HOA Meeting Highlights: June 9, 2009

Manager’s Update:

• The 14-day notices appear to have been effective; the park is looking better.
• Residents expressed concern regarding non-resident vehicles coming into the park to dump their trash in our dumpsters. This issue was discussed at length, with several residents concerned about pests and sanitation, as well as overloaded dumpsters which may result in increased costs for trash service. Carlos will look into options, such as locking the dumpsters, to prevent “drive-by dumpings” by non-residents. Carlos asked residents to provide license plate numbers of suspected non-resident vehicles using the dumpsters.
• Pool use is a concern among several residents now that summer is coming. Residents asked how many guests each resident is permitted to have; the response was “it depends on the lease.” Those in attendance recalled that their copies of the Park Rule state two guests per resident in the Clubhouse and Pool areas. Residents would like management to ensure that the pool is available for their use, by monitoring and preventing non-residents from using our facilities and also keeping certain park residents from abusing the rules regarding guests in the recreational areas.
• One resident raised a specific question regarding cracks in his driveway, and described a significant problem with shifting concrete. Carlos reported that he would take a look at it the next day, and that driveway repairs would be done after the retaining wall projects are complete. He reported that they are wrapping up Phase 2 and getting ready to start Phase 3 of the retaining walls. Then other repairs will be undertaken.
• Residents asked about rules regarding noise and whether there are established “quiet times” (e.g. 9 p.m. to 9 a.m.). Excessive noise at any time is “disturbing the peace” and should be addressed. If the issue occurs at night and immediate assistance is needed, residents should call the non-emergency number for the Sheriff. If it can wait, contact Carlos and he will address it at a later time.

Old Business:

• Community Garage Sale – Tabled until the next meeting, or when a volunteer committee comes forward to coordinate the event.
• HOA Elections – No new candidates came forward for positions on the Board of Directors. The existing officers and directors in attendance agreed to remain in their positions, and this was approved by a consensus vote. Current Board of Directors is as follows: President-Ken Takei, Vice President-Al Servey, Treasurer-Sandra Coine, Secretary-Suzanne Ervine, Director at Large-Susan Kite. There are two vacancies for Directors at Large.
• Meeting Schedule – Don Heck moved that the HOA meeting schedule revert back to bi-monthly, on even-numbered months, pursuant to the Bylaws. Al Servey seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

New Business:

• Rent Control Lawsuit - Ken Takei reported that he attended the SMOAC meeting this month. An attorney will be filing a suit to recover excessive rents collected in violation of the City ordinance, when the law was interpreted or applied incorrectly (100% of CPI). Potential plaintiffs in the case are asked to come forward and contact Jim Montague (SMOAC and Meadowbrook) or Karen Bisegnano (SMOAC and Mission Del Magnolia).

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

Code of Ethics for Mobilehome Advocates

Reprinted with permission from the Coalition of Mobilehome Owners – California

CoMO-CAL feels that all advocates should adopt a “Code of Ethics.” We, along with the state group in Wisconsin, have written a preliminary “Code.” Today, CoMO-CAL lives by this code.
We would hope other groups do so as well.

Unfortunately this is not always the case. What do you think? If you think all advocates should adopt this code or something similar, please be active in your group of choice. Make your voice heard. Don’t just accept the status quo. After all, advocates are supposed to be working for you!

We, as advocates, agree to:

• Focus on serving our membership and promoting their general welfare
• Provide prospective members a list of our services and the benefits of joining
• Be honest with our members
• Be transparent, i.e. freely share information about our organization: assets and finances
• Be open to member’s suggestions, comments, and criticism
• Respond to members, either verbally or in writing
• Run our organization according to our bylaws and purpose
• When asked a question, we agree to give members all information available to us, i.e. what we can do to help them as well as other advocacy groups (if we know) by a member

We will not:

• Cause harm to those we serve, i.e. homeowners
• Withhold information from our members to promote only ourselves, i.e. homeowners need to know about all advocates who serve them.
• “Stonewall” members or refuse to listen to members in an open discussion

Additionally, we feel advocates should network with each other. This means freely sharing information while giving proper credit for information from other advocates. We realize we have similar issues and it is imperative to work together to provide a united front, even though we are different organizations.

