Decision on rent increase appealed to council
2011-02-10 / Community
The owner of a Thousand Oaks mobile home park has appealed the rent commission’s decision regarding how much he can raise rents.
Now the City Council will have the final say on the request to increase rents at Thunderbird Oaks Mobile Home Park by $261 per space per month.
Thunderbird residents currently pay between $373 and $525 a month in rent.
Last month, the Thousand Oaks Rent Adjustment Commission ruled that the property owner could raise rents at the park for low-income seniors by $62 a month, phased in over two years.
Attorney Boyd Hill, who represents property owner Andrew Hohn, said the appeal is warranted because the increase approved was significantly lower than what his client is entitled to under city law.
“That’s one-fifth of what he’s entitled to,” Hill told the Acorn on Tuesday.
Under the commission’s ruling, Thunderbird residents would pay $31.50 a month more starting in April or May and an additional $31.50 a month the following spring.
John Prescott, Thousand Oaks’ director of community development, said the appeal and a public hearing on the issue could go before the City Council in March. A date has yet to be scheduled, he said.
The City Council could decide to uphold the commission’s ruling, change it or allow no rent increase at all, Prescott said.
When asked if he thought the City Council would rule in Hohn’s favor, Boyd said: “We hope the city could would give this matter serious and independent consideration.”
On Monday, the rent commission approved a $191-a-month increase at Ranch Mobile Home Park, also owned by Hohn, phased in over seven years. That ruling is also expected to be appealed to the City Council.
vc star 02122011 More than 300 residents living in the nine mobile home parks in Thousand Oaks were on hand Saturday at Fred Kavli Theatre to hear Mayor Andy Fox outline a city-sponsored rent stabilization program.
ReplyDeleteThe program is designed to negotiate a deal on rent control with park owners.
Fox, whose parents live in a Thousand Oaks mobile home park, was appointed by the City Council to facilitate discussions between mobile home park residents and owners that would safeguard tenants from excessive rent increases, guarantee no long-term resident would be displaced because of financial inability to pay rent, and avoid the possibility of yearly park-owner litigation to raise rents.
"It's possible to go to court and win," said Fox in his opening remarks, "but if you lose, it's all the marbles. But whichever way, you'll decide; not me, not city staff or city council.
"Our current (rent control) ordinance is one of the most restrictive, most conservative in California," he added, "which is why we're more open to litigation. Good, bad, or indifferent, the owners feel the current level of income is not fair.
"What we (city council) want is to safeguard you from excessive rent increases and provide the owners with just and reasonable returns."
The current city ordinance, codified in 1986, allows annual automatic rent increases based on 75 percent of the Consumer Price Index multiplied by the 1986 base rent. The ordinance also states the CPI cannot exceed 7 percent in any one year; and compounding of increases is not allowed.
Fox presented charts that compared the average cost of an automobile in 1986 as $9,225, while a dozen eggs cost 87 cents, a haircut $4.61 and Social Security Insurance at $428.47 a month. Currently, the same items average $25,000, $2.60, $13.38 and $1,100, respectively.
"That's a 207 percent increase in the price of a car, a 198 percent increase in eggs, a 200 percent increase in a haircut and 157 percent in SSI," said Fox. "By comparison, the average monthly rent in 1986 was $231. Today it's $387; which is a 67 percent increase over 1986."
Fox told the crowd the city council's program would create a delegation of 19 parks residents selected from the nine mobile home parks. The city allocated delegates according to park size: four delegates for Vallecito; three for Thunderbird Oaks, Ventu Estates and Ventu Park Villa; two for Twin Palms and Ranch; and one for Lakestone and Elms Plaza.
"That's the process; to create a delegation of 19 park residents selected by each park," said Fox. "They will be elected or appointed by each park and individual delegates will represent their own parks. But collectively, those 19 will eventually negotiate with the owners."
Fox said he'd had one meeting with the mobile home park owners and they offered a concession that no one would be displaced due to an inability to pay rent.
"They guaranteed that any modification (in the ordinance) that takes place, no long-time resident in good standing will be displaced from their home because of a financial inability to pay rent," said Fox. "I don't want that to happen to my mom and dad, I don't want that to happen to you."
Fox said residents of the mobile home parks should submit their chosen delegates' information to the city by 5 p.m. Feb. 25, in order for the process to go forward.
Read more: http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/feb/12/thousand-oaks-mayor-discusses-rent-with-of-home/#ixzz1DpD6xIwI
- vcstar.com
February 12, 2011
ReplyDelete7:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
AAA writes:
"Fox presented charts that compared the average cost of an automobile in 1986 as $9,225, while a dozen eggs cost 87 cents, a haircut $4.61 and Social Security Insurance at $428.47 a month. Currently, the same items average $25,000, $2.60, $13.38 and $1,100, respectively."
