Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Manufactured Housing Protections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers weigh bills to give mobile‑home residents first‑right to buy and post‑disaster protections
Summary
Two related bills by Sen. Allen—SB 1092 and SB 1093—would give residents of manufactured‑home communities a limited right to match an accepted sale offer and require owners to provide clear post‑disaster communication, property access and environmental review before closures. Supporters cited Palisades fire survivors; park‑owner groups warned of legal and financial consequences.
Sen. Allen told the committee SB 1092 would give mobile‑home residents or their designated representative an opportunity to match a sale offer when an owner intends to accept a sale, with defined timelines (including a 120‑day organizing period) and support to secure financing. Residents displaced by recent fires testified the bills are aimed at preserving long‑standing communities that provide affordable homeownership opportunities.
Zelda Lumbrecht, a Palisades Bowl resident, described losing her home in the 2025 fires and urged the committee to pass SB 1092 so residents “get a fair shot to save the place we call home.” Ryan Sears of Neighborhood Partnership Housing Services described survey results showing severe financial loss and lack of communication following the fire and said the bill is a practical tool to let residents organize to purchase their parks.
Opponents including the Western Manufactured Housing Owners association and the California Mobile Home Park Owners Alliance argued the resident‑purchase right could constitute an unconstitutional taking, devalue parks, and raise due diligence and financing barriers for prospective buyers. They urged the committee to reject or substantially amend the bills.
SB 1093 would require park owners, after a declared disaster, to communicate on a clear timeline, enable resident access to salvage belongings once it is safe, require environmental testing before final closures, and evaluate relocation feasibility and community economic impacts prior to redevelopment. Owners warned the access requirement may create liability and that many destroyed parks are not rebuilt because displaced residents do not return.
The committee debated provisions including indemnity and the scope of environmental and economic reviews. Committee members expressed sympathy for displaced residents and acknowledged implementation challenges; the author welcomed working with stakeholders to refine indemnity and feasibility language. The committee moved SB 1093 to the judiciary committee with a motion; the roll call included mixed ayes and nos and the bill was placed on call for further processing.
