Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Manufactured Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents, advocates and lawmakers clash over bills on manufactured‑home park rules and rents
Summary
Lawmakers heard hours of testimony on a package of bills aimed at manufactured‑housing communities, centering on rent parity, corporate ownership, and residents’ protections; public testimony sharply divided owners/operators and residents of parks owned by out‑of‑state companies such as Hometown America.
Lawmakers on the Joint Committee on Housing heard hours of testimony Tuesday on a cluster of bills aimed at manufactured‑housing communities, focusing on rent rules, ownership changes and protections for long‑term residents.
The measures — including House Bill 14‑75 and companion proposals such as H 15‑13 and S 9‑90 — were the subject of repeated public comment from residents of Oak Point, Millers River Woods and other communities who said large, out‑of‑state corporations are raising lot rents, charging surprise assessments and failing to maintain infrastructure. “These people who live in these communities are deeply concerned,” said former state senator Michael (last name) during testimony noting years of work on manufactured‑housing law. “This is very critical. It’s gonna impact thousands of people.”
Why it matters: Manufactured‑home parks provide a significant share of attainable homeownership for seniors and low‑ and moderate‑income households across the Commonwealth. Testimony showed sharp tension between resident groups seeking statutory guardrails — including uniform rent rules and caps linked to CPI — and industry representatives and trade groups arguing for clarity following a state Supreme Judicial Court decision (Blake) and cautioning against local boards with sweeping authority.
Supporters of tighter tenant protections urged the committee to reject H 14‑75, saying the bill would allow “disparate rent” and retroactive changes that would harm fixed‑income seniors. Lou Giglio, president of the Oak Point Homeowners Alliance, told the committee current law requires owners to “charge similar rents” for similar lots and amenities and said the bill would “attempt to change the language” to allow different rates based on move‑in date. Several Oak Point residents said the same services are provided across lots while lot rents differ by hundreds of dollars per month.
Industry representatives including Melissa Caren, executive director of the Massachusetts Manufactured Housing Association, and Andrea Knowles, an attorney representing Hometown America, said that the Supreme Judicial Court’s Blake decision left open factual questions at many parks and that H 14‑75 would provide needed clarity. Knowles said the bill “is very narrowly tailored to resolve the disruption and uncertainty that Blake caused” and that it “preserves the equitable assumption that once a base rent has been set, any increases will be applied uniformly to all tenants of that class.”
Residents and municipal officials urged legislative action that would prioritize resident protections and transparency. Former senator (name) who authored 1993 reforms — which enabled resident purchase of parks — recommended an omnibus approach to update multiple statutory gaps and warned that investor ownership and rising insurance costs threaten community stability.
Discussion vs. direction vs. decision: The hearing recorded extensive public comment and debate; the committee accepted written testimony and asked for additional materials. No committee votes or formal actions were recorded during the hearing.
Ending: Lawmakers signaled appetite to continue work on manufactured‑housing measures; advocates on both sides asked the committee for additional hearings and written submissions so drafters can reconcile tenant protections, municipal oversight and legal clarity after Blake.
