Richard wrote on Oct 7, 2008 1:31 PM:Raise the rents! The whole Cavalier park is not a fair return on the value of the land. No one has the right to pay $300 month rent for a full size home. This isn't communist Russia!

East Oceanside Resident wrote on Oct 7, 2008 1:32 PM:Maybe the "renters" should organize and buy the park, like the condo owners at the Marina Condos bought the property from the city. They "rent", they don't own, they knew that in the beginning didn't they? What is with this sense of "entitlement" every one has now? The "renters" can always move their mobile homes somewhere else. I wish I lived that close to the ocean, that is prime real estate and at today's property values this is not a "best use" scenario at all. Quit your complaining or move!

Gringo wrote on Oct 7, 2008 2:16 PM:Time to fleece the low renters out. Lets use that land to it's full potential.

JJ wrote on Oct 7, 2008 2:17 PM:As a kid I remember sitting in the park by Marshall Street pool looking at what was then, the Loma Alta Creek. It used to be a lagoon as I recall, before the trailers. I even remember a huge 'GOLDWATER' sign there on the hill facing the SB traffic on I-5 during the presidential election. Raise the rent!

Looks Like wrote on Oct 7, 2008 2:26 PM:Greed is popping up everywhere.

Like the article reads, burden of proof of the return must be proven from the owner.

I hope the residents fight succeeds!!

The rent raised is ridiculous!

The residents here seem to have a good chunck to stand on, and fight

To Raise the Renters. wrote on Oct 7, 2008 2:28 PM:I am sure you are the landowners friends, or have never been on a budget that is for low rent.

YOu should be ashamed of yourselfs for not putting other peoples living at heart first.

Just goes to show how greedy people become in america.

Shoot in Europe there is strict rent controls.

Why do you think Americans are labled spoiled and greeedy.

They think with their pockets instead of thier hearts and heads.

Wow that is cheap rent wrote on Oct 7, 2008 2:54 PM:For not a bad area either. The RV parks get like 500-600 a month for micro spaces.

Redevelop the land wrote on Oct 7, 2008 3:21 PM:I'm with the "park" owner who should get a fair return on his investment. This is what America is all about. If the owner was smart, he would evict all the crying renters and redevelop the land. Oceanside has way, way too many trailer parks. Offer a fair price for the land renters!
The 50's are gone and so should the old trailer courts. Where is all this upscale talk for Oceanside? Margie's position is to support low-income housing. That's what her paycheck is all about. She can't go against her mandate.

KFC G will raise the rent wrote on Oct 7, 2008 3:54 PM:Vote for Chavez and Feller and Gibson and they will raise the rent . They said they would.

Yeah because we dont have enough wrote on Oct 7, 2008 4:03 PM:homeless people in Oceanside as it is. Lets kick out all the elderly. Bright idea. The majority of people that are in this park are indeed on fixed incomes. The $351 that Deanna Hasselmann says she pays is just for Space rent. That amount does not include water,trash,electricity. So that $351 quickly becomes $500-$600 dollars a month for these people that are on fixed incomes and still need to eat. For a small space! Not enough land for a full size home, as I recall another reader saying. Have you driven through there? Most of these homes dont have a yard, they dont have a garage. What they need is a manager that gets involved and gets the residents involved to help clean up a lot of these homes. They do it in the low income neighborhoods, why not help the eldery instead of trying to hurt them. My grandmother used to live there, before she passed, and I have seen it just go downhill......

Objectivist wrote on Oct 7, 2008 4:06 PM:Why can't consenting adults privately come to terms on the appropriate rent? I say, let the market decide!!! Let's get the government out of our bedrooms, out of our wallets, and out of our mobile home parks, too!!! By keeing rents artificially low, we're depriving other low-income people of affordable housing. Why should these lucky residents get the benefit of below market rents?

Greedy People wrote on Oct 7, 2008 4:12 PM:That property is paid for, he is being paid quite nicely. If I remember right this man owns 3 or 4 mobile home parks. GREED GREED GREED.

