They own their CT homes, but not the land: Mobile home owners calling for protection
Most people who own houses own the land underneath them. When they want to move, they sell the house and the land. This is not the case with owners of mobile homes.
They live a hybrid existence: They own houses, but not the land they sit on. They pay mortgages on the houses, but also pay rent on the spots the houses sit on. If the rent gets too high, moving their house may be so expensive that they decide to just stay and suck it up.
“It costs $10,000 to $15,000 to move a typical mobile home. People don’t have that kind of money if they live in a mobile-home park,” said Dave Delohery, who lives in Cedar Springs mobile-home park in Southington and is president of Connecticut Manufactured Homeowners Alliance.
“There’s no place to bring it anyway. They have the option to walk away from the house or agree to a rent increase.”
Delohery said that quandary has intrigued corporate investors. “One (corporate executive) was quoted years ago that mobile home residents are like Waffle House customers chained to their booths,” he said.
A bill under consideration in the state General Assembly aims to help mobile home owners. SB988 would give tenants right of first refusal if their park owner wants to sell the land.
SB988 passed the finance, revenue and bonding committee with a 47-4 vote and the housing committee with a 10-5 vote. It is now awaiting a vote of the Senate.
Delohery called SB988 “the first step in reining in the activities of out-of-state corporate entities gaining control of Connecticut parks and undermining their status as one of the few remaining sources of unsubsidized affordable housing in the state.”
Current law
Currently, Subsection f of section 21-70 of state general statutes requires land owners to give tenants right of first refusal to buy the land if the land owners, or someone they sell it to, want to stop using the land as a mobile home park.
The new law would override that, giving tenants first dibs on a sale even if the land still will be used as a mobile home park.
Rep. Mary Mushinsky sponsored SB988 with Sen. James J. Maroney and Reps. David Michel, Joseph P. Gresko and Aundre Bumgardner.
Mushinsky said about 10,000 households, a significant percentage of them senior citizens, live in about 190 mobile home parks across the state.
“Some investors look upon these parks as cheap to buy and then high-profit because you can jack up the rents once you own it,” Mushinsky said. “A person living on Social Security checks should not be, in their retirement years, forced out of their house and forced to find a new house.”
Multi-step process
Even if it passes, the new law does not guarantee that mobile home park tenants will be able to buy their land. First, at least 25% of tenants must organize as a group and must agree on a price with the owner, based on appraisals or existing bids.
Most important, the tenants must secure a mortgage. As per the bill, they would get help from the state Department of Housing and the Connecticut Housing Finance Authority.
Sometimes help from governmental agencies and nonprofits doesn’t ensure success either. Residents at River’s Edge in Beacon Falls found that out when they looked into financing to buy their park. The park was purchased two years ago by Athena Real Estate of Orlando, Florida. It is for sale again now.
The residents were denied financing because 18 of the park’s 55 homes are in a flood zone, said said Colleen Dana, who lives at River’s Edge.
“There’s nothing we can do. We’re at the mercy of whoever buys this place,” Dana said. “We’re in a terrible predicament.”
Dana, who is on disability, said about 75% of residents are retirees. The park, she added, has seen unprecedented rent increases since the current corporation bought the park. Dana said base rent now is $565 a month. A mobile home park next door, she added, has a base rent of $425.
River’s Edge tenants petitioned the town to establish a fair rent commission. Their petition was not successful.
“Mobile homes historically are known as the cheapest way to go. Trailer-park jokes go back forever. Not anymore,” she said. “If you can’t afford to live in a mobile home park, where can you afford to live? What’s less than this? A tent in the woods?”
‘A secure feeling’
Still, having a law in place would give hope to tenants scared that corporations will use their incomes — often fixed — as an ever-increasing revenue stream.
In Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont, which have right of first refusal laws, 20 to 25% of all mobile home parks are resident-owned, Delohery said. In Connecticut, only three are owned by residents.
“We just want them to give us the same rights other states have,” said Delohery, who pays $522 a month at his 55-and-older park, which is owned by Michigan-based Sun Communities.
One of those resident-owned parks is Ryder Woods in Milford. Its residents bought it in 2009 with guidance from two nonprofits, Cooperative Development Institute and the Resident Owned Communities USA.
Ryder Woods resident Al Hricz, 76, said residents of the 174-lot park are about 90% senior citizens. Each lot’s rent is $400 a month, which covers the mortgage and operating expenses of the park.
“As far as I know, the majority are happy living in this community,” he said. “There is this feeling of stability. There is no way someone can come in and take it out from under you.”
Sen. Marilyn Moore, chair of the General Assembly’s housing committee, said resident ownership is an essential affordable housing issue.
“Statewide, we lack affordable housing … and we are not building affordable housing the way we should,” she said. “If residents don’t have to move, we don’t lose the housing.”
Moore said she had a misconception about mobile homes before vising a complex in Milford.
“I thought it was trailers. It’s not. These are houses. I was in a house with three bedrooms, a kitchen, living room, dining room, just like any other house. The only difference is that somebody else owns the land it is on.”
‘Up and up and up’
Bob Bailey lives at Evergreen Springs mobile home park in Clinton. It is owned by Michigan-based RHP Properties. RHP owns four other parks in the state.
Bailey said he pays $752 a month rent on his lot in the park, that has about 100 lots.
“The cost just keeps going up and up and up,” he said. “We’re just to a point where we’re fed up.”
Bailey added that rent increases decrease the value of the houses in the park.
“One woman started out selling her home at $145,000. Now it is down to $115,000. She lost one or two buyers because of the rent,” he said. “That’s going to make it harder for all of us to sell our homes without taking a large amount off.”
Raphael Podolsky of Connecticut Legal Services pointed out in his public hearing testimony, “Purchase prices of homes are significantly based on the right to stay in the park.”
Bailey is enthusiastic about right of first refusal. “Having the opportunity is important, to at least be able to meet whatever price they’re offering,” he said.
National support
Some national elected officials have come out in support of right of first refusal. A letter was sent last August to Sandra Thompson, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and signed by 17 congresspersons, including Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal.
The letter, which called mobile home parks “one of the last bastions of naturally occurring affordable housing,” addressed several concerns regarding such communities purchased with government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) funding, such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
“Across the country, outside investors are purchasing (mobile home parks) using GSE financing, and proceeding to significantly increase rents, add fees, or push residents out to replace existing units with new higher-cost homes,” the letter reads. “Since manufactured housing residents tend to be older and have lower incomes, these are often the people who are least able to afford these increases.”
Among other issues addressed in the letter is a call for right of first refusal for these properties.
“Resident ownership and control over the land under their homes will give them long term security and ensure any rent increases go towards benefits they want,” it read.
Owners push back
SB988 is getting some pushback, though, primarily from property owners. Testimony submitted during committee hearings shows their anger at being told who they can sell their property to.
“While SB988 is currently written for mobile home parks, we know that with a quick deletion and then an insertion, mobile home park can become a residential rental property in next year’s legislative proposals,” wrote Bob De Cosmo of the Connecticut Property Owners Alliance.
“We don’t want to open the door to having this kind of restriction in place on an owner’s right to divest of their investment as they see fit,” De Cosmo wrote.
Jason DiZenzo, who owns five mobile home parks in the state, said the proviso in the bill that allows tenants an entire year to finalize the purchase of the park is burdensome.
“If an emergent situation arises that I need a quick sale to provide for my family, this time frame is not conducive,” DiZenzo wrote. He added that “if I wanted to sell all of my communities as a package, this option would be off the table. To have that opportunity taken away from me seems unjust.”
Susan Dunne can be reached at sdunne@courant.com.