CRITICAL ALERT: WHAT THE PARK OWNERS COULD NOT ACCOMPLISH WITH PROPOSITION 98, THEY ARE NOW CLOSE TO ACHIEVING WITH AB 761 & AB 481

Below is a letter written by Attorney William Constantine, as published by the Coalition of Mobilehome Owners - California (CoMO-CAL). Urgent action is needed!

CRITICAL ALERT: WHAT THE PARK OWNERS COULD NOT ACCOMPLISH WITH PROPOSITION 98, THEY ARE NOW CLOSE TO ACHIEVING WITH AB 761 & AB 481: STATEWIDE VACANCY DECONTROL & WORSE!

Last year, we stopped the park owners and their allies from getting statewide vacancy decontrol by defeating Proposition 98 by over 1 million votes. In fact, it was defeated by large margins in almost every city and Assembly and Senate district in the State. However, that has not stopped the park owners and their allies in the State Legislature. What the voters would not give to them with Proposition 98, they are close to getting from the California Legislature. Next Wednesday, May 13, 2009, the Assembly Housing Committee will be voting on two bills, AB 761 AB 481, that will achieve what the Park owners failed to get with the defeat of Proposition 98: statewide vacancy control and worse!

AB 761: Establishes statewide vacancy decontrol for all mobilehome rent control. This means your mobilehome park would be free to increase the rent on your mobilehome as high as they want when you go to sell it. This could either prevent its sale or cause you to have to sell your mobilehome for a small fraction of your investment it. This is what has happened at DeAnza Mobilehome Park in Santa Cruz and in Pacific Skies Mobilehome Park in Pacifica.

AB 481: Combined with AB 761, AB 481 will make the life in your mobilehome park far worse than if Proposition 98 had passed! The reason for this is that AB 481 will also greatly expand the categories of mobilehomes that are exempt from mobilehome rent control under various circumstances. Current law, Civil Code section 798.21 only allows a mobilehome park owner to exempt your mobilehome if you take a property tax exemption on another property. It also does not allow your mobilehome to be so exempted if you are either listing it for sale or subleasing it. AB 481 removes the subleasing exception and expands the category of rent control exempt mobilehomes enormously. For example, your mobilehome could be found exempt from rent control if: you have a cosigner on the title to your mobilehome; if you hold title to your mobilehome with your children as joint tenants to make it easier for them to inherit it; if your park owner is able to prove that you have anyone living in your mobilehome whom has not been approved for residency; it would eliminate rent control on your mobilehome if you own another rental property that you are relying on for your retirement income; it would eliminate rent control if you are away from your mobilehome for any, undefined, "significant amount" of time and it would also eliminate mobilehome rent control on your mobilehome when it is inherited unless your heirs quickly move into it.

Both of these bills are in the Assembly Housing Committee and they appear to have the votes to pass. To stop them we need to get as many Homeowners Associations and other sympathetic organizations as possible to immediately fax letters of opposition, on their letterhead, by 4 PM on Tuesday, May 5, 2009. These organizations will be then listed in the Assembly Housing Committee Report as the opponents of the bill. The support that these bills have on the Assembly Housing Committee has caught us by surprise, so we have to quickly.

I have attached model letters on each bill. Your Homeowners' Association's/ or other Organization's should use these model letters, or similar language, on your Homeowners' Association's/ or other Organization's letterhead and then immediately fax these letters to the Assembly Housing Committee whose fax number is 916-319-2061.

Your letters do not have to be long. They can be as short as one line: "Dear Assemblywoman Torres and Members of the Assembly Housing Committee: We are writing to inform you that the John Doe Mobile Home Park Homeowners' Association strongly opposes AB 761 and we strongly urge you to vote against it."

The important thing today and tomorrow is that we get as many Homeowners Associations and other Organizations listed as opponents to these bills as we can. Since we are almost out of time, we can only achieve this only if your Homeowners Association, or other organization, immediately faxes their opposition letters, on their letterhead, to the Assembly Housing Committee to their fax number of 916-319-2061 by 4 PM on Tuesday, May 5, 2009.

If either of the two bills pass out of the Assembly Housing Committee, we will have a hard time stopping them on the Assembly floor. If that occurs, I will be sending you further alerts on what you, your fellow mobilehome owners, and your friends should all do.

Please act now because of we do not act now quickly, our defeat of Proposition 98 will have been for nothing.

Please feel free to call me if you need more information.

Dictated but not proofread to avoid delay.

Sincerely,
Will Constantine

William J. Constantine, Attorney
303 Potrero Street, Building # 29, Suite 104
Santa Cruz, California 95060
Ph. (831) 420-1238
Fax: (831) 480-5934

Prop. 98 Supporters Concede Defeat

Prop. 99, a rival measure on eminent domain that preserves rent control, leads in returns.
LA Times, June 3, 2008

SACRAMENTO -- Californians on Tuesday appeared to be rejecting a state ballot measure that would phase out rent control and bar government agencies from taking homes, businesses and farms for private development.

While Proposition 98 was falling short, voters were favoring Proposition 99, a more narrowly drawn competing measure that would prohibit government agencies from using eminent domain powers to force the sale of owner-occupied residences for private projects.

The backers of Proposition 98 conceded defeat shortly after 10 p.m.

"By placing a second eminent domain measure on the ballot, opponents of private property rights created enough confusion between the ballot measures to defeat Proposition 98," said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. "Prop. 99's loopholes will allow eminent domain abuse to continue."

Opponents of Proposition 98 charged that the measure was sold as eminent domain reform when its real purpose was to eliminate rent control.

Tuesday's primary election, which also featured congressional and state legislative races, was plagued by low turnout, one result of a decision to split off the state's presidential primary and hold it in February.

Less than one-third of registered voters were expected to vote by mail and in person Tuesday, according to Stephen Weir, the Contra Costa County clerk-recorder who heads the statewide association of elections officials. Weir said there were no reports of major problems in Tuesday's election.

Under current state law, government agencies can use eminent domain powers to force property owners to sell for fair market value and can then sell the land or buildings at a discount to a developer for construction of a mall or other profit-making venture.

Proposition 98, which was backed mostly by landlord groups, would change the state Constitution to phase out rent control in addition to barring agencies from forcing property owners to sell their property for use by private developers; it would allow the use of eminent domain to take property for public uses, such as schools and roads.

Proposition 99 was placed on the ballot as a competing measure by associations representing cities, counties and renters. The eminent domain provisions are similar but more narrowly focused than Proposition 98.

Like Proposition 98, it would exempt public works projects. Proposition 99 would make no change to rent control laws.The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., California Farm Bureau and other sponsors of Proposition 98 said it was a necessary response to a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the right of governments to take homes for commercial development.

The measure would maintain rent control for current tenants but lift it on apartment units and mobile home spaces as they are vacated.

"It's kind of un-American to force a housing provider or any other business to provide services at less than fair market value," said Dan Faller, president of the Apartment Owners Assn. of California. Faller's group was part of a main campaign that spent about $7 million to support Proposition 98, with about 80% of the money coming from real estate interests, including owners and managers of apartment buildings and mobile home parks.

