I was shocked when I read Frank’s post dated 5/22/13. The post reads in part: “I think the key decision any park operator has to make is to become SAFE Act compliant or to get out of the “mortgage business” and just go back to renting homes. As long as you set reasonable rules for how repair and maintenance works, there really is not a big difference between renting and selling. The biggest difference between renting and “selling” – that’s the difference between an eviction and a foreclosure. To be honest, even if SAFE had never come to exist, we would have probably retreated to renting homes due to the difficulty in foreclosure.”
Having read the 10/20 book as well as the home study courses, renting rather than selling would seem to be a major change in the business model. I would be interested to know how this has impacted both the acquisition criteria and the operation of the parks. Do you now rule out parks with more than a couple of park owned homes? Do you still acitively do infill projects with new and/or used homes?
I look forward to finding out how this change in philosophy has impacted Frank and Dave as well as other park owners