.

jvc wrote on Jun 23, 2008 8:12 AM:Where is the Mayor on these moral
issues? Sure the mayor has retired from his Dirty Harry days and has only one vote on the council but he has the power
to speak-up from his bully pulpit!
No more keeping a low profile mayor,
let us hear more from you on these issues!This goes at the heart of leadership!

To Bad City wrote on Jun 23, 2008 8:28 AM:Call code enforcement.

prof wrote on Jun 23, 2008 8:30 AM:$319 a month for renting a free standing home of any sort is major bargain on the coast. Are these residents entitled to this discounted housing with taxpayer funded support from city attorneys?

Stephan wrote on Jun 23, 2008 8:39 AM:My take on this is exactly what Prop 98 was trying to solve.

Why should TG Oceanside have to subsidize the low rent occupants at his own expense. If the state or gov't wants to provide welfare to these people, then they need to pony up with the money.

It is just not fair that the property owner be required to be the sole provider for these poor people's welfare. If the public wants to provide a subsidy for these folks, then they need to pay the owner the fair market difference between what he gets from the rent controlled properties and what he would get from John Q. Public off the street.

The government has just shifted the cost of welfare from the taxpayer to the property owner.

Suzie wrote on Jun 23, 2008 8:58 AM:Why can't they just be reasonable, get the retroactive rent, but do it in several smaller incriements, which would not be near the hardship on the renters. It isn't rocket science.

Radman wrote on Jun 23, 2008 9:08 AM:To wait a ninute. I'm not leaving Oceanside because I love it here. We have a pier and a harbor and our beaches are better then Carlsbad. I'll agree that the restaurants and shopping are better now but in a few years that will catch up with Carlsbad. Carlsbad will be referred to as south Oceanside.

gretch wrote on Jun 23, 2008 9:18 AM:Just a question: How many mobile home parks does Carlsbad or Encinitas have?? This is a market economy, and landlord should be able to charge a reasonable rent. Unfortunately if you want to live near the beach that is the cost of living here. Live in an urban or inland area and pay less.

ByExample wrote on Jun 23, 2008 9:37 AM:Does this mean that the city has also frozen these peoples property taxes, utility bills? Or are they being selective in their welfare giving. I hope this is not a "Do as I say, not as I do" situation. The city could very easily put an end to this by obsorbing the cost through a property tax adjustment for these properties instead of wasting limited tax dollars on attorney's.

That property is PRIME REAL ESTATE. Perhaps they should relocate these homes to reside on Oceansides Airport.

Can I count on the city to freeze my expenses when I don't have enough money to keep up with todays economy?

Prof wrote on Jun 23, 2008 10:02 AM:The $319 is the rent for the space, not including the structure.

Legal Beegle wrote on Jun 23, 2008 10:25 AM:The owner can't get past rent. The appeals court decided against his receiving it. If he had received it after the trial court decision, he would have had to return it once the appeals court decision said "no." This is why we have rent protection folks. It simply stops this type of greed. The guy should have taken his $10 raise in rents and stopped suing the City over this.

Randy wrote on Jun 23, 2008 10:25 AM:When will the owner of the mobile home park be able to obtain a fair rate of return on his investment?

Greed wrote on Jun 23, 2008 10:33 AM:The park owner knew the rules when he invested - and now he wants to change them. If he didn't want to deal with rent control and all that entails,he should have purchased a different investment. He should goo cry somewhere else, and the rest of you should get a clue. Both Carlsbad and Encinitas have subsidized mobile home parks; some are pretty dang sweet, too!

Dude wrote on Jun 23, 2008 10:41 AM:Does not seem fair to the property owner.

Kelly wrote on Jun 23, 2008 11:01 AM:Perhaps you all should look into the facts of the case...What is the agreement between the owner and the City for the low-income housing status of those 60 units? Have you read and do you understand the rent control ordinance? Have you every driven by or through this mobile home park? It definitely is NOT luxury living. This is a legal issue which has been decided by the courts and the landlord LOST. The actions of this company are why most mobile home park owners are viewed with distrust by their tenants. Better they should just wait til their next opportunity and re-file/request another rent increase. The article's math is fuzzy at best, but a $10.00 per month increase is probably not outrageous by any standards. On the question of the owner's return on his investment - perhaps he shouldn't have invested in rent controlled low income housing if he wanted to make a killing. There are other investments out there.

Nutz wrote on Jun 23, 2008 11:02 AM:Heaven forbid that a landowner try to get fair value for the use of land requiring increased property taxes and other fees that he is not able to pass to his freeloading tenants. If these folks residing at Terrace Gardens could live to be 500 they would still plead poverty in order to assure they get fixed rent on the piece of land where their haomes are parked. When it get's down to it, why should these select few be given rights that none of the rest of us share? If rent control is available to some, make it available to all home owners!