Opponents spent about $11.3 million, much of it from the League of California Cities, California State Assn. of Counties and California Redevelopment Assn. Faller was not confident late Tuesday that the measure would pass, citing opponents' larger bankroll and "a lot of deception. They were telling tenants they would be out on the street the day after this passes."

The potential rollback of rent control drew the opposition of Jeannine English, president of the California AARP; Janis R. Hirohama, president of the League of Women Voters of California, and Larry Gross, executive director of the Los Angeles-based Coalition for Economic Survival, a tenants group.

"Seniors and other vulnerable people have a difficult time finding low-cost housing and this would eliminate those options for them," English said. About 1.2 million people live in apartments and mobile home parks covered by rent control in California.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger spoke out against Proposition 98, warning that it could add to the cost and delay of funding public works projects with voter-approved bonds by setting up additional restrictions on government use of eminent domain.

Proposition 99 was written so that it, and not 98, would take effect if both passed but Proposition 99 received more votes.

Los Angeles Times: No on 98, Yes on 99

The Times endorses state ballot measures.

Eminent domain has become big business -- for the ballot measure industry. Californians rejected an initiative two years ago that purported to protect property owners from government land grabs, but on closer inspection turned out to be an attempt to sweep away the state's environmental protection and zoning laws. Now we have another initiative that masquerades as a simple correction to the notorious Kelo ruling, but really carries the long-standing agenda of interests that want to extinguish rent control and block water and air quality laws.

With the ill-considered Proposition 98, property rights advocates once again have undermined themselves and poorly served homeowners, businesspeople and real estate investors by overreaching. It would have been so easy to give Californians what they need: assurance that no city, county, other local government or the state can condemn property, evict the owner and turn the land over to a developer who donated to elected officials and then convinced them that he could make the plot prettier and more productive.

That kind of assurance is needed in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Kelo vs. New London, upholding a Connecticut city's decision to give the plaintiff's property to the developer of a commercial project. Such takings of private homes are rare in California, but owners should not have to fear them.

There was, in fact, a real opportunity to craft a good law in the Capitol, exactly where that sort of work is supposed to get done. Lawmakers were negotiating a constitutional amendment that would have blocked forced private-to-private transfer of homes. It didn't go far enough, but it was a start, and talks with property rights advocates were proceeding.

But landlords detected a chance to use the fear of eminent domain abuse for their own purposes. They poured several million dollars into getting advocates to drop the legislative approach and go to the ballot with an initiative that quietly targets the rent control laws in about 100 California cities, including Los Angeles, Santa Monica and West Hollywood.

You wouldn't know from reading the ballot title and summary that Proposition 98 is an anti-rent-control measure, but that's become the primary focus of its financial backers, the vast majority of whom are landlords and rental property management companies. One of them is connected to The Times. Sam Zell is chairman and CEO of Tribune Co., which owns The Times; he also chairs Equity Lifestyle Properties Inc., which donated $50,000 to Proposition 98. The company owns 27 mobile home parks in California, many of them subject to rent control.

If Proposition 98 becomes law, rent controlled units would become permanently market rate when the current tenants leave. In Los Angeles, that would affect 626,600 apartments and other rental units.

Serious debate is due on rent control. Does it in fact keep housing affordable, or does it drive up the price by restricting the supply? Is it the renter's version of Proposition 13, keeping residential neighborhoods stable and housing costs predictable by limiting annual increases? Or does it unfairly transfer to private landowners the public responsibility to provide affordable housing?

But these questions are best answered by voters in each city that currently has rent control laws. Statewide abolition of rent control must not sneak its way onto the books as a hidden addendum to an ostensible eminent domain reform. Including it in Proposition 98 is cynical and devious -- and reason enough to reject the measure.

Even without the rent control component, the initiative reaches beyond public taking of private land for private gain. By barring the transfer of any economic benefit "to one or more private persons at the expense of the private owner," Proposition 98 crosses into the territory rejected by voters in 2006. It could open the door to lawsuits whenever a government agency zones in such a way that it raises the value of some properties and reduces the potential for others. That could jeopardize efforts to create open space or protect water quality.

Once Proposition 98 took its present form, backers of a less-sweeping initiative went to the ballot as well, leaving voters with two measures to deal with.

The problems with Proposition 99 are that it attempts to address a complex topic with the blunt instrument of the initiative process, and that it achieves too little. Homeowners who live in the property they own would be protected, and that's a step forward. Despite assertions to the contrary by opponents, cities couldn't wipe away a home's coverage simply by rezoning the area. But small-business owners are even more vulnerable to a city council's confiscatory redevelopment schemes than are homeowners. They too deserve protection, and Proposition 99 doesn't provide it.

Voters should take the opportunity to protect homeowners, but that only starts the job. Lawmakers have to do the rest, with legislation that allows eminent domain to move forward only for legitimate public purposes. This time, perhaps property rights advocates will proceed in good faith and avoid yet another bait-and-switch initiative.

In the meantime, The Times urges a no vote on Proposition 98 and a yes vote on Proposition 99.

Two Major Articles Expose Landlords' Dirty Trick; Urge Voters to Vote NO on 98

Pasadena Star News: "Advocacy Groups Denounce Proposition 98"

Members of the League of Women Voters, the Western Center of Law & Poverty and housing attorneys joined fixed-income renters at the AARP's Pasadena headquarters Wednesday to issue a "fraud alert" against advertisements promoting Proposition 98.

The proposition, which is being championed by a coalition led by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, is billed as an effort to keep government from handing property to private developers using eminent domain...

"The eminent domain argument is a Trojan horse," said Kathy Fairbanks, a spokeswoman for the AARP-led coalition. "About 80 percent of the funding for the `Yes on 98 Campaign' comes from landlords, and all they care about is eliminating rent control."

Much of the support the proposition has received has indeed come from landlord groups, said Kris Vosburgh, executive director of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

"This would have a devastating effect on renters and undo centuries of landlord-tenant law," said Spiegel, adding that Proposition 98 would also do away with other renter-protection measures, such as notices for no-fault evictions and caps on what landlords can charge for credit checks.

"This is a doomsday measure backed by wealthy landlords and mobile-home park owners," added Larry Gross, executive director of the Coalition for Economic Survival, "It is nothing but lies, lies, lies motivated by greed, greed, greed."

Read the full article here.

Los Angeles Daily News: "Tenants Fear Rent Control Loss"

"While rent ceilings for tenants of a housing unit would stay in place until they moved, the initiative jeopardizes restrictions against evictions, critics say. Easy evictions mean easy vacancies. New vacancies allow higher rents. And once a tenant living under old rent-control laws moves out, rents can be hiked at any time for succeeding tenants."

"Proposition 98 is a wolf in sheep's clothing that would roll back key environmental and tenant protections," Los Angeles City Council President Eric Garcetti said. He authored a city resolution against the measure last week.

He supports a rival ballot measure, Proposition 99, "which would protect Californians from government taking property that should remain in private hands, but wouldn't negatively impact other important environmental and tenant laws," he said...

Read the full article here.

Help spread the word.

Vote NO on 98; Vote YES on 99!

Bipartisan Opposition to 98, Support for 99 Continues to Grow

In an unprecedented bipartisan show of force, top officials from both sides of the aisle have condemed Proposition 98 for the dirty trick that it is, and support Proposition 99!

