Mobile Home Park Rental Review Board weighs in on draft ordinance

Tenants, sub-tenants, owners, renters – who gets to vote for a condo conversion? Under what conditions? And how many votes? What about tenants’ rights? Who makes the park owner keep his promises? And why was this meeting called, anyway?
These were some of the questions the Mobile Home Park Rental Review Board brought to City Planner David Goodison and City Attorney Tom Curry at a meeting in the City Council chambers on July 31.
Goodison said he’d called the meeting because he wanted all groups to have an opportunity to comment on the most recent revised draft mobile-home conversion ordinance. The ordinance, which will regulate all city mobile-home conversions to condominiums, has been in process since July, 2007. It was most recently revised because councilmember Steve Barbose wanted more clarity around the term “bona fide conversion.” His desire, Curry said, was to help make the ordinance less vulnerable to legal challenge. “Our job was to come up with an ordinance that we could defend in court.” Goodison said the document is now scheduled to return to the City Council for consideration and possible presentation at the Aug. 20 meeting.
When Goodison turned the meeting over to the board for discussion, some boardmembers asked why they had not been consulted before. Goodison admitted that had been an oversight, but he assured boardmembers that, while they would have no authority over issues raised, their comments and suggestions would be forwarded to the City Council and their voices would be heard.
Some questioned the logic of calling a meeting with a group that will be discontinued should the conversion go through. The conversion to condominiums eliminates the legal right to rent control in the converted park and with it the need for a rental review board. Goodison and Curry acknowledged that legal right to rent control ends with the conversion, but reminded the group of the city’s willingness to listen to comments on the document that would regulate the conversion. De facto rent control for Rancho de Sonoma will remain insofar as owner Preston Cook has guaranteed lifetime rent control for current mobilehome owners and their over-50 offspring.
Some issues raised by the board and in public comment were complex: tenants’ rights and owner’s promises were discussed at length. “It does get confusing. There’s the tenant and the owner of the park, and then the mobile home can be rented out and that creates another kind of tenant,” said Curry. Boardmember Bill Darden remained concerned. “We understand they’re not owners, but their rights have to be considered because they would be displaced.”
Some questions were simple: who gets to vote in the survey that determines whether a conversion is desired by residents was easily resolved. But, by the sound of some comments, the answer was troubling. “Voters are those who own coaches,” said Curry. “They get one vote per coach they own. This has been the subject of quite a bit of litigation.” Park owner Preston Cook owns nearly 20 coaches, and therefore has that many votes. Renters of coaches have no vote. “Everyone has a right to participate in hearings,” Goodison said, “but tenants who are not homeowners cannot participate in that survey, under state law. The city cannot go against the provisions that are already in state law.”
Mark Bramfitt, who chaired the meeting, boiled the hour-long recitation of questions and issues down to six general areas of concern. First, preserving the existing rent control ordinance; second, recognizing that the conversion addresses circumstances not particular to rent control; third, clarifying the issue of voting rights; fourth, clarifying the issue of the management and administration of the survey; fifth, making sure the park owner’s rent control offer is enforced; and sixth, making technical distinctions between converting a park to resident ownership or to another use entirely.
Bramfitt concluded the meeting saying he would gather the comments from the community and synthesize them into a recommendation he’ll present to the City Council. He said this will be a recommendation only, but not the group’s last word. “There will be additional opportunity for all of you to come back and comment again.” He looked to Goodison for approval.
“We are satisfied if you are satisfied,” said Goodison.