Are You Kidding Me wrote on Oct 7, 2008 4:17 PM:Richard said it, "No one has the right to pay $300 month rent for a full size home. This isn't communist Russia!"

Wake up, Richard...this IS the USA and anybody who lives here DOES have the right to pay $300/mo rent.

Perhaps you don't even live on this planet?

Rent Control wrote on Oct 7, 2008 4:20 PM:Rent control is fundamentally un-American. It should be abolshed.

Having said that, the residents should get together and buy the park. Then they can be in the position of deciding if they want to subsidize their neighbors who may be lower income. It's okay to ask the taxpayers of Oceanside to subsidize low income residents, but I'd bet it's a whole different story when they have to carry that burden by themselves.

Give me a break wrote on Oct 7, 2008 4:27 PM:The "owner" didnt invest anything in this park, his father did(God rest his soul). So I think he is already getting his money's worth.

No Redevelope the Land wrote on Oct 7, 2008 4:32 PM:It is so sad that someone only cares about thier own self interest.

Is that really what America is all about?

I think NOT, America is founded on Greed, Europeans who didn't like rule and ordered took the a land sacred and Now its in most Americans blood to keep taking until thier are high on the hog, and to heck with everyone else.

You are so dingy to say Upscale. all that is a fascade to the fact that retail upscale or Jack in the box still pays only min. wage and then some so everyone who wants to live "Nicer" will still have to commute.

Gosh get your head out of the box, To: Redevelope the land. Your not thinking outside of the box.

Remember every action you take will effect someone, family or human down the road. Think before you speak!

America is not built on GREED, and that is what you are imposing on people who live with low-income.

Gosh its people like you who make matters worse.

Dear Objectivist wrote on Oct 7, 2008 4:36 PM:Are you kidding?

If not then you have to be Feller, Rocky or one of thier partners in disguise.

Let the Market decide, right...and no government oversight. Right, so the greedy idiots don't have to follow rules we the people vote into action.

You forget why America is so great, because people have the right to stand up and speak out against things that are wrong. Like your way of thinking.

Obviously CONSENTING ADULTS doesn't happen. Have you read the news lately. Try looking at our current Credit Crisis, and thats just tip of the iceberg.

Government should have way more oversight on a lot of other topics that have gone on too long because of greedy old men who live in the 40's and still think women should be at home.

People like you make America suck

HARRY wrote on Oct 7, 2008 4:44 PM:I live in Vista on Olive Ave. by the transit center and my space rent is 500.00 plus utilities.They have it really good.Makes me angry I pay so much.

No More Rent Control wrote on Oct 7, 2008 4:52 PM:Our city should get out of the rent control business. On the surface, at least, rent control seems like the compassionate thing to do. But, on closer examination, rent control has some severe drawbacks. Rent control carries with it the unintended consequences of housing shortages, substandard housing, lower property values, and less property tax dollars available for essential services like fire, schools, and police. It is long past time to end the regulation of rents within the City of Oceanside.

Rent Control mistake wrote on Oct 7, 2008 5:22 PM:Rent control is fundamentally Un-American? This nation was founded with a Judeo-Christian philosophy. And I believe that means helping the less fortunate especially the seniors, and disabled who can't afford much on fixed incomes. Damn, these could be our parents were talking about. How greedy can you property rights people be? By the way it wasn't Un-American to bail out banks. What happened to the capitalistic system. We can bail out the rich but not help the poor. Mr. No Rent control you are out of control. How do you sleep at night with your little NRA supplied pistol so the poor people don't take your precious money? By the way Mr. No Rent Control if you have not heard when you die. Can't take your money with you.

To Greedy People wrote on Oct 7, 2008 5:23 PM:Exactly who is being greedy here, the landlord or the tenants? Do the tenants expect the landlord to maintain the park? One would think the landlord's costs to maintain the park have increased. Why shouldn't the landlord be permitted to pass along the cost of maintaining the park along to the tenants who benefit by living in the park? What about the landlord's opportunity costs? Maybe the landlord could invest his money elsewhere and get a better return on his investment. Why should the government force the landlord to settle with a lower return on his investment? Seems like a great deal for the tenants and a bad deal for the landlord.