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger Opposes Prop. 98

Bipartisan opposition continues to grow against Proposition 98. The Governor of California officially opposed Proposition 98 Friday afternoon, stating "Proposition 98 would undermine California's ability to improve our infrastructure, including our water delivery and storage. California voters strongly support rebuilding our transportation, housing, education and water infrastructure, so it would be irresponsible to support a measure that would prevent the state from accomplishing our goals."

California U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein Opposes Prop 98, Supports Prop 99

On Thursday, respected U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein announced she is opposed to Proposition 98 on the June ballot. According to Senator Feinstein, "Proposition 98 will seriously undermine the State and local government's ability to protect our environment, increase our water supply, and improve our crumbling infrastructure. It is reckless and would tie the State's hands in dealing with a wide range of critical issues." Sen. Feinstein is instead supporting Proposition 99.

Earlier this week, prominent Republicans U.S. Rep. George Radanovich (R-Mariposa) and former governor Pete Wilson formally opposed Prop. 98. Click here for a list of Prop.... 98 Opponents and Prop. 99 supporters.

AARP, League of Women Voters and Tenants' Rights Groups Hold Two NewsConferences to Issue Prop. 98 "FRAUD ALERTS"

Two news conferences in Los Angeles and Oakland were held this week to highlight the deceptive radio ads recently released by the Yes on 98 campaign. The new Yes on 98 ads purposely exclude mention that Prop. 98 will eliminate renter protections, rent control and environmental protections. Renters and representatives from organizations like AARP, League of Women Voters of CA, WesternCenter on Law and Poverty, and the Coalition for Economic Survival condemned the ads on Wednesday at an LA news conference. AARP State President, Jeannine English, says in a press release "These ads are deceptive and shameful. Landlords' contributions make up 80% of the Yes on 98 campaign budget. The real reason they are bankrolling these deceptive ads is because Prop. 98 abolishes rent control, affordable housing protections, and important environmental regulations."

On Friday, in Oakland, tenants rights groups from throughout the Bay Area led a protest outside the annual meeting of the Apartment Owners Association at the Oakland Airport Hilton. The AOA is the third single largest contributor to the Yes on 98 campaign, contributing over $400,000 dollars to date. Housing rights groups like Just Cause Oakland and St. Peter's Housing are working hard to expose the landlords' scheme and mobilize voters against Prop 98.

For more information, visit www.no98yes99.com.

Special Interests Run Amok! If You Live in California and You Rent Your Mobilehome Space…Be VERY Afraid!

If you think the eminent domain debate is of no concern to you because you are on a long-term lease for your mobilehome space, think again. If you think the current Prop 98 vs. Prop 99 campaigns do not affect you because you don't live in a "rent-controlled" mobilehome park, think again.

Both measures will be on the June ballot. Both measures claim to eliminate potential misuse of eminent domain to transfer property from one private owner to another private developer. However, only one initiative – Proposition 99, the Homeowners and Private Property Protection Act – will bring true eminent domain reform by prohibiting such abuse of the government's power of eminent domain. On the other hand, Proposition 98 – dubbed the Landlords' Hidden Agenda Scheme – is a completely different story. Once again, wealthy landlords and real estate developers are taking advantage of the fear, passion, and indignation most Americans feel when it comes to the government seizing their property. This time, under the guise of "eminent domain reform," they are trying to sneak in legislation that eliminates virtually all tenant protections under California law!

Many state and local jurisdictions have passed laws to prevent eminent domain abuse, following the landmark decision in Kelo vs. the City of New London, the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that upheld the transfer of private property to a private developer. The Supreme Court, in a narrow 5-4 ruling, held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

In this California election, the supporters of Prop. 98 are muddling the issues, and attempting to confuse the public. According to California Assemblyman Mark Leno, "This time around, with the threat even greater, they are prepared to spend $15 to 20 million on television to confuse the voters." TWENTY MILLION DOLLARS! For the record, Prop. 98 is funded almost entirely (recent reports indicate more than 85%) by wealthy apartment and mobilehome park owners. And they aren't even in California! This is outrageous! Sam Zell/Equity Lifestyle Properties (of Meadowbrook infamy) donated $50,000 to the campaign, from his Illinois company!

Gee, do you think they have an agenda to push? I'll tell you what they REALLY want: to outlaw rent control. Sadly, they have taken an unconscionable position that, while displacing many seniors and low-income families who have been granted a reprieve from unlimited rental increases, also indiscriminately carves a vast swath of "collateral damage" that hurts ordinary, hard-working Californians who are not fortunate enough to own their own homes, and, in fact, all who live in this state and rely upon a stable infrastructure, steady water supply, etc.

What kind of collateral damage? For starters:

· Eliminates tenant protection laws, including the return of security deposits, tenant notice periods like the 60-day notice to move, etc.
· Could overturn the Mobilehome Residency Law's just cause eviction protections, which would then allow park owners to immediately start evicting mobilehome owners simply to take their spaces out of rent control
· Abolishes all rent control protections in the State of California
· Invalidates requirements for a certain number of units to be affordable to low-income families
· Prohibits the use of eminent domain to acquire land and water to develop public water projects
· Changes the law to contain no exceptions for actions taken to protect health & safety
· Increases taxpayer costs and delays traditional public works projects
· Could be construed to restrict a host of environmental and land use regulations
· Could prevent the enforcement of existing environmental regulations

Don't believe me? Think I'm exaggerating? See for yourself. This type of greed and blatant disregard for the well-being of millions of Californians simply baffles me. I mean, really, doesn't Sam Zell and his ilk have enough money? Do they really need to cripple California's infrastructure and guarantee a future of uncertainty, fear and "temporariness" for all of us who happen to rent our homes?

Please help spread the word to your friends and neighbors. Vote No on 98 and Yes on 99. For more information, visit http://www.eminentdomainreform.com/.

Legal Analysis of Proposition 98's Two Most Devastating Impacts on Mobilehome Owners

The below memo was written by Attorney William Constantine
Courtesy of the Coalition of Mobilehome Owners - California (see also CoMO-CAL's FREE Yahoo Discussion Group)

Re: Legal Analysis of Proposition 98's Two Most Devastating Impacts on Mobilehome Ownership & Rent Control - A Nightmarish Scenario!

Summary:

1. Proposition 98 is certain to eliminate mobilehome rent control through its imposition of permanent vacancy decontrol and its prohibition on future mobilehome rent control laws and ordinances.
2. Proposition 98 is also very likely to overturn the Mobilehome Residency Law's just cause eviction protections, which would then allow park owners to immediately start evicting mobilehome owners simply to take their spaces out of rent control.

Dear Mobilehome Homeowners' Associations and individual Mobilehome Owners:

I am writing this memo to clear up some of the confusion regarding Proposition 98's most devastating likely impacts on the mobilehome community. Many of you have contacted me complaining that you cannot find the language in Proposition 98 that eliminates mobilehome rent control. Others have complained that you do not understand whether or not Proposition 98 immediately eliminates rent control or if it just establishes permanent vacancy decontrol. Your confusion is understandable since Proposition 98 appears to be intentionally written to hide its most devastating impacts on mobilehome and other rent control in order to trick many voters into believing that they are simply voting to prevent eminent domain abuse. Of course, that is not true as Proposition 98's primary target is mobilehome rent control. That is why mobilehome park owners and apartment owners have contributed 85% of the campaign contributions to the Yes on Proposition 98 Campaign.

