Laserfiche WebLink
Analysis by the Legislative Analyst <br />Background <br />1.bout 500,000 California households live in <br />1bilehomes. Mobilehomes differ from traditional <br />igle-family homes in that they are built in factories <br />and then moved to the place where the household wishes <br />to live. <br />Most mobilehome owners have placed their homes on <br />land that is rented from a mobilehome park owner. Once <br />placed in a park, mobilehomes are difficult and expensive <br />to move. As a result, when mobilehome owners wish to <br />leave a park they typically sell their home to someone <br />else, rather than move the mobilehome. <br />Local Rent Control Larva. About 100 cities and <br />counties have laws restricting the amount of rent <br />mohilehome park owners may charge people who live in <br />their park. These laws typically limit rent increases <br />to rates equal to —or less than —inflation. Some <br />communities, however, allow additional rent increases <br />when a mobilehome is sold, transferred, or sublet. Local <br />rent control laws apply to nearly 150,000 mobilehomes in <br />California. <br />Proposal <br />This measure phases out mobilehome rent control laws <br />and prohibits local government from enacting new <br />mobilehome rent control laws. The measure also requires <br />mobilehome park owners to provide rent discounts to <br />very -low income mobilehome owners. <br />Rent Control. The measure makes two major <br />changes to existing local mobilehome rent control laws. <br />Fist, the measure would eliminate —over time --all <br />oviRtine rent restrictions on mobilehomes. Specifically, <br />t restrictions on a mobilehome park space would be <br />nnated when a mobilehome owner sells, transfers, or <br />lets the home. It would take many years before all <br />spaces in a park were exempt from rent control. <br />Second, the measure modifies the laws controlling <br />rents on mobilehomes that remain subject to rent control. <br />Specifically, these laws could not restrict annual rent <br />increases to below the rate of inflation- This provision <br />JAN-10-19% 14s41 <br />would allow park owners to increase rents at rates <br />slightly higher than allowed under existing laws. <br />The measure also: <br />Prevents local government from making new laws <br />that control mobilehome rents. <br />• Overturns any state law restricting mobilehome <br />rents. <br />Requires any future state law controlling <br />mobilehome Tents to be approved by the voters. <br />Kurt Discounts. The measure requires moWehame <br />park owners to provide 10 percent rent discounts to <br />mobilehome owners with 'vary -low` income. The level of <br />income considered 'very -low" is defined by state law and <br />varies by caunty. For example, two people with incomes <br />of less than $13,850 a year in Fresno County are <br />considered to have 'very -low" income, whereas is Los <br />Angeles County, the comparable amount is about <br />$20,500. Park owners would. have to provide these <br />discounts for up to 10 percent of the spaces in the par$- <br />(Mobilebome park spaces still subject to rent control, <br />however, would count toward the 10 percent <br />requirement.) Park owners could end a rent discount for <br />various reasons, such as if the mobilehome owner is six <br />days late with a rent payment or violates park rules. in <br />these cases, a mobilehome owner could reapply for <br />assistance in one year. <br />DTI <br />In the near term, local agencies with rent control laws <br />would experience increased costs to administer the <br />phase -out of rent control. In some communities, these <br />increased costs would be offset by decreased costs to <br />oversee mobilehome perk rent increases. Any short-term <br />net costs—*r saving —would vary by community, but are <br />not likely to be significant. <br />In the long term, after all mobilehome park spaces <br />were exempt from rent control, local agency costs to <br />administer rent control laws would he eliminated. The <br />extent of these local agency savings statewide probably <br />would total at least several million dollars annually. <br />For the text of Proposition 199 see page 62 <br />44 <br />37 <br />97i P.03 <br />3i <br />