Canada too

It seems that manufactured-home owners in Canada may be just as ill-served by their laws and governments as their U.S. counterparts. Here's an article from British Columbia's Ladysmith Chronicle, "Seaside residents lose arbitration":

Residents of Saltair’s Seaside Trailer Park will have to uproot by next May.

Following a June 4 arbitration hearing in Victoria, Seaside residents received notice that the arbitrator ruled in favor of the new landowners. ...

In April, the landowners gave Seaside their one-year eviction notice and a cashier’s check for approximately $3,000, following section 42(1) in the Mobile Home Park Tenancy Act.

... [Landless homeowner Alice] Walter, along with resident Norm Street, have homes in Seaside that they pay mortgages on. ... If they can’t sell their homes or find places to move them, then they will both end up paying a mortgage on places they cannot live in, places that may be demolished by the new landowners after the eviction next May.

A local government official, Brian Duncan, acknowledged that "On a human level, it's tragic," but said that the new landowners were within their rights.

Those rights were, I suppose, purchased along with the land. If you have the means, you can buy all kinds of rights that other people can't afford. If you don't have the means, you probably won't be able to secure quite as many rights. It all seems terribly feudal.

This precarious situation, again, is something facing tens of millions of manufactured-home owners throughout North America. They own their homes, but not the land under them. When landlords decide to sell or redevelop the land, these folks face eviction with no legal protections other than the sort of things provided by "section 42(1) in the Mobile Home Park Tenancy Act" -- a grace period before they have to be off the land and an inadequate stipend for moving expenses.

That Canadian statute is poorly named, because there's really little that's "mobile" about these homes. That's the problem here -- families have all their equity tied up in homes that cannot be moved and that cannot stay where they are.

That's an impossible situation for those families, arising from the prior impossible situation -- that of people owning their homes but not the land beneath them. That situation is bound to create irreconcilable conflicts between the rights and needs of homeowners and landowners. The only way to solve such conflicts is to prevent them from occurring in the first place -- about which, more tomorrow.

Comments

[Nebris]

Mr. Gilroy and Mr. Oldrige are arrogant fools. They made a large number of enemies who now all know where they will live. I'm hoping to hear in a year or two that both of them were shot to death in their living room and their corpses roasted when the house was burnt down. I'd post that news in my Live Journal with a smiley face emoticon. =)

Disclaimer: I shall not be committing that act however as me and my gal shall be too busy purchasing some now undervalued land upon which we shall deposit our mobile home....then we're building a swimming pool.

[Brandi]

Maybe they can buy the displaced people some helium balloons.

[Nenya]

*sigh* Oh, Victoria, how I wish you were better than this. (Moving up there within the year, I hope.)

[Amaryllis]

Seaside could appeal the case, Walters said, but they are disheartened, as the same arbitrator would hear the appeal.
Huh? Is an appeal usually heard by the same judge or arbitrator who made the original ruling? That doesn't make much sense...

Three days before Seaside received their arbitration ruling, the tenants received the property tax evaluation on homes they may not be able to sell. Talk about adding insult to injury.

[pharoute]

Rights have a long history of being tied to landownership, heck there's people trying to bring back landownership as a requirement for voting. Feudalism isn't dead, it's just been rebranded.

(and while we're on the topic of feudalism Victoria is still keeping with that Medieval classic- raw sewage)

[Turcano]

Well, this is a textbook example of the old adage "possession is nine-tenths of the law."

[Lurker]

I think that building on rented land may be acceptable, but in my view, the law should mandate lease periods to be long enough and the landlord should be always a body of government (preferably local government). For example, 50 years is an acceptable lease period. It is not a pracitcal eternity, but it is acceptably long. In addition, the governmental offices are subject to democratic process, private owners are not.

[nieciedo]

Feudalism implied a bond of personal dependence and support between the lord and his subjects. This is capitalism, in which all such messy human interactions have been replaced by monetary transactions.

Question, though: why are so few "mobile homes" actually, well, "mobile?"

[Niner]

I had a similar situation happen to me. My buddy Frank, he always let me borrow his car when I needed it to get to work (my car is a bit of a beater). He was even nice enough to give me a spare key so I didn't have to bother him. All I had to do was buy him a box of donuts for Sunday breakfast. Then he sold the car to his neighbor down the street. Wow, was that guy angry when I borrowed the car again the next week. I don't know what his problem was - I had put plenty of miles on this car before. Suddenly he wanted to enforce new rules on me! Unfortunately, it turns out the law is on *his* side - apparently owning a nice car gives you better police support than someone who owns a beater.

