Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents tell Calimesa council new rent-stabilization rules may shift upgrade costs to mobile-homeowners
Summary
Multiple residents at the Calimesa council meeting said a recently changed rent-stabilization ordinance may allow park owners to charge residents for park upgrades, that approval thresholds are unclear, and that the Housing and Community Development department has previously cited a local park owner for code violations.
Several residents at the City of Calimesa council meeting on May 5 urged the council to clarify provisions in a new rent-stabilization ordinance, saying it could shift the cost of park upgrades to mobile-home residents and that notice and voting thresholds are unclear.
Larry Fraeckel (spelling in the record), a resident, criticized the ordinance’s process and said the rule permits a park owner to undertake upgrades and recover costs from homeowners if the change is approved. "What it doesn't say is...who pays for it," Fraeckel said, adding that the ordinance requires 51% approval but does not clearly specify whether that majority must be of all homeowners or only those who attend a vote.
Harvey Dalton, another resident, said the city should do more to inform residents about council meetings and said rent-stabilization decisions should not be “put in the hands of one person.” Donna Johnson, who identified herself as a resident, said the Housing and Community Development (HCD) department previously required a park owner, identified in public comment as Peter Wang, to correct violations and that the current owner was now seeking reimbursement of previously required repairs. Johnson said the owner is seeking reimbursement at 7.5% interest amortized over 15–20 years for work she said the prior owner performed and that the new owner did not complete.
All three speakers raised similar concerns: unclear notice language in the ordinance, potential for upgrades to be financed by homeowner loans rather than park-owner funds, and whether the 51% approval metric refers to all homeowners or only to those present at a vote.
Councilmembers did not take action during public comment. Staff and council members acknowledged the concerns and indicated policy and procedural clarifications could be considered through future agenda items or staff reports.
The speakers requested clearer notice language and fairness safeguards for mobile-home residents; the transcript shows these concerns were voiced during the public-comment portion of the meeting and were not part of a council agenda item.