Legal Beegle wrote on Jun 23, 2008 11:11 AM:You make the perfect arument against rent control and for the free enterprise system democracies are know for. Socialist should move to canada where they are taxed beyond belief in exchange for goverment protection

Randy wrote on Jun 23, 2008 11:11 AM:The tenants owe $10 a month for several years, which adds up to $400. It is not the mobile home park owner's fault that the tenants spent the $10 each month instead of holding it in trust!

FTM wrote on Jun 23, 2008 11:57 AM:The only remedy is to allow the owner to charge the 10 dollars per month starting right now - not retroactive. If the owner agrees to not collect the retroactive rent the city should drop the suit.

Duh wrote on Jun 23, 2008 12:57 PM:Wow
[-] wrote on Jun 23, 2008 7:24 AM:Comparing mobile homeparks to the Soviet Union? There are no new mobile home parks because the cities do not want them. Fair enough. No, Dude, We are not in the Soviet Union. Stop wishing. Duhski!!

Resident wrote on Jun 23, 2008 1:49 PM:In response to Nutz comment: You think the people in this park are freeloaders? Why don't YOU try financing an OLD mobile home(for those of us who have purchased in the last decade) with the economy as bad as it is while trying to get a good rate, then YOU try to afford the cash down up front to insure that you get the financing you need,(remember we are all poor "freeloaders" so we cant afford to pay cash outright)or, for those of us who have owned our homes for years, try living here for decades with no drastic rise in rent before this, only to be hit with higher rent in the most difficult times in our lives. YOU try living for years in a park where the TC Oceanside Mngmt Co. allows you very little leeway to spruce up your decades old home (that you can barely afford), that because of its age needs constant maintenance, then pay the space rent. On top of that add the gas and electricity and all of the other costs of living which are also going up without the benefit of a rise in pay at work for those of us who work. Now try being on a fixed and/or limited govt. income that does not rise with inflation rates and have no job (remember some of us are OLD "freeloaders" so we are retired by force because of age) as well as bad health. Also remember that many of us with children work more than one fulltime job to be able to afford our "freeloading" rent and have no way to come up with the extra $400 which is more than what our monthly space rent is in the first place on top of our rent for July. YOU , you do all of this THEN you come to us, the residents and look us in the eyes and call us "freeloaders" to our faces! You obviously don't know any of us personally or anything about our personal circumstances or you would not have made such a callous judgmental statement about us. Here, have our shoes for a bit and try walking in them I guarantee you won't like the fit any more than we do!

To Resident wrote on Jun 23, 2008 2:47 PM:If it was really that bad, then folks wouldn't live there. Property owners shouldn't be saddled with supplying welfare to citizens. If there isn't a return on investment, there won't be investors, and the City will end up owning the lot and the taxpayers will lose the money on it, or the folks that live there will end up owning the lot. In fact, that is a good idea. Have the mobile home owners buy the park. Then THEY can lose money every month, and ironically won't be able to raise their own rents to pay for it.

OCEANSIDE GUY wrote on Jun 23, 2008 2:52 PM:The City should NOT be suing he park owner on behalf of a lot of people who don't want to pay their rent. If it were up to those people, they'd be staying there free as SQUATTERS. City politicians area pandering to trailer park squatters for their vote. Why not have the City dictate the price of everything? It's ridiculous and amouts to seizing private property and giving it to somebody else to get votes.

Oh Boy... wrote on Jun 23, 2008 3:50 PM:Some of you guys need a basic course in business and law. First off, the guy knew he was buying into rent control, so he should have figured that little fact out in his underwriting of the project. If it didn't pencil out then, he should have moved on. Second, funny how Berkeley, with the toughest rent control in the nation, does not have a shortage of real estate investors. Now, why is that? It's because rent control areas act more like a T-Bill than a high tech stock. Because the payments are more or less guaranteed, the investor trades away the volatility of market rents with the security of 100% occupancy. If you manage these properties correctly, you have very little maintenance costs because turnover is so low. Yes, you have all the other non-tenent maintenance costs, but you're not replacing the interior every year. If you don't manage it correctly, you'll lose your shirt - and that's true no matter where you invest and it's the right answer. So, a fair rate of return is very subjective - depends on the risk you're willing to accept! So, explain to me why this guy has a right to re-trade the deal? Why is he allowed to ignore the law and write in his own rules? Why is he allowed to ignore his leases with his tenants when I'm sure he makes the tenants stick to the terms of their leases. Explain that one to me!

Yo Resident wrote on Jun 23, 2008 4:14 PM:You're breaking my heart! In case you aren't aware of the way things work outside of Terrace Gardens, many of us are saddled with high utility payments, living in areas with lower quality housing at overpriced rents or mortgage payments and dealing with health problems - either our own or of another family member. And you know what, we manage despite the safety valve that rent controls offer folks like you. If you want to complain about how a few of the comments above portray the residents of your community you might want to stop and thank your lucky stars that you don't have to contend with the added pressures that a majority of taxpayers deal with.