(Yes, this entire thing is fictionalized. I see the big problem with people building semi-permanent structures on leased land; I have a hard time at outrage over the owners following the agreements of the lease including termination rights. If a solution is to be found, I think part of the weight will have to fall on people who think renting something and then treating it as if it's owned.)

[MikhailBorg]

"My buddy Frank, he always let me borrow his car when I needed it to get to work (I have no car of my own and don't have the credit to get one). He was even nice enough to give me a spare key so I didn't have to bother him. All I had to do was make the rest of the loan payments on the car for him. Then he sold the car to his neighbor down the street. Wow, was that guy angry when I wanted to stop making the loan payments."

There, fixed that for you.

[Naked Bunny with a Whip]

renting something and then treating it as if it's owned

Yes, what were those people thinking, using the land they rented exactly how it was intended to be used? I'm sure the old landowner and the government zoning board wouldn't have minded if they'd just parked RVs on those lots.

[J]

Those rights were, I suppose, purchased along with the land. If you have the means, you can buy all kinds of rights that other people can't afford. If you don't have the means, you probably won't be able to secure quite as many rights. It all seems terribly feudal.

Good point, although in a truly 'feudal' system, just having the money in hand wouldn't allow you to purchase rights. You'd also have to be the son, grandson, great-grandson, etc. of people who'd been hereditarily granted the right to buy rights, if that makes any sense at all. Or, alternatively, there would always been the option to pop on your horned helmet, grab yer sword and make your own rights and/or obtain the money to buy rights.

That's my rejoinder to C.S.-Lewis-ian anti-capitalists: Yeah, there's a disgusting oligarchy of wealth in place with capitalism and yes, I can understand that if the bible or qur'an are at all important to you then a system based on lending money at interest is objectionable.

But the prior alternative had many, many problems of it's own. It's worth pointing out that all the Hebrews and Greeks and medievals who disparaged "usury" were NOT virtuous, Wendell Berry/John Seymour types living off the land: They were living pretty comfortably in endowed monasteries and sinecured estates worked by serfs or gang slaves. At least this way we've freed ourselves from the personal shackles of title (see novels of Jane Austen) and, to some extent (though less than some people think) from the limitations of land as being the end-all, be-all of possession.

[Jarred]

Yes, what were those people thinking, using the land they rented exactly how it was intended to be used?

I love both the sarcasm and the legitimate point encapsulated within it. Placing semi-permanent structures on a trailer park lot is exactly what such lots are intended for. Sure, you can move those structures, if you can afford to have someone with the proper equipment come in and move it for you. But then, that requires you to have somplace else to move it to, which probably means another lot owned by someone who might sell the land out from under you all over again.

Obviously, one solution is to buy your own property and put your home there. Of course, that involves more than buying a small plot of land, but also going through the lengthy and expensive process of arranging to be hooked up to water, sewage, gas, and electric. As a rule, vacant lots don't come with ready access to these utilities.

[Niner]

But they didn't use it exactly as intended - they weren't prepared to move when the lease was terminated (I'm assuming for the time being that the lease has some sort of escape clause that was not cleverly hidden). Yes, it sucks to be in that position, and it'd be nice to do something for them. What are the options, though?

I haven't seen a lot of specifics for how to solve the problem, or even how to set it up so it really works*. Should leases like this legally be set to live until both parties are willing to end it? If so, that seems like you can end up with an opposite problem - the land owner could then refuse to end a lease. If you make it so only the mobile home owner can end the lease, that traps the land owner - and seems like it would cause less people to be willing to lease land to mobile homes, leaving only apartments or land ownership (not that this is necessarily a bad thing).

The other option is to not allow this altogether - if you want to erect a permanent or mostly-permanent structure on land, you must own it or have provisions to control it for the life of your structure. If not - it'd better have wheels on it still. I can't imagine that'd be very empowering for people on low incomes, but at least we'd protect them from putting themselves in a situation where they can easily lose their house.

* The same problem came up, I think here, over the payday loan places - the rates are awful, but if you shut the option down altogether, people have to deal with the worse option of not paying bills.

[Jeff]

they weren't prepared to move when the lease was terminated

Because that's pretty dificult. I don't see what's so hard about changing the leasing agreements on these types of land -- make them long-term; tie the structure and the land together somehow, so that neither can change ownership without consent of the other (with details to be worked out); make the government part owner; or some other solution.