Below, I will attempt to clear up this confusion by explaining how it is unequivocal that Proposition 98 will establish statewide mobilehome vacancy decontrol (i.e., rent control is lost when a mobilehome is sold or transferred - causing the homeowner to lose most, if not all, of their investment in their mobile home). Although it is true that Proposition 98 does not immediately eliminate rent control, prior to the next time the mobilehome is sold or transferred, it is very likely to have the far worse nightmarish impact of allowing mobilehome park owners to immediately begin evicting mobilehome owners from their parks, without cause, simply to allow the park owners to immediately take their mobilehome spaces out of rent control when the tenancies in their spaces are then changed due to the evictions.

I. Introduction - Proposition 98's Two Fatal Blows to Mobilehome Ownership: Permanent Vacancy Decontrol and Evictions without Cause.

At first glance, the impact that Proposition 98 will have on mobilehome rent control in California is not apparent since its proponents have camouflaged it with the crafty and misleading provisions that are contained within the text of the changes that Proposition 98 will make to the California Constitution. For example, Proposition 98's title does not either mention or even allude to its impact on mobilehome rent control and ownership and, instead, it deceivingly calls itself the "California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act." Likewise, most of its proponents' literature suggests only that it simply provides new restrictions on the use of eminent domain.

Far from simply providing restrictions on the use of eminent domain, Proposition 98's actual provisions will deliver two fatal blows to mobilehome rent control and ownership in California. The first fatal blow is certain to occur and the second is very likely to occur. The first fatal blow is that it directly eliminates mobilehome rent control forever in California by making it unconstitutional to limit the price that a private owner may charge another person for the use of his or her property - the very definition of rent control! It attempts to whitewash this impact by claiming that its imposition on each individual mobilehome space will be delayed until the current tenants occupying the space move out of their mobilehome or no longer use it as their principal place of residence - permanent vacancy decontrol!

However, even that temporary reprieve is likely to prove worthless because Proposition 98's second fatal blow to mobilehome ownership will likely occur immediately because it also threatens to invalidate the California Mobilehome Residency Law's (the MRL) "just cause' eviction provisions (Civil Code sections 798.55 and 798.56) that now only allow mobilehome park owners to evict mobilehome owners from their parks under very narrow circumstances (e.g., failure to pay rent, serious rule violation, park conversion or closure). Put together, these two impacts mean that Proposition 98 will very likely result in the nightmarish scenario of allowing mobilehome park owners to immediately start evicting mobilehome owners simply to then be allowed to raise the rents on their vacated mobilehome spaces.

II. Proposition 98 Unequivocably Targets and Eliminates Mobilehome Rent Control.

Proposition 98's provisions that unequivocably eliminate mobilehome rent control are fairly easy to interpret. Proposition 98 accomplishes the elimination of mobilehome rent by first adding a simple sentence, containing two key operative terms, to the end of Article I, section 19, of the California Constitution. That new sentence states:

"Private property may not be taken or damaged for private use."

Proposition 98 then defines the term "taken" to include "limiting the price a private owner may charge another person to purchase, occupy or use his or her real property." That definition is the definition of rent control - limiting the price that a property owner can charge for the use of their property.

Proposition 98 then takes the final step in eliminating mobilehome rent control by then defining the term "private use" to include "regulation of the ownership, occupancy, or use of privately owned real property or associated property rights in order to transfer an economic benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the property owner. "

Accordingly, Proposition 98 directly eliminates mobilehome rent control through the above definitions since mobilehome rent control unequivocally is a regulation of the price that a property owner may charge for the use of their property (e.g., the mobilehome space) that transfers an economic benefit from the mobilehome park owner to the mobilehome owner (e.g., the economic benefit to the park owner of being able to charge unlimited rents is transferred to the mobilehome owner as the economic benefit of being protected from unlimited and unreasonable rent increases).

Section 6 of Proposition 98, entitled "Effective Date," delays Proposition 98's elimination of mobilehome rent control by delaying its effective date against all rent control statutes and ordinances in California, which were enacted prior to January 1, 2007, until "only so long as at least one of the tenants of such unit or space as of the effective date ("qualified tenant") continues to live in such unit or space as his or her principal place of residence." This is an expanded version of permanent vacancy decontrol as it permanently eliminates mobilehome rent control on every rental mobilehome space in California as soon as the mobilehome on it is sold, sublet, or inherited or it as soon as its tenants are evicted from the mobilehome park. It also eliminates rent control on spaces on which the mobilehome is not the principal place of residence of at least one of its "qualified tenants."

This permanent elimination of mobilehome rent control is an impact of Proposition 98 that an analysis of the impacts of Proposition 98 on California housing laws, which the Western Center on Law and Poverty published on December 19, 2007, classified as a change to California housing law that is certain to occur if Proposition 98 is adopted.

Proposition 98 also prohibits any new mobilehome rent control laws or ordinances and also immediately repeals any mobilehome rent control statute or ordinance that was adopted after January 1, 2007.

III. Proposition 98 Will Also Very Likely Allow Mobilehome Park Owners to Begin Evicting Mobilehome Owners from Mobilehome Park Simply to Remove Their Spaces from Rent Control.

The same provisions of Proposition 98 that eliminate mobilehome rent control in California through permanent vacancy decontrol are also very likely to overturn the MRL's "just cause" eviction protections (e.g., Civil Code sections 798.55 and 798.56) that now only allow a mobilehome park owner to evict a mobilehome owner from their mobilehome space under very narrow circumstances (e.g., failure to pay rent, serious rule violation, park conversion or closure).

The Western Center on Poverty and Law's December 19, 2007 - Analysis of Proposition 98's Housing Impacts concludes that Proposition 98 would very likely overturn these just cause eviction protections of the MRL:

The "just cause" eviction provision of the MRL was enacted in acknowledgment of the extreme difficulty in moving a mobile home after a termination, which cost thousands of dollars. In addition, for both mobilehome park residents and other tenants, there is often no place to move to - there is a chronic shortage of rental housing and mobilehome park spaces throughout California. Limiting displacements to those for just causes imposes a small but real burden on the landlord, but confers an enormous (economic) benefit on the tenant. Both the state legislature and local governments (often by local vote) have implemented just cause protections as mportant public policies. The initiative would very likely do away with these protections.

The main reason that Proposition 98 is very likely to overturn the MRL's just cause eviction protections is that Proposition 98's definitions of the terms "taken" and "private use" make unconstitutional the "regulation of the ownership, occupancy, or use of privately owned real property or associated property rights" that "transfer an economic benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the property owner." The Western Center on Poverty and Law's analysis points out that the California Supreme Court will be the ultimate arbiter of the meaning of this language and that they have recently took a very expansive view of economic activity that is likely to be applied to any future interpretation of the meaning of the above phrase "transfer an economic benefit." See Hernandez v. City of Handford (2007) 41 Cal.4th. 279. The Western Center on Poverty and Law's then concludes that this language in Proposition 98 is very likely to be interpreted to overturn all just cause eviction protections in California:

Again, under the initiative a "private use" means regulation of the occupancy of private property in order to transfer an economic benefit to a private person at the expense of the property owner. Just cause eviction laws are indisputably a regulation of the occupancy of private property and they are likely to be interpreted as existing in order to transfer an economic benefit from the landlord to the tenant.