Vista Granny wrote on Oct 7, 2008 5:56 PM:The owner is taking in nearly 1.5 million dollars annually on a long ago paid for investment. His share of maintenance is for streets and undergound utilities. If there is a pool and club house, he pays that also -- and r.e. taxes. The property is NOT in a prime location. It is down in a hole with the freeway on one side and Oceanside Blvd on the another. I doubt the get an ocean breeze in the hole they're in, and in and out traffic must be awful. Remember, these people buy and pay all maintenance for their homes. They pay rent only for a tiny piece of ground. A rent increase of as much as $100 per month COULD be in order due to the times and the high cost of repairing roads and hiring help, but the increase the owner is asking for is highway robbery. Remember, the residents can't pack their homes in suitcases and just drive away -- they face high costs to move -- and there is NO place they can go.

America...... wrote on Oct 7, 2008 7:01 PM:these days is about greed. Sure raise the rents, throw out the older people. They go on the streets. No one seems to have a heart anymmore. Look at the CEO's at AIG.....1+million a month after retirement. This is what coporate america has done to people. American's should be ashamed.

so Sad wrote on Oct 7, 2008 7:19 PM:It's so sad to me the same negative people are blogging over and over again. It is immoral to throw our seniors and limited income folks out on the street. This is a massive increase for someone on Social Security who only gets $700 or 5800 a month. What's wrong with you people?
Feller, Chavez & Gibson would throw these people out on the street. Vote LOWERY,WOOD, and SANCHEZ to preserve our rent control ordinance and let's continue to honor our seniors, not the greed on wall street and now here on our main street!

OceansideResident wrote on Oct 7, 2008 7:23 PM:Why do people want the park owner penalized because the land is paid for and he inherited it?

If the park must be rent controlled, all trailer parks in oceanside should have the same square footage rent with extras such as pools as an added fee.

jvc wrote on Oct 7, 2008 7:28 PM:Morality has no place in lazaire faire capitalism, so if the rent is too high, move!High vacancies is the only thing to bring down rents without moral considerations!

Cant believe what I am reading wrote on Oct 7, 2008 7:41 PM:Is this the legacy of baby boomers. We are so greedy that we are willing to throw ours and your parents in the streets. Where did you greedy people come from not from any church I have attended. Is this the Republican philosphy to only take care of the rich and greedy. If it is you will see your greediness sink in this next election. I thought Dick Cheney was evil but you writers take the cake. Dick Cheney is a saint compared to you greedy people.

jvc wrote on Oct 7, 2008 8:10 PM:The question to ask here is what is morally right? But, morality is different between the rich and poor and should not be different!

Property Rights wrote on Oct 7, 2008 8:35 PM:Its not our responsibility to subsidize housing for the poor or elderly any more than it is ours to provide healthcare for everyone. This trailer park is a blight. Hence the term "trailer trash". The city should buy it out and provide much needed parkland west of Interstate 5. It is not greed to increase rent to a level that is still below fair market value. Should all business set their prices at artificially low levels because some people are on fixed incomes? 30 cent hamburgers? New cars for $1,500? What ever happened to personal resonsibility? If you can't afford the rent then move!

A Native Osider wrote on Oct 7, 2008 8:42 PM:After reading this article, I know who I am voting for Nov. 4. That would be Wood, Sanchez & Lowery! Thanks for the write up NCTimes.

About Fairness wrote on Oct 7, 2008 9:03 PM:Oceanside was originally built on small homes and trailer parks. Now all the overpaid, office dwelling overfed airheads have moved into town, inflated home prices and want to tell all the old folks to move - because they are either in your way or you don't like the unsightly trailer parks. Oceanside still has a charm that cities like Carlsbad lost long ago. Appreciate what you have and stop trying to be what you are not. Maybe a rent increase is fair, but to tell these people to pay a sudden huge increase doesn't sound right. How about implimenting an increase slowly so they could adjust.

