Trailer park heroes
The word "landlord" is pretty brazen, if you think about it. Look at each of those syllables and consider their combined meaning.
As an apartment dweller, I have a landlord, but our relationship is more politely contractual than that feudal-seeming word makes it sound. For people who live in manufactured housing, however, those connotations of serfdom can be devastatingly real. They own their homes, but not the land their homes sit on, which means those who own that land can lord it over them.
Patrick Jackson of The (Del.) News Journal reports on the situation facing the owners of manufactured housing (i.e. what are less delicately known as mobile homes or trailers) in Delaware:
According to the most recent Census data, there are about 42,700 mobile homes in the state. In most cases, homeowners in manufactured housing communities own their dwellings but rent the space they occupy.If homeowners are forced off their lots either by rent increases or the sale of the community, they face challenges because the homes are expensive to move and other communities sometimes reject homes that are 5 years old or older.
Rent and ownership issues have been heated in recent years, especially in Sussex County, where some landlords have dramatically increased rents or sold communities to developers who closed them to build different projects.
Two bills to protect the owners of manufactured homes are working their way through Delaware's legislature. Here's a summary from the paper:
Senate Bill 122: Requires manufactured housing community owners to give notice of an offer to buy a community by an outside party and allow tenants the chance to match the offer within 90 days. Tenants could either match the offer and buy the community as a group of individual homeowners, or do so by forming a tax-exempt homeowners association to handle the purchase.House Bill 258: Limits manufactured community owners to one rent increase per year and sets guidelines for rent increases, generally limiting them to the annual increase in the Consumer Price Index. It also gives community residents the ability to challenge an increase they think is unjustified in the Court of Common Pleas.
I realize that these bills -- particularly the latter with it's guidelines and limits on rent increases -- raise red flags for those with an instinctual or ideological bias against any regulation that interferes with free markets. But we're not dealing with a perfect free market here.
Market forces limit the size of the rent increases I might face here in my apartment. If my landlord were to attempt to raise our rent too severely, we would all move out. Switching apartments is a pain in the neck, and it can be expensive, but we apartment-dwellers are still mobile enough to take our money elsewhere. The owners of manufactured homes do not have that option. The expense and effort of moving their homes means there are no market constraints on the lords who own the land and they're stuck paying whatever those lords demand. In the absence of such market constraints, regulation becomes necessary.
I have no idea what sort of rules govern manufactured home communities here in Pennsylvania or in any other state. I would guess that most states are ahead of Delaware in adopting such regulations, since the First State tends to be among the last to do so. But for any state without such protections already in place, I think this legislation serves as a good model.
I also think this issue is something that the Democratic Party should get behind at a national level. Democrats have expressed an interest in reaching out to rural red-state voters and this seems like a far more promising and substantial approach to doing so than, say, sending John Kerry out to hunt wild turkey.
The bottom line is this: Poor people are getting screwed. Keeping the weak from getting screwed by the powerful is part of the government's job.
The downside to limiting rent increases (for any type of landlord) is that if this is done without corresponding limits on increases for property tax levies, the landlord can end up in a pretty unpleasant situation. It's true that if an apartment owner increases rent sharply, everyone can move out - but if the area has recently skyrocketed in value, those tenants may be replaced with people who are willing to pay that higher rate. I have less of a problem with people having to move because of higher costs than I have with the fact that for many people, there's just nowhere reasonable to move to. But I know a lot more about the apartment market than I do about manufactured housing, so I have no clue how often raised rents are associated with property value increases. I like the idea of tenant groups buying the land, and I wonder if anything can be done about the restrictions on house age.
Posted by: burgundy | Oct 02, 2007 at 09:25 PM
*sniff* is that fresh Scott-bait I smell?
tenant groups buying the land
How likely is it that a group of people who live in Manufactured Housing can afford to put together an offer that is competitive with a developer?
More power to them if they can, but the fundamental issue of the lack of affordable housing remains...
Posted by: cjmr's husband | Oct 02, 2007 at 09:29 PM
I also think this issue is something that the Democratic Party should get behind at a national level. Democrats have expressed an interest in reaching out to rural red-state voters and this seems like a far more promising and substantial approach to doing so than, say, sending John Kerry out to hunt wild turkey.
mmmph. Living in a rural red state, I dunno. I can't argue with the comparison, but I don't think most of the mobile-home denizens I know would see it that way. Just like they're all in favor of lotteries because they know that someday THEY will win, they would see this as both condescending, and threatening for that wonderful day when they are Lords of the Land screwing the poor themselves.
Not that it shouldn't be done anyway. It's just that political calculations like that never work out the way you'd think.
Posted by: hapax | Oct 02, 2007 at 09:38 PM
*sniff* is that fresh Scott-bait I smell?
Break out your bingo cards, everyone!
I'd also like to clarify that I'm not opposed to increase limits as such - I'd just need to know more about the context. Cutting into profit is one thing, but forcing people to operate at a loss is something else.
Affordable housing is one of my current Big Issues, and one for which I have, as yet, no real answers (except that what Austin is doing is demonstrably Not Working, but again that's apartments and houses rather than trailers).
Posted by: burgundy | Oct 02, 2007 at 09:39 PM
What a bunch of crap.
Let us examine the problem's in Fred's post.
1) Fred refers to trailers and mobile homes as "manufactured homes". This is exactly the kind of dishonesty that Fred criticized in "Lying liars", an earlier slacktivist post. Fred is using a term that is technically correct to disguise the true nature of these homes (ie. that they are trailers or mobile homes). Fred further errs because his term, "manufactured home", applies to all homes, not just trailers and mobile homes.
