JANUARY, 2016
Sundance MHP is now appealing at the downtown San Diego California State 4th DISTRICT COURT the outrageous 2013 rent increase decision that we got. The 4th District Court can have far reaching effects to most Rent Control Jurisdictions at Cities or Counties, for how to analyze the Public Hearing evidence that is presented. Our Escondido City Council, acting as the Rent Review Board to administer the 1988 Prop K Escondido City Citizen Referendum that was upheld 9-0 in the U. S. Supreme Court in 1992, stated at our August 28, 2013 Public Hearing, that they did not read (or consider) the 250 + pages of “evidence” that the Sundance MHP Residents submitted to plead our case to them at OUR three (Aug 28, Sept 11, and Oct 16, 2013) Public Hearings!
The RRB cut-off our resident podium statements in mid-sentence during the 1st and 3rd Public Hearings, and refused us access to our Sept 11th RRB Public Hearing, even though they deliberated our fate at that Public Hearing also. The RRB violated their own “guidelines” for allowing the residents 5 minutes to address them, and allowed only 2 minutes at the first RRB Public Hearing when they made the unsupported rent increase decision. That 2 minutes was much too brief to state any solid, logical arguments, and they did not look at our 2 months of submittals to them as allowed by the PROP K law.
The RRB also mostly ignored Dr. Kenneth Baar’s Report for our Public Hearings. He is a lawyer and economist who has testified in many California COURT proceedings as a certified expert and he has written extensively since before his “1983 Rutger’s Law Review” (Vol. 35 page 816) studies that we have included in our Court Proceedings!
The three-Judge 4th District Appeal Court panel will have a staff to study our issues to make an independent decision that should not be related to any political decisions (as in, how much money the MH Park Owners may or may not have directly donated to the individual Escondido City Council Members’ 2010 and 2012 election campaigns) . We are looking for an impartial and fair Judicial decision in August through October 2016 instead.
CHAPTER 1212, SUNDANCE MHP, ESCONDIDO
JANUARY 19, 2016
The Goleta City Council adopted a Park Closure Ordinance on Tuesday, January 19. Homeowners from Goleta parks have been working with City staff throughout 2015 to craft the ordinance. Leaders of the project include Sharon Rose, President of Chapter 1172 at University MHP. On the night that the ordinance was adopted, homeowners spoke out about issues they still had with the ordinance as drafted, and were able to convince the City Attorney and Councilmembers to agree on two items and compromise on a third. See News Around the State for an article published in Noozhawk.
CHAPTER 1172, UNIVERSITY MHP, GOLETA, and HOA officers from RANCHO ESTATES, GOLETA
JANUARY 19, 2016
[ED. NOTE: Although the park in this story does not have a chapter, I believe that their story needs to be told; and members of three chapters in the Santa Barbara / Goleta area have been instrumental in organizing support for the residents of this park during their long battle.]
Residents of Nomad Village in Santa Barbara appeared before the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors on January 19 for a hearing on their five-year-long rent raise case. In 2011, the residents were given notice of a rent raise of $161. They appealed, and went to arbitration. More than a dozen expense items were listed by the park owner as justification for the rase. The arbitrator awarded almost all of the items to the park owner, and the residents again appealed. The matter came before the Board of Supervisors in 2012, and the Supervisors overturned most of the awards which had been given to the park owner. Their reasons for overturning most of them were that the arbitrator did not give adequate findings (evidence) for his decisions. The park owner countered with a lawsuit, which dragged through the courts for the next three years. All this time the residents have been made to pay the rent raise, because this is how our rent control ordinance is written. Finally, the judge remanded many of the items back to the Board of Supervisors, and the County Staff made recommendations that the Board remand most of the items to the arbitrator for more adequate findings for his original decisions. Staff recommended that the other two items be “affirmed” by the Board, meaning that these two items would be added to the rent. But the homeowners alleged that in both cases this amounted to trying to treat ordinary expenses like capital expenses, and a number of homeowners speaking from both Santa Barbara and Santa Maria at the hearing were able to convince Supervisor Janet Wolf to disagree with the County Staff on its recommendation for those two items. The Board voted to remand those two items to the arbitrator along with the others. This means that the bouncing ball is now in the arbitrator’s court. The hearing with the arbitrator is set for February 17.
Reported by ANNE ANDERSON, CHAPTER 49, RANCHO SANTA BARBARA, SANTA BARBARA