As it is, this places the home owner totally at the mercy of the land owner.

[cjmr]

The other option is to not allow this altogether - if you want to erect a permanent or mostly-permanent structure on land, you must own it or have provisions to control it for the life of your structure. If not - it'd better have wheels on it still. I can't imagine that'd be very empowering for people on low incomes, but at least we'd protect them from putting themselves in a situation where they can easily lose their house.

Considering that most modern parks have covenants in place that require land tenants to remove the wheels/axles from their homes and place them on permanent/semi-permanent foundations, it would be a complete reversal of current practice to do that.

[forestwalker]

"It all seems terribly feudal."

We should be so lucky. It was at least recognized that a feudal lord had an obligation to the souls who were dependent upon his land. They would regard our ideas of property rights with contempt and recognize them as the barbarism that they are.

[SweetCraspy]

The more I read about this system, the worse of a deal it seems to be. What benefits of home ownership do you get that outweigh the downsides? Any equity built (do mobile homes even build equity?) exists at the sole whim of the land owner. They apparently can't be moved once they're settled, so there goes that benefit. Why wouldn't you just rent?

[Caravelle]

SweetCraspy : One major benefit of home ownership you get is freedom to remodel at will.

[Lauren]

Why wouldn't you just rent? -SweetCraspy

a.) Cost. There may not be any options available at the same price. Low-rent housing offers a poor return on investment for the poperty owner.

b.) Privacy. Anything that does exist in the same price range probably shares at least one wall with another residence. People may buy a detached mobile home because they are tired of listening to their neighbors all the time (or tired of their neighbors listening to them).

c.) Stupidity. Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you don't understand the deal you are getting into, it's hard to weigh the benefits and downsides.

[Cat]

I just spent three months in a region of Ontario where a lot of the real estate is geared to folks who just want to buy enough land for a trailer. Lots are something like $20 000, and utility hookups may or may not be included, but there are also a lot of skilled people who will install stuff on the barter system.

I'm not saying this solves the problem or mitigates anything; just sort of pointing out that it's an existing option, albeit one with its own rather substantial downsides--namely having to live in that particular region of Ontario.

[damnedyankee]

Privacy and cost were why I moved into my home. No, they don't build equity, but neither am I being importuned by my downstairs neighbor to tread lightly upon the floor (I weigh somewhere in the 250 pound range so that's not exactly an option), nor am I subjected to someone else's "taste" in music at 4 AM. I'm aware of how development might threaten my position here, but IMHO it's still got apartment life beat all to hell.

[Lauren]

I had a similar situation happen to me. My buddy Frank, he always let me borrow his car when I needed it to get to work (I don't own a car because cars are a scarce commodity and in high demand). The car didn't run, but Frank was even nice enough to let me install tires, brake pads, and an engine so it would be driveable. All I had to do was buy him a box of donuts for Sunday breakfast. Then he sold the car to the junkyard. Wow, was that guy angry when I tried to tell him that the engine, tires, and brakes belonged to me. I don't know what his problem was - I had put plenty of money into this car before. Suddenly he wanted to deny me access to my property! Unfortunately, it turns out the law is on *his* side - apparently owning a big, scary junkyard dog gives you better police support than someone who has nothing.

It kind of falls apart at the end with the telltale police reference, but fun nonetheless. I know, I know, I should not feed the trolls.

[Niner]

It kind of falls apart at the end with the telltale police reference, but fun nonetheless. I know, I know, I should not feed the trolls.

Sorry, I'm not intending to be a troll, I'm just trying to figure out how the balance of rights works in this situation. My inclusion of the police was to parallel Fred's comparison of ownership of land to feudalism - it seemed so thinly connected. I mean, I don't allow people I don't want on my property - does that make me like some kind of tyrant king? People with more money don't have "more" rights (in this situation; I won't argue against the "can afford a better lawyer" argument), the just have more property over which their rights extend. Hence, the guy who owns the car (or the land) has ownership rights over it.

[J]

That Canadian statute is poorly named, because there's really little that's "mobile" about these homes. That's the problem here -- families have all their equity tied up in homes that cannot be moved and that cannot stay where they are.

If we can find them another 'trailer' park, then we should give them Central Asian yurts. I'm serious. Cheap, sturdy homes that can stand up to bad weather and which actually ARE portable. Run out an electric cable, a water pipe and a waste pipe to each one and they'll be all set.

