Two observations. First off, the new owner WAY overpaid for the park at 5.3mm, when its worth about 3.5 and secondly they seem to be trying to micromanage the place. Doesn’t really make sense to me. Thoughts?
http://www.bradenton.com/2015/07/18/5900854_palmetto-mobile-home-park-bans.html?rh=1
I would like to understand the rationale here as well. This doesn’t make sense to me. Is it a perception issue? I’m not following the logic given in the article.
The owner appears to be moving to upgrade the community. Not sure what the point is in blocking food delivery but may be to eliminate lowest income tenants.
Problem for tenants is easily solved by them picking up the food outside of the community.
Yes but could you imagine trying to explain to a judge why you were evicting them? I’m a firm believer in following the law, but come on.
The hope is probably that by making their lives miserable enough they will chose to live elsewhere. I have used this in the past as a initial stage to removing undesirables.
Otherwise owner will need to find justifiable cause.
My guess however is that the owner may simply be a arrogant pos that believes he can do whatever he choses as the owner. This is common with many landlords unfamiliar with the business.
At $400 the lot rent seems to be in line with the area. Don’t see how it could be a ploy to raise it.
Not probably looking to raise rent just get rid of specific tenant demographic.
Wow, this is very sad article.
Owners like this give other Owners a ‘bad’ name.
The New Owners are banning a ‘church from delivering free food to people on fixed budgets’.
The New Owners should be ashamed of themselves.
Money comes and money goes.
As per ‘PatK’ the New Owners Overpaid by 1.8 Million.
I hope that one day the New Owners are not in a position where they personally need help financially with food and they are denied access to it.
As per the newspaper article:
“Allowing the food bank in shows we are a caring community willing to help our neighbors,” Whitmore said.
If the MHP has an issue with a particular individual, they should spend their time on that particular individual.
The MHP should not be stopping others from helping their Tenants.
I would not be too quick to pass judgement on the park owner. The media has only reported one side of the story and all things considered I would not take either the media or the tenants at face value.
If the media prints a follow up we may find out more if they do not you can assume the story has been twisted for sensationalism value alone. There are many possible logical and justifiable reasons behind the actual events in question and at least one tenant statement indicates positive actions on the part of the owner suggesting a wait and see approach.
I believe there is more to the story than a owner not wanting food bank deliveries in the community.
I agree with the wait and see approach but this does seem extreme considering fixed income elderly.
“Jones, who has cancer and diabetes, lives on $883 a month Social Security and pays $405 for lot rent, $80 for electricity, $23 for water, $34 for telephone and about $50 a month for car insurance so friends can drive her to get groceries. Jones husband, William, died in 1994”
Help me out here Greg and Tiffany. What possible justification is there for not allowing a lady with cancer and diabetes and is clearly disabled to receive assistance from a church??
They were offered the chance to explain, and said “no comment”. If they had a good “other side of the story” they would have explained it.
I can see no “justifiable reasons” for denying a sick, elderly lady assistance from a church.
The church is dropping off the food at one residents car port where the residents then gather to pick up. The issue with the park owner is the situation is creating a environment that attracts rats, mice and roaches.
Meals on Wheels is also delivering food to some residents in the community directly to their doors without issue with management.
If the church delivers directly to each resident or have the residents pick up the food at the church across the road from the park the problem would be resolved.
The media glossed over and buried the facts because there was no story to attract readers. They then created their own version based on random statements from probably ill informed seniors. Typical of the media to sensationalise, twist and deceive to sell papers. The park owners are being unjustly treated.
Greg, initially the church was dropping off the food at one residents carport.
However, as per the article:
“After the park owner complained about the deliveries, the church boxed the food on site and brought it to homeowners. Some owners say they are now afraid to take the boxes, Jones said.”
The article continues on:
“The owner had her people follow the delivery trucks and mark down the numbers of the trailers who got it,” Jones said. “Now, no one will accept the food. They don’t want to be evicted.”
As per the article AFTER the Mobile Home Park Owner complained the church changed their process and boxed the food onsite at the church.
The church then delivered the boxed meals to the Homeowners.
It is a Non-Profit Meals On Wheels PLUS Organization run out of a church that is just trying to help others with the basic need of food.
