All Forum Posts by: Gail Travers

Mobile Homes: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

Some educational video from John Oliver.  

My insider knowledge is not that at all.  We are clearly on the outside!  The purchase price is public knowledge.  It can be found on our county data base.  The payment structure with the family is also not a secret.  It is generally known in our community.

My point about capital improvements and it's relation to our rent is this:  This park was making a profit - we know that because there had been some earlier discussion about purchasing the park by the residents before SCI was even on the scene.  Plus, we can do math! In addition, modest increases that take cost of living and other indicators into consideration is a reasonable way to assure longevity among tenants.  The point about the "trailer trash" mentality is that it makes it easy to dismiss tenants as undeserving, uneducated, undesirable.  Hence, our concerns are discounted.  The comment about us getting a better deal somewhere else is evidence of the scorn.  Capital improvements are important  and need to be planned for.  We realize that.  But investors need to be paid, new parks need to be purchased and the experience of others in our situation (and in the research) has shown that improvements and concerns of tenants come last.  

We are hoping for a future that would include developing a co-op.  We are organized and active and that would be our best case scenario.  Nothing is stopping us!  

This is my opinion and mine only - functional communication requires listening, truthfulness, transparency, and an easing of threats. We hear from SCI via letters, most of which let us know that eviction is their right if we don't comply. We also follow blogs like this and are educating ourselves regarding investments in parks.   Name-calling, threatening messaging and using proxies to stand where the owners should has not worked for any of us.  The management company has met once with us.  There were no results of that meeting except our conceding that the new on-site manager seemed to be an improvement over the last one.  Following that meeting, nothing in the park changed. The emotional content is high with a lot to lose on both sides.  Sadly, communication consists of "if you don't like it, hitch your trailer to your truck and get out".  We resist.  It is becoming a quagmire. By the way, you can't hitch these places to a truck.  They are very difficult and expensive to move. 

The purchase price was found on our county website.  To be sure, I do not know how SCI financed this purchase except I do know the previous owner is being paid over time.  I don't even really care how they did it.  We are living through the aftermath of the purchase.  My purpose in posting on this site is to provide insight into what happens to people when parks become currency.  Oh, and also to call Brian Spear out on his use of Dr. Sullivan's extensive research to justify SCI's actions.  In some twisted way, I guess he thinks we should be grateful to them for "saving" our park!  I know life is not fair and there are winners and losers.  The losers here are the tenants, the greater Akron community, and New York State who will end up having to deal with our homelessness on some level.  We are currently working hard with legislators to provide protections for parks both locally and in NYS. We have become mobilized in the face of losing our community.  It is sad and emotional and scary.  But mostly, it is unnecessary. 

Also, SCI paid more than what this park is worth.  It is public information.  Maybe it was a bad business decision or maybe they misunderstood that Akron is a modest community with a modest average household income.  In Dr. Sullivan's book she quotes one investor who states, "there is a lot of money to be made off the poor." As high rent drives people out of homes, the community at large pays the price for homelessness and the resultant problems that accompany that experience.   Always, someone is paying the price and it is not the private equity firms who serve as owners.  The model that Dr. Sullivan advocates is cooperative ownership of mobile home parks.  That saves the homes that are already in existence and provides residents with the ability to remain independent in their own homes, free from the stress and resultant health and mental problems that accompany the constant threat of eviction.  Again, read the book based on 10 years of research!  It has been said by SCI that if we think we can get a better "deal" we can go somewhere else.  This is not about the "deal".   This is about breaking up communities that are functional and affordable and serve a very high purpose - safe, independent, non-subsidized housing for seniors, veterans and young families. 

I don't believe anyone expects the rent to stay the same.  Periodic increases are expected.  We all own our homes here.  Our homes are paid for.  It is nothing like not paying a mortgage.  A closer analogy would be property taxes going up 40%.  I believe most homeowners would do what they could to fight that type of increase.  This happened to another park near here - we have seen it all play out before us. Occupancy is down.  The value of the mobile homes has an inverse relationship to the rent - as the rent rises, the value of the home goes down.  The children of the people who have passed on don't want to be bothered and some homes have been sold for very small amounts.  The park is dying.  So much for saving affordable housing. 

I would be glad to address your questions.  The statements that run counter to the research of Dr. Sullivan appear on this forum above by Brian Spear.  He makes the point that SCI did not buy this park for redevelopment but instead is buying it to help conserve the available stock of mobile homes (the largest group of unsubsidized low income housing the US) for the future while making a nice profit for investors.  He argues that the lot rents charged by previous owners (a Mom and Pop operation) are artificially constrained and not up to market value.  As such, they are not able to set aside sufficient funds for inevitable capital improvements as the community ages.  Thus, the park falls into a spiral of neglect, eventually leading to the loss of affordable housing units.  He suggests that this has happened numerous times.  Dr. Sullivan devotes an entire chapter to this situation in her book.  The chapter, entitled Communities as  Currency within the Mobile Home Empire, makes the case that mobile home owners in parks are essentially a captive audience.  In addition, much of the "trailer trash" image that many people have of park residents is untrue. For example, per Dr. Sullivan's research, transience is not an issue in most parks.  In fact, the residents are deeply rooted - "mobile home residents are less likely to move than residents of site built houses.  The average period of home ownership is 10 years vs. 6 years for site built.  Annual turnover for rental mobile home parks is only 5% compared to 60% for apartments."  Pervasive negative ideas about mobile home parks and the residents in them allow marginalization.  Some of the comments from others here demonstrate that lack of regard for the hard work and sacrifice most of us have made to live in this formerly lovely and secure park.  The rent does not need to increase by 40% for future capital investment.  It was profitable before and modest increases are to be expected by all of us.  I recommend this book by Dr. Sullivan, Manufactured Insecurity to any investor who cares what type of