Check this out: Schofield City Council revokes Northern Mobile Home Park license.
The city is shutting down this park.
It is interesting to me because, for one, the topic of tenant owned vs park owned. They were dinged on tenant owned. I agree, however biased, with them that it’s a tenant issue. The flow seems like the city should mark it uninhabitable, the place goes abandoned, owner can take over through abandonment process, trash or repair/get new CO. Thoughts?
It also brings up the topic of licensing. I worked with an attorney in WI on the park I just purchased. He said he has noticed an increase in cities trying to used licensing as a method to escape grandfathering/as a zoning tool. What makes a mobile home park required to get a license? What criteria generally is required? I would have just though more of a business tax as the county dept. of health and safety is given of the rights the city seems to be giving themselves. Thoughts?
@stevendsegal , thank you for sharing this article.
I found these parts of the article interesting:
“…The Schofield City Council voted unanimously Monday to revoke the license of Northern Mobile Home Park, 281 Grand Ave. The revocation will be effective Aug. 1, giving residents time to find new housing…”
“…Ruffi told the council that the park has a potential buyer. It’s currently part of CCI Real Estate Group, owned by Robert Merchant. He and the park’s off-site manager, Jeannie Stancil, are based around Oakdale, California…”
The City pulled License…what happened?
Where was the Owner & Manager?
Mobile Home Park = Wisconsin
Mobile Home Park - Owner = California
Mobile Home Park - Off-Site Manager = California
Can you always manage a MHP “Off-Site”?
In this particular situation the License is now gone…will they be able to get it back?
Sounds like a huge mess.
We wish them the best!
“A USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin investigation last year found the mobile home park was riddled with complaints about unsafe living conditions, a lack of responsiveness to previous concerns and limited oversight from local government authorities. The park has been contending with a list of 380 code violations, from piles of rubbish to illegal wiring.”
The above paragraph makes it seem like the owner had plenty of warning that there were issues and simply didn’t address them. Owning a park means YOU are responsible to make sure it is maintained and managed. There’s more to this than just collecting rents.
I don’t like the idea of governments being able to close down parks, but I do agree that as owners we can’t let them get so rundown that the city gets involved in the first place. In my opinion this hurts our industry as a whole and is part of the reason it’s harder to find funding. That whole “trailer park trash” stigma thing.
I agree with the other responses here - this park needs to be shut down because there is no management of it. The tenants were trained to treat their homes and property this way, and the city was forced to take action.
Whether it was legal for the city to do this or not is an interesting point, but regardless, it was worth the risk of them to test that given the issues they have been facing. If this was a park with just a few code violations then I suspect it would not hold up in court.
My opinion is that the city was not abusing its power as there was gross negligence and mismanagement by the owner that is posing a public health risk.
The city made the right decision. Take away the fact that this is a “Park” and the city would have a much easier job enforcing codes. Had it been a single home owner or a regular business the issue would be resolved much easier by the city. Parks and park owners are more difficult to deal with due to the reality that government must work through a business owner that has full control over the tenants lives. Tough decision, home owners will suffer, and the entire blame falls on the park owner.
In the end the city was forced to make a decision that ultimately will be the right one.
As community owners we have a responsibility to establish and enforce rules to maintain minimum standards. If we do not take on that responsibility we have no right to be community owners and should expect to be shut down.
Well here’s a “great” opportunity to buy it and turn it around. Owner’s asking price is only based on a 4.6% cap rate, including the POHs. Add on all the deferred maintenance, management headaches and shutdown threats, and you’ve got the deal of the century.
Unreal. They could have just filed the appeal with the agreement to find a buyer who is willing to fix it up and bail out of the mess for themselves. Makes no sense to me.