Thus, the Western Center on Poverty and Law has defined the "economic benefit" to tenants, which just cause eviction protections protect, as being the "right to occupy the property at a fixed rent." That is the "economic benefit" whose "transfer" to the tenant that Proposition 98 would make unconstitutional.

The above economic benefit transfer analysis applies with even much greater certainty to the MRL's just cause eviction protections since it much clearer that a mobilehome owner's investment in the "in place value" of their mobilehome is a huge "economic benefit" that the MRL's just cause eviction protections are intended to protect. This means that it is even much more likely that Proposition 98's provisions will render the MRL's just cause eviction protections unconstitutional then that they would render other non-mobilehome rent control just cause protections unconstitutional. This is the reason that the Western Center on Poverty and Law concluded that Proposition 98 would very likely do away with the MRL's just cause eviction protections.

An important fact that supports the Western Center on Poverty and Law's conclusion that Proposition 98 will very likely do away with just cause eviction statutes and ordinances in California, including the MRL's just cause eviction provisions, is the fact that apartment owners have also contributed substantial sums in support of Proposition 98 even though under current law, the Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act, their rental units are already subject to vacancy decontrol (fortunately, mobilehome parks are exempt from Costa Hawkins). Thus, at first glance, it would seem they have nothing to gain by Proposition 98's imposition of state wide vacancy control since they already have it under Costa Hawkins. The obvious answer to that dilemma is that when they participated in the drafting of Proposition 98, they must have intentionally drafted its provisions so that it would also overturn the just cause eviction ordinances in their jurisdictions and, thereby, would allow them to also start evicting their tenants to get their units out of rent control.

IV. Conclusion

Since Proposition 98 "will very likely do away" with the MRL's just cause eviction protections, a mobilehome park owner will not have to wait until a mobilehome owner voluntarily moves out to raise the rent on their mobilehome space under Proposition 98's vacancy decontrol. Instead, a park owner will very likely be able to simply evict a current mobilehome owner, "without cause," simply to cause the tenancy in their mobilehome space to transfer in order to then be able raise their space's rent under Proposition 98's vacancy decontrol provisions. This means that Proposition 98 is likely to put all mobilehome owners at risk of immediate evictions, and the resulting immediate loss of their investments in their mobilehomes, rather than just subjecting them to the future dire economic consequences of vacancy decontrol (i.e., the future loss of their investments and their mobilehomes when they attempt to sell them in the future without rent control). Unfortunately, this nightmarish scenario must be taken seriously by all mobilehome owners in California.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Yours very truly,

Final draft dictated but not proofread to save time.

William J. Constantine
Law Office of William J. Constantine
303 Potrero, Building #29, Suite 104
Santa Cruz, California 95060
WConst1238@aol.com
Phone: (831) 420-1238
Fax: (831) 480-5934

You Don't Want to Lose Up To $50,000 of Your Equity, Do You?

In the April issue of CoMO-CAL's (Coalition of Mobilehome Owners - California) newsletter, The Voice, the organization asks us to do two things in our park, to help save our property values and protect renters' rights:

1. Distribute fliers – today on 98 and 99
2. Display a window sign – NO on 98, YES on 99

CoMO-CAL president Frank Wodley writes:

We realize you may be concerned about confrontations by management. DO NOT BE AFRAID. We will get our attorney, Bruce Stanton, involved if your management hassles you about either. We can intervene, but you must let us know of any problems.

The following are Mr. Stanton’s replies to my questions. These should relieve any anxiety you may have as to the “legality” of distributing fliers or putting a sign in your window. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to call me at 800-929-6061.

1. Regarding distribution of The Voice or fliers: Since the newsletter deals with issues relating to mobile home living, it falls within the protected speech of 798.50-52. This does not constitute the type of "commercial solicitation" that parks can normally prohibit. And requesting that money be donated to a non-profit is certainly not solicitation. Park Owners cannot willfully violate the MRL, nor can it be waived. You should feel free to distribute this as you see fit, and take note of any attempts to stop it.

2. You are correct. Civil Code sec. 798.51 (e) allows a campaign sign relating to an initiative measure to be placed in a window, on the side of the home or on the space for 90 days prior to the election which does not exceed 6 square feet. This is part of guaranteed free speech rights that cannot be infringed upon.

3. Regarding use of a common area bulletin board for fliers: There is no law, however, which governs the common area or a bulletin board located within the clubhouse. Thus, go ahead and post your sign there. But if management takes the position that it controls the content of the Board and takes down your sign, I'm not sure that you can force them to keep it up unless there is a park rule that allows it. If the Board was bought and purchased by the residents, then one could argue that the residents have the right to post whatever they want as long as it otherwise complies with good taste and 798.50-52 (and this certainly does!).

Good work getting this done and out for dissemination!

-Bruce Stanton Attorney at Law

CoMO-CAL is a state-wide non-profit advocacy group for mobile home owners. The Coalition of Mobilehome Owners - Los Angeles County (CoMO-LAC) was formed in November, 2004. Because of the association's unique services, the Coalition was an immediate success. The name changed to CoMO-CAL as of March 21, 2006, when the organization began offering statewide mobile home owner advocacy assistance and memberships.

CoMO-CAL publishes a monthly newsletter, The Voice, full of information that can help mobilehome owners protect and preserve their rights. The organization also publishes The Whisper, a periodic newsletter for non-members. The April issue of The Whisper addresses this important eminent domain/rent control issue.

Be sure to join the FREE online discussion group for mobilehome park residents. Here, you can ask your own questions, share information, and get the latest scoop on proposed legislation and protecting your investment.

Court Rules Rent Control Doesn't Need to be in Prop 98 Ballot Title: Court Ruling Means Greater Challenge

No on Prop. 98 Coalition Disappointed in Judge's Ruling to Keep "Rent Control" Out of Prop. 98 Ballot Title

In Legal Filings, Both Judge and Attorney General Acknowledge that Eliminating Rent Control is Major Component of Proposition 98

Sacramento, CA - No on 98/Yes on 99 coalition members have expressed disappointment in Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley's decision to leave the Proposition 98 title & summary unchanged. Plaintiffs argued that Prop. 98's rent control provisions were a principle point of the initiative and, as such, should be referenced in the title.

In his ruling, Judge Frawley acknowledged rent control was a key component of Prop. 98, writing: "If the proposition is approved, the proposition would prohibit any new rent control measure..." However, the judge ruled that there is no distinction between the title and the summary and since the prohibition on rent control was already the second bullet in the summary; the Attorney General had substantially complied with the law. However, in oral remarks today during the hearing, Judge Frawley also acknowledged that if he had been tasked with writing the title and summary he might have written it differently.

