Park owners and their representatives are sure to argue that a rent ordinance is bad for everyone. Several opposition arguments are routinely made, and homeowners should be ready to respond to each. Consider these:
Park Owner Argument – Rent control is bad for residents, since it forces park owners to raise rents to the maximum allowed, and request a large increase where increases allowed annually by the ordinance are insufficient.
Homeowner Response – Where rents are rising, it is better to have a ceiling on rents rather than none at all. If the park owner does request a large increase, there must be a hearing to determine whether the rent increase is justified. Homeowners can rely upon the built-in protections of the hearing process to protect their interests.
Park Owner Argument – Rent control is bad for residents because it may compel the park owner to change the age guidelines from senior to family status.
Homeowner Response – This is not a valid argument, but is simply a scare tactic. Many factors are typically considered by a park owner before a switch to family status is made. Any owner who would make this decision purely due to the presence or absence of an ordinance is probably not exercising good business judgment. In fact, there are no statistics to support the notion that rent control forces the park owner to change to family status. But this may be threatened for the sole purpose of discouraging the homeowners from exercising their right to request an RSO.
Source: The GSMOL Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance Handbook, Second Edition: Guidelines for Drafting and Enacting a Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance.
Prepared by: Bruce
Stanton, Esq., Corporate
Counsel
Image courtesy of imagerymajestic at freedigitalphotos.net
No comments:
Post a Comment