By T.W. Budig
ECM capitol reporter

It's insurance for homeowners, said Rep. Scott Kranz, DFL-Blaine, of his legislation dealing with mobile homes.

"That's what it boils down to," Kranz told the House Housing Policy and Finance and Public Health Finance Committee.

Kranz — who fondly recalls campaigning in north metro mobile home parks — is proposing legislation making it mandatory for mobile home park owners to compensate park residents forced to move because of a park closing.

Residents who elect not to move would be entitled to the fair market value of their mobile home, under the bill.

"We need to be leaders at the state level to provide some stability for these homeowners," said Kranz.

Providing stable housing is a legislative priority for Kranz. An educator, he bemoans the student turnover rates in the public school.

Presently under state law, cities must hold a public hearing to review the impact of the closing of a mobile home park.

But park owners are not necessarily required to compensate mobile home owners for moving expenses.

Protect Our Homes, a mobile home owner advocacy groups, estimates some 180,000 Minnesotans live in the state's 915 mobile home parks — industry officials put the number of parks slightly higher.

Overs the last six years, some 14 mobile home parks have closed, according to advocates.

Advocate depicted the trend as potentially contributing to homelessness — one estimate is that it costs $5,000 to $10,000 to move a mobile home.

Beverly Adrain, a former mobile park dweller from Bloomington, told the committee the phrase often used to justify mobile home park closures is that it's for better use of the land.

But better for whom she asked.

"Condos starting at $200,000 is not affordable housing," she said.

But Republican lawmakers and mobile home park industry officials claimed the situation with park closures is not as simple as advocates want to portray it.

Indeed, Rep. Rob Eastlund, R-Cambridge, argued Kranz's bill would make park owners "almost like the victims."

The bill forces the solution for displaced mobile home owners entirely onto the owners. "The bill doesn't address the entire issue here," said Eastlund.

Eastlund argued one reason displaced mobile home owners have no place to move is because cities are so restrictive in zoning mobile home parks.

Rep. Neil Peterson, R-Bloomington, former mayor of Bloomington, said two of the three mobile home parks closed in Bloomington were owned by slum landlords.

"How do you fix the bathroom of a depilated, 30-year old manufactured home sitting in the park," he asked, explaining older mobile homes are basically valueless.

Mark Lambert, an attorney representing the mobile home park industry, argued that everyone realizes a problem exists.

"But let's not denigrate someone," he said, referring to mobile home park owners.

Industry officials suggested a trust fund be created to assist mobile home owners with expenses relating to park closings. The real issue is finding a funding source, Lambert argued.

Mark Brunner, Minnesota Manufactured Housing Association, explained other states, such as Florida, have created such trust funds.

Brunner argued the idea of mobile home park owners uniformly making huge amounts of money by closing their parks is mistaken.

Only about 70 to 80 mobile home parks are located in the metro.

The rest of the parks are in the Greater Minnesota marketplace, he explained.

Speaking after the hearing, Kranz was optimistic a solution to the dilemma can be found.

"I think there's a spirit of cooperation," he said.

In testifying before the committee, Kranz said he personally enjoyed campaigning in his district's mobile home parks.

People are out and talking, he explained.

And they're friendly.

"(If) I accepted every beer that was offered to me I'm not sure I'd find my way of the park," he joked.

Mobile home advocates rallied at the Capitol on Wednesday (Feb. 28) afternoon.

Kranz's bill was passed by the committee and now awaits other committee action.

A second bill dealing with mobile home owners' rights of first refusal was also passed by the committee.

Comment from Myrna Gallo, 3/9/07

The compensation in Florida is not enough...

The move is more costly than offered... Those who are forced to abandon are eventually force to homeless, and the pets suffer, if they leave...