In pleadings filed in connection with this lawsuit, the Attorney General also acknowledged that rent control is a primary provision in Prop. 98, writing: "The Attorney General agrees with petitioners that the prohibition on rent control is one of the chief points and purposes of Proposition 98". But the Attorney General refused to mention rent control in the title.

Plaintiffs in the case respond to the ruling:

Dean Preston, Executive Director of Tenants Together in San Francisco and a co-plaintiff in the lawsuit said: "Today's ruling is a disappointment. The only reason Prop. 98 was put on the ballot is to end rent control, pure and simple. We strongly believe that some reference to rent control should be reflected in the title. Eighty-five percent of funding for the Yes on 98 campaign - more than $2 million - comes from landlords and the organizations that represent them. Millions of people in rent controlled communities will be negatively impacted, as will more than 14 million California renters who will lose renter protections if Prop. 98 passes."

Nan Brasmer, President of the California Alliance for Retired Americans and co-plaintiff said: "Regardless of the ruling, we're moving full steam ahead to educate voters about the hidden provisions and dangers of Prop. 98. We know voters strongly oppose Prop. 98's provisions that would abolish rent control and renter protections. Voters are smart, and we're confident they'll see through the landlords' smokescreen and vote No on 98 on Election Day."

Larry Gross, Executive Director of the Coalition for Economic Survival in Los Angeles stated: "It is extremely disheartening that Attorney General Jerry Brown chose to write a title and summary that will mislead the voters of California, including more than 14 million renters - many of whom are seniors, disabled, middle class and low wage workers, struggling to keep a roof over their families heads. Even the judge presiding over the matter suggested he would have written it differently, but his hands were tied by a legal technicality. Now the need is even greater for renters throughout the state to mobilize and help get the word out to voters that Prop. 98 is an attack on renters."

Background: The No on 98/Yes on 99 coalition filed a lawsuit February 25 in Sacramento County Superior Court asking the court to change the official title of Proposition 98 to include mention of the measure's rent control provisions. The official title of the measure prepared by the California Attorney General's Office only informs voters of the measure's eminent domain provisions, and excludes any mention of eliminating rent control, which is one of Prop. 98's main provisions. The summary itself includes mention of rent control as the second point, but not the title.

NO on Prop 98 - YES on Prop 99
Vote on June 3, 2008

The Task to Protect Tenant Protections in California Has Become Even Greater With the Court Ruling to Not Include Rent Control in the Prop 98 Ballot Title

Your Help is Needed Now More Than Ever!

Get Involved in the Campaign to Save Rent Control
Contact: Coalition for Economic Survival
Phone: 213-252-4411
Email: contactces@earthlink.net

Coalition Opposed to Proposition 98 Files Lawsuit to Ensure Title & Summary Accurately Reflects Measure's Rent Control Provisions

Lawsuit Contends Rent Control is Most Significant Provision in Prop. 98 and Should Be in Title.
Prop. 98's Provisions Interfering with Land-Use & Environmental Protections Also Significant and Should Be In Title & Summary.

Sacramento, CA - On February 25, members of the No on 98/Yes on 99 coalition filed a lawsuit in Sacramento County Superior Court, asking a judge to change the official title of Proposition 98 to include mention of the measure's rent control provisions. Currently, the official title of the measure prepared by the California Attorney General's Office only informs voters of the measure's eminent domain provisions, and excludes any mention of eliminating rent control, which is one of Prop. 98's main provisions. The summary itself includes mention of rent control as the second point, but not the title.

By law, the official title of an initiative is supposed to summarize the principle provisions of a measure. The lawsuit also contends that principle provisions in Prop. 98 would interfere with local land-use and environmental laws and regulations, and should also be included in the Title and Summary. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit include the California Alliance for Retired Americans and Tenants Together.

"By far, Proposition 98's greatest impact will be the provisions abolishing rent control and renter protections," said Nan Brasmer, President of the California Alliance for Retired Americans. "Currently, more than 1 million renters are protected by rent control, and this initiative will negatively impact millions of renters in the state."

"When voters read the title - which is all that many voters read - they should be informed up front that Prop. 98 abolishes rent control. It's a principle point of the initiative. Voters have a right to know," continued Brasmer.

In their lawsuit, plaintiffs point out that more than 85% of funding for the measure has come from apartment and mobile home park owners and organizations that represent landlords. Internal mailings from landlord groups obtained by the No on 98 coalition, which were submitted as evidence in the lawsuit, clearly demonstrate that these landlords are funding Proposition 98 solely because of the anti-rent control provisions.

"The overwhelming majority of funding behind Prop. 98 comes from landlords. The only reason they're funding this measure is to abolish rent control and other renter protections," said Dean Preston, Executive Director of Tenants Together. "Even the proponents' own ballot arguments list rent control as a principle provision of the initiative. We're simply asking that the title reflect the primary provisions so voters can make an informed decision."

All of California's leading environmental organizations are also strongly opposed to Proposition 98, warning that the measure would have a devastating impact on land-use regulations and environmental protections.

Susan Smartt, Executive Director of the California League of Conservation Voters said: "Prop. 98 would gut environmental protections and future laws we need to protect our land, air, water and other natural resources, as well as laws we need to combat climate change and global warming. These provisions are significant, and should be reflected in the title and summary that the voters see."

###

YES on Prop. 99 - The Homeowners Protection Act
Real Eminent Domain Reform, Without Hidden Agendas or Adverse Consequences

Also on the June 2008 ballot is a real eminent domain reform measure that will constitutionally protect homeowners, without the hidden agendas and adverse consequences of Prop. 98:

Proposition 99 - The Homeowners Protection Act - will prohibit the government from using eminent domain to take a home to transfer to a private developer.

Prop. 99 is supported by a broad coalition of homeowners, business, labor, cities, counties and environmentalists who want straightforward eminent domain reform that gets right to the heart of the infamous Kelo decision.

It's Official: No on 98, Yes on 99

The two Eminent Domain initiatives that will appear on the June ballot have been assigned numbers. Proposition 98 is the Jarvis initiative - the "Hidden Agenda Scheme" that will outlaw rent control and decimate our equity. Proposition 99 is the Homeowners' and Private Property Protection Act - which protects all Californians against government taking of property for other private uses.

Please help us get the word out: NO ON 98 & YES ON 99

For more information, please visit www.eminentdomainreform.com and www.NoLandlordScheme.com.

Anti Rent Control Measure Qualifies for Ballot: The Fight is ON!!!!

Jarvis Anti Rent Control Measure Qualifies for June 2008 Ballot

An Alternative True Eminent Domain Measure is Also Expected to Qualify for the Ballot in the Days Ahead

Attempt to Fool Voters Mobilizes Strong Opposition: Coalition of Seniors, Tenants, Environmentalists, Business, Labor and Local Government Vow to Defeat Fake Eminent Domain Reform Measure

Sacramento, CA - In response to notification that the so-called California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act (otherwise referred to as the Hidden Agendas Scheme) qualified for the June 2008 ballot, members of Eminent Domain Reform Now today vowed to mount an aggressive campaign to educate voters about the deep flaws in the measure.