2) Fred errs, because he ignores the fact that the owners of mobile homes and trailers have far better ability to move than other homeowners, because they can in fact move their homes. In fact, lets examine the following statement from Fred:
Market forces limit the size of the rent increases I might face here in my apartment. If my landlord were to attempt to raise our rent too severely, we would all move out. Switching apartments is a pain in the neck, and it can be expensive, but we apartment-dwellers are still mobile enough to take our money elsewhere. The owners of manufactured homes do not have that option. The expense and effort of moving their homes means there are no market constraints on the lords who own the land and they're stuck paying whatever those lords demand.
Uhm...as should be obvious to anyone, the expense and effort of moving a "manufactured home" is less than of moving an apartment, since the "manufactured home" is in fact mobile, or can easily be made such. It is more or less impossible to move an apartment.
As for the idea of moving the belongings of a "manufactured home" vs. an apartment, they are in fact the same. In fact, the "manufactured home" owner probably has an easier time moving, since he likely has a better credit rating than the apartment dweller (anybody who can acquire title to a trailer or mobile home will have developed a decent credit history in doing so, while anybody who can pay the rent from month to month can live in an apartment).
And even if the "manufactured home" owner has bad enough credit that they can't get an apartment, it still costs less to move their belongings. To move an apartment owner's belongings, they have to be hauled out of the apartment, loaded onto a truck, and then unloaded and placed in the apartment dweller's new home. In contrast, a trailer owner simply has to hook up their trailer to a pickup and leave (they may have to tidy up the trailer first), and a mobile home owner can just drive away. If the "manufactured home" owner can't find a new lot, then they can sell their home (in a more liquid market than the market for grounded homes) and rent an apartment. Even if their credit is bad, they'll have enough money to be able to pay extra for an apartment.
This brings up point:
3) If the rent is too high for the lot at the trailer park, the owner of the "manufactured home" can always sell it (making a nice amount of money doing so) and rent an apartment. It's not as if people are being forced onto the street by trailer park rent increases. They (at worst) are being forced into apartments. To which I say, who cares?
Posted by: Rich | Oct 02, 2007 at 09:54 PM
Fred: "Patrick Jackson of The (Del.) News Journal reports on the situation facing the owners of manufactured housing (i.e. what are less delicately known as mobile homes or trailers) in Delaware" [emphasis mine]
Rich: "1) Fred refers to trailers and mobile homes as "manufactured homes". This is exactly the kind of dishonesty that Fred criticized in "Lying liars", an earlier slacktivist post. Fred is using a term that is technically correct to disguise the true nature of these homes (ie. that they are trailers or mobile homes)."
Since Fred noted that "manufactured homes", "mobile homes", and "trailers" are all the same, I don't really see how he's disguising much of anything, much less being dishonest.
Posted by: Spalanzani | Oct 02, 2007 at 10:08 PM
@Rich: What a bunch of crap.
How very self-referential of you!
Have you actually ever seen a residential trailer/mobile home/manufactured home?
To briefly answer your various idiocies:
1. "Manufactured home" is a marketing term, like "pre-owned vehicle." It is a trade euphemism for "mobile home/residential trailer", as Fred makes perfectly clear in his post.
2. In re the comparative mobility of apartments and mobile homes/trailers:
a) mobile homes are not, in fact, mobile. They do not have engines or wheels. You may be confusing them with RVs. Residential trailers are marginally more moveable, but it is a lot more complicated -- and expensive -- than hitching them to a pickup.
b) land suitable, zoned for, and AVAILABLE for mobile homes/trailers is extremely limited, compared to apartment complexes.
c) Mobile homes are not only the property of, they represent the single biggest investment (usually) of their residents. Apartments are very rarely the property of their residents. It is much easier financially to move the major assets of an apartment dweller than the mobile home dweller. The causal linkage is left as an exercise for the reader.
3. There is NO RESALE VALUE on a mobile home. None. The owner might as well set it on fire and toast marshmallows over it as try to sell it.
The only remaining question is, did you really not know any of this? In other words, are you a callous hypocritical bastard, or just a raving ignoramus who shouldn't be let out without a keeper?
Posted by: hapax | Oct 02, 2007 at 10:08 PM
[i]3) If the rent is too high for the lot at the trailer park, the owner of the "manufactured home" can always sell it (making a nice amount of money doing so) and rent an apartment. It's not as if people are being forced onto the street by trailer park rent increases. They (at worst) are being forced into apartments. To which I say, who cares?[/i]
Perhaps its different in your town, but where I live people live in trailer parks because of the price. The cost of renting land to put your trailer on is less than half that of renting an apartment. It makes sense. A trailer uses less area than a typical apartment. Its easier to maintain land, harder to damage. Its also easier to set up. It should be cheaper.
Selling the trailer is unlikely to cover that increase in rent. Especially if the trailer is over 5 years old. If many parks won't allow these trailers through the gates, the vast majority of potential buyers won't give them a glance. It is also a short term money fix - after a year (at best) that money is gone and the rent on the unaffordable apartment becomes a choking factor of finances.
Posted by: Rachel | Oct 02, 2007 at 10:15 PM
Having lived in a couple, I would have to emphasize hapax: "mobile" refers to the fact that a very large tractor-trailer is able to drag the thing over to a lot that has been previously prepared for its arrival by several large semi-trained people with shovels and cinder blocks. There is no way in shiny golden hell a normal or even moderately wealthy homeowner could do it themselves.
And heaven forfend it's a double-wide or something, those you have to put together. I... I don't even know how that works, but they do have to come apart to fit on the road.
According to a brief look around, this might be a date thing; older ones seem to be more genuinely mobile and trailer-like. Regardless, the issue then merely becomes where are you going to move the thing to in a world with zoning laws.
Posted by: not someone else | Oct 02, 2007 at 11:36 PM
Aw, shucks. I was about to say what Rich already did, since I'm also a raving ignoramus who shouldn't be let out alone, except I would have said it more quickly and jokingly.