For more information about CoMO-CAL, please visit www.comocal.org.

Jim Montague: City Council Candidate/Mobilehome Advocate at Greenbrier "Coffee Wednesday" - 9/17, 9:00 a.m.

So who is Jim Montague? Come to Greenbrier's regular coffee/doughnuts gathering on Wednesday, September 17 at 9:00 a.m. and find out!

Jim will stop by to talk to us about the unique issues mobilehome owners face, and how those issues are impacted by Santee's Manufactured Home Fair Practices Ordinance. Jim is a long-time advocate for mobilehome owners and seniors, and he is running for Santee City Council this November. He has led Meadowbrook's fight against the park owner who has tried to destroy the Fair Practices Ordinance, and is an active member of the Santee Mobilehome Owners' Action Committee (SMOAC).

Stop by the Clubhouse for free coffee, doughnuts, good company with your neighbors, and this unique opportunity to meet and talk with a candidate for our City Council.

HOA Meeting Highlights: September 9, 2008

Manager’s Update:

• Coyotes are still a problem; many sightings have been reported and more animals missing. Residents are urged to keep all pets indoors.


• Street Parking – several residents again complained about cars parked in front of coaches, and expressed concern regarding access for emergency vehicles. Carlos reported that management is ticketing cars as they see them.


• Park Rules/Appearance Standards – Carlos reported that offenders were notified individually; it was suggested that those who have not complied be notified again and required to clean up debris, etc. “One reason people moved into this park is because it was nice.”

Old Business:

“Meet and Consult” Letter to Management – We have yet to receive a written response to our most recent letter of June 18, 2008. Residents have questions about repairs that have not been made throughout the park, including several retaining walls that are crumbling, leaning, or incomplete, as well as a large hole near the fire hydrant. The HOA will draft another letter to management asking when these repairs will be completed.

New Business:

Meadowbrook resident Jim Montague is running for Santee City Council. Jim is a longtime advocate of senior issues and has led Meadowbrook residents’ fight against MHC, the park owner. He strongly supports Santee’s Mobilehome Fair Practices Ordinance. The Greenbrier Gardens HOA voted to formally endorse Jim Montague for Santee City Council.

Protecting Mobilehome Inheritance Rights

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

I am often contacted by families following the death of a mobilehome resident about what they should do to get the home secured and sold, or just to obtain an understanding of their rights as heirs to the estate. The Mobilehome Residency Law (MRL) portion of the California Civil Code contains a specific section which sets forth the rights of heirs or joint tenants when the homeowner has died. It is important that certain steps be followed by the heirs to ensure that they protect their rights to the home. It is equally important that heirs know their rights ahead of time, so they will not fail to do what is necessary to maintain the mobilehome tenancy after the death of a family member. Otherwise, the park owner can use what is typically a time of confusion and emotions to deprive the estate of what is often its most significant asset of value. Where rent is not paid, or some other violation of park rules occurs due to the actions of unsuspecting relatives, the park owner can use it as justification for requiring that the home be evicted from the park, or to de-control and raise space rent where there is local rent control in place. Absolute vigilance by the decedent’s family is required to ensure that this does not occur.

Preliminarily, a homeowner can take certain steps in advance to ensure that his or her family understands what needs to be done to protect the mobilehome inheritance.

• KNOW YOUR RIGHTS. This is essential. A homeowner needs to know his or her rights so that they can communicate them to family members. Every mobilehome resident should have a copy of the MRL, which is distributed by most park owners annually. Anyone can go online to download a copy of the complete MRL for free at: www.sen.ca.gov/mobilehome, or can write to the Senate Publications Office in Sacramento to purchase a copy for $5.25. Or any resident should be able to go to the park office and request a copy. The MRL requires a park owner to distribute a copy to all residents each year where a “significant change” of the MRL provisions is made by the legislature, so there will often be a copy kept in the home. But heirs who do not know anything about the MRL will need to know where to look for a copy of the law. This leads us to item 2, below.
  
  
• INFORM YOUR HEIRS OF WHERE TO FIND INFORMATION AHEAD OF TIME. Just as you would tell your family members where to find important papers, or the details of disposition of property and funeral instructions, you also need to tell your heirs how to secure and sell your home after your passing. Be sure that they know where to find a copy of Civil Code section 798.78, which is the MRL section that sets forth the rights and responsibilities of heirs. Make a copy of that section and leave it in place where they can locate it, or give it to them in advance with a copy of this article.
  
