Well, it's about time. Over the years, my manufactured home's market price has been dented to the tune of more than $400,000 which has left only $200,000 market appreciation increase in this hot sellers' market in Silicon valley. It is a lie that homes in mobile home parks do not appreciate.

They do appreciate but a space rent increases of $10, decreases appreciation increases by $10,000. I know it sounds crazy but that is the way this mobile home park real estate market works. And the space rent increases routinely ignore the CPI (Consumer Price Index) guidelines that are suppose to be used. The rent increases are routinely higher than the CPI would permit.

PS: I pay property taxes on my home. It is considered real property by the tax assessor; it is not a vehicle. That old fashioned "vehicle" status ended in the mid-70's when manufactured home standards went into place. There are no wheels under my home. Moving my home is nearly as expensive as moving a stick built home, and the techniques are similar.

As long as they're sticking it to the landlords and mobile park owners in the name of Robin Hood economics, it seems only fair now to move on to capping the price of homes. Why not roll them back a few years - no reason homeowners should make money if it's making housing unaffordable. It's all fun and games when someone else is losing the money...

They already capped homeowners' and landlords ongoing costs way back in the 70s, it was called Prop 13. Rich people love class warfare when they're winning

Here's another piece of info about Santiago Villa:

If you have an offer to sell your home, the park (ie the ever delightful owner Mr Vidovich) can void the sale

Even though the lender has determined that the buyers are financially qualified to afford the mortgage and space rent, the park can refuse the owner's ability to sell - leaving the home owner with no choice but to accept the park's lowball price.

Santiago Villa then rents out that coerced purchase for $4,000 p/mnth.

Robbing Hood indeed!

That sucks, but it's his park and his rules. You must have signed something to this effect when you moved in and if you don't want to sell to him, move your home somewhere else. Of course, you probably don't want to do that because it's worth more on HIS property. It's not your home that's valuable, it's his parking space that makes it valuable. It's not a coerced purchase - if you can get more somewhere else, go for it

The mobile home parks listed in this article have 3 classes of renters:

1) those who own their unit and lease the land ... their rents have been going up annually at a modest rate

2) those who just bought a new unit and are leasing the land at the new, very high, market rate

3) those that rent the unit from the park owner (who owns the land) ... it is these tenants who most closely align with a typical apartment renter ... they own nothing, and every year have been experiencing exorbitant rent increases exactly like apartment renters which the rent control ordinance was designed to protect ...

if any mobile home class of renter should be covered by these rent control protections, it is the renters in #3 ... they are identical to apartment dwellers ... they are effectively renting a free-standing apartment from the owner of the mobile home park just like an apartment dweller rents a unit from the landlord ... the only difference is what the unit looks like

There are 2 important issues that will need to be done now.

The first is that mobile park land owners are now required to pay a $160.00 fee per mobile home land site, given they are now categorically a “landlord”

Second, that the mobile home owner is required to be paid back any overpaid land rent based on the initial occupancy. Thus those residing since October, 2015 are entitled to the rent-rollback as of December 23rd, 2016 up to today.

It is too bad that this was not addressed at the beginning, however, that problem was caused by the confusion and inability of the City to “walk and chew gum” at the same time.

This is why I sold my apartment buildings and got out of there. These people can justify anything when it comes to stealing other people's money, especially a landlord's.

My advice to the Landlord's is to do what I did and sell your property to developers and let them tear it all down. Then the renters can move into new 1.5 million dollar homes for $6k/month.

Your property is worth as much torn down as it was before rent control, you deserve it..get it now by redeveloping in this hot real estate market that has no inventory for buyers.

In response to Bob you said:

“This is why I sold my apartment buildings and got out of there. These people can justify anything when it comes to stealing other people's money, especially a landlord's.”

Any “investment” does not have a guaranty of profits. Where this occurs, you cannot claim that anyone is “stealing” anything. These people new the risk, and chose to gamble. So this statement simply makes no sense. You said:

“My advice to the Landlord's is to do what I did and sell your property to developers and let them tear it all down. Then the renters can move into new 1.5 million dollar homes for $6k/month.”

Of course you can decide to to this, but it will require that the plans be approved by the City. But since the new State laws require the City to develop projects in compliance with the needs of affordable housing, the city can be financially damaged by non-compliance. This would seem to make it very difficult for an apartment building that say has up to 10 units be replaced by maybe 2 single occupancy homes. This may not get off the ground. You also said:

“Your property is worth as much torn down as it was before rent control, you deserve it..get it now by redeveloping in this hot real estate market that has no inventory for buyers.”

There is a significant risk of Costa Hawkins being repealed. If it does succeed, than all apartments will be rent controlled, even the new ones being “built”. What you are doing is giving advice that is likely to explode in the followers face. But since you are anonymous, not a financial adviser, and you have a constitutional right to express your point of view, you will not be liable for the losses that are likely to occur. I would simply hope the readers are very careful regarding their choice of action.

Business man,

You have no experience in real estate like I do. You're a renter and that is the extent of your experience.

I am an investor and have invested in multiple markets in the bay area and outside the state. I have owned and still own a diversity of types of real estate holdings. Apartments, Condos, townhouses, Houses, Commercial retail single tenant and multiple tenant shopping centers. I've owned alone and have owned in partnerships. My experience has spanned 5 decades if you count my parents mentoring in real estate.

In my experience as an investor and working with other investors, have concluded that rent controlled properties should be disposed of if one seeks higher returns.
This is not a theory but a conclusion.

I did well in Mountain View and new when to exit as I did. My investments there increased in value at a better than bay area market rate. My last 5 years saw a 100% increase in valuations. Rent control is the reason I sold to a developer and have moved my money into Million $ properties in the east bay.
I did great and I want to see other investors do well. My advice is for others to explore, that's it.

Ah, rent control. Here we have Exhibit A's shining example of a shoddy legal Article now memorialized as a Mt. View Charter Amendment, drafted by incompetent Stanford Law School undergraduates under the watchful eye of Juliet Brodie . . . all designed to ensure conflict, confusion and lack of clarity with its intentional ambiguity and defects. Why? To promulgate the inevitable legal fees that ensue while the entire circle-jerk boondoggle is sorted out in court.

Enjoy the fight, Mt. View. Like Bob, I'm on that glorious bus out of town. I hope every landlord in Mt. View pulls up stakes, sells to a home building developer, and the entire rental market disappears. Only then will Mt. View get what it deserves.