So, um, I guess since this is actually a serious issue, we should... I don't know. Is there a way to make mobile homes stay valuable longer?
Posted by: Ryan Ferneau | Oct 02, 2007 at 11:44 PM
Hapax:
How very self-referential of you!
Have you actually ever seen a residential trailer/mobile home/manufactured home?
Yes, I have. In fact, I have lived in one.
To briefly answer your various idiocies:
1. "Manufactured home" is a marketing term, like "pre-owned vehicle." It is a trade euphemism for "mobile home/residential trailer", as Fred makes perfectly clear in his post.
Wrong. Fred never once makes that "perfectly clear" in his post. Let us examine the sentences in which he uses the term "manufactured home" or uses a synonym for it (such as "manufactured housing" or what not):
For people who live in manufactured housing, however, those connotations of serfdom can be devastatingly real. They own their homes, but not the land their homes sit on, which means those who own that land can lord it over them.
No ironic use of a term there, just regret for the plight of manufactured home owners.
Patrick Jackson of The (Del.) News Journal reports on the situation facing the owners of manufactured housing (i.e. what are less delicately known as mobile homes or trailers) in Delaware:
Again, no indication that Fred regards the term "manufactured home" as anything other than a euphmism for "trailer", or perhaps "mobile home".
Market forces limit the size of the rent increases I might face here in my apartment. If my landlord were to attempt to raise our rent too severely, we would all move out. Switching apartments is a pain in the neck, and it can be expensive, but we apartment-dwellers are still mobile enough to take our money elsewhere. The owners of manufactured homes do not have that option. The expense and effort of moving their homes means there are no market constraints on the lords who own the land and they're stuck paying whatever those lords demand. In the absence of such market constraints, regulation becomes necessary.
Again, no sense that Fred is using the term "manufactured home" with any sense of irony or sarcasm. He is using it because he chooses not to use the term "trailer" or "mobile home".
... have no idea what sort of rules govern manufactured home communities here in Pennsylvania or in any other state. I would guess that most states are ahead of Delaware in adopting such regulations, since the First State tends to be among the last to do so. But for any state without such protections already in place, I think this legislation serves as a good model.
And yet again we have Fred using the term "manufactured home" as a euphemism for "trailer and/or mobile home". No reasonable person would deny that Fred is using the term "manufactured home" and the various derivations of it to provide euphemisms for "trailer and/or mobile home". I'm not sure why he bothers though: I don't know why such dwellings require euphemisms.
2. In re the comparative mobility of apartments and mobile homes/trailers:
a) mobile homes are not, in fact, mobile. They do not have engines or wheels. You may be confusing them with RVs. Residential trailers are marginally more moveable, but it is a lot more complicated -- and expensive -- than hitching them to a pickup.
I will certainly concede that it's not just a matter of just hooking them up to a pickup (and no, I'm not confusing them with RVs, I know the difference). It is, nevertheless, easier to move a trailer or mobile home that it is to move a friggin apartment, as I hope we could both agree.
b) land suitable, zoned for, and AVAILABLE for mobile homes/trailers is extremely limited, compared to apartment complexes.
And if that is an issue one can always sell one's mobile home/trailer.
c) Mobile homes are not only the property of, they represent the single biggest investment (usually) of their residents. Apartments are very rarely the property of their residents. It is much easier financially to move the major assets of an apartment dweller than the mobile home dweller. The causal linkage is left as an exercise for the reader.
I hope you realize that all it takes to move a mobile home (and all the assets within) is to, you know, just move it. Yes it might take a day or so of unhooking it from the lot, but at the end of that day you can just move it anywhere. I'm sorry, but "I can spend a day unhooking and then I can go anywhere" is a lot different from "I can spend a couple of days packing and then move to another apartment". The notion that mobile home residents have less mobility than apartment residents is one of the sillier things I have ever heard.
3. There is NO RESALE VALUE on a mobile home. None. The owner might as well set it on fire and toast marshmallows over it as try to sell it.
Wrong. So wrong I would almost consider this to be a lie. A flat out, no kidding lie. Go online right now and you will find dozens, if not hundreds or thousands of mobile homes for sale. How long did it take me to find used mobile homes for sale? Less than 30 seconds.
The only remaining question is, did you really not know any of this? In other words, are you a callous hypocritical bastard, or just a raving ignoramus who shouldn't be let out without a keeper?
The real only remaining question is, why would you lie and/or misrepresent so much of this. I mean, holy crap, this claim that mobile homes have no resale value? Are you deeply ignorant, or just an asshole? I don't know.
Posted by: Rich | Oct 03, 2007 at 12:35 AM
I guess mobile homes just aren't as mobile as they used to be, huh? yuk yuk yuk
Posted by: Ryan Ferneau | Oct 03, 2007 at 12:45 AM
A lot of the problem with running a mobile-home court is that many municipalities are very prejudiced against them; they're seen as cheap housing for trashy people (hence, the term "trailer trash") and local governments love to find ways to get rid of them in favor of developments of regular houses or apartment buildings (which, incidentally, pay higher taxes to the municipality).
Posted by: Erick Oppeen | Oct 03, 2007 at 12:51 AM
I would guess that the relevant questions are not "can you move a mobile home?" or "can you move a mobile home more easily than you can move an apartment?" but rather:
1) What is the cost of moving a mobile home, relative to the income of the average mobile home owner, vs the cost of moving from one apartment to another, relative to the income of the average renter? (If one wants to continue drawing comparisons)
2) What is the general availability of mobile home lots, relative to the availability of apartments? I'm guessing that mobile home lots are scarcer (which makes sense, there's less demand), and they're also more concentrated. If you only have a few courts, and one of them closes or raises rents too high, then the people who have to move have very limited options - they may be able to find a place that's affordable, but just barely, or they may have to move a considerable distance... I'd imagine that the choices for mobile home owners forced out are, in general, going to be more constrained than the choices of apartment renters who have to move, and that's likely to lead to it being more costly to them.