  
• WHAT SHOULD THE HEIRS DO AFTER THE HOMEOWNER HAS DIED? It is important that heirs act immediately to prevent the loss of their inheritance rights in the home. There are two options set forth in section 798.78. First, any heir, joint tenant or personal representative may seek to sell the home “in place” in the park. Or, in the alternative, any heir or joint tenant may seek to establish a tenancy with the park and move into the home. But for either of these steps to be available, it is required that the decedent’s estate satisfy all of the decedent’s responsibilities, such as payment of rent and utilities or maintenance of the homesite. Thus, if the rent is allowed to go into default or other maintenance issues arise which are not performed after a notice is served (this might only be taped to the door), then the right to establish a tenancy or sell the home is lost. Section 798.78(b) specifically provides that in such a case the park owner can require the home to be removed from the park. IT IS THUS CRITICAL THAT THE HEIRS ASCERTAIN WHAT THE SPACE RENT AND UTILITIES PAYMENTS ARE AND PAY THEM IMMEDIATELY AS THEY COME DUE. The death of the homeowner does not deter many park owners from claiming a breach of the rental agreement if the rent or utilities payment is even one day late. And since the heirs may not visit the home immediately, they might be unaware that the first of the month has rolled around and a rent payment is due. No payments can be missed if the family wants to be certain that its rights are protected. And if a three-day notice to pay rent or utilities is served, it must be satisfied at once within the three day period. The three days are calculated from the day after the notice is served. Since service of any three-day or seven-day notice by the park does not have to be personal, and the notice can thus be posted on the home and mailed to that address, it is important that the heirs visit the home regularly to check for posted notices, and that the mail be immediately forwarded to an address where it will be read. There is nothing worse than opening an envelope after the fact to find that an important deadline has been missed. If a rent payment is not made within the three-day period, and there is a loan on the home, the heirs should immediately contact the lender and request that it “cure” the rent default by paying the rent to the park. Under section 798.56(e)(4), a bank may cure a rent default twice every 12 months, and the park owner is obligated to accept the payment. This section presumably also applies where the homeowner has died but the estate desires to maintain the right to sell the home “in place.”
  
  Equally important is the duty of the estate to maintain the physical appearance of the home and the homesite. This means that landscaping must be maintained, and debris cannot be allowed. Any seven-day notices for Rules violations need to be corrected at once. Newspapers should be stopped, the home should be secured, and vehicles should be either removed or otherwise stored only in the carport at the homesite. A gardener should be hired to mow and weed the homesite if the heirs live out-of-town or otherwise are not likely to visit the home often. But it is also important to check for notices at the home regularly, in case something is posted that is never received via mail.
  
  To ensure the best possible communication, the heirs should meet with management as soon as possible following the death and identify a new person and address for communication purposes. Rent bills and all notices from the park should be directed to that new address, so that communications do not fall into a “black hole.”
  
  
• WHAT THE HEIRS SHOULD NOT DO. It is equally important to understand one of the most frequent problems encountered by estates. Often, the heirs allow someone to move into the home if it is otherwise vacant in order to be a caretaker and watch over the home. This certainly sounds reasonable enough. After all, the estate desires that the home be protected from crime or vandalism. And if it is perceived that cousin Bob will most certainly qualify to purchase or occupy the home, it might be tempting to allow him to just move into the home early without qualifying for tenancy first. This should not be done. Most parks throughout California do not allow a non-tenant to occupy the home if a tenant is not present. Thus, either scenario could trigger an immediate seven-day notice of a Rules violation. If the estate desires to allow someone to occupy the home, written permission should be obtained from the park first. Otherwise, it should never be allowed to occur, since the result could be a termination of the estate’s right to sell the home “in place.” Note that we are only speaking of occupancy here; any authorized person, including heirs or third-party contractors or realtors can enter the home to clean, repair or secure it. But no one can occupy it by spending the night or establishing it as their residence. If a seven-day notice is received for this sort of violation, the occupant needs to be removed at once. Note that this scenario also does not help the potential tenant, whom the park might categorize as a “rules violator” when an application for tenancy is later presented for consideration.
  
