Why was this not unanimous. These councilmembers thump the "protect and create adorable housing" Bible. But then they screw over the mobile home citizens each and every time. Why is this such a big deal to them? Are they getting campaign donations from the park owners?

Something does not add up. Voice, please investigate!

Oh the hypcoracy,

This is a great example of the conflict regarding "property rights"

THe mobile home owners own their home, the lots are owned by the land owners

A perfect example of how the myth of private property rights can be proven false.

Technically, if these rights existed, with both parties having equal rights, then this will result in a "mexican standoff".

The mobile home owners are entitiled to the so called infinite property rights to their home. Anyone trying to interfere with that violates those property rights.

THe mobile home "parks" are entitled to the so called infinite property rights of their land. But their land is only as valuable as the homes sitting on it, they are dependent of the quality of the upkeep of the mobile home owners. So doing anything to harm the owners of the home will only be self harmful in the end. This in effect violates the property rights of the land owners.

THey both in effect cancel out the concept of property rights as a whole. This is why the state laws governing mobile homes are so significantly different to any other part of the housing industry.

But you cannot distinguish those only living in mobile homes having any "extra" protections under the laws becasue doing so would violate the equal protection requiriements for all citizens. This demonstrates again the error in those thinking that private proerty rights are in any way deserving legal protection over the citizens rights to equal protection under law.

Something to think about.

"The mobile home owners are entitiled to the so called infinite property rights to their home. Anyone trying to interfere with that violates those property rights. THe mobile home "parks" are entitled to the so called infinite property rights of their land."

Total BS.

Mobile Home owners may have the "infinite right" to their home. But the landowner also has the "infinite right' to his land. So if the mobile home owners wants to rent the land he must pay the owner a mutually agreed upon rent .

The same thing could be said for owning a car or any other physical asset. I have exclusive use of my car but don't have exclusive use to park it on someone else's property. I may choose to rent a space from a property owner who owns land.

Property rights are well defined here so there is no need for government interference. Politicians are just pandering to a special interest group.

In response to Total BS you said:

“Mobile Home owners may have the "infinite right" to their home. But the landowner also has the "infinite right' to his land. So if the mobile home owners wants to rent the land he must pay the owner a mutually agreed upon rent .

The same thing could be said for owning a car or any other physical asset. I have exclusive use of my car but don't have exclusive use to park it on someone else's property. I may choose to rent a space from a property owner who owns land. “

Here is where you are seriously flawed. A mobile home is NOT a car. It can cost more than you can imagine to move the home, please refer to this (Web Link

“Monetary Costs.

The money you spend on moving your mobile homes depends on the distance of the move. Short distance moves can cost between $1,000–$5,000, while longer trips can cost as much as $15,000 or more. You can determine your cost using this good rule-of-thumb: Estimate about $5–$10 per mile for your move.

You will also need to factor in the cost of permits and a minimum charge for short moves. The best way to get an estimate is to call a moving business near you to find out their rates, but we’ll cover this next. You don’t need to be a mathematician to understand the rising expenses of such a move. And because moving takes so much effort and cost, mobile home parks often scoff at those who threaten to move their homes.

Also: (Web Link

5 Things You Must Do When Transporting or Moving a Mobile Home

by John Fedro

Transporting a mobile home may seem as easy as hitching the home up to a truck and pulling it down the road. However, there are obviously more steps to the process than that. Between physical limitations, costly mistakes, legal setbacks, and general human error, there can be a number of mistakes that may happen along your journey. This article contains five must do’s when transporting or moving a mobile home.

5 Things You Must Do When Transporting or Moving a Mobile Home

1. Get referrals.

Many mobile home transportation companies may disappoint you. Over the years working with multiple mobile home movers and mobile home transportation companies, I have heard lies, I’ve been the victim of theft, and I’ve been taken advantage of multiple times. When having a company completely pick-up, move, and set up an entire investment property, make sure you’re dealing with reputable, honest, and qualified people.

2. Pull permits.

In most areas throughout the country, permits to move the home and set the home up in a new location are oftentimes required before transporting a mobile home. Many movers may handle this process for you. In addition to “moving permits,” you may also be required to obtain electrical, plumbing, and gas connection permits. The local mobile home park or city you are moving to should be able to point you in the direction of the permit office or local contractors/professionals that will be able to connect these utilities and pull permits on your behalf. If not moving this to a nearby pre-exisiting mobile home park, still call these folks to ask around for competent electricians and/or plumbers.

3. Know laws and zoning regulations.

This ties in very closely to permits, but before pulling permits, make sure to call the local zoning department in the area where you will be moving the mobile home. You are calling the zoning department to find out what restrictions are placed on used mobile homes being moved into the city, county, parish, or township. For example, some cities may require only homes 20 years and newer to be moved into the city. Other areas may have restrictions on the sizes of homes, the exterior construction, the foundation, and the specific rating of the home when it comes to wind protection or snow loads.

4. Connect utilities.

Correctly connect all utilities once the home is moved. Some mobile home transportation companies offer a “one-stop shop” when it comes to moving and connecting the home to utilities. Other manufactured home transportation companies will tell you to outsource these connections to a locally licensed electrician and plumber. Make sure to call around to compare prices with various electricians and plumbers. Many plumbers and electricians will pull permits directly for you where applicable.