To Cant Believe wrote on Oct 7, 2008 9:24 PM:You are absolutely right. Children should be responsible for their parents. We should not, however, look to the government or to society to take care of our parents. The responsibility rests entirely with the children. Your second point is about Dick Cheney. I don't believe Mr. Cheney would ever argue for limited government. Everything I've heard suggests that Mr. Cheney wants more government control over our lives. Mr. Cheney seeks to build up the empire of America and spend away not only our parents' finances but the finances of our children and grandchildren by fighting not a government but a tactic called terrorism. The arguments here represent the antithesis of the Dick Cheney approach. Those who argue against rent control do not support a leviathan tyrannical government regime. Rather they support limited government and the premise that indviduals and not the state should take personal responsibility for their own and their parents welfare.

to jvc wrote on Oct 7, 2008 9:41 PM:What is morally right is for the individual to accept personal responsibility for taking care of his or her own parents and not to shirk that responsibility by expecting society to pick up the tab.

johnson wrote on Oct 7, 2008 10:18 PM:"Just goes to show how greedy people become in america.

Shoot in Europe there is strict rent controls."

i'm sure there are no greedy people in europe

Compromise wrote on Oct 7, 2008 10:29 PM:How about a 50 dollar a month increase every year, for 5 years. It may not seem like a lot, but to those low income people its a difference between food, medicine or electricity.

jvc wrote on Oct 8, 2008 12:11 AM:Where were you during the bailout vote?
Personal responsibility,indeed!

John wrote on Oct 8, 2008 12:36 AM:Rv's are paying Almost $600 a month to park in Vista! I hope they do perform a study of rents in that area. We have millions of federal funds for low income housing. Do these renters qualify? If so and we want socialism, let the city buy the property at fair market values.

SFMC98 wrote on Oct 8, 2008 3:36 AM:All you people who shout "FREE MARKET!" and "THIS IS SOCIALISM!" sound like corporate automotons who only see the bottom line and don't consider any externalities.
What happens when these people end up homeless and the taxpayers have to pay DIRECTLY for them? How about using a little pragmatism? Instead of complaining what SHOULD be, recognize what is. And lets go from there.

GREEDY wrote on Oct 8, 2008 7:02 AM:This is truly a shame and heartbreaking to hear that the elderly can be taken advantage of so easily!!! If these people are on fixed incomes then they moved in expecting only the yearly increase. Now the owner sees potential in getting more money for his investment? How greedy can one be? Where is the compassion for our older citizens? I hope they all move out and no one else moves into his parks!

Sleeping but Awake wrote on Oct 8, 2008 7:15 AM:To - all the rent Control is against the ways of America crowd.

Go to the dictionary and look up the word - heart. Then check and you will see that yours is either missing or the size of a grape.

Then carefully page over to the section with the words that start with the letter c- find compassionate. You apparently do not have this word understood so study up. maybe then you will understand that compassionate feelings are in fact American and you may need to get a few thoughts along this line before offering up the fixed income folks to abuse you cads.

Then - page over to the section with the words that start with the letter "o". Look up the word opinion and understand that your belief that rent control is not American is simply that, a belief and an opinion. It is not a fact or in this case, nor does the notion even make sense.

What this matter is all about is following the law. A city employee will guide the analysis of whether or not the trailer park owner is making a return on his investment per the law. If he is making a fair return onb capital per the law, too bad,so sad, no rent increase. Perhaps he can then go around tripping blind people or drowing kittens in a sack to make up for his hollwo space in his soul casued by his inability to inflict pain on the elderly and the fixed income folks. Hey, here is an idea as well. Lets just skip the whole expense of hiring the economist for an analyst thing and send him a letter with one sentence - Your request is denied. Honestly, I have no patience for this greed.

Let them move to Temecula wrote on Oct 8, 2008 7:34 AM:Why would they go homeless because they cant afford a fair rent? There are plenty of trailer parks elsewhere. When people can't afford a house here they move to Temecula. Send them to Temecula!