They won't accept these homes of course, for reasons that have a little to do with racism and a lot to do with the same sort of mentality that led the beef-eating Vinland settlers to die of starvation 200 yards away from a sea full of fish. But we'll have made the effort.

[damnedyankee]

Niner: But people who live in apartments are better protected by laws that specifically govern tenant/management relationships. Tenants in a trailer park seem to fall into more of a grey area, and are offered no such protections. So yes, if a landowner chooses to entirely disregard the well-being of his tenants, trailer park inhabitants are little better off, in terms of recourse, than, say, 19th Century Irish tenant farmers.

And on another note, first "stupidity" and then "yurts". Mm-hm. Folk sure do know how to remind us trailer trash of our place, don't they?

[Jeff]

the guy who owns the car (or the land) has ownership rights over it.

But other than to libertarians (ick-pooie!), ownership rights are not inviolate. There are any number of factors that can trump ownership rights, and people getting kicked out of their own homes is probably high among them.

[Jeff]

If we can find them another 'trailer' park, then we should give them Central Asian yurts. I'm serious. Cheap, sturdy homes that can stand up to bad weather and which actually ARE portable. Run out an electric cable, a water pipe and a waste pipe to each one and they'll be all set.

From the scenes in Grand Final, yurts are rather small (athough they do look rather cool, and there's a lot to be said for a house you can pack on the back of a camel). I think 2 yurts would be the equivalent of a double-wide, which I believe is the most common type of "mobile" home.

damnedyankee, I'm of an age when The Whole Earh Catalog was at its peak. Yurts were one of the big sellers -- fairly big, easy to transport (the commune almost certainly had a VW bus!) and easy to decorate, inside and out. Don't insult the yurt!

[damnedyankee]

damnedyankee, I'm of an age when The Whole Earh Catalog was at its peak. Yurts were one of the big sellers -- fairly big, easy to transport (the commune almost certainly had a VW bus!) and easy to decorate, inside and out. Don't insult the yurt!

I took the liberty of looking over a modern yurt maker's site. Between the velcro'd windows and laminated polyester covering, all I'm seeing is a glorified tent. That might be fine far from urban areas, but I'll be damned if I'm leaving the computer that I built myself inside a structure that's accessible to any determined 9-year-old with a pocketknife.

Anyway, I was actually taking more exception to the part where J saying: "They won't accept these homes of course, for reasons that have a little to do with racism and a lot to do with the same sort of mentality that led the beef-eating Vinland settlers to die of starvation 200 yards away from a sea full of fish. But we'll have made the effort." Better that we die and decrease the surplus population, I suppose, as long as we leave clear consciences behind us.

[Jeff]

all I'm seeing is a glorified tent

I'd say the yurt is the Ultimate Tent. Absolutely wrong for urban settings (although I wonder how difficult it would be to make The Urban Yurt?), much better for rural life (and perfect for the commune).

Morningstar Ranch, one of the larger and more successful communes is just up the road (no more than 20 miles) from where I grew up. Northern Cal is perfect for communes and yurts.

I was actually taking more exception to the part where J saying...

Righteous anger deserved at that bit, sure.

[Cyllan]

I took the liberty of looking over a modern yurt maker's site. Between the velcro'd windows and laminated polyester covering, all I'm seeing is a glorified tent. That might be fine far from urban areas, but I'll be damned if I'm leaving the computer that I built myself inside a structure that's accessible to any determined 9-year-old with a pocketknife.

The FAQ on the one that I'm looking over claims that it's secure -- the interior lattice structure supposedly prevents entry even through the windows. I'd be curious to see one; the marketing on the site I'm seeing sounds really attractive. I wonder how well it actually works.

[mike.timonin]

For some reason, this current rant re: "mobile" homes made me think of Henry George. Henry George was a late 19th century economic theorist (among other things) who, after moving to California, advocated a shift to a Single Tax System based on land ownership. That is, only people who owned land should have to pay taxes. (he also favored government owned "natural" monopolies - railroads, telegraph companies, that sort of thing). I'm not sure his theories apply to this situation - in fact, it was widely agreed at the time that his theories didn't even apply to his contemporary situation, and Karl Marx hated him - but something about the repeated injustices of "mobile" homes triggered some odd memory of his theory.

