Corporate investors buying mobile home parks

[Tiny]

I've been reading rumblings of this (corporate investors buying mobile home parks) for about the last 12 months.   
(Got a friend who has a trailer in a park that's primary aim is "vacation/second home" summer camp themed.  It's not intended for year round living - but you could do it. When the pandemic hit they were spending more "off season" time at their "trailer" - it's a single wide with an addition added to it (a bedroom/2nd bathroom), an enclosed deck and another not enclosed deck, and a large "storage shed, there's even a firepit area.  They keep it up and it seems like a great place to go for a weekend or week long get away with family/friends)  and I was intrigued by the idea  and even looked at actual not "vacation" themed parks/manufactured home parks in Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee  - to see how the numbers worked out for a full time live in trailer would be a good "rental property" or kind of "airbnb" rental.  And it's an unregulated "wild west" kind of thing... no two parks are the same.  I decided it wasn't a good fit for me - too much knowledge to acquire to do it in multiple places) 

Welp, it looks like Corporate investors have discovered the unregulated wonderland that are most trailer parks.      

This isn't going to be good...  it's estimated 22 million American live in "trailer or manufactured home parks".    Where they may own their "home" trailer/manufactured home but rent the land under it.    It's that land rental that's the issue... as the parks get purchased the monthly rent was raised - sometimes astronomically.    (FYI: trailer park rentals were NOT included in the pandemic rent freezes or forebearance to the best of my knowledge).       There are potentially millions of low income Americans facing higher rents - maybe to the point that they can no longer afford their home.   And they may not be able to afford to move their home to another rental lot.     

The nicer wealthier people who live in and own their trailer/manufactured home - may be able to preserve their community (by literally buying buying the "park" making it a co op of sorts)  but what happens to the smaller mom and pop parks when they sell out to corporate investors? 

I'm just gonna say - this has got slum lord written all over it.  The corporate owners raise rents and then do little or nothing to infrastructure of the park (which the land rent is intended to cover).  Or to any of the trailers they take over when they evict residents who can't pay the rent and who can't move their trailer.    What's going to happen to these communities?  Especially if they were "keeping their heads above water" and provided reasonable, safe, places to live?       

Is this a push for corporations to claw back money from the Government via Section 8 subsidies?   Are these parks being purchased so that they can be torn down and rebuilt with single family homes?   Something else?   

And where will the people (who more than likely have jobs  or are living on SS) going to live if there is no affordable housing    Remember that number?  22 million Americans living in "trailer parks" or "manufactured housing parks".    How many of them will be adversely effected by this??


www.nytimes.com/2022/03/27/us/mobile-home-park-ownership-costs.html

www.npr.org/2021/09/03/1033910731/why-are-investors-buying-up-mobile-home-parks-and-evicting-residents

For millions, owning a home in a mobile home park is an affordable housing option. But some companies are buying up parks, raising fees and evicting people. And the government is helping them do it.

Just a thought -  if the lower income families/people cannot afford to live in these trailer parks - who are the Corporate investors planning to target their new rental properties to?   Lower/mid level middle class people/families who have been pushed out of the single family home market??     Does this mean the Middle Class gets even smaller?  (as some of it migrates to lower upper class (they can afford a house or an expensive apartment) and the rest move down to refurbished manufactured housing (and hope someday to move up to a rented apartment or small SFH??) 


 Any feelings or thoughts on this??      

Is this where the government gets pressured to provide "basic income" for millions of people so they can afford a place to live? 

[happyhoix]

I read something about this a while back. Mom and pop parks that tried to cultivate a sense of community being bought out, and suddenly the land rents go up and the amenities disappear. The one I read about lost their pool and some utilities - I think cable and water used to be provided. One woman in the story had to get a bank loan to pay for moving her trailer somewhere else.

The new corporate owner was claiming the park was run down and they had to raise rates to make the improvements but there hadn’t been any improvements.

Corporate sharks figured out how to make money from a bunch of people who likely don’t have a lot of political clout.

[bookkeeper]

I just read about this on the local news in AZ.  This trailer park is about ten miles from our winter home. 

www.azfamily.com/2022/09/07/apache-junction-mobile-home-residents-blindsided-by-sudden-rent-spike/


Land has become more valuable as the urban sprawl heads east of the Phoenix metro.  Apache Junction has become very popular with the RV winter visitors.  We have toured new parks with a relative who brings her RV for a month.  I have no doubt that the investors who purchase these parks do so with urban renewal or a new purpose for the land in mind.

Driving around Apache Junction, there is a lot of substandard housing in these parks.  I feel for the people who only have minimal housing and then it becomes completely unaffordable.  We see people who are living in an old motorhome in the desert because they are almost homeless.  This is how tent cities begin.  

[giramomma]

Sure politicians can run on platforms of affordable housing. It's good optics. But, nothing will come of it.

[bean29]

I am thinking they should bar Corporations from owning residential real estate or limit it in some way, to make it less profitable.  Allow more regulations if it is owned by a Corporate entity?  