Jim in Oceanside wrote on Oct 8, 2008 8:02 AM:346 Spaces in a park that if developed out to single family dwellings would probably contain, if he is lucky, 75-80 homes. Don't forget, not all the spaces rent for $351/mo, depending on location and when rented, some rent for a lot more than $351/mo - how much, I don't know - I just know how other parks work when it comes to space rent. I'm betting the one lady quoted has a single wide mobile home with a covered carport on one side and a 8 to 10 foot wide deck on the other side. No yard, welllll, maybe 4 or 5 feet of yard on the deck side - maybe. The space is wide enough to cover maybe 25% to 35% of the footprint of a single family dwelling not counting the yard. See where I'm going here? He is getting a fair market return on land down in a hole beside I-5. You have to cross the RR Tracks to enter the park and it is parallel with the Loma Alta Creek and has flooded a lot in years past. In order to develope into anything else, he's going to have to bring in fill in order to raise the land. Then he's going to have to build sound barrier walls due to the freeway noise and probably along the side where the tracks and Oceanside Blvd are located due to noise from that direction. All of this, if the appropriate approvals and environmental impact reports are favorable. Again, he's making a killing on renting out tiny lots on this property and he only has to provide minimal landscaping and street maintenance. From what I've seen, the landscaping is minimalist... maybe a few painted rocks.

Ex-CME wrote on Oct 8, 2008 8:02 AM:Reading some of these blogs makes me sick. All I hear is kick these low income people out and the word trailer trash, that was a good one. I lived in this mobile home park as a kid with my single divorced Mother who worked two to three jobs a day just to pay rent and put clothes on my back and food on the table. My Father paid no child support and my Mother did not believe in handouts including welfare. The kids who lived outside the park used to tease us at school and call us names like trailer trash (I am sure they learned this from there wonderful parents) Every year we would have to evacuate due to the canal that runs through the park flooding over. As a child I hated that park because of the mean manager (he wasn't really), all the old people, the name calling, and flooding but as a sucessful adult/Parent I look back and thank God for that mobile home park because it gave us an affordable roof over our heads and I thank God for my Mother who worked so hard to raise me the right way. I recently drove through the old park with my children and showed them where I was raised and told them the story so they can be thankful to the Lord for what they have and to respect others. If we did not have rent control to help people who are hard working but do not make the large salaries that most people are blessed with then all these people would be on the streets, parks, underneath the freeway over pases, and you people would be complaining about the large number of homeless under your feet. Thank God for what you have and do not pass such harsh judgement on others.

Jim in Oceanside wrote on Oct 8, 2008 8:06 AM:Trailer Park? Come on! It is obvious that you who call Mobile Home Parks, Trailer Parks, are operating from total ignorance. Check out some of these Trailers! Double wides are 1500 to 1600 square feet, triple wides are 1800 plus square feet. The amenities rival the best appointed single family dwellings. Even the term Mobile, does not mean you can hook up to your car or truck and tow it away like an RV. Moving one of these is a major operation costing thousands of dollars. Even moving a single wide is expensive. Make a few calls, gather some facts before you demonstrate your ignorance before the general population.

Johny On The Spot wrote on Oct 8, 2008 8:47 AM:I live in a house over-looking the Cavalier Estate Mobile Home Park and this place is a blight on our community.

It is a super high concentration of use that puts a huge drain on our city services. The fire department, ambulances and police are in that park almost every single day, yet I bet their property tax is minimal at most. They already are not paying their fair share for these services, yet they have the nerve to whine about their rent going up to something on par with what other people pay at other parks.

This is prime property very near the ocean and east of I-5. I say tear down the whole park for a better Oceanside.

I am subsidizing these people already by paying for their city services which are highly used by the residents in the park.

Have any of you ever seen some of the people who live in this park? There are some real low-lifes who reside in that park. Of course, there are some elders who are on fixed incomes, but if they are trying to live in Southern California on $600 or $700 a month as some bloggers have previous written, then it is time for them to move out of state. You simply cannot live here that cheaply and if you are, someone else is subsidizing you or footing your bill.

