|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Mountain View’s mobile home park tenants scored a big win Tuesday evening, following a yearslong effort to get the city to offer more rent control protections and cap annual rent increases below the rate of inflation.
In a split 4-3 vote, the City Council approved limiting rent increases to 60% of the Consumer Price Index, with a 0% floor and 3% ceiling, at their meeting on Jan. 28.
Mayor Ellen Kamei and Council members John McAlister and Chris Clark voted against the motion, instead expressing a preference for the staff recommendation, which was to limit rent increases to 75% CPI with a 1% floor and 5% ceiling.
The current ordinance, which covers all six of Mountain View’s mobile home parks, seeks to protect tenants from unreasonable rent hikes while ensuring that park owners and landlords get a fair rate of return. It limits rent increases to the rate of inflation with a 2% floor and 5% ceiling.
The law went into effect in 2022, just as the rate of inflation soared, triggering the 5% ceiling for two consecutive years. Compounded over time, the annual rent increases have become cost prohibitive, according to mobile home residents, who say they are at risk of losing their homes.
“I’m 77 years old, a senior on a very meager fixed income,” said Bonnie, a Moorpark mobile home tenant of 26 years who spoke at the meeting. “Over time, the increases would compound to a rent that is absurdly high and would result in displacement for myself.”
However, Frank Kalcic, managing partner of Sunset Estates, pushed back on some of the claims, noting that park costs were rising with the rate of inflation.
“Park owners do not have a magic button that we can push that makes it smaller than the inflation rate,” he said, adding that it was not sustainable for parks to run on a percentage of the CPI.
Council members largely expressed support for the tenants, noting that mobile homes provided naturally affordable housing and served some of the community’s most vulnerable residents. But they differed on how far the city should go to protect tenants from rent increases, citing concerns about a fair rate of return for park owners and landlords.
“I think that we can make a fair representation to both sides with adjustments,” McAlister said, adding that capping rents at 60% CPI was not sustainable for mobile home parks. “We need to find that fine balance between the two so that the pricing, the rent, is reasonable, (and) the parks are well maintained and able to continue,” he said.
Similarly, Clark expressed concern about balancing the needs of tenants and park owners, while making the argument that if the council set the CPI too low, then park owners and landlords would likely petition for adjustments. “Those are unpredictable adjustments, and they’re permanent, and so what I don’t want to do is create more uncertainty for our mobile home park residents,” he said.
Clark also encouraged unanimity in the council’s decision to back the staff recommendation – a proposal that ultimately failed.
“Essentially, we only choose to be unanimous when we’re not standing with our residents,” said Council member Emily Ann Ramos, who strongly favored providing more rent protections for tenants.
Ramos also singled out the petition adjustment process, after hearing from park owners that it was too onerous. She urged the city to review the process, a motion that other council members supported as well.
Council member Lucas Ramirez asked the city to substantially lower the administrative fees imposed on park spaces, which is paid for by the park owner and much higher than other jurisdictions.
On balance, however, the council settled on offering stronger rent protections for mobile home residents, noting that they were burdened by space rents and utilities as well as mortgages, property taxes, insurance and maintenance costs.
“I do believe that rent stabilization is an important policy solution to the challenge of escalating rents when restrictive land use regulations impede the production of housing, which I think ultimately is the real solution to the crisis,” Ramirez said. “But in the absence of that, as a shorter, medium-term solution, rent stabilization has a role in protecting folks and helping people remain in our community.”
I love how the mobile homeowners are “burdened” by space rents and utilities….but somehow magically the owners don’t face any burdens whatsoever.
Lucas is a joker. Rent stabilization has been around for decades and he knows it hasn’t solved any housing problems. It’s not a medium term solution, he wants to keep it forever, or did have a specific point when rent control goes away? Will it ever?
Nobody is helping the market rate renters stay, why do mobile homeowners get some special protections? They already enjoy the fruits of Prop 13 which their landowner gets nearly frozen forever.
By the way, can Lucas put some egg price controls in place? People need to eat!
Thank you Emily Ramos for standing up for ALL residents.
Shame on Kamei, McAllister and Clark for supporting landlords/property owners over residents, but I guess someone has to fill in for MAK now, right? I guess these “residents” aren’t the ones that McAllister was referring to in his campaign literature. “Residents first” only includes McAllister’s neighbors and property owners around his childhood home, right John? Lucky you didn’t have to pay premium Waverly Park prices to live here – but you’re going to make sure everyone else does.
As for prop 13, let’s not forget about the landlord and property owners who have also inherited the majority of the real estate around here, keeping their taxes low (cough, cough John). They are literally raking it in, lining their pockets and turning a blind eye to our most vulnerable residents and VOTERS struggle.
Most landlords are small business owners, not large corporations. Like any business, when costs go up, whether from inflation, maintenance, or rising interest rates—they have to adjust prices to stay afloat. Expecting them to absorb every increase without passing it on isn’t realistic.
If landlords are forced into financial distress, they’ll sell. And when that happens, the new owner will absolutely raise rents—not just to cover their investment but also because they’ll be paying higher property taxes under California’s tax system. You’re already benefiting from Prop 13, which keeps long-term costs lower for existing property owners. A new owner? Not so much.
Instead of focusing on demonizing small property owners, why not advocate for policies that actually address housing affordability without forcing landlords out of business? Pushing them to sell won’t make things better, it’ll make things worse.
So keep pushing…yourself out of your own house. Keep it up. You reap what you sow.