And with regard to resale value - homes for sale is not a good indicator. I'd want to know what percentage of them sell, and at what price.
Posted by: burgundy | Oct 03, 2007 at 01:36 AM
hapax: "1. "Manufactured home" is a marketing term, like "pre-owned vehicle." It is a trade euphemism for "mobile home/residential trailer", as Fred makes perfectly clear in his post."
Rich: "Wrong. Fred never once makes that "perfectly clear" in his post. Let us examine the sentences in which he uses the term "manufactured home" or uses a synonym for it (such as "manufactured housing" or what not):"
Hapax is right, Fred clearly noted that "manufactured home" is the same thing as a mobile home or trailer the second time he used the phrase. I provided the quote earlier and bolded the relevant part.
"No ironic use of a term there..."
"Again, no sense that Fred is using the term "manufactured home" with any sense of irony or sarcasm"
Since hapax explained that "manufactured home" is a marketing term, I don't really know where you got the idea that Fred might have been using the term ironically. Unless for some reason you think that marketing terms are supposed to be ironic or sarcastic.
"No reasonable person would deny that Fred is using the term "manufactured home" and the various derivations of it to provide euphemisms for "trailer and/or mobile home". I'm not sure why he bothers though: I don't know why such dwellings require euphemisms."
Well, he said (I'm just going to quote this again): " manufactured housing (i.e. what are less delicately known as mobile homes or trailers) ", so yeah, you could call that using a euphimism. I don't really see what the problem is though, since he made it clear that "manufactured homes" were the same as mobile homes. And I still don't see how this is in any way dishonest.
Posted by: Spalanzani | Oct 03, 2007 at 01:58 AM
Rich must have lived in a "manufactured home" when he was an infant if he thinks that ANYONE can unhook one and drive it away.
But the situation where my mom lives is worse than what Fred reports. There the Lord of the Land is making the Land Serfs buy the land their living on. Since most are scraping by on fixed incomes, this means they'll be forced to sell their homes (for pennies on the dollar) and hope that the little they get will allow them to get a tiny apartment for a few years.
Posted by: Jeff | Oct 03, 2007 at 03:08 AM
One bit of info regarding the name 'mobile home' - the name does not, in fact, refer to the homes being mobile. They name refers to the fact that the first factory that produced pre-manufactured homes was based in Mobile Alabama.
Posted by: Drocket | Oct 03, 2007 at 04:13 AM
Hapax: The only remaining question is, did you really not know any of this? In other words, are you a callous hypocritical bastard, or just a raving ignoramus who shouldn't be let out without a keeper?
The last time this topic came up, Rich was told everything you just told him, so he did know it.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | Oct 03, 2007 at 04:19 AM
Rich, you might want to look at the summaries of the legislation posted by Fred above - "Bill 122 Requires manufactured housing community owners to...", "Bill 258: Limits manufactured community owners to..."
Fred's not just using a technically correct term, he's using the term that is used by the press and the legislature.
Also, the correct comparison is not between moving an apartment and moving a manufactured home. It's between moving some of the contents of an apartment (which is what the tenant owns) and moving the contents of the manufactured home, and the home itself (since the tenant owns both). So yes, given how difficult it is to move a manufactured home, apartment tenants are many times more mobile.
Posted by: Ray | Oct 03, 2007 at 05:01 AM
3. There is NO RESALE VALUE on a mobile home. None. The owner might as well set it on fire and toast marshmallows over it as try to sell it.
Rich: Wrong. So wrong I would almost consider this to be a lie. A flat out, no kidding lie. Go online right now and you will find dozens, if not hundreds or thousands of mobile homes for sale. How long did it take me to find used mobile homes for sale? Less than 30 seconds.
Logic says that finding hundreds of thousands mobile homes for sale indicates that hundreds of thousands of people want to sell their mobile homes, and have not yet done so. That is almost the exact opposite of finding hundreds of thousands of people wanting to buy a mobile home.
Posted by: Rosina | Oct 03, 2007 at 05:14 AM
It seems to me that the term "manufactured housing" is conflating three different things. In my experience there are 'trailers', 'mobile homes', and 'manufactured homes' and they are different generations in the evolution (if you will) of the species. What they have in common is that they are often (but not always) parked/constructed on rented land.
Type 1 (trailer): What I lived in up to age four. It sat on the lot in the 'trailer park' on its wheels, which were blocked/wedged. The hitch for attaching it to the semi-tractor stuck permanently out the front. But it was the same size as semi-trailer and did have ordinary plumbing, electricity, and natural gas lines, so it was not a camper. We moved it once from OH to IN, and yes, you do have to pack all your belongings in boxes to move trailer (or at least your breakable ones) and tether the furniture. When Dad got his PhD., we sold it to another grad student family, who left it where it was. (Yup, I'm 1st generation from 'trailer trash'.) If there are any of these 40-year-old trailers around, I don't think they'd have much resale value left at all.
Type 2 (mobile home): What several of husband's relatives live in now. Sits on its axles on piles, having been hauled to the site with a semi, then jacked-up and the wheels taken off. Some of them have permanent semi-hitches, some don't. Very similar to Type 1, otherwise. They have resale value in some parts of the country, especially places where people are living in them on their own land.
Type 3 (manufactured home): It's a house. Built in semi-trailer wide sections. Hauled to the site mostly completed on flat-bed semis and installed on a slab or even over a basement. No part of the semi-trailer remains to become part of the structure of the house. And they aren't intended to be moved once they're there. Others of husband's relatives live in these. If they're on land you own, they have similar resale value to same-size houses. If they're on rented land, they have very little resale value at all.
