Committee sends manufactured‑home protections to floor after heated debate over 3% rent cap and first‑purchase rights
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
S.F. 26‑91, a package to cap annual lot‑rent increases at 3% with narrow exceptions, establish resident purchase options and clarify owner duties, passed out of committee after extensive testimony from residents, housing advocates and park‑owner representatives and several failed amendments.
The committee recommended S.F. 26‑91 to the Senate floor following lengthy testimony and debate about proposed rent‑increase limits, resident purchase windows and enforcement provisions for manufactured‑home communities.
Senator Bolden, the bill’s sponsor, said the measure restores a reasonableness presumption to rent increases, establishes a 3% annual cap, creates clearer resident‑purchase processes, and strengthens enforcement of park‑owner responsibilities. Residents and housing advocates described predatory practices by some corporate park owners and urged protections to prevent longtime homeowners—who typically own their homes but rent the land—from being priced out of their communities.
Opponents, including the Manufactured Modular Home Association, raised concerns about property‑rights impacts, delays to sales, disclosure of confidential financial information and whether a 3% cap would allow owners to cover genuine operating or capital costs. Mark Brunner said existing 2024 notice statutes are operational and warned a right‑of‑first‑refusal regime could delay sales and invite litigation.
Committee members debated multiple amendments. A technical A‑8 amendment was adopted; a more substantive A‑9 amendment (which sought to broaden the standard for increases and change burdens of proof) failed in divided votes. A later proposal to allow a rent increase if a majority of residents pre‑approved it also failed.
Senator Bolton moved the bill to be recommended to pass and be sent to the Senate floor; the motion prevailed.
Supporters said the measure preserves affordable ownership for vulnerable households; opponents warned it risks underinvestment and legal complexity. The floor debate could test whether the compromise language withstands further amendment.