I advocate property owner rights and feel that the owner should be able to raise the rent to a fair rate and these people are not paying a fair market rate.

It is institutionalized socialism to force the property owner to subsidize the rents of these people with rent control. Why should he pay out of his pocket for people who either did not plan properly for their retirement or are unemployed low-lifes who are living on welfare or unemployment (of which there are many in that park).

To Johny wrote on Oct 8, 2008 9:14 AM:I'm one of the lowlife's that live down below you in the park. I raised my 2 sons here, never got a dime of child support, and worked for 40 years before I retired. None of my neighbors are on welfare. Most are retired. Some with kids are working 2 jobs to get by. I'll pray for you. Although I'm not wealthy, I am thankful for what I DO have.

If The City wrote on Oct 8, 2008 9:45 AM:is going to step in and tell property owners how much to charge for rent, it should buy out the park owner for fair market value and operate the park itself as low-income housing. The gov't, not private citizens, should be subsidizing low-income housing.

Just like Feller Chavez wrote on Oct 8, 2008 10:04 AM:Johny believes in property owners rights, just like Feller & Chavez, with no respect for people who are trying to survive in this difficult economy. Why do you think this issue is coming up before election? When Feller looses the next election, it is bye bye to rent increase. Vote for Sanchez, Lowery and Wood they support rent control.

Jack wrote on Oct 8, 2008 10:14 AM:Although the owner is entitled to a "fair return" on his investment, nowhere do I find any statement indicating how much is a "fair return". Surely it is more than the cost of living increases, probably more like 6% . That's not GREED people, get real !

City will deside wrote on Oct 8, 2008 11:13 AM:To Vista Granny, I bet you don't have a clew as to what the landloards costs are. You said imcome was 1.5 mil.I would not be suprised if insurence could take a huge bite out of that.
The property owner must cover any losses.so regardless of how he recieved the investment he must get a possitive return.
To I cant believe. I am an older person, my kids aer not resposible for me. I am.
To let them move to Temecula. You need to go check out that city. No dumps up there. You must be in your own dream world.

friend wrote on Oct 8, 2008 11:20 AM:How can the park owner justify $87,182 per month more? This is unfair to the residents of the park. Their expenses certainly have not gone up that much! Sounds like greed in uncertain times! I hope the city has the common sense to say NO!

lisa wrote on Oct 8, 2008 1:09 PM:My mother lives in a city owned park in Poway. The City entered into an agreement that if they ever were to sell the owners would get first right of refusal. Now the city has gone back on it's word and wants to sell it off to a private owner just cuz. We have heard that the city is supposed to get more than just the payment for the land in other deals. Anyway, her rent currently is over $800/month. That is for the land only. The house is a seperate deal. So I don't see how anyone can own land and make any money at $300/month. Her park recently held a rent increase meeting with the city and the city showed they are losing money at the $800/month and are raising rates again. So I wouldn't gripe at $600.

I have an idea wrote on Oct 8, 2008 2:34 PM:To all those who think we should control someone's personal property rights; How about taking these people in your home, or letting them drop the mobile home off in your driveway. You can charge them $50 per month.

Seriously, the only fair way would be for the whole community to kick in for the City to buy the property at fair market value. As soon as we raise your taxes to do that, you all would be complaining of your cost. Instead, let's place it on the one person who currently owns the property. Who is being greedy here?

F Bandersnatch wrote on Oct 8, 2008 3:18 PM:GREEDY @ 7:02 am wrote: "I hope they all move out and no one else moves into his parks!" I hope so too, but probably not for the same reason.

jvc wrote on Oct 8, 2008 3:35 PM:These blogs bring up some interesting points , in particular, how the poor
or even middle class cannot afford to live here.... are we heading toward a
elist or class structure in America based on wealth and previlige?