Posted by: cjmr | Oct 03, 2007 at 07:28 AM
Fred, if landlords can't raise the rates, that will just wind up being reflected in the original price (or drive down the supply, thus raising the price). Would you limit the power of local govts to raise the valuation of that land? If owners cannot benefit from the increased land value, should they be taxed on that increased land value? Oops, that would limit govt; my bad.
Posted by: Scott | Oct 03, 2007 at 07:30 AM
Wait, Rich was serious? When I got to 'the expense and effort of moving a "manufactured home" is less than of moving an apartment' I concluded that he was doing a parody. *sigh* This isn't the first time this has happened to me. The first time I heard Rush Limbaugh, back before he was famous, I thought he was doing a comic parody of an ignorant blow-hard. It took me a couple days to conclude that it wasn't a parody.
Posted by: Richard Hershberger | Oct 03, 2007 at 07:46 AM
A reasonable comment, so perhaps a reasonable answer is in order. A lot of times in the last 20 years (at least in Northern Virginia), the land underneath the manufactured/mobile home became much, much more valuable than the money being spent by the owners of the homes. Regardless of the contracts these owners had signed - which is an essential point which both you and Fred seem to have somewhat missed.
The rent increases are generally intended to drive away the home owners, because the sale of the land is even more profitable with fewer obstacles, though of course, sale of the land works to drive the home owners away anyways. But when you have a 20 year contract, essentially equating to a deed depending on the state/local legal framework, with 18 years still to run, it is much harder to handle the situation without overhead or risk on the part of new owner - including, potentially, having to maintain the land as a trailer park or buying out the contracts.
I think even you would agree that breaking both the spirit and the letter of a contract is illegal, which is very often what such rent increases/closures are about.
As a society, we have placed limits on what the free market is allowed to do - though if you wish to argue that child labor laws are an unnecessary burden on economic freedom, and the sort of governmental restriction that only a liberal or compassionate Christian can support, please, be my guest. It wouldn't actually be outside of some of the things you have written, though I hasten to note, that even some conservatives (even a few libertarians, I'll wager) feel that child labor is something which any decent society will forbid its citizens from practicing.
Though you don't have to stand up for child labor - it was merely an example of how what has been common in economic terms over centuries is rejected today - much like slavery, or the right of a landlord to break their contract - after all, the original feudal landlord didn't need no stinking contract, so they never worried about breaking anything but bones.
Posted by: yay_scott | Oct 03, 2007 at 08:49 AM
Where I live, mobile homes over 7 years old can't be moved within the county without passing an extensive (and expensive) safety inspection. If the home passes inspection, it costs $2000-$6000 to move it.
Here's a story about an owner's association formed after one mass eviction when a trailer park was scrapped for luxury apartments. The idea was for the residents to band together and buy land that could be used for a trailer park in perpetuity, with the local land trust assuring that the land can't be sold/developed out from under the residents.
Posted by: Lila | Oct 03, 2007 at 08:53 AM
Well, it took until this morning for Scott to post, but we got Rich the uninformed pedant to hold us until then. Thanks, Rich!
Posted by: Chuck | Oct 03, 2007 at 09:04 AM
You know, sometimes pictures can clarify things a lot better than words. You can find pictures of manufactured homes here, here, and here.
Whereas, you can find pictures of what I think Rich is talking about here and here.
It's a simple misunderstanding. What Fred means by manufactured homes (sometimes called "double-wides" up here) are the former.
Posted by: A teacher | Oct 03, 2007 at 09:45 AM
A teacher's links #1 and #2 are what I called type 3 (manufactured home). A teacher's link #3 is what I called type 2 (mobile home).
A teacher's links #4 and #5 are campers. They are not trailers or manufactured homes at all. I don't think that's what Rich was referring to, although I can't understand why he thinks it is less expensive to move a mobile home from one site to another than to move from apartment to apartment. Maybe it is if you have a relative who's the owner/operator of a semi and is willing to move your mobile home for the price of gas and some beer and pizza afterwards.
I don't have time today to go through 10 boxes of un-filed pictures downstairs to find a picture of the type 1 (trailer) that I lived in. But it looked closest to the picture at link #3--only red and white, and had wheels on and no skirting. (I can't tell if the linked one has a permanent hitch on, since you can only see one end.)
Posted by: cjmr | Oct 03, 2007 at 09:59 AM
>Well, it took until this morning for Scott to post, but we got Rich the uninformed pedant to hold us until then. Thanks, Rich!
Seconded. It's always nice to have a nitpicking, anklebiting troll to provide some variety from our usual big picture, grand delusion troll.
Though I do dream of a world without trolls... I mean really, why would you keep going back to a bar where you hate everybody and they just try to avoid you?
Posted by: Otter | Oct 03, 2007 at 10:32 AM
Well, it took until this morning for Scott to post, but we got Rich the uninformed pedant to hold us until then. Thanks, Rich!
Rich is the new Scott!
Fred laid out what type of homes he was talking about pretty well, and [almost] no one here is so dumb as to mistake an RV for a manufactured home, so the semantic arguments just need to stop.
This whole topic brings back nightmares of my first -aborted- home purchase a couple years back. My wife & I were both doing the low income proletariat shuffle: paying high rent, not saving much, hoping to end this by buying something that would actually get us a foothold on long term financial stability. One of the options we looked seriously at was a manufactured/"mobile" home (possibly type #2 according to cmjr, but probably type #3 - don't remember) that was on leased land. It was far from ideal, but it was better than pouring a quarter of both our incomes into a crappy, overpriced roof over our heads in a neighborhood neither of us could stand. Long story short, because the home was not being sold with the land, the financial terms were made completely impossible. Despite working out a decent term for land lease payments (including an option to buy the land), and despite securing a sizable downpayment (the home would have been less than $35000 all told), we were ultimately turned down (but not before being told it would be no problem from our lender).
