Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mobile Home Rent Stabilization topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mount Shasta council directs staff to gather facts on reported mobile‑home park rent hikes
Summary
Following public comment alleging steep lot‑rent increases and newly‑itemized utility fees at three local mobile‑home parks, the council voted to direct staff to collect rent histories, owner data and applicable state rules and return with recommendations.
Councilmembers heard public testimony alleging that an absentee owner has acquired three mobile‑home parks within city limits and increased lot rents and itemized fees that had previously been included in rent. Residents asked the council to study rent stabilization or a temporary freeze on hikes.
A resident from Shasta Horizons Mobile Home Park said the increases threaten seniors on fixed incomes: “For many residents, especially seniors, on fixed income, housing now consumes more than half of what we earn,” the speaker told council during public comment.
Resident Richard Barway read figures for his space, saying the lot rent rose from about $4,841.80 to $5,722.80 (figures read aloud by the speaker) after the sale and that a newly listed $18.50 water fee appeared even though the park is served by two wells rather than city water.
Councilmembers repeatedly identified the first step as compiling objective numbers. “Step 1, which is the numbers instead of adjectives. Get a situation review,” Councilmember Jeffrey said during discussion. Councilmembers asked staff to collect baseline data from residents and the owner, to document historical rent increases and any fees that were previously included in rent, and to review applicable state regulations referenced by commenters (meeting participants cited a 10% annual limit as a recent state standard).
Council moved to direct staff to gather facts about the reported rent increases, fee changes and state rules; the motion passed by voice vote. Staff said the work will include contacting the city auditor and city attorney about legal avenues and whether county enforcement or civil remedies apply. Council discussed that adopting local rules stricter than state law would require a full findings process and public hearings and could take many months.
No rent‑stabilization ordinance was proposed or adopted at this meeting; council’s action was limited to directing staff to gather information and return with recommendations.