But Fox doesn't pay any social security taxes on his income from his fireman job in L.A.....as all L.A. city employees are exempt from social security taxes, and all L.A. county employees are exempt, too.....so why the heck does he get off talking about social security costs when he pays none
Plus Fox is a long time double dipper...from his fireman job and councilman job
Has Fox ever had a real job
February 12, 2011
9 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
ccrider77 writes:
AAA: Fox and public employees don't pay SSI taxes because their pension is covered by PERS, but they also don't get to draw Social Security. An employee who has worked private sector and paid SSI for their 40 quarters AND paid into a qualifying 401K or other retirement account gets both.
There are very few golden parachutes when you work as a public servant.
Now, should the residents of Thousand Oaks subsidize retirees who didn't adequately prepare ahead & save enough for their future? As the saying goes: "A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part."
February 12, 2011
9:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
fibus writes:
Fox is completely wrong.
There are far better manufactured home laws in parks than Thousand Oaks.
First require the park owner to open his books.
Then mayor Fox should read the first book by Adam Smith.
Smith was first a moral philosopher then a political economist.
February 13, 2011
12:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reply to this post
nickeq writes:
what do you expect from some one/ city that abused having 2 theaters to not meet in council chambers that would accommodate all and cost tax payers a lot less
They did NOT go to court against Bednar who is kicking them out on the street
The ORDIN was NOT well written, followed up on that is why these guys are coming after the retd. tenants Primary job of a city just like the zoning They do NOT do that and charge $4400 to appeal a decision and $3200 for a plan check fee RE: New wine place which Office Max vacated as our rents are 50% more than Oxnard Northridge
These guys do not have any inkling about the real world especially the TOP city staff!!
Read more: http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/feb/12/thousand-oaks-mayor-discusses-rent-with-of-home/#ixzz1DpDzYKN8
- vcstar.com
He hopes the settlement and their savings will be enough for a down payment on a fixer-upper, preferably in Conejo Valley.
ReplyDelete“Thank God for the last years I’ve been working,” Martinez said.
Tom Vlachos, a seven-year resident of Conejo Mobile Home Park, may be a rarity here. The 85-year-old retired engineer said he owns three homes in addition to the mobile home he lives in.
“I’m not losing any sleep over it,” Vlachos said of the park closing.
Vlachos said he plans to stay another six months at the park and look for a home in Conejo Valley to buy. If he doesn’t find one, he said he’ll evict a tenant in one of his homes and live there.
Few residents of the park are so unfazed.
Joseph Douglas, 52, said he and his family will likely walk away with nothing from the mobile home they bought three years ago for $64,000.
His relocation allowance is $19,000, but Douglas still owes $17,000 on his mortgage. Although Myers tried to persuade his bank to accept $14,000 for his mortgage and forgive the rest, the bank has not budged, he said.
To stay another six months at the park will cost Douglas 10 percent of his allowance, or about $2,000, leaving him penniless after paying off his mortgage.
Myers said she’s still working to get Douglas’ mortgage reduced.
Douglas’ family is among five in Conejo Mobile Home Park with a mortgage on their homes, she said. Douglas said the number is closer to a dozen.
Myers said her goal is to convince banks to forgive home loans on coaches so owners can leave with at least $7,000 in their pockets for their next home.
She said she helped one park family leave with $6,000 after she persuaded their bank to accept only $10,000 of their $18,000 mortgage.
“I will find a home for everybody,” Myers said. “In 40 years, I have never had anyone end up on the street, and that’s their biggest fear.”
Conejo MHP timeline of events
• 2005—Closure of Conejo Mobile Home Park is announced by owner Joseph Bednar. He indicates he wants to build a medical office building and an assisted living facility on the site. • January 2006—City Council adopts two-year moratorium on closure of mobile home parks. • Summer 2008—Residents convince city to adopt mobile home park initiative. It changes the park’s zoning and requires voter approval before it can be changed again. • Feb 2009—The park owner files a complaint for damages and equitable relief in Ventura County Superior Court. • January 2010—Park owner wins his case. • February 2010—Council approves closure of the park.
Mobile home park owner is no Santa
ReplyDelete2010-12-09 / Letters
In response to the Dec. 2 letter, “Local Santa comes to aid,” I am truly happy for the elderly woman at Elms Plaza who got a replacement home from Joe Bednar, but to call Bednar “Santa” for a mostly selfish act is profoundly wrong.
Mr. Bednar acquired the mobile home in question by displacement of Conejo Mobile Home Park residents during the closure of the park. He gave the mobile home away because he then didn’t have to pay for the removal or disposal of it.