  
• WHAT ABOUT SATISFYING AGE RESTRICTIONS? In senior parks, or parks which seek to meet the Federal guidelines for “housing for older persons,” homeowners who are 55 or older often leave the home to much younger heirs who are under age 55. The immediate reaction of these younger heirs is that they are not old enough to live in the park, and thus cannot qualify for tenancy. But special exemption language in the Federal law allows heirs who are under age 55 to still inherit the home and live in it without compromising the park’s senior status under Federal law. Otherwise, the inheritance might prove to be without value for the family, and this was never the intent of Congress when the 1988 laws regarding age limitations were passed. This means that a park can never reject an heir based upon age status by arguing that it will lose its senior status under Federal law if a 40-year-old heir is allowed to occupy the home. The key is that only the heirs or blood relatives of the deceased homeowner would probably qualify for this exemption. Note that if the park otherwise has an age limit for all residents in its own rules, those limitations may still need to be complied with.
  
  
• CAN THE PARK RAISE THE SPACE RENT? The answer depends upon the local laws. If there is a local mobilehome rent control ordinance, it should be consulted. Many ordinances do not allow a park to raise rents to the family following the death of the homeowner. But if the family sells the home to a dealer, the rent can probably be raised at that time, since local rent control typically does not protect commercial dealers or agents.

The ability to protect a home during the inheritance process can be tricky. But if these steps are followed, the family of a deceased homeowner should be able to inherit and realize the value of the mobilehome which has been left to them in a Will or Trust. Just as importantly, the intent and last wishes of the deceased homeowner can be honored and carried out.

About the Author
Bruce Stanton has been a practicing attorney since 1982, and has been representing mobilehome residents and homeowners’ associations as a specialty for over 20 years. His practice is located in San Jose, California. He is currently serving as corporate counsel for the California Mobilehome Resource & Action Association (CMRAA).

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.

HOA Meeting: Tuesday 5/13 at 7:00 p.m.

Please join us on Tuesday 5/13 at 7:00 for our MONTHLY homeowners association meeting.
Discussion topics include:

• Manager's Update
• Legislative Update - Eminent Domain Initiatives
• “Meet and Consult” Letter to Management
• Security/Break-Ins at RV Storage Area
• HOA Board Nominations

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

Greenbrier Gazette - Newsletter Available Online

A new issue of the Greenbrier Gazette is availalbe online. Click here to download. Copies will also be distributed in the mail tubes.

In a Nutshell:

• HOA meetings now held monthly, second Tuesday
• Park manager attends meetings to address residents’ concerns
• “Meet and Consult” written documentation underway
• This June, vote NO on 98 and YES on 99
• Please don’t feed the animals
• HOA Elections to take place at June meeting
  

HOA Meeting Highlights: April 8, 2008

BIG NEWS: HOA meetings will now be held monthly, on the second Tuesday at 7:00 p.m. Join us and be a part of our efforts to improve park conditions! Next Meeting - May 13.

Manager’s Update:
Carlos was present and reported the following:

• Management has received the HOA’s letter dated March 25; a written response is being prepared.
• Lot inspections have begun; about half the park is completed.
• The owner has approved the lock on the pool gate; the parts are on order.
• The letter to residents regarding the availability of new keys for the laundry facilities will be sent out tomorrow (April 9, 2008).
• RV Security: This issue was discussed at length. Residents are extremely concerned about this recurring problem. The only thing management can do is patch the fence, which he has done with additional sections of fencing material. Management of the apartments next door has been asked to keep an eye on the lot and report suspicious activity. Park owner said “they will look into” additional lighting for the dark areas of the lot. Several residents in attendance made suggestions to address the problem.
• Carlos was asked about office hours, which he reported are being kept. One resident reported that she attempted to speak with him on April 1, rent day, between 2:00 and 2:15 p.m., but the office was locked. Carlos explained that sometimes they are out running errands, and the clock sign is used to indicate when they will return. The question of why both of them are gone, rather than one running the errands and the other one keeping the office hours, went unaddressed.
• Residents requested that chocks be placed under the dumpster wheels because of the danger posed when the wheels line up with the slope of the grade. Sticks or handles were requested to enable shorter residents to close the dumpster lids, which is currently impossible for many residents.
• On a related note, wild animals continue to be a huge problem; they are encouraged by both open dumpsters and residents who feed them. One resident has hired trappers and caught 4 large raccoons, costing him over $500. The professional trappers informed him that many of these raccoons have rabies, and they are not afraid of humans. The HOA requests that management distribute a letter asking people to stop feeding them.

