Manufactured homeowners challenge candidates

[longnecker]

MILLSBORO — Statewide and Sussex County candidates endured a barrage of questions when the American Legion Post 28 in Millsboro held its annual candidates forum Aug. 2. Members were eager to know whether candidates were concerned about the rights of manufactured homeowners.
Senate Bill 205 would have limited lot rent increases for manufactured homeowners in Delaware. The bill passed the Senate, but was defeated in the House July 19, by a 22-14 vote.
Sen. Joe Booth, R-Georgetown, voted against the bill and Rep. Ruth Briggs King, a Realtor, opted out of the June 19 vote, she said, to avoid any possible conflicts of interest.
Briggs King, R-Georgetown, and Booth attended the forum and were called to task on their actions regarding SB 205.
“There were some flaws in the bill,” said Briggs King, who asked to speak ahead of turn so she could attend two other events scheduled that night.
She said she did not like that the Governor’s Advisory Council on Manufactured Housing was given additional responsibility under SB 205. Briggs King said the council failed to obtain a quorum of council members to meet numerous times in the last legislative session.
Moderator Tina Washington asked Briggs King how she planned to represent the Long Neck community if she did not take a stance on issues concerning manufactured homeowners.
“There are many issues in there,” Briggs King said. “Rent is not the only issue.”
Millsboro Democrat Beth McGinn is challenging Briggs King to represent voters in Representative District 37. McGinn is a longtime volunteer at Post 28 and a member of Delaware Manufactured Homeowners Association.
“We need help from all of you legislators,” she said. McGinn asked, if Briggs King has a conflict of interest, “Where does that leave us?” She received more applause than any other speaker.
Booth said, under SB 205, if a landowner was found in violation, tenants could be free from paying rent for up to six months. He said this could mean landowners lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in rent, which could impact the quality of life for tenants. “I did vote ‘no,’” Booth said. “It comes with some very large fines.”
Georgetown Republican Eric Bodenweiser, who is challenging Booth in a Tuesday, Sept. 11 primary, said he believed in property rights, but rent control for manufactured housing is an exception to the rule. “It’s a monopoly,” he said. “Someone needs to stand up and fight for these people in Dover, and I’m going to do it.”
Bodenweiser said he funded a poll that showed 62 percent of constituents in Senate District 19 supported rent control for manufactured homeowners.
Candidates for Sussex County Council also weighed in on the issue. Georgetown Republican Don Ayotte, a candidate for Council District 3, said the conditions in each park are different, and one bill would not be a blanket solution to the problems of every manufactured home park. Ayotte said binding arbitration between homeowners and landowners would spur compromise on the issue of rent control.
Millsboro Republican Brent Wangen, who is also aiming to secure a spot on the ballot for Council District 3, said manufactured homeowners should be given the opportunity to buy the land they rent.
Sussex County Councilwoman Joan Deaver, D-Rehoboth Beach, said manufactured housing parks are the only affordable places to live in the county. “You need help,” she said. “You will get it.”
http://capegazette.villagesoup.com/n...didates/879809

[Jessica]

Hmmm, this is interesting. On one hand you have the rights of homeowners to be free from rent increases that could threaten their livelihood.

On the other hand, you have the rights of landowners to increase rents to compensate for their rising costs. I guess for me that would come down to how much the increases are being limited. For example, are they saying that rates can't go past a certain percentage that reflects cost of living, inflation, etc? If so, that seems far. Apartment renters are subject to the same rising costs when their leases are renewed, condo associations raise costs based on similar circumstances. If the limitations put on rent increase are at a dollar figure not tied into any reasonable expected increase, that's a whole other ball of yarn.

The idea that landowners would face big penalties and lose rent if they violate the law doesn't really strike me as a big issue. If the law is passed, landowners shouldn't be violating it in the first place.

Hopefully there is a happy medium that can be reached somewhere in here.

[longnecker]

Hmmm, this is interesting. On one hand you have the rights of homeowners to be free from rent increases that could threaten their livelihood.

On the other hand, you have the rights of landowners to increase rents to compensate for their rising costs. I guess for me that would come down to how much the increases are being limited. For example, are they saying that rates can't go past a certain percentage that reflects cost of living, inflation, etc? If so, that seems far. Apartment renters are subject to the same rising costs when their leases are renewed, condo associations raise costs based on similar circumstances. If the limitations put on rent increase are at a dollar figure not tied into any reasonable expected increase, that's a whole other ball of yarn.

The idea that landowners would face big penalties and lose rent if they violate the law doesn't really strike me as a big issue. If the law is passed, landowners shouldn't be violating it in the first place.

Hopefully there is a happy medium that can be reached somewhere in here.

Your right there should be a happy medium somewhere. Most of the parks here on Long Neck are very well maintained and provide services and amenities. The problem is a mobile home owner who may have invested $100k or better can't just pack up and move like an apartment tenant. It was easy for park owners to justify rent increase a few years ago sighting the increased value of the land. with land values falling I haven't seen any rent cuts.

[Jessica]

with land values falling I haven't seen any rent cuts.

It should work both ways, definitely. It's funny how there are some things that never seem to go down despite the fact that their correlating factor does. Land value goes down, rent stays the same. And I think that's in part because very few landowners are in a position to accept less rent and still stay afloat, because their overhead costs are likely the same (if not more). I don't know the details of this bill, but it would make sense to have a price ceiling tied directly to land assessment.