Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Housing Rent Stabilization topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Residents ask Lake County supervisors to consider mobile-home rent-stabilization ordinance

2242154 · February 6, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Residents of Lake Village Estates and Clear Lake Oaks urged supervisors during public input to pursue a rent-stabilization ordinance for mobile-home parks, citing pass-through charges, financial strain for seniors and alleged owner violations.

Gail Delaine, a Lake Village Estates homeowner, asked the Lake County Board of Supervisors during public input to "come up with a rent stabilization ordinance" for mobile-home parks across the county.

Delaine said her park owner has imposed pass-through charges for park improvements and that residents pay costs typical of homeowners — insurance, water, sewer, taxes, utilities and trash. She cited Sonoma County's ordinance as an example, saying it limits rent increases to "70% change in the consumer price index, or 4% of the previous year's rent, whichever is less." Delaine asked the board to consider countywide protections for mobile-home park residents.

John Martin of Clear Lake Oaks, who identified himself as a resident and homeowner at Lake Village Estates Mobile Home Park, urged a rent-control freeze and a lower allowable increase for seniors. "These corporations are destroying people's lives," Martin said, and said residents are filing complaints with the state. He also told the board he had identified an apparent violation of the Health and Safety Code referenced in the meeting as "18603." Martin asked the county to investigate the park owner, which he named as Boa Vita, and to check the company's compliance with county business licensing.

Supervisors did not take formal action during the public input period. Speakers asked staff and elected officials to consider ordinance options or other assistance; no direction to prepare an ordinance was recorded in the public input remarks.

Speakers asked for county investigation and enforcement of stated violations and urged legal or regulatory remedies; those follow-ups, if any, were not announced during the meeting.