Incidentally, one of the few people to get excited about Georgeism was Sun YatSen, who attempted to import the ideas into the second Chinese Republic, with little success. This is an odd footnote, because George was (among other things) a politician in California, and a strong supporter of Chinese exclusion - not an obvious ally, even ideologically, for a leader of Chinese nationalism.

[mike.timonin]

also, and sorry for the double post, thanks J and others for the suggestion of yurts! A potential solution to an entirely different sort of problem - my extended family owns some land, but has not the means, the desire, nor the need to build a permanent structure on it. The modern yurt looks ideal for the site, and could be removed should we decide to sell it in the future...

[J]

Anyway, I was actually taking more exception to the part where J saying: "They won't accept these homes of course, for reasons that have a little to do with racism and a lot to do with the same sort of mentality that led the beef-eating Vinland settlers to die of starvation 200 yards away from a sea full of fish. But we'll have made the effort." Better that we die and decrease the surplus population, I suppose, as long as we leave clear consciences behind us.

No. At this point in the life of the world, I'm a little sick of good ideas rejected out of propriety. Same way I feel people who apply for Medicaid should be asked if they support universal health care and turned down if they say no ("You wouldn't want to abridge your principles by having us ration medicine to you, would you now?"). Or else people who complain about high gas prices who also are on record as calling proponents of electrified light rail "communists" should be forced to drink molten gold. And anyone who says "we" "must" "stay" in Iraq will be counted as having signed up to carry the additional war-tax burden of any and everyone who ever opposed the war in the first place.

[Tim Boysen]

I think the best solution would be to require the land owner to pay in full the cost of moving the home, the cost of any damages done in the moving process, and, if the home-owner does not have a place to put the home, the cost of storing the home until a location is found( I suspect for a period, after which the responsibility for storage would return to the home owner to keep an abandoned home out of legal limbo). The conflict isn't one of property rights versus no property rights. A land owner should have a reasonable amount of control (within zoning law obviously) over their land. Likewise a homeowner should have the right to having there property demolished without their consent.

[Tim Boysen]

*not having their property demolished

[Praline]

Compensation to the home owners paid by the land owners does sound fair - after all, the land has been a business investment to its owner. I suspect that renting a field as a trailer-park makes you a lot more money than planting corn on it; hence, it should be frameable that you have to offset against that the expense of moving your tenants off it should you change your plans.

Alternatively, there should be some kind of insurance available to people who need to move their homes; considering the relative efficiency of government-sponsored and private healthcare, government-sponsored insurance seems more practical.

But some kind of cover sounds like a basic right. As Tim says, the trailer owner is a property owner just as much as the land owner, and it's not all right to demolish other people's stuff.

There's surely another problem, though, which is proximity to work: if you can't afford a car, your trailer park gets shut down, and the nearest alternative is too far from your job, you're still in trouble. The whole thing seems badly planned from the start.

[Hawker Hurricane]

J: people who still 'support the Iraq War' between the ages of 18 and 35 should be drafted into the Infantry. If too old or physically incapable of performing infantry duties, then you increase thier taxes.

Robert Heinlien once suggested (in one of his early, socialist works) that declarations of war should be by national plebescite of all draft eligible persons. If the measure passed, all those who voted 'yes' would be immediately drafted into military service. All those eligible who didn't vote would be drafted second. All 'no' voters would be immune to the draft. Kind of a 'put your body where your mouth is' proposal.

[Amaryllis]

Yes, well, another thing about the feudal system was that the political leaders -- kings, earls, barons -- were also expected to be personally involved in any wars they started, to "put their bodies where their mouths were." Of course, there were plenty of drawbacks to that system, like restricting leadership to the class with the leisure and resources to dedicate themselves to military training (and to the gender for which such training was considered suitable). And certainly the peasantry suffered worse in those wars than the aristocracy, without any choice in the matter at all. If the lord called in your service for his army, you went; if the rival lord sacked your village, your bad luck. But at least, the kings and barons couldn't crouch in their castles and plot "wars of choice" with the comfortable assurance that they personally, or their heirs, needn't actually, you know, fight and maybe even die just like the peasants.

[SweetCraspy]

Thanks for the explanations of why people like to have a place that they own. I still think the mobile home system is a bum deal from the get go, but I've never wanted to remodel or had much of a problem with neighbors.