The Hidden Agendas Scheme is being financed by wealthy apartment and mobilehome park owners attempting to trick voters into thinking the measure is about eminent domain. In reality, the landlords' true scheme is to eliminate rent control, eviscerate local land use planning, gut environmental protections and undermine public water projects we need to ensure an adequate supply of clean drinking water.

Eminent Domain Reform Now is a broad coalition of seniors, homeowner groups, water agencies, environmentalists, business, labor and local governments who are supporting real eminent domain reform, the Homeowners Protection Act, which is also expected to qualify for the June 2008 ballot.

Members of the coalition issued the following statements today:

Nan Brasmer, president of the California Alliance for Retired Americans said: "Many seniors live on limited incomes and depend on rent control to help survive. The Hidden Agendas Scheme would eliminate rent control and hurt seniors, veterans, and working families. More than 90% of the funding to qualify this measure comes from apartment and mobilehome park landlords who hope to fool voters. They won't be successful. We have a strong and motivated coalition and our research shows that voters do not support the landlords' Hidden Agendas."

Richard Word, president of the California Police Chiefs Association said: "This Hidden Agendas Initiative is a direct threat to our ability to protect public safety and to prevent crime. Many times local police and sheriffs' departments work with local governments to address public health and safety problems through laws and ordinances before a more serious issue arises. This measure would prevent important actions we need to take to keep the public safe."

Tim Quinn, executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies said: "At a time when California faces a water crisis that threatens our economy and environment, provisions in this measure would greatly jeopardize our ability to pursue water infrastructure projects we need to increase water supply and to protect the quality of our drinking water."

Susan Smartt, executive director of the California League of Conservation Voters said: "The Hidden Agendas Scheme contains dangerous language that could severely harm our ability to protect the environment including preserving open space, achieving clean air, protecting our climate, and many other environmental laws. Anybody who cares about the environment should oppose this measure."

Larry Gross, executive director of the Coalition for Economic Survival said: "Working families, seniors, veterans, and other low income individuals already struggle to survive in California because of the high cost of living. Rent control is an important tool to keep affordable housing available for these hard working citizens. The scheming landlords funding this measure want to drive these people out of their properties so they can make money renting out their units at exorbitant costs."

The Hidden Agendas Scheme will appear alongside a real eminent domain reform measure, the Homeowners Protection Act, which will prevent governments from using eminent domain to take an owner-occupied home to transfer to a private party. The measure is a direct response to the U.S. Supreme Court's infamous Kelo v. the City of New London decision from 2005 and will result in none of the adverse consequences of the Hidden Agendas Scheme. Supporters of the Homeowners Protection Act submitted well over the 1.1 million signatures needed to qualify the measure and official notification of qualification is expected any day.

Ken Willis, president of the League of California Homeowners said: "Homeowners want true eminent domain protections but will not be duped into enacting harmful and deceptive provisions that have nothing to do with eminent domain. We saw that in November 2006 when voters rejected Proposition 90. The proponents of the Hidden Agendas Scheme are attempting to overreach again. I'm again confident that the measure will fail, and that our true eminent domain reform measure - the Homeowners Protection Act - will pass."

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

A Coalition Supporting True Eminent Domain Reform Submitted Signatures at the End of
November to Qualify the Homeowners Protection Act to Counter the Jarvis Anti-Rent Control Measure.

This Measure is Also Expected to Qualify for the June 2008 Ballot in the Upcoming Days Ahead

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Join the Campaign to Defeat Anti-Rent Control Measure and Support Real Eminent Domain Reform -- Go To: www.NoLandlordScheme.com

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

JOIN THE GROWING COALITION OF ORGANIZATIONS AND LABOR UNIONS OPPOSING THE ANTI-RENT CONTROL MEASURE AND SUPPORTING REAL EMINENT DOMAIN REFORM

Go to www.eminentdomainreform.com and Sign Up Today!

Groups Fighting To Expose The Landlord Scheme:

• Coalition For Economic Survival, Los Angeles


• San Francisco Tenants Union


• Santa Monicans For Renters Rights


• California Alliance For Retired Americans


• Golden State Manufactured-Home Owners League, Inc. (GSMOL)


• Western Center on Law and Poverty


• State Building And Construction Trades Council


• Resident Owned Parks, Inc. (ROP)


• Oakland Tenants Union


• Mobile Parks West Homeowners Association


• Marin County Building And Construction Trades Council


• International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers


• Housing California


• GSMOL Chapter 1613


• Eviction Defense Network


• Coalition of Mobile Home Owners - California


• California Mobile Homes Resource And Action Association


• California Coalition for Rural Housing


• Black, Asian, Minority and Ethnic Renaissance CDC

Homeowners' Protection Act Obtains 1.1 Million Signatures; Qualifies for June 08 Ballot

Coalition Supporting True Eminent Domain Reform Submits Signatures Today to Qualify the Homeowners Protection Act for June 2008 Ballot
Measure Will Provide Iron-Clad Protections for Homeowners without Hidden Agendas and Unintended Consequences of Landlords' Hidden Agendas Scheme

Sacramento, CA - Eminent Domain Reform Now, a coalition of seniors, homeowners, business, labor, environmentalists, local governments, affordable housing advocates and others today announced the submission of more than 1.1 million signatures to county elections officials to qualify their eminent domain reform measure for the June 2008 ballot. The Homeowners Protection Act would prevent governments from using eminent domain to take an owner-occupied home to transfer to a private party. The measure is a direct response to the U.S. Supreme Court's infamous Kelo v. the City of New London decision from 2005.

"It's been well over two years since the Supreme Court ruled in the Kelo case, and it's high time that California enacted strong protections for homeowners against eminent domain for private development," said Ken Willis, president of the League of California Homeowners. "This measure would provide California homeowners with new, constitutional protections against eminent domain. We're confident that we've collected the necessary signatures to place this measure on the June ballot, and are even more confident that voters will overwhelmingly support our measure when given the chance."

Chris McKenzie, executive director of the League of California Cities said, "California cities are supporting the Homeowners Protection Act because we feel that homeowners deserve additional protections from eminent domain. This straightforward measure will protect our citizens' most prized possession without attempting to sneak in unrelated and dangerous provisions, unlike other faux eminent domain reforms out there."

Coalition Opposing Hidden Agendas Scheme

The so-called California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act, dubbed the "Hidden Agendas Scheme", is being funded by rich apartment and mobile home park owners who are using the hot-button issue of eminent domain in an attempt to trick voters into abolishing rent control and other tenant protection laws. The measure also contains poorly drafted provisions - more hidden agendas - that would decimate local land-use planning, gut environmental protections, and, according to the Association of California Water Agencies, threaten future water projects that are needed to address the state's growing water crisis.

"This campaign will present voters with a stark contrast: real eminent domain reforms that protect homes, versus the landlords' scheme that will abolish rent control, lead to water shortages, and decimate land-use laws that protect our environment and our communities," said Nan Brasmer, president of the California Alliance for Retired Americans. We're confident that voters will support the honest eminent domain reform and reject the landlords' Hidden Agendas scheme."