This holiday season Mr. Bednar is evicting more than 100 people from their homes. These people are seniors, disabled and low-income families with children. He has taken so much from the residents of Conejo Mobile Home Park, and the devastation he has caused will be felt for a long time.
This park officially closes on Dec. 31.
This is what Joe Bednar, the socalled “Santa,” has brought me and the other residents of Conejo Mobile Home Park for Christmas. Beth Martak Newbury Park *Editor’s Note: See related story on page 11.
Conejo Mobile Home residents granted another six months
2010-12-09 / Community
Park was to close this month
By Michelle Knight
knight@theacorn.com
Residents of a Thousand Oaks mobile home park say they’ll take advantage of a reprieve that allows their park to stay open another six months.
Conejo Mobile Home Park was scheduled to close Dec. 31, but park owner Joe Bednar agreed to postpone the closure until June 30 next year.
Bednar said last Friday he plans to redevelop the property at 1200 Newbury Road but was unsure what would be built there. He referred questions to Mecky Myers, the relocation agent he hired at the city’s recommendation to help park residents find housing.
Park residents have received relocation allowances averaging between $15,000 and $20,000.
Myers, who’s been assisting residents since August, said she’s worked hard to educate them on their options, win their trust and allay their fears about finding housing.
“When I came, I was amazed at how much confusion there was,” Myers said.
So far, she said, she’s found better, more permanent housing for three of the 22 families at Conejo Mobile Home Park. For one fam- ily, she negotiated down the price of a mobile home in a different Conejo Valley park from $44,000 to $30,000 and another family from $30,000 to $25,000.
Myers said she’s helped one family of five and two senior citizens add their names to a waiting list for government-subsidized housing and hopes they’ll have homes by the spring. An official with Area Housing Authority said the waiting list comprises some 6,000 names.
Myers said Bednar agreed to her suggestions, which included postponing park closure for six months and paying residents relocation allowances before Dec. 31.
After the holidays, Myers plans to help seven park families start prequalification procedures for home loans. Some could qualify for first-time homebuyer programs.
“So far everything has gone really, really nicely,” Myers said last week.
Roberto Martinez, 37, said his family plans to use Myers’ help to search for a traditional home to buy starting in January.
Martinez, a carpenter, and his wife, Sarahi, a nursing assistant, had planned to live with their three children at the park long enough to build equity in their two-bedroom mobile home when they bought it seven years ago.
The couple has remodeled the interior since buying the home for $60,000 in 2003. After Bednar announced plans in 2005 to close the park, they quickly paid off their mortgage. To relocate, the Martinezes received $16,000, a loss of $45,000 in equity.
“When we found out we felt bad; we worked so hard to get the money and now it’s gone,” Martinez said.
He hopes the settlement and their savings will be enough for a down payment on a fixer-upper, preferably in Conejo Valley.
“Thank God for the last years I’ve been working,” Martinez said.
more same story
ReplyDeleteTom Vlachos, a seven-year resident of Conejo Mobile Home Park, may be a rarity here. The 85-year-old retired engineer said he owns three homes in addition to the mobile home he lives in.
“I’m not losing any sleep over it,” Vlachos said of the park closing.
Vlachos said he plans to stay another six months at the park and look for a home in Conejo Valley to buy. If he doesn’t find one, he said he’ll evict a tenant in one of his homes and live there.
Few residents of the park are so unfazed
TOACORN 02242011 Warns of immobile homeownership
ReplyDelete2011-02-24 / Letters
Let’s work to phase out immobile homeownership.
This is the kind of ownership where people, usually retirees, buy a mobile home and rent the land it sits on.
This kind of ownership gives the mobile homeowner a feeling of security, feeling a lease assures yearly cost-of-living increases only.
Most parks maintain the roads and common areas. Some parks do this beautifully while others seem to allow some dangerous park conditions.
The park owners seem to become increasingly aware that they are not allowed to increase the rents as apartment or rental property landlords are able to do. As business rentals skyrocket, mobile property owners are stuck with low-income renters.
Over the years, many mobile park owners have tried to overturn every rent regulation that does not allow them to raise rents. They failed with Proposition 199.
The facts are: Mobile homes are not mobile. They are prohibitively expensive to move even if you could find a location to move them to. Park owners feel they are not receiving a fair amount of return on their investment.
Here are two solutions: 1. Get a financial agency to appraise the land, dividing the value into equal amounts for the number of occupants renting, or 2. Allow each occupant a 20-year loan to buy their land. The cost per month would be less than rent as four places would fit on a 1/3 acre at $500 per month per acre.
This would give a return of $6,000 per month per acre. I am 86 years old, widowed this year and a WWII veteran myself who feels this arrangement of owning my mobile home and not owning the property should never have happened.
Thank you to anyone for looking into this problem and finding a solution. Lois Reimers Newbury Park