A couple more thoughts:
If we're looking at requiring the land owner to pay to have the house moved, what kind of precedent does that set for renting in general? If I'm moving away from an unfurnished apartment, and I can't afford to move my furniture, should the landlord have to pay to move and store it? There's a difference of degree between the two, but is there a difference of kind?

Personally, I would be in favor of laws that require mobile homes to stay mobile, trumping covenants, and of insurance that pays for the move when you get evicted. How expensive would it be to move a mobile home? I see new ones on the backs of wide-load trucks all the time, so the cost can't be prohibitive. I've got to believe that it costs less than eating the rest of the $20-40k mortgages that the people in the article still have. Of course, that doesn't solve the problem of where you move it to.

[Cowboy Diva]

SweetCraspy,
I would suggest you read archival posts from Fred on this particular topic. Your statement "I see new ones on the backs of wide-load trucks all the time, so the cost can't be prohibitive." is false. The term "mobile home" merely defines the fact it is mostly built in one place and then moved to a final location, rather than being built on site. Once it is installed in a location it is INCREDIBLY difficult and expensive to move to a new location and reinstall.
You're right, it is a bum deal especially given the cases Fred has brought up. FWIW, I do think the points you brought up about property rights of the land owners are valid.
I think it would be helpful of property owners who use their investment to rent to mobile home owners (rather than say, growing corn on the land) would be required as part of the zoning to offer it in a kind of right-of-first-refusal to the lessees (to form a co-op if they so choose) before being able to sell it to another party.

yes/no/esc?

[Praline]

I think it would be helpful of property owners who use their investment to rent to mobile home owners (rather than say, growing corn on the land) would be required as part of the zoning to offer it in a kind of right-of-first-refusal to the lessees (to form a co-op if they so choose) before being able to sell it to another party.

That sounds reasonable, in theory at least. I wonder if it might run into practical problems, though. If you're living in a mobile home, odds are you don't have much spare money; it's possible that the homeowners might just be unable to afford the land. It could turn into one of those, 'Well, don't say we didn't give you a chance' situations where the game's rigged, but because it looks okay on paper nobody makes any move to make it fairer.

There's also the question of how you'd calculate the land's value. Unless some independent arbitrator came in to determine a fair price, I'd assume land, like real estate in general, is worth whatever you can get someone to pay for it - and the land's owner would have some highly motivated buyers. If the land seller had a tract worth, say, a hundred thousand dollars*, and tried to charge a land buyer a hundred and fifty thousand, that buyer could simply say 'No thanks', and go buy a cheaper field. It's no skin off his nose. But the people who'd lose their homes entirely would be in no position to seek a better deal elsewhere: they aren't looking to buy a field, like a regular buyer, they need to buy that field. Nothing else will do - in fact, they have no legal first-refusal rights on anywhere else.

In such a situation, the land owner could rack up a price well above market value for the land, because the consequences of the home owners not buying (assuming they could raise the stake at all) would be so severe that it's tantamount to blackmail: 'Buy this land at inflated prices, or I'll have your houses knocked down.'

Like I say, you could have some kind of independent arbitrator in cases like that, but that would involve governmental control of capitalism, and we're all familiar with the wailing and gnashing of teeth whenever anybody suggests that.

*I'm sure land is worth much more than that; I'm just trying to keep the figures calculable for those of us who lack maths skills.

[yagowe]

Re: Yurts

I was in a modern yurt last month- it is being used as the park office for a provincial campground (coincidentally not all that far away from the Mobile Home Park in question). It was quite roomy (I'd guess 30' across, so that'd be about 700sqft) and looked pretty secure, but I'd agree that it wouldn't be at all suitable for an urban environment.

[Lauren]

If we're looking at requiring the land owner to pay to have the house moved, what kind of precedent does that set for renting in general? If I'm moving away from an unfurnished apartment, and I can't afford to move my furniture, should the landlord have to pay to move and store it? There's a difference of degree between the two, but is there a difference of kind?

Actually, I'm pretty sure that a landlord who evicts a tenant from an apartment is legally required to store the tenant's stuff for a set period of time for the tenant to pick up. The tenant has to pay the cost of storage to get their belongings back, but the landlord can't just seize or destroy the tenant's property because the tenant didn't remove it.

[Jeff]

If I'm moving away from an unfurnished apartment, and I can't afford to move my furniture, should the landlord have to pay to move and store it?