That said, as a landlord We own just one rental now + the (single tenant) building my husband's office is in, I am generally against government doing things like prohibiting eviction for non-payment of rent.  Our rentals are part of our retirement portfolio and have a profit goal just like any other, but I think we should explore incentivizing individual ownership of residential real estate vs. Corporate.

[TheOtherMe]

It's been happening around here for several years.  The standards for the mobile homes are changed with little notice and the rent is raised to amount where people already living there can't afford to stay.  

I have read that in Boulder the tenants of the trailer park have been able to buy the park by forming a cooperative.  The problem with doing that is finding a lender as these people do not have cash sitting around to buy a mobile home park.

[jerseygirl]

There’s a trailer park in Malibu right across the pacific coast highway. They sell for $millions!

[Bonny]

Sept 8, 2022 17:09:42 GMT -5 jerseygirl said:

There’s a trailer park in Malibu right across the pacific coast highway. They sell for $millions!

Jim Rockford's home! 

On a more serious note, many trailer parks in CA are regulated because of the affordability issue. 

[Tiny]

There are a handful of trailer parks ("trailer park" is such a loaded word I hate using it but I can't figure out a better word...) near me. One is target marketed to low income retirees. One seems a little sketchy to me - it's got a gravel road as the entrance. The other ones are "gated communities" with "Ranch" or "Club" in the name and appear to have well maintained trailers, parking and green spaces and a community center/pool. I think all of these have at least 100 'lots' probably more it's a little hard to tell from google maps (and I did a quick estimate.)

I'm not sure my area is a target for corporate buy out as I think maybe the land is worth more to the corporate buyer than the actual trailers/income from the property.

[Bonny]

Sept 9, 2022 11:48:59 GMT -5 Tiny said:

There are a handful of trailer parks ("trailer park" is such a loaded word I hate using it but I can't figure out a better word...) near me. One is target marketed to low income retirees. One seems a little sketchy to me - it's got a gravel road as the entrance. The other ones are "gated communities" with "Ranch" or "Club" in the name and appear to have well maintained trailers, parking and green spaces and a community center/pool. I think all of these have at least 100 'lots' probably more it's a little hard to tell from google maps (and I did a quick estimate.)

I'm not sure my area is a target for corporate buy out as I think maybe the land is worth more to the corporate buyer than the actual trailers/income from the property.

But that's why some of the investors were buying the parks here. Underlying land value with the idea of "flipping" it through a rezoning process. Now it's much harder. I think they must go through a relocation/buy out process.

We had some changeover in my town. I think the corporate owner bought out the old trailers and installed new ones and rented them out. I'll have to ask my friend the former Planning Director how that worked out. And I did run into a guy on the trail of my big hike who was flipping old trailers. I didn't think you could make much money on them but he does by financing them.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Sept 9, 2022 11:48:59 GMT -5 Tiny said:

There are a handful of trailer parks ("trailer park" is such a loaded word I hate using it but I can't figure out a better word...) near me. One is target marketed to low income retirees. One seems a little sketchy to me - it's got a gravel road as the entrance. The other ones are "gated communities" with "Ranch" or "Club" in the name and appear to have well maintained trailers, parking and green spaces and a community center/pool. I think all of these have at least 100 'lots' probably more it's a little hard to tell from google maps (and I did a quick estimate.)

I'm not sure my area is a target for corporate buy out as I think maybe the land is worth more to the corporate buyer than the actual trailers/income from the property.

That's what rich people like Gates and Bezos are doing with farmland here.

They buy huge swarthy of it then quit allowing it to be farmed.

But they do nothing with it.

They get massive tax breaks because it's still classified as farmland and continue to hold the value of it.

Must be nice to be so rich you can rip off farmers for the sake of tax sheltering.

At least with the megacorps they do usually contract the land to be farmed. Still driving out small independent farmers but at least some are still making money.

Gates buying it all up only enriches him. And I'm a bad American because I'm not bowing down at his awesome prowess at utilizing capitalism.

[pooks]

I don't like the whole idea of not owner the land under your house.  In Baltimore, the rowhomes used to have something called ground rent.  Somehow the city was able to force the sale of the ground, if the owner of the house wanted to buy it for a nominal fee.  

Otherwise my experience with trailer parks is the one close to me, in which each parcel of land is owned, not rented.  Right now that trailer park, which was built in the 1970's is turning over.  When a trailer home sells, the new owner usually removes the trailer and builds a small stick built house on the lot.  It is a slow process, but the land has become valuable enough to make it work out.  And the owners of the parcels are making more selling at land value.  

My city also just bought a trailer park to stop it from going to buyers who would either raise the rents or repurpose it.  Moving a trailer usually isn't an options when a park closes.  Just seems like another way to rip off the poor. 

[Bonny]

Sept 10, 2022 10:38:06 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Sept 9, 2022 11:48:59 GMT -5 Tiny said:

There are a handful of trailer parks ("trailer park" is such a loaded word I hate using it but I can't figure out a better word...) near me. One is target marketed to low income retirees. One seems a little sketchy to me - it's got a gravel road as the entrance. The other ones are "gated communities" with "Ranch" or "Club" in the name and appear to have well maintained trailers, parking and green spaces and a community center/pool. I think all of these have at least 100 'lots' probably more it's a little hard to tell from google maps (and I did a quick estimate.)