It is sad when others who desire to help out are stopped.
Please let me state:
“There are always 3 sides to every story. Your side, their side and the TRUTH.”
Unfortunately, the Owner will not tell her side of the story.
However, there has been an outpouring of love and support for the Seniors in this particular MHP who need some extra help.
The following FaceBook page has been created to help the Seniors in this MHP:
As per the Facebook Page:
“Update: Food deliveries are being made today, 7/21/15”
Below is a comment on this Facebook Page from a ‘Resident and Home Owner in the MHP’:
Marsha K Elliott:
"As a resident and home owner in this park, I would like to thank everyone for the outpouring of support that has been shown for our senior residents.
I would also like to thank everyone for understanding that the food delivery issues is not the only problem we are having with this owner.
Unfortunately this all started because she has a personality conflict with a resident and is trying to get them evicted but has no valid reason that she can take to court, everything has snowballed from there. There is very little that comes out of the owners mouth that can be considered truthful.
Her favorite comment is “I owned this park and I will do what I want”…
Again, I understand that:
“There are always 3 sides to every story. Your side, their side and the TRUTH.”
We wish everyone the very best!
The “Truth” is very seldom one side but rather a combination of all sides.
The tenants will get their food, the park owner will continue butting heads with the tenants, the media will lose interest and life will go on.
Trials and tribulations of new ownership.
Greg, with all due respect. What would her liability insurance carrier say? If I was a blood sucker I’d take this class action discrimination case in a heartbeat. No one in their right mind would want to stand in front of a jury and try to justify this.
I absolutely guarantee it would be settled out of court.
Discrimination doubtful but not my park so I really don’t care, just a power struggle between new landlord and tenants, it will all work out in the end.
When park owners ask me the number one thing they can do to reduce their business liability risk, I tell them to have a reasonable and well thought out set of park rules, then consistently enforce it. Unreasonable or onerous park rules both upset tenants and generate more work for management while producing no good.
Problem has now been resolved. Turns out the initial problem was caused by a conflict between the tenant organising the food deliveries and the manager. When pointed out tenant was in violation of community rule the tenant dug in and the battle began. Tenant then went to media with misleading information to win battle. Most tenants involved were also fed misleading information and made assumptions that were incorrect.
Bottom line who was the real cause of the problem the tenant for not respecting the community rules or the manager for attempting to enforce the rules. Now seems to be growing support of manager from community.
Poorly handled all around but community owners must implement and enforce rules to protect community.
KurtKelley, you are obviously very knowledgeable.
KurtKelley, your following comment follows Florida’s Laws:
“When park owners ask me the number one thing they can do to reduce their business liability risk, I tell them to have a reasonable and well thought out set of park rules, then consistently enforce it.”
As per the 2015 Florida Statute:
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
Title XL
Chapter 723
Real And Personal Property
Mobile Home Park Lot Tenancies
723.061 Eviction; grounds, proceedings.-
(1) A mobile home park owner may evict a mobile home owner, a mobile home tenant, a mobile home occupant, or a mobile home only on one or more of the following grounds:
(a) Nonpayment of the lot rental amount…
(b) Conviction of a violation of a federal or state law or local ordinance…
(c) Violation of a park rule or regulation, the rental agreement, or this chapter.
1. For the first violation of any properly promulgated rule or regulation, rental agreement provision, or this chapter which is found by any court of competent jurisdiction to have been an act that endangered the life, health, safety, or property of the park residents or employees or the peaceful enjoyment of the mobile home park by its residents, the mobile home park owner may terminate the rental agreement, and the mobile home owner, tenant, or occupant must vacate the premises within 7 days after the notice to vacate is delivered.
As per (c) a MHP Owner may evict a Tenant for:
“(c) Violation of a park rule or regulation, the rental agreement, or this chapter.”
As per the 2015 Florida Statute the ‘Act’ or ‘Violation’ has to have been:
“…an act that endangered the life, health, safety, or property of the park residents or employees or the peaceful enjoyment of the mobile home park by its residents…”
I would be very surprised if “any court of competent jurisdiction” would rule that a Non-Profit Organization delivering food to needy residents “endangered life, health, safety, or property of the park residents or employees or the peaceful enjoyment”.