The idea that these houses can be "easily" moved is a myth. They can be moved, but only with some difficulty, and depending on the house & the location, the cost of moving can easily exceed the actual value of the house itself. People in these homes are there for only one reason: they can afford no better. No one wants to live in such a home, because they're committed to and invested in something they can't just put anywhere, yet are at the mercy of whoever owns the land.
"Connotations of serfdom" indeed - that's exactly what it is.
Posted by: Robb | Oct 03, 2007 at 11:19 AM
Here in Western PA, right near the OH border, we just had a trailer park closed down by an owner selling the land to a developer to build shiny new condos and a new golf course. The park was one of the oldest in the county, and most of the homes, though maybe technically mobile at some point in the distant past, were not moveable. Many that might still have been were too old to move into a new park. The handful that met both requirements cost significant money to move. Those who couldn't move were SOL. Who would buy a trailer that can't be moved in a park that's closing? So, yeah, I think a little protection is warranted.
Posted by: DStout | Oct 03, 2007 at 11:54 AM
I don't think Rich is at all "the new Scott," since Rich actually had a point to make which was supported by arguments, rather than just "BLARGH EBIL LIBRULS, landowners should be allowed to force people off their lands regardless of any contracts!"
I would gladly take Rich over that blithering shitstain.
Posted by: MichaelR | Oct 03, 2007 at 12:26 PM
Folks, first let me thank you for providing this forum, as per the question noted above, "is this an important issue?" Yes it is, and I will qualify this statement with Approximately 10% of the homes owned in the United States are Manufactured Homes. Demographically, 67% of the home-owners are senior citizens, the majority of them live on social security, some with additional retirement funds but most do not. (AARP Leveling the playing field Published in 2002) This means the average income ranges from $700 PM- $1,300 per month.
As was Correctly stated before Most, (approx.92%) own their homes and rent the land (more legally accurate pay for an easement to store their homes.) HUD Stats. published in 2000.
There is an average of another 15% disabled, living in Manufactured Housing Communities. So this is the predominant break down of who lives in Mobile Home Parks.
I know you folks are from the Delaware area, and the laws governing MHP's swing dramatically from state to state. However there are some constants. A "Manufactured Home" refers to a home built in a factory not on site. So a trailer, Mobile-Home or a manufactured home are essentially one in the same, however, many states have different statutes pertaining to "Travel Trailers" (e.g. the units purchased for the victims of Katrina are Travel Trailers.) In California, to qualify as a mobile/Manufactured home, the unit must be at least 35' long and at least 12' wide. Most however, are in the range of 45'-60' long and at least 22-26' wide. I know this is hard to get your mind around. And "No, you can not tow it with your pick-up truck." In CA. it does cost approx $12.000.00 per unit to dismantle (remove awnings, Carports, Skirting, Steps. Separate the individual components, remove the supports (roughly 30 in a standard double wide.) Disengage the earthquake Straps A local requirement. Reinstall the axels, again a requirement by law (possibly Local)CA MRL: a mobile/manufactured home must have it's axels removed and placed on a semi or permanent foundation. Then the trucking company must apply for and receive special permits to transport a manufactured home. This whole process requires approx. 250 man hours of semi-to fully skilled labor. Then they have to do the whole process in reverse. So minimally this will cost you at least $20,000. Now all that said, most parks will not allow any home over 5 years old to be moved into their park, some states this is actually law. And to be frank, most home will not survive the move.
Less than 1% of manufactured homes ever move after being placed in a park or on private land (HUD Stats) Mobile, is a misnomer they are only mobile from the factory to the first placement. This is why most states are legally changing the nomenclature, from mobile to Manufactured.
Now to the question of value, according to HUD and AARP as well as a number of affordable housing proponents in Washington, Manufactured housing units will respond to the real estate market identically as the standard or "Sight Built". So if the Market increases by 5% a year, so will the value of the M-H, with 1 very large caveat, IF THE PARK IS MANAGED FAIRLY. A park owner can, just by adjusting his space rent requirements, out of market. (an increase in either actual rent or what is known as the TURN-OVER rent, above the neighboring parks in that area) e.g. if park A. has space rent average of $300 and a turn-over space rent of $350 (if this is market norm's?), Park B. 1 mile away has just been purchased by a new owner, and he wants to recoup his investment at a much quicker clip, adjusts his rent to $500 space rent, with a turn over of $750. what has really happened here is NOT free market, the new owner has just "APPROPRAITED” Most if not all of the Equity from the home owners, in that, he has rendered the homeowners property UNSELLABLE.
This business plan not only renders the homeowners Broke, but captive as well. So you’re Surf and Lord Analogy was more accurate than you know. The homeowner, remember, usually retired, quite often disabled and totally un-subsidized finds themselves in a position where to protect their, sometimes largest, usually last investment they must stay and fight. Usually, finding that they have become victims of a ruthless confidence scam, losing as much as $200,000. and their homes in one fell swoop. I know that most people will say that these people aren’t like me they are "Trailer Park Trash” You would be wrong there as well. There is a large contingency in Mobile/Manufactured housing communities of widows, this is the last safe haven for our grandma's, remember again, these are mostly seniors and since the female of our species lives on average 13 years longer than males, many, many of these seniors are long time widowed. most of these folks do not have the ability to understand the complex nature of this, let alone the stamina to fight this extremely difficult battle.
So as for the statement made by earlier posters that it is either the same or easier to move a manufactured home than an apartment, well they are badly misinformed. But, that is exactly what the park owners want you to think, "they can always sell and make a nice profit" and from the outside, it would appear that he is correct.
