A critical date is fast approaching as a majority of residents in Palisades Bowl–just west of Temescal Canyon and above PCH–fight to preserve the status quo and save their homes. On August 10, residents received a 60-day notice that owner Eddie Biggs would start the process to convert the ocean-view park to resident ownership. With the October 9 deadline approaching, the recently formed Palisades Bowl Residents Association has released a statement that says in part: “If Biggs is successful, the homeowners will no longer be protected by L.A. City rent control and the residents, who will likely not be able to afford to purchase their lots, will have to abandon their homes and their life savings.” Although Bowl residents own their homes, they pay rent for the land, which is currently under city rent control. Residents would not be required to convert, but if even one resident buys the land under his or her house, rent control would no longer be in effect for the park. Residents on low income (defined as one person making less than $38,000 and two people with an income of $44,000) would still be under state rent control guidelines and would not see their rent increase. Those not considered low income and who do not purchase the land would see their rent increase to fair market value over four years. At an August meeting to explain the conversion, Attorney Richard Close of the Santa Monica law firm Gilchrist & Rutter, who is spearheading the process for the owner, was asked why residents should buy the land. He said that in some cases, mobile-home park members have found that the value of their land increased. David Spangenberg, attorney for Eddie Biggs, spoke to the Palisadian-Post September 15 and was asked the same question. “It makes the most sense for this park,” Spangenberg said. “Pacific Palisades is an expensive place to live. People who have bought these properties, like those who live in a park in Palm Springs, have made so much money. “It becomes a Class A community when residents operate their own community,” Spangenberg added. “I think that Eddie Biggs is trying to make this a first-class mobile park with curb appeal–a beautiful property. It would be a good thing for everyone.” Not everyone agrees with the conversion process. Werner Z. Hirsch, professor of economics at UCLA, said, “In short, capping rents of land on which mobile-homes are placed will lead to an increase in their value, and thereby yield tenants a windfall profit which accrues in addition to benefits from reduced rents.” Many residents in Palisades Bowl are worried that this is a “sham conversion” that will be used to break rent control. Their fears were heightened when they visited Gilchrist & Rutter’s Web site, and read this description of attorney Close: ‘Lead counsel in successful, ground-breaking California case involving conversion of manufactured housing estate (mobile-home park) from rental to condominium resident ownership. Counsels clients with respect to such conversion to increase property value and supersede local rent control, as well as acquisition, financing, sales, tax-deferred sales and rent control litigation-related issues.’ Councilman Bill Rosendahl has called for a one-year moratorium on condo conversions in his 11th District and Councilman Alex Padilla (7th District) has also made a similar motion. Both bills are being held up in the City Council’s housing committee which is chaired by councilman Herb Wesson (10th). Residents from Palisades Bowl have attended neighborhood council meetings in Wesson’s district in order to ask the residents to put pressure on Wesson to move the bills forward. If the bill is passed, it could give the residents at least a year to look for other options to stop the conversion (assuming mobile-home parks are included in the condo moratorium). In California, from San Diego to Vallejo, mobile-park residents are being challenged with similar problems: conversions, higher rents and closures. According to Glen Bell of Neighborhood Friends which is an organization advocating for mobile-park homeowners’ rights, in parks where rent control has been superseded there are continual increases in space rents with 90-day notices. Some communities have experienced 400 percent increases within a year. In Santa Cruz, rent control was in place for the mobile-home parks, but Manufactured Home Communities (MHC), owned by Chicago billionaire Sam Zell, bought several and started raising rents in defiance of rent control. The city took MHC to court and won. The company appealed that the rent control ordinance was unconstitutional and claimed the city was not properly enforcing its own ordinance. After nine appeals (the city winning them all) city government decided they could no longer afford the court battle. In September 2003, the Santa Cruz City Council repealed its 34-year-old mobile-home rent control law after spending nearly $750,000 fighting MHC in court. The city manager estimated that it would cost the city $100,000 a month to continue fighting the lawsuit. Cities have limited resources for court battles, unlike mobile park owners who consider these parks ‘cash cows,’ according to Glen Bell. If a park has 100 pads and each homeowner is paying $1,000 a month, the park’s owner makes $100,000 a month. Increased rents for many of the Palisades Bowl residents could be disastrous. About 40 percent of the residents are senior citizens, and there’s a cross-section of people with varied occupations such as teachers, writers, production assistants, accountants, lawyers, consultants, artists and, of course, surfers. Palisades Bowl has existed for close to 50 years, but has never had a homeowners’ association, until now. ‘It’s friendly here,” said Bowl resident Jeff Stillman. “Everyone waves to everyone else, but we’ve never had a need for an association.’ ‘This place has historical significance,’ Stillman noted. ‘It’s one of the real old funky places left along the coast.’ Another obstacle to homeowner conversion in Palisades Bowl is the potential liability related to the unstable hillside above the park (below Asilomar). At the conversion meeting in August, a resident asked Close who would be responsible if the park did convert and the hillside comes sliding down one day, causing millions of dollars of damage. ‘Biggs and the homeowners’ association,” Close answered. The Palisadian-Post recently received an e-mail from Clarke Johnston, a resident at Vallejo Mobile Estates (VME) in Vallejo. He said, ‘My concerns relate to the steps being taken by Eddie Biggs, owner of VME. He has served notice to the residents of VME that he intends to go forward with a ‘conversion’ process for the facility. One of the main reasons for this step is the sidestepping of local rent control ordinances and deferring to state regulations in the area. Mr. Biggs has obtained counsel in the form of Gilchrest & Rutter, a Santa Monica firm.’ Johnston said he appealed to the City of Vallejo for help. ‘They may have a specific role to play [because] residents are low-income and may not be able to afford decent counsel in this matter; certainly not in the same league as Gilchrist & Rutter.’ In addition to Palisades Bowl sharing the same owner, the same lawyer for the owner and a possible resident conversion with VME, the mobile-park owners also share similar liability issues: while the Bowl has an unstable hillside, Vallejo Mobile Home sits in a flood plain that continues to worsen. ‘The landlord has taken no steps in order to prevent further flooding problems,’ Johnston said. Spangenberg said that Biggs has taken steps to help stabilize the hill below Asilomar. He has apparently teamed with the owner of adjacent Tahitian Terrace and the City of Los Angeles to hire a jointly funded geologist to investigate the slide. “We’re waiting for the city to draft the documents,” Spangenberg said. In addition to mobile parks in California being faced with conversion and increased rents, many are being closed. In July, the San Diego Union reported that the owner of the Jade Bay Mobile Lodge in Chula Vista had filed for bankruptcy and plans to close the park in April 2007. The owner claimed that mobile-home parks are no longer feasible. His park has 55 homes occupied by mostly low-income and senior citizens who will be forced to move. Jade Bay sits on prime land on Chula Vista’s westside, which leads to speculation that more money could be made from developing the land than keeping it as a mobile trailer park. There are 32 parks in Chula Vista and there is concern that Jade Bay could set a precedent. In Santa Monica, residents of the 87 units in Village Trailer Park at 2930 Colorado Blvd. received a notice stating that their park will close July 31, 2007. On August 24, the Santa Monica Mirror reported that the city challenged the park’s notice of closure, arguing that it failed to first obtain a local change-of-use permit. Close, the same attorney who is handling the Palisades Bowl conversion, maintains that California state law “pre-empts local regulation of a change-of-use termination.” “It’s the largest land grab in California,” said Glen Bell of Neighborhood Friends, who is advocating for the rights of mobile-park residents. The plight of mobile-home residents goes well beyond California. In April, USA Today reported that ‘Mobile-home parks around the USA are being scooped up by developers, depleting affordable housing in many booming real estate markets and spurring states and counties to help residents being evicted. ‘From Las Vegas to the Tampa Bay area, the scarcity and rising price of land have made mobile-home parks a hot commodity. Developers are replacing the trailer parks with condominiums, town houses, strip malls and big-box stores.’
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.