Legislative Update:
Two “eminent domain” initiatives will be on the June ballot. Proposition 98 is 83% funded by mobilehome park and apartment owners, and will outlaw rent control for mobilehome residents. Proposition 99 affords property owners protection against abusive eminent domain, without the threat to mobilehome owners. Vote NO on 98 and YES on 99!

Old Business:
“Meet and Consult” Letter to Management – On March 25, the HOA sent a follow-up letter to management, addressing the issues from the October 12, 2007 letter sent under Civil Code section 798.53 that remain unresolved.

Locked Cabinet – The HOA finally has a cabinet in the Clubhouse kitchen, with a lock, and we have the key.

Meeting Schedule – Meetings have been increased to MONTHLY. Meetings will be held on the second Tuesday of every month at 7:00 p.m. at the Clubhouse. Carlos will be invited to attend all meetings, but only expected to attend the alternate months (February, April, June, August, October, December) as he has presently agreed to do.

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

AB 1309 Will be Brought to a Vote: If Passed, Will End All CA Rent Control

From CoMO-CAL Message Board:

Assembly Bill 1309, orginated by assembly member Charles Calderon, will be brought to the assembly floor for a vote, according to the staff at Calderon's office. The bill will end vacancy rent control almost completely. That means no one buying a rent-controlled home will have rent control, making the purchase of a mobile home VERY unattractive. Whenever vacancy rent control has been lost because of changes in laws, the homes lost their value almost completely.

If the bill passes the Assembly, it will go to the Senate, which is expected to pass it also. It will then be in effect as soon as the bill is signed by the governor, who is expected to sign it.

Write your assembly person NOW! Santee is located in the 77th District, Assemblyman Joel Anderson. A draft of a sample letter is below. The directory of the entire California State Assembly can be located at www.assembly.ca.gov.

SAMPLE LETTER:

Assemblyman Joel Anderson
California State Capitol
Room 2111
Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Assemblyman Anderson,

I am a mobile home park resident who is urging you NOT to pass AB 1309. This bill, which favors park owners by allowing vacancy decontrol, would have a negative impact on senior citizens. It would diminish the stock of affordable housing in California and create great hardship for individual park residents.

Many residents own their manufactured homes, but pay rent for the land on which the home sits. The residents include many senior citizens on fixed incomes. When they purchased their homes, the price they paid reflected both the intrinsic value of the coach and the security of ongoing rent control.

If AB 1309 were to pass, park owners could set a new rent, at any level they wished, when a coach is sold. Thus current home owners – if they choose to or needed to sell – could no longer determine a selling price that factors in the benefit of rent control. As a result, their equity would severely diminish. For many, this represents their life's savings.

In a press release dated May 9, 2007 and posted on PR Newswire by the Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association (WMA) – an organization devoted to promoting the interests of owners, operators and developers of manufactured home communities in California – the WMA claims that AB 1309 “would permit what is known as vacancy decontrol by allowing a one-time rent adjustment for a new mobile home park resident, while not impacting any current residents.”

The WMA, which sponsors AB 1309, is disingenuous in claiming that the bill would not impact current residents. While rent control would remain in effect for existing residents, the equity they count on would be greatly diminished – as would their peace of mind. In addition, with vacancy decontrol:
• Park becomes an unequal, mixed community (residents paying a variety of rents).
• Current residents' lifetime savings vanish, as equity is decreased for owner and heirs. This can prove devastating for those who must move, often due to illness or family concerns.
• As older residents depart, park gradually converts from affordable to expensive housing – eroding the community's stock of affordable housing.

I strongly urge you to consider the needs of your constituents in reviewing this bill. AB 1309 is an insidious assault on our well-being. We count on you to make sure it does not pass.

Sincerely,