I see that as somewhat different in that a) furniture is much more mobile and storable than "mobile" homes (hereafter MHs); and b) furniture is much less expensive, and thus easier to replace and c) you don't "need" furniture (who among us hasn't lived in an unfurnished apartment with the barest of furniture?) the way you do a home.

==================================

I think it would be helpful of property owners who use their investment to rent to mobile home owners (rather than say, growing corn on the land) would be required as part of the zoning to offer it in a kind of right-of-first-refusal to the lessees (to form a co-op if they so choose) before being able to sell it to another party.

The biggest problem is that MH owners tend not to be able to afford land (else they'd go to a condo instead of a MH). Even by pooling their funds, they probably wouldn't be able to afford the land, unless the city bought it at cost and sold it at a loss.

=============================

In such a situation, the land owner could rack up a price well above market value for the land

The "fair market value" for land is determined every few years to set property taxes, so one could legislate that they can't sell (to the municipality, I think) for more than n% above the fair market value.

[Praline]

Even by pooling their funds, they probably wouldn't be able to afford the land, unless the city bought it at cost and sold it at a loss.

Personally that sounds like the kind of thing I'd be willing to have my tax money pay for. You could, as an alternative, have the land owner obliged to sell the land to the city for a fair price, and the city then hold the land and carry on renting. If they wanted to phase out the MH use, they could stipulate that no further homes could be built on the site; the land would come back into circulation eventually, without dispossessing anyone. (Especially as I highly doubt that mobile homes last anything like as long as brick and mortar houses.)

It just seems to me that there's something reckless in allowing a situation where people can lease out their land to home owners in such a way that they're entitled to demand that the homes are removed or destroyed when they want to sell it. It's the kind of conflict of interest that the law should anticipate, and have regulations to prevent abuses.

[damnedyankee]

At this point in the life of the world, I'm a little sick of good ideas rejected out of propriety.

Actually, it was more of your saying "well, they're too blissfully ignorant to accept my solution, but now I can wash my hands of them," that got my goat.

[SweetCraspy]

I would suggest you read archival posts from Fred on this particular topic. Your statement "I see new ones on the backs of wide-load trucks all the time, so the cost can't be prohibitive." is false.

I see Fred give a $10,000 estimate as a cost for moving a unit. That's rough, but it isn't un-doable. It looks like some of these people already have $10s of thousands of dollars in mortgages, which includes the cost to move it the first time. If they've still got a mortgage, I would think that the bank would have an incentive to let you add that $10,000 to the mortgage, because otherwise the collateral of the MH is worthless. I'm not sure about the situation if you've already paid for the house, but I presume that a MH has some equity that you could borrow against, even if the equity goes down over time.

I'm also inclined to see the cost of moving the MH as part of the cost of ownership, especially when you are renting the land. The current state of things is shitty all around, but it seems like it could have been planned for if these people had money saved or insurance for this type of disaster, or avoided altogether if they had realized that the potential cost of being forced to move put owning a MH out of their price range.

As to your later point, I think it's a great idea to let the MH owners have first dibs on the land. It's tricky to figure out how to do it right, as Praline says, but the homeowners do have the most compelling interest in the property and should have the right to buy it if they want it.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that a landlord who evicts a tenant from an apartment is legally required to store the tenant's stuff for a set period of time for the tenant to pick up.

I think you're right. (A quick search brought up a couple of advice columns.) But ultimately, it's the tenant who has to pay. I don't think that storing the MHs on their lots for 3-6 months to give the homeowners time to arrange movement would be acceptable to some of the people who are arguing for more regulation of the landowners.

[Marza]

SweetCraspy quoted and then said:

Actually, I'm pretty sure that a landlord who evicts a tenant from an apartment is legally required to store the tenant's stuff for a set period of time for the tenant to pick up.

I think you're right. (A quick search brought up a couple of advice columns.) But ultimately, it's the tenant who has to pay. I don't think that storing the MHs on their lots for 3-6 months to give the homeowners time to arrange movement would be acceptable to some of the people who are arguing for more regulation of the landowners.

That depends on where you are. In Washington, DC it's not at all easy to evict a tenant (like, Pacific Heights hard) and don't even think about self-help. But, if a tenant does get evicted, their property is moved out to the street (well, the sidewalk usually).

[J]

Actually, it was more of your saying "well, they're too blissfully ignorant to accept my solution, but now I can wash my hands of them," that got my goat.

I have yet to meet any adult human beings who can be said be blissfully ignorant. The ignorant people I've met in my life all seem belligerently so.