5. Learn park rules.

Mobile home parks are typically owned by a single owner or a group of owners. These owners write the rules when it comes to what procedures need to be followed once a mobile home is moved into the community. Some rules that may directly apply to you as an investor are that the community may require all used mobile homes moving into the park to be or have:”

Simply put, your logic is simply false. You are not addressing the situation realistically.

Where did you get the idea that a car is a mobile home?

BM, your logic is false. You fail to understand property rights and symbolic logic. A car is LIKE a mobile home. Go read up on property rights, assets and logic and try to present a cogent argument. Nothing in your argument disputes my point. Obviously there are transactions costs to moving a mobile home and almost any physical asset.

That still doesn’t deny the distinct property rights of each owner.

I will not respond again unless you provide a cogent argument that shows you understand my argument.

Total BS,

Simply put, a car can be moved by turning the key and drive or towed. It could cost pennies to move a car, or unless towed because it is in the wrong place or inoperative which cost maybe $200.00. Not like the losses caused by another by interfering with the ownership of a mobile home, which really is not mobile, not like an RV. Completely unrealistic comparison to a mobile home.

And from this resource your claim really falls apart (Web Link

“What Are Proprietary Rights?

[Portion removed due to copying another website at length]

SO THERE IS A CLEAR DISTINCTION REGARDING REAL ESTATE PROPERTY AND PRIVATE PROPERTY LIKE A CAR.

Of course you knew that, but you wanted me to disclose it to the public.

So your claim is simply unrealistic, and even you know it.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

WOW!

All I do is do a little research and then I get such behavior.

I proved that a mobile home is not like a car.

Just like this as well:

Personal property

Personal property is a type of property. In the common law systems personal property may also be called chattels. It is distinguished from real property, or real estate. In the civil law systems personal property is often called movable property or movables - any property that can be moved from one location or another. This term is used to distinguish property that different from immovable property or immovables, such as land and buildings. This also means the direct owner of the item(s) is in full control of them/it until either stolen, confiscated by law enforcement, or destroyed.

Personal property may be classified in a variety of ways, such as goods, money, negotiable instruments, securities, and intangible assets including choses in action.

Land ownership

Main article: Real estate

Real estate or immovable property is a legal term (in some jurisdictions) that encompasses land along with anything permanently affixed to the land, such as buildings. Real estate (immovable property) is often considered synonymous with real property, in contrast from personal property (also sometimes called chattel or personalty). However, for technical purposes, some people prefer to distinguish real estate, referring to the land and fixtures themselves, from real property, referring to ownership rights over real estate. The terms real estate and real property are used primarily in common law, while civil law jurisdictions refer instead to immovable property.

But that seemed to make some people very angry.

WOW!

Did you see this news? (Web Link

San Francisco housing prices are falling.

Real Estate professionals said that will never happen again after 2006-8

I guess they were wrong.

The mobile home owners knew or if they did not know were negligent that the purchase of their home did not come with ownership rights of the land, their rights extended as far as any land lease it came with. They should not assume that any subsequent lease renewal would not come with a market rate increase or whatever price the owner of the land wants to set. The market is efficient in that an uncertain or expiring lease would affect the value of the home. To acquire such a home with all the facts disclosed at a low price relative to conventional home ownership including land and then after the fact cry about not having a better deal is pretty obnoxious and wrong.
Should the land owner be sensitive to the tenants, particularly the elderly and disabled, of course, but should not be legally compelled to give away something for free. This whole Measure V debacle has spawned a whole new generation of entitled slackers who want something for nothing.

In response to The Truth yousaid:

The mobile home owners knew or if they did not know were negligent that the purchase of their home did not come with ownership rights of the land, their rights extended as far as any land lease it came with. They should not assume that any subsequent lease renewal would not come with a market rate increase or whatever price the owner of the land wants to set. The market is efficient in that an uncertain or expiring lease would affect the value of the home. To acquire such a home with all the facts disclosed at a low price relative to conventional home ownership including land and then after the fact cry about not having a better deal is pretty obnoxious and wrong.”

However you don’t seem to understand that if the home is removed, it will result in a significant reduction of the land itself. In fact, it will become a total loss. You cannot market land without the home. If these park owners keep this up, there will be a movement to provide funds to have the homes removed. Then the owners will be forced to buy their own new homes to put on the land. Please read this information:

You can't fill lots without buying the homes

If you thought the private water and sewer was expensive, wait until you see the price tag on filling the park with mobile homes. Wait, you say, I'm in the park business, not the home business. Here's the reality: you cannot fill a mobile home lot today unless you buy the home and bring it in yourself. It will cost you around $25,000 to fill a lot, assuming a mix of new and repo homes. So the price tag to fill a 100 space community is around $2.5 million. And nobody's going to finance that. Does that sound attractive?”

The fact is that you cannot claim the value of the land is not dependent on the home and the quality of upkeep of the owners of the homes. They in effect provide the land owner with as much as 50% of the value. So you have a poor appreciation of the issue.

Again the ownership of the real estate property being split like this puts a severe contradiction of the idea of private property.

Measure V is not going to alter the land value because the homes are not being displaced. Except if the land owners are improperly inflating the claimed value of the land, or taking advantage of the residents quality of their ownership.