Right Now, their are roughly 12 major corporations expressing this particular Business Plan thru ought the nation; they are cannibalizing our grandma's. This system is actually KILLING our weakest; I have case after case of people dying from this scheme. Their cries go unheard, because they are poor, they are old and have no political voice. The park owners, on the other hand are tremendously wealthy, for example Sam Zell, the now owner of the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Chicago Cubs and at least 22 television stations. He is known as the "Grave Dancer" on wall street it is estimated as the 7th or 8th wealthiest men in the US. He is the largest mobile home PARK owner in the world, and the creator of this business plan. Last year alone he either personally donated, arranged fundraisers to the tune of millions for favored Political Campaigns. All by the way, to the famous Neo-Cons in our political system.
I am sure you are wondering by now, who I am. My name is Glenn Bell and I can back up everything I have stated here and much, much more. I am a Manufactured/Mobile Home owner. I am also President of Neighborhood Friends, A coalition of mobile homeowners based in CA, working for a even playing field. We are a non-profit, struggling through this battle. The game you are observing in Delaware is being fought in every state in our nation. Unfortunately, the real victims mostly go unheard, if I were to ask you 1 thing, listen a little harder to the elderly who are screaming right now, for they do not have the ability to scream loudly or for long.
Glenn Bell
President
Neighborhood Friends
818-890-1113
www.neighborhoodfriends.us
Posted by: Glenn Bell | Oct 03, 2007 at 12:35 PM
Mmm . . . point taken.
Rich, I humbly withdraw my grievous insult.
Posted by: Robb | Oct 03, 2007 at 12:37 PM
Just to toss a couple pennies in:
I worked at an insurance agency out in the western extremities of Illinois during college. The town I was in had (at least) two trailer parks in the city limits and several on the outskirts and in nearby towns. We worked with insurance for the types of homes in question on a regular basis.
One of the things that was going on at the time was that the company was changing its insurance lines around to simplify things. All of the trailer home and mobile home lines were being folded in to a single type of insurance for -- are you ready? -- manufactured homes. This was not the same as home insurance. Neither was it the same as renters insurance for apartment dwellers or landlord insurance.
So from an insurance actuarial standard (which could be argued to be one of the most exacting standards for such things), "manufactured homes" are a category unto themselves and fundamentally the same things as mobile homes...
Posted by: Geds | Oct 03, 2007 at 01:03 PM
I’d also like to say that even though Rich is being kind of illogical and abrasive, I really don’t think he counts as a troll. Like MichaelR said, he backs up what he says with arguments and facts. I think his arguments are unsound and his facts are off base, but he’s certainly not like Scott. I also seem to recall that he’s made some good comments before on other comment threads.
Posted by: Spalanzani | Oct 03, 2007 at 01:07 PM
Glenn, I'm sending your contact information to my mom. She has a friend (elderly, disabled from childhood polio, widowed) who's caught in one of these schemes. It may be too late, but hopefully you can help her.
Thanks.
Posted by: Jeff | Oct 03, 2007 at 01:37 PM
I dunno, is it just me, or did Scott seem relatively civil upthread? Sure, there was a bit of a dig at the end, but not nearly the vitriol I'm used to seeing. I would have actually been inclined to give him an answer, if I were at all confident in my knowledge about the subject. At any rate, I enjoyed reading the answer someone gave him...though, sadly, with the handle they chose, it was essentially an anonymous reply.
@Glenn: More power to ya, buddy. I've got a couple friends who live in trailer parks. I'll send them the link to your site.
@Richard Hershberger: Yeah, I had to re-read a bit to decide whether Rich was serious or not, too. It was that whole "more or less impossible to move an apartment" bit that got me.
I can't help you on Rush, though that sort of outlook would make it a little easier to cope when I'm stuck listening to him... :)
Posted by: Salamanda | Oct 03, 2007 at 01:53 PM
Compare costs.
Apartment:
- The cost of moving the contents of the apartment.
Manufactured home:
- The cost of moving the contents of the home, and
- The cost of moving the home ITSELF.
Logic should figure this one out pretty quick.
Posted by: amanda w | Oct 03, 2007 at 01:54 PM
Though I do dream of a world without trolls... I mean really, why would you keep going back to a bar where you hate everybody and they just try to avoid you?
Because that's what makes it interesting!
Posted by: Ryan Ferneau | Oct 03, 2007 at 02:26 PM
I mean really, why would you keep going back to a bar where you hate everybody and they just try to avoid you?
Cuz sometimes you wanna go, WHERE EVERYBODY KNOWS YOUR NAAAAAAAME...
...
*looks around sheepishly*
Ok, I'm done.
Posted by: Salamanda | Oct 03, 2007 at 03:08 PM
The reason for Scott's seeming civility was just so he had something to hang his dig from so it looked like he had a point, instead of just insulting people.
So he can still fuck off and eat a dick, which I think is a good stock reply to his stock "BAAAAW THE GOVERNMENT TRIES TO PROTECT PEOPLE FROM PREDATION" bullshit.
Posted by: MichaelR | Oct 03, 2007 at 03:14 PM
Serious answer: Cognitive dissonance.
Sometimes people hold a certain worldview so passionately, that in a sense they have staked their identity upon it. They have sacrificed for it; time, certainly, perhaps money, perhaps relationships.
But still, as with all worldviews, they will always experience things that don't quite fit. Usually one can ignore these. Sometimes the cracks can be papered over. Sometimes people convince themselves that the cracks actually add a certain aesthetic depth, and confirm the world view. Whatever.
Sometimes the cracks become gaping fissures, and a person's entire identity is in danger of leaking out. They are faced with a choice: abandon the worldview, and risk becoming a whole new person (or perhaps, terrifyingly, nobody at all). Or bolster up the worldview with converts.
