|
|
|
Stacy trailer park rent increase questioned |
|
|
By Anne Thom
A public meeting was held at Stacy City Hall on Jan. 28 specifically to address a $25 per lot rent increase being imposed on the residents of the Sunrise Mobile Home Park (MHP) as of Feb. 1.
Dave Anderson, executive director of All Parks Alliance for Change (APAC) and APAC attorney Margaret Kaplan and a handful of Sunrise MHP residents attended. APAC is an organization for residents of manufactured home parks that provides legal education, does tenant organizing and pushes to insure manufactured home park residents obtain or retain safe, secure and affordable housing.
The park’s owner John Ulvin told the Post Review in a telephone conversation on Feb. 15 he had not been invited to attend this public meeting and further, that he generally becomes aware there was a meeting when another resident mentions it to him or he reads about it in the paper after the fact.
According to residents Robert “Bud” and Barbara Wilson, there are just over 200 lots in the park. They said 60 are rental units, 13 currently are under unlawful detainer, six need to be demolished and 125 are owner occupied. Barbara Wilson began, explaining that different lots within the park are different prices.
Attorney Kaplan advised the same amount has to be charged for all lots “unless there is something special about it.” She also said that statutorily, the rent can be raised twice a year “but it must be reasonable.” Reasonable would be defined as in comparison to other manufactured home parks looking at the condition and the amenities. The residents said lot rent has normally increased $10 per year. Now they have been told it will be increasing to $25 a year routinely.
Anderson and Kaplan explained it is not necessarily illegal to raise rents to cover increased costs, but, this increase may be directly related to the resident’s insistence that a new storm shelter be built. Olivolo said the Ulvin family, the park’s owners, have always told residents the increase has been imposed to cover increased maintenance costs.
The question APAC would like to know is was the rent increase retaliatory because of the demand for the new storm shelter?
“Is it fair that they were not in compliance for all these years and now we have to pay for it?” asked Councilor and Sunrise Mobile Home Park resident Tony Olivolo. The park’s storm shelter was found recently to not be in compliance with state requirements. Two new storm shelters will be under construction as soon as possible this spring. Barbara Wilson said, “they (the park’s owners) have told everyone its APAC’s fault.”
Kaplan said she could assist park residents in challenging the rent increase and asked if this was all being documented. The residents agreed to collect the letter announcing the rent increase, letters announcing rent increases from previous years and a sampling of utility bills from over the last several years. Kaplan also said they need to find out and make a comparison of rents in other parks, survey amenities that are offered and also to “find people who are going to want to be plaintiffs.”
B. Wilson said, “we’ve been told ‘if you don’t like, move’.” She also said, “They’re angry at us for starting a tenant’s union.” She told Anderson and Kaplan that in a survey of residents the majority responded, “Don’t do anything if our lot rent goes up.” B. Wilson said, “You’re dealing with very common people ... very working class and they’re just trying to hang onto the little bit they have.”
Bud Wilson said he thought the park was slowly increasing rent in order to force people out. Olivolo told APAC, “The lot rent is catching up to the mortgage payment. He cited his own costs as utilities being approximately $400 a month and lot rent at $345. “They’ve made the property unattractive. The rent is uncompetitive,” Anderson said.
Fear of the park being sold appears to be motivating the residents to organize as well. B. Wilson told Anderson that the park has not re-rented an empty lot in over two years. She said there are 35 empty lots by her count. Anderson speculated that could mean the Ulvin’s are “reducing their potential liability” in compensation costs for displaced residents “through attrition.”
Anderson asked about the feasibility of having a non-profit housing group buy the park. The residents indicated the condition of the park doesn’t make it an attractive investment for its current use. They worried also that some repairs have been let go for so long that the cost that would have to be levied on residents to do major upgrades would in itself displace residents. The residents feel significant infrastructure improvements need to be made in the park and soon.
As an example of an infrastructure issue, the residents mentioned the bridge that connects the north and south sides of the park. Ulvin told the Post Review that a Bonestroo and Associates contract inspector had inspected the bridge for safety and the bridge had passed that inspection. He said the city has been given the report. Ulvin said any further pursuit of the issue is the result of Bud Wilson’s opinion that the bridge footings are not safe. Councilor Wilson said at this meeting the park should be “put into receivership until they come into compliance with state law.”
Kaplan noted the sale of the park would require city approval. Anderson said that would certainly be more difficult given that three city council members are park residents.
When asked, Ulvin told the Post Review, “The park is not for sale.” He said that he has told the residents this numerous times. He feels B. Wilson is using this threat as a tool to organize a tenants union. Ulvin acknowledged he receives calls from parties interested in purchasing the park, but said all of the calls have been from owners of other manufactured home parks; he has not received any calls from developers.
B. Wilson said she has been in contact with Rep. Kalin and that Kalin has requested information on tonight’s meeting. She said Kalin was interested in pursuing a “beefing up” of the state’s law on the sale of mobile home parks and the compensation to residents in the event of a sale. “What if your house was worth $250,000 and you have to move and they say all you can get is $84,000?” B. Wilson said.
 |
|
|