Marilyn wrote on Jun 23, 2008 5:00 PM:For those of you who have never owned and mobile home and rented a space: Rent control is not rent freeze, it merely prevents the park owner from raising rents outrageously. For instance in San Marcos, it is a percentage value based on cost of living.

Mobile home owners, unlike apartment renters cannot just up and move if the the landlord raises rents outrageously. This means that if they cannnot pay their rent, the stand to loose the significant amounts they have paid for their homes.

Of course park owners deserve a return on their investment, but in the case of the mobile home park, their monthly maintaince costs are for less than those for apartment building owners, and they have no responsiblity for the structures on the lots they rent.

effer wrote on Jun 23, 2008 6:14 PM:Move to Arkansas or Alabama if you want cheap housing. Let the owners of Terrace Garden make what it is worth.

JSten wrote on Jun 23, 2008 6:39 PM:I never understood rent control. (Save your breath, I know the concept)

Who in their right mind would voluntarily buy a commercial property, and then have the government step in and say, more or less arbitrarily, what your investment is worth, in terms of capital recovery and upkeep?

Duh wrote on Jun 23, 2008 8:01 PM:This guy bought the property knowing it was rent controlled. Give me a break all you property rights nuts. He should have taken his lousy $10 and stopped the merry-go-round of lawsuits. He has virtually no maitenance at that site and has filled his pockets full of rent for years and years. Now he is probably having financial problems due to some other investment and wants this small park to further line his pockets. Bah humbug on him!

To Atta Boy or Oh Boy or Whatever wrote on Jun 23, 2008 10:13 PM:Oh Boy...
[-] wrote on Jun 23, 2008 3:50 PM:Some of you guys need a basic course in business and law. No way, That's why we pay you ...

Senior resident wrote on Jun 24, 2008 8:08 AM:You talk about wasting taxpayer dollars but you don't have a problem with the city council spending $500,000 on this years fireworks celebration. Most of the people who live in Oceanside wont be at the beach. Chula Vista has decided not to have fireworks due to the budget. I guess the City of Oceanside doesn't have budget problems. This council does not have a clue about spending OUR hard earned tax dollars but they care about mobile home parks. You know my vote also counts and spending $500,000 on fireworks is a lack of common sense. If you agree call your local council member.

To Whatever wrote on Jun 24, 2008 8:53 AM:Your invoice is in the mail. Payable upon receipt.

OCEANSIDE GUY wrote on Jun 24, 2008 10:08 AM:To Oh Boy: Obviously, you live in a trailer park and you want to force the property owner to subsidize your rent, giving you welfare from his private funds. As for your silly analysis of the trailer park business, it's just a defense of rent control, which, of course, is to YOUR advantage. The truth is that rent control squeezes the property owner such that he/she cannot make the improvements that should be made. Result: Shabby rental properties. Cities with NO rent control have MORE rentals available and at an affordable price. For those who are seriously interested in this subject, read research by the Cato Institute and others, which is easily Googled.

Hey Oside Guy... wrote on Jun 24, 2008 11:39 AM:I can assure you I do not live in a trailer park. You have obviously made up your mind about rent control, so it's safe to say that you will not be investing in that area anytime during your lifetime - nothing wrong with that. As for silly analysis - how do you analyse your investments? Roll of the dice? Darts? Chicken feet held at arms length in circular motion? My point is I'm not defending rent control, I'm just trying to figure out why this guy gets to change the rules when he knew the rules going in? If you don't want to invest in rent control properties, fine - don't invest. But don't plan on changing the rules without any evaluation of the risks that come with it. Even your blessed Cato Institute understands that one. Maybe rent control squeezes the property owner, and maybe it puts more emphasis on hands on management, but that risk would certainly figure in the return, wouldn't it? Or is that just more silly analysis? So please, take a time out, breath into a paper bag, and tell me why this owner gets to change the rules with the city and with his tenants - and rent control has nothing to do with it - it's a legal question. Do I have to send you an invoice, too?

jvc wrote on Jun 25, 2008 4:58 AM:If Congress is set to help the home owner with foreclosure, it is morally obligated to help the renter who pays most of income on rent!

FTM wrote on Jun 25, 2008 9:17 AM:All the arguments are stupid. Rent control on trailer parks was instituted by the courts a long time ago - anyone who bought or started a trailer park in the past 60 years knows what they were buying into. It's a moot point. I hate triler parks - you can't get rid of them and they are a detriment to the city - but wer'e stuck with them like it or not. Any LEGALS means that the owner can use to raise rents is a good idea - the judge already gave him a 10 dollar a month deal and he was stupid enough to ignore it and he took his chances on going for more and he lost. that's it. he should accept his loss and move on. He can legaly start charging ten dollars right now. If he makes the city sue him I'm going to want more money from him for legal fees. He should stop now instead of going down deeper.

To FTM wrote on Jun 27, 2008 9:39 PM:You don't know squat. Trailer parks are cool!!..