Fred Allebach is a member of the City of Sonoma’s Community Services and Environmental Commission, and an Advisory Committee member of the Sonoma Valley Groundwater Sustainability Agency. Fred is a member of Sonoma Overlook Trail Stewards, as well as Sonoma Valley Housing Group and Transition Sonoma Valley.
Mobile Home Rent Control study session review and comments
“Mobile home rentals are becoming an endangered species in CA” was the title of one article that came out earlier this year. This was part of a continuing coverage of our regional housing and affordability crisis that has plenty of examples in Sonoma and the Valley, from rent control in seniors’ mobile home parks to the degradation of county and city affordable housing through condo conversions, short supply, and raised rents. We know the figures: very high average rents and very low vacancy rates.
The Sonoma Valley Fund sponsored a city conversation this week where they gave a handout with some demographic facts:
- by 2019 25% plus of Valley residents will be 65 and over
- annual income in the valley shows that only @ 40% can afford the cost of living here
- 36% of Valley seniors live on incomes below 300% of the fed poverty level
- 62% of Latino in the Springs live in incomes below 200% of the fed poverty level
- 5 of the top 10 Valley employment sectors are among the lowest paid for jobs
- @ 1/3 of Valley households pay more 40% of their income on rent
At yesterday’s city council study session on rent control in senior mobile home parks some interesting points came out. Mobile home park owners are constitutionally guaranteed a fair return on their investment, the rate based on market driven income from the base year of 1992. With the rent control ordinance in place now, and with proposed changes by the resident’s association(s), the owners and their attorney complained that rents now are significantly below market rate. The attorney also said it was unconstitutional to “chill” the owners right to raise rents and get a fair rate of return. Fair return is being debated as some percentage as “chained” to the rate of inflation
When I proposed a city-wide rent control ordinance, the city attorney said this was not lawful. I also proposed that in a city/ valley wide rent control ordinance, all residential rents be chained to 25-30% of annual income as measured by adjusted gross income on the federal tax return.
What I get here is that there is no structural guarantee that citizens earn interest or wages at the rate of inflation. In fact, interest rates are so pitiful and have been for a long time; the little guy can’t even earn 1% on any savings. Local wages are clearly not adequate to meet the cost of living in the Valley. What I see is that the system appears to be stacked so as that it is “unconstitutional” and not lawful for a city to try and be fair to its vulnerable populations. What I see is constant pressure for market rate rents, prices, and fees etc., which are serving to drive the working and middle class straight out of Sonoma County. We don’t have the promised “trickle down” economics that is always invoked; what we have s “trickle out” demographics and the appearance of a government powerless to do anything bold about it.
“Market rate” is code for socio-economic inequity favoring gentrification that leads Sonoma Valley to becoming an island of privilege. This is happening at the exact same time many local citizen groups are calling the logic of the current system into question as unsustainable.
I hope the city council can continue with this study session and address the particular rent control issues of seniors here in town and the Valley, and also take steps to protect other renters who are being unconscionably squeezed by market forces and market rates.
We are getting to crunch time now where we need leadership from our elected officials and government staff. Government is a force capable of good; it can be the reflection of good morals and good ideals and this is what many expect: people in government to govern, to lead and to take bold steps to address thorny issues of obvious Valley inequity. What is hard to hear are comments such as “we can’t do anything”, “that is against the rules”. We expect more than that; change the rules if they are no good!
The mobile home park owners and their lawyer complained of the legislative “fee shifting” inherent in rent control ordinances. This is exactly it: who else is going to shift fees, market rates etc. so that society as a whole is fair to all stakeholders? The owner’s fair interests have to be taken into account here as well. Fair is fair.
One mobile home park manager did say that a sliding scale was available for those of few means. He also suggested that the parties try and hammer this out together: hopefully so. If people are of good will and have their heads screwed on right, they can get somewhere fair.
Who bears the costs of a just society? We need systemic reform and reframing at large structural levels. We also need individuals and groups to work from the bottom up with principled examples. This is what the sustainability conversation is all about. I’m hoping to see the city council and the county shoot some big 3 pointers on this issue that constitute a game changing momentum to a trend that is clearly not right and out of balance to what anyone considers to be fair.
I’m playing my part, passing the ball so someone can hit the open shot.
One thought on “Mobile Home Rent Control study session review and comments”
Comments are closed.
I trust the city council to find an equitable solution to bring into balance the very high returns that these park owners enjoy with affordable rents for the homeowners. (I understand there are very few investments today realizing the high rate of return that mobile home parks offer investors.) It’s baffling to think the current rent structure is causing some kind of hardship for these businesses.
The home owners (tenants) are paying rents, all the maintenance costs and all utilities (including sewer, water, garbage collection in some cases) to maintain their home and the piece of land their home sits on (including expensive gardening and tree care costs) with limited means in most cases. Other “market” rents such as apartments or houses can’t be used as comparison because, for the most part, those landlords pay for the upkeep of the structure and the property it’s situated on. But because we own the home, we finance the care of it and our landlords’ properties as well.
I support equitable and affordable housing in Sonoma for those of us outside the growing “1%” in this county. I look to our city council to protect this community for many of it’s most valuable citizens contributing to the quality of life for everyone, making Sonoma such a desirable place to live.
Barbara Crow, Sonoma