I'm not sure my area is a target for corporate buy out as I think maybe the land is worth more to the corporate buyer than the actual trailers/income from the property.

That's what rich people like Gates and Bezos are doing with farmland here.

They buy huge swarthy of it then quit allowing it to be farmed.

But they do nothing with it.

They get massive tax breaks because it's still classified as farmland and continue to hold the value of it.

Must be nice to be so rich you can rip off farmers for the sake of tax sheltering.

At least with the megacorps they do usually contract the land to be farmed. Still driving out small independent farmers but at least some are still making money.

Gates buying it all up only enriches him. And I'm a bad American because I'm not bowing down at his awesome prowess at utilizing capitalism.

Interresting. Here in CA in order to qualify for a property tax break you must enter into a contract with your county. It's covered by the Williamson Act. It was done to preserve farming as well as other uses including Open Space. They generally run for 10 years and can be terminated if the use isn't being met. I spoke to the county offical who administers these contracts and we really got into the weeds about differents uses and how different buildings types are calculated differently. According to her there was one person here on the Coast who was buying up lots and claiming they were being farmed but doing nothing. Someone ratted them out and they lost their special tax status and had to pay back the incremental difference.

If you care enough about it you might check with your taxing authority to see if they have a similar program. 

[tskeeter]

Sept 10, 2022 10:38:06 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Sept 9, 2022 11:48:59 GMT -5 Tiny said:

There are a handful of trailer parks ("trailer park" is such a loaded word I hate using it but I can't figure out a better word...) near me. One is target marketed to low income retirees. One seems a little sketchy to me - it's got a gravel road as the entrance. The other ones are "gated communities" with "Ranch" or "Club" in the name and appear to have well maintained trailers, parking and green spaces and a community center/pool. I think all of these have at least 100 'lots' probably more it's a little hard to tell from google maps (and I did a quick estimate.)

I'm not sure my area is a target for corporate buy out as I think maybe the land is worth more to the corporate buyer than the actual trailers/income from the property.

That's what rich people like Gates and Bezos are doing with farmland here.

They buy huge swarthy of it then quit allowing it to be farmed.

But they do nothing with it.

They get massive tax breaks because it's still classified as farmland and continue to hold the value of it.

Must be nice to be so rich you can rip off farmers for the sake of tax sheltering.

At least with the megacorps they do usually contract the land to be farmed. Still driving out small independent farmers but at least some are still making money.

Gates buying it all up only enriches him. And I'm a bad American because I'm not bowing down at his awesome prowess at utilizing capitalism.

Interesting that you view rich people buying farm land as a ripoff.  You argue that the rich get tax breaks because what was farm land is taxed as farm land.  Is there something wrong because the land is taxed as farm land, both before and after the sale?  I always thought real estate taxes were based on how the property was used, not the relative wealth of the owner.  Next you argue that rich farm land owners take the land they bought out of production and this is somehow a disadvantage for farmers who continue to farm their land.  My Economics professors taught us that if you reduce the supply of a product (such as by taking crop land out of production) you increase the price buyers will pay for the product.  This sounds like Gates and company are indirectly providing a benefit to other farmers, not screwing farmers over.

By the way, the idea of the small independent farm is pretty much a fantasy.  My cousin married into a Southern MN farming family.  Their family farm consists of 4,000 acres of owned crop land, 3,000 acres of leased crop land, and a hog operation that raises over 50,000 hogs a year.  Heck, even back in the 1890’s my maternal great, great Grandfather’s farm was over 800 acres and my paternal great, great Grandfather’s farm was about 700 acres.

[TheOtherMe]

At this moment, my sister and her husband own and farm 300 acres of land on two properties.  One is across the road from the other.  They split of the house many years ago so if they lost the farm, they don't lose the house.

Their son, DN2, bought about 150 acres of farm land in another county last November.  It's land only as the house was sold separately.

He has been trying to buy land for some time but always got outbid.  

BIL's brother has the old home place that he and BIL used to farm together.  They now share machinery, etc.  However, that has changed has DN2 has a different outlook on machinery for harvest and planting crops.  His belief is that by buying cheap equipment that needs fixed up to even use it and breaks down costs too much time during crucial times of the year.  Time is money so he is only buying newer equipment.  It also means they no longer have to wait for the brother to be done with the equipment they need to use.

My nephews tell me DN2 is managing the farm and the operation is running much smoother and more efficient than when dad did it.  Of course DN2 doesn't have to watch The View before he goes out to work.  

They are trying to keep the small family farm alive.  

In addition to growing corn and soybeans, they raise hogs in a hog confinement.  I can't tell you how much I dislike animals raised in confinement.  

The article I found when I googled said that Gates owns about 600 acres in Iowa and over 20000 in Nebraska.  He is supposedly trying to come up with "green" ways to farm.  I hope he figures it out because the water quality in Iowa has been destroyed by farming and all of the runoff from animals and chemicals.