Converting people to a cracked and shattered worldview isn't easy. But there is a side benefit to the attempt. Oddly enough, being rejected, reviled, and scorned for a worldview also reinforces it. It confirms a certain "us against them" mentality. People wouldn't all be yelling at me, the reasoning goes, except that in their secret hearts they know I'm right.
And so the troll ventures again and again into the sunlight, coming to crave the harsh beating rays of the sun, taking comfort in them, because they prove how true and profound and safe the embracing darkness of his cave must be.
Which is the real reason we're not supposed to feed the trolls. It isn't good for them, or us.
OTOH, there isn't any real way to lure a troll out of his cave for good, either. And picking on them can be fun, in a horrible way...
Posted by: hapax | Oct 03, 2007 at 03:24 PM
The reason for Scott's seeming civility was just so he had something to hang his dig from so it looked like he had a point, instead of just insulting people.
Maybe. I'm just not used to seeing that.
Posted by: Salamanda | Oct 03, 2007 at 03:29 PM
hapax: People wouldn't all be yelling at me, the reasoning goes, except that in their secret hearts they know I'm right.
Ooo, kinda that "persecution only proves that we're on the right track" thing. Boy, THAT takes me back to my old spiritual warfare days... ^_^
Posted by: Salamanda | Oct 03, 2007 at 03:34 PM
Fred's not just using a technically correct term, he's using the term that is used by the press and the legislature.
From wikipedia:
Their source is a manufacturer of such homes; the HUD's page on the subject is here. As far as I can tell "manufactured home" is the legal, federally defined term, which seems to be a pretty good reason to describe them by that term (although I'm still a little puzzled on what the difference between a "manufactured home" and a "modular home" is). By contrast, there doesn't seem to be any real advantage or argument to calling them "mobile homes", except that it makes it easier for Rich to frame his argument ("do you know why mobile homes are mobile? because they are MOBILE homes!").
Either way, it seems odd to attack Fred for this terminology, but not the Delaware legislature, the federal government, the manufacturers of manufactured homes, or the trade organization that represents those manufacturers.
Posted by: mcc | Oct 03, 2007 at 04:27 PM
I sit corrected. What I called type 3 manufactured homes are properly called modular homes. Thank you, mcc.
Posted by: cjmr | Oct 03, 2007 at 04:50 PM
Rich wrote:
Rich, you speak with such arrogant ignorance that I am forced to assume from the above that you have never lived in a "mobile home" (and no, Fred's not being dishonest when he calls it a "manufactured home" - that's the *actual name* of the things today). It so happens that I grew up in a trailer (because they were called such back then before they became "mobile homes" and now "manufactured homes" - sheesh, man, let the people have *some* pride). My mom still lives in one (not the same one anymore, thank $deity). I lived in that trailer from the day I was born until I was 20 years old & moved into a battered old house with 5 other University students.
First, your contention that (anybody who can acquire title to a trailer or mobile home will have developed a decent credit history in doing so, while anybody who can pay the rent from month to month can live in an apartment) is simply a Fantasy. While people live in manufactured homes for a variety of reasons (ie. temporarily while building a new house, retirement, etc.), the VAST majority of people who live in them do so because they simply can't afford to live anywhere else. These people pay a miniscule rent per month compared to an apartment dweller and the home itself is worth so little that property taxes are small. Make no mistake - for most people who live in them, a manufactured home/trailer/mobile home is only one step above a cardboard box under a bridge.
And even if the "manufactured home" owner has bad enough credit that they can't get an apartment, it still costs less to move their belongings. To move an apartment owner's belongings, they have to be hauled out of the apartment, loaded onto a truck, and then unloaded and placed in the apartment dweller's new home. In contrast, a trailer owner simply has to hook up their trailer to a pickup and leave (they may have to tidy up the trailer first), and a mobile home owner can just drive away.
Dude, WTF? Are you confusing "manufactured home" with "RV"?? I've *seen* mobile homes moved out of and in to a park. It is NOT a simple thing to do and it is NOT simply a matter of hook[ing] up their trailer to a pickup - it involves LARGE trucks with "WIDE LOAD" signs, special arrangements with local utilities to move the blasted power lines out of the way, and a bunch of people with hard-hats to make sure everything is properly secured, strapped down, and in position before the trailer is moved, while it is being moved, and while it's being put into its new position! Meanwhile, the contents of the home are indeed hauled out of the [mobile home], loaded onto a truck, and then unloaded and placed in the ... new home, just as they are for an apartment dweller's. NOBODY moves a trailer/mobile home/manufactured home and just leaves their stuff inside the place.
If the rent is too high for the lot at the trailer park, the owner of the "manufactured home" can always sell it (making a nice amount of money doing so) and rent an apartment. It's not as if people are being forced onto the street by trailer park rent increases. They (at worst) are being forced into apartments.
I answered this above - most people who live in trailers do so because they can't even afford an apartment. They can't just up and park their homes anywhere they want to, you know. If they lose their lot, they are effectively homeless.
Posted by: Michele | Oct 03, 2007 at 05:27 PM
Well cjmr, I was basically acting by accident here, but you are certainly welcome.
Posted by: mcc | Oct 03, 2007 at 05:27 PM
cjmr wrote: A teacher's links #1 and #2 are what I called type 3 (manufactured home). A teacher's link #3 is what I called type 2 (mobile home).
I grew up in something between what you describe as "type 1" and "type 2". Ours was 12 ft wide x 60 ft long, did have skirting (which covered the still-attached wheels), but also had the permanent hitch sticking out of the front (which we surrounded with skirting & used as a planter).
Posted by: Michele | Oct 03, 2007 at 05:41 PM