High Horse wrote on Oct 8, 2008 3:36 PM:You are right, we should should not limit the rights of property owners. Unfortunatley the purpose of these regulations is to protect citizens from unfair price gouging. These people were originally drawn to this location due to the low rent and they have based their expendatures on this. This owner is providing a service to others and when he did that it came with regulations that he or someone before him agreed upon. Where would we be if the PUC wasn't here to protect us from the utility companies and they couold just charge us what they wanted? The problem with most human beings is there is no compasion and in place of this you need regulations.

to jvc wrote on Oct 8, 2008 3:56 PM:not "heading toward"...we are THERE!

George P. wrote on Oct 8, 2008 4:13 PM:costs have skyrocketed for landlords;My insurance alone has doubled in one year. A $10 increase puts the owner in the hole;I believe his increase is totally justified.If you cant afford it move out with a relative or rent a room or get a part time job stop expecting someone to pay for you,because you cant afford it.If you fail to plan your life you plan to fail.....

jvc wrote on Oct 8, 2008 4:34 PM:If the fixed income people have to move out, yes we are !

Sad wrote on Oct 8, 2008 5:03 PM:The righteous shall fall

Marie Antoinette wrote on Oct 8, 2008 5:07 PM:If they have no bread let them eat cake

Help the Seniors wrote on Oct 8, 2008 5:41 PM:Here's an idea to help the seniors. Write your congressman and ask him or her to end all taxes on Social Security benefits. Senior citizens worked hard all their lives and paid into the Social Security system through withholding on their wages. Additionally employers also paid social security taxes which matched the amount withheld from the seniors. Why should the government be permitted to tax the benefits? This is immoral and unconscionable. (Notice that none of the rent control advocates on this board and elsewhere say anything about this great injustice which has been brought to bear on our senior citizen population) Perhaps the elimination of this immoral tax will help the seniors in the mobile home park afford the proposed rent increase.

Jamie wrote on Oct 8, 2008 6:09 PM:I am a mobile home owner in Oceanside, I pay $590 a month rent, plus utilities, my rent has gone up twice this year, and I pay my fair share in property taxes in April and December just like the rest of you. Rent, house payment and utilities run me about $1450.00 a month, thats the most my single income can handle. It would cost about 10,000 to move my mobile home, but the real point is there is no where to move it to. These park owners new from the begining that they had an asset with limited profitability. If they were looking to make the most money possible from a piece of land, maybe they should have bought something else, or maybe they need to sell the park to someone who is willing to accept the regulations placed on them. But it is absolutley wrong to change the rules after we have purchased our homes based on these rules and the contract they also signed. I don't think any of you would be ok with it if your morgage holder decided 5 years into your 30 year loan to up your interest rate by 5%. Come on, things have changed, isn't he entitled to make the most money he can off his investment? What, that would price you out of your house, oh well, guess you should move out of California if you can't afford it, you don't expect us to subsidize you just because your lender decided to change the rules in the middle of the game do you? It us the same thing, but I forgot, you are better than us because you own the land. Please, get over yourselves!

To George wrote on Oct 8, 2008 9:29 PM:How are these senior citizens/regular people supposed to get jobs when unemployment is skyrocketing? How are they supposed to move if they can barely afford to make a living each month? Moving isn't cheap and with most households barely making it I doubt a lot of these people have the option of moving in with relatives or friends. It breaks my heart to read some of these comments on here...you would think in times like these that people would band together and help each other out, but I guess that's just too much to ask of greedy, narcissistic people. God forbid something like this ever happen to you...

Hey Marie Antoiette wrote on Oct 9, 2008 5:07 PM:She never really said that...... Stop believing hearsay......

Pazook wrote on Oct 12, 2008 7:38 AM:Hey...this is site rental...not home rentals. Residents own their homes....most or many are seniors on fixed incomes or on pensions such as 401Ks that are being battered by today's economics. It is not uncommon for park owners to make outlandish demands hoping to settle for more than is reasonable.

Mark wrote on Oct 28, 2008 4:04 PM:I love all the generosity of these residents with other people's money! I wonder how the posters would feel if the taxpayers had to subsidize rents for these residents at less than half of fair market rent?