Tenants' Rights Activists Launch New Website to Defeat Landlords' "Hidden Agendas" Scheme and Exposing Motives of Measure's Wealthy Landlord Backers

Landlords' Deceptive Measure Would Eliminate Rent Control
and Other Tenant Protection Laws in California

Los Angeles, CA - Leading California tenants' rights organizations announced that they have launched a new interactive website and blog, www.NoLandlordScheme.com, that focuses exclusively on defeating the proposed ballot initiative sponsored by apartment and mobile home park owners. The measure, dubbed "the Hidden Agendas Scheme," claims to be about eminent domain reform but it's really an attempt to roll back rent control and abolish other important tenants' rights laws in California.

"Landlords' are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of California voters with their deceptive measure," said Ted Gullicksen with the San Francisco Tenants Union. "But their true motive is to eliminate rent control and other renter protections. We have already started mobilizing hundreds of thousands of renters and mobile home owners in California who will be hurt by this scheme. They are mad and will do whatever it takes to defeat this measure. This website will serve as an important mobilizing tool to get voters engaged and activated."

Apartment and mobile home park owners and the organizations that represent landlords have already spent close to $2 million to qualify their measure for the June 2008 ballot. The website will:

• Identify and expose the measure's rich landlord financiers;


• Host a blog and online chat forum;


• Contain downloadable campaign materials and literature;


• Identify upcoming press conferences, rallies, meetings and other campaign activities.

Larry Gross, executive director of the Coalition for Economic Survival said, "We know, and the landlords' know, that abolishing rent control isn't popular with California voters. That's why landlords are promoting this bait-and-switch scheme in an attempt to trick voters into thinking their measure is about eminent domain. But renters know the landlords have put a bulls eye on their backs and we won't let voters be fooled."

Denny Zane with Santa Monicans for Renters' Rights added, "This website is just one tool in a series of campaign tactics we plan to launch between now and June to make it crystal clear: this measure is a greedy attempt by wealthy landlords to enrich themselves, at the expense of seniors, veterans, single mothers and other working families."

BACKGROUND: Wealthy apartment and mobilehome park owners are collecting signatures to put a measure on the June '08 ballot for their own financial gain. These landlords want the public to believe that the so-called California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act (CPOFPA) is about eminent domain, but the measure is really a dishonest attempt to abolish rent control and other laws that protect renters. The CPOFPA would eliminate rent control and gut renter protection laws, and strip protections for mobile home owners from forced condo conversions.

Don’t Let “Eminent Domain Reform” Slash Your Equity!

Last month, I told you about the initiative petition for the “California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act (CPOFPA),” a misleading, dishonest attempt to abolish rent control and other laws that protect renters. Like last year’s narrowly defeated Proposition 90, this initiative, also known as “Son of Prop 90,” again claims to provide eminent domain protections against the government seizing private property for another private developer, in light of the controversial U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. City of New London (545 U.S. 469).

However, rather than being the eminent domain reform measure the landlords claim it is, the CPOFPA is, in fact, an attack on mobile home rent control and mobile homeowners’ rights to the equity in their homes.

In response to this deceptive scheme, the League of California Cities is promoting the “Homeowners and Private Property Protection Act,” offering true eminent domain reform, including protections for mobilehome owners. We have just a couple weeks to collect signatures to place this initiative on the ballot. Your signature is urgently needed! I have petitions; please contact me if you wish to sign this petition or are able to help collect signatures.

Unless we successfully defeat the “Son of Prop 90,” this dangerous new law would:

• Eliminate rent control and other renter protection laws. The landlords’ scheme would phase out rent control in California by prohibiting future rent control laws and would abolish rent control for spaces once the existing mobile homeowners move. As a result, this measure would jeopardize affordable housing for thousands of seniors and widows on fixed incomes, single mothers and working families.
• Attack protections for mobile homeowners. Under this new law, park owners could not be prevented from pursuing “condo conversions” where park owners can force mobile homeowners to buy the space under their homes. Many mobile homeowners would be stuck in a lose/lose situation – forced to pay hundreds of thousands for the land underneath their coaches, or tens of thousands to relocate. Unable to pay either of these costs, many seniors and low-income mobile homeowners could be forced out of their homes altogether.
• Destroy value of mobile homes. Because this dangerous measure would eliminate rent control as soon as the current tenant vacates the property, mobile homeowners will face extreme difficulty trying to sell their units. Potential buyers will be discouraged from purchasing the mobile home because rent control protections on the space will be lost when units are sold – destroying the equity and life-long investment for many seniors.
• Gut laws that protect renters, including jeopardizing the fair return of rental deposits and mandatory 30-day notice before forcing renters out of their homes, and outlawing local affordable housing and “inclusionary zoning” requirements.

YES ON REAL EMINENT DOMAIN REFORM – THE HOMEOWNERS PROTECTION ACT
Our measure, the Homeowners’ and Property Owners’ Protection Act, is an eminent domain measure that will truly protect homeowners, without the deceptive and far-reaching provisions of the CPOFPA. The Homeowners Protection Act will prohibit the government from using eminent domain to take a home to transfer to a private developer, which is exactly the concern raised by the controversial Kelo court decision, and what the landlords deceptively claim the CPOFPA is designed to do.

The Homeowners Protection Act also contains a “poison pill” provision, so that if both eminent domain measures are passed on the June 2008 ballot, our measure will prevail if it receives more “yes” votes. It is absolutely critical that we get this initiative on the ballot. I am circulating petitions. Please email me to sign the petition and to protect your rights and your equity.

For more information, visit www.eminentdomainreform.com.

SMOAC Update

Below are a few of the highlights of the Santee Mobilehome Owners Action Committee (SMOAC) meeting on 10/6:

Mayor Randy Voepel spoke to the group about his experiences living in a mobilehome park, and his continued support for mobilehome owners. To date, the City of Santee has spent in excess of $2 million defending lawsuits targeting the City's mobilehome rent control ordinance. There have been 7 suits challenging the ordinance; 4 of these have been resolved. To date, the City has refused settlement negotiations and prevailed in each action, with 3 cases still pending.

It is vitally important that we all REFUSE TO SIGN the current "eminent domain" initiative petition being circulated by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. Called the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act (CPOFPA), this petition is being promoted as a protection against eminent domain, but in reality it is designed to eliminate rent control - including Santee's Ordinance No. 412 which protects mobilehome owners. This bill has been sponsored by mobilehome park owners. Please urge everyone you know to NOT sign this petition.

Meadowbrook & MHC Litigation: MHC Legal battles are in limbo right now. The cases were assigned to Judge Sturgeon in the El Cajon courthouse, but he is serving in Riverside County through December, so the cases will continue when he returns. Meadowbrook has written a letter to Judge Sturgeon asking for explanation of his last 3 decisions. The City's case against MHC (Meadowbrook owner) is scheduled to go to trial on January 25. The Meadowbrook Homeowners’ case is scheduled to go to trial in February. The eventual outcome of these lawsuits will have dramatic effects on all Santee mobilehome owners.

The September 2007 newsletter of the Independent Citizens' Oversight Committee was presented.

SMOAC meets on the first Saturday of every month at 10 a.m. in the Canteen at Edgemoor. All Santee mobilehome residents are invited to attend. For more information, email smoac@juno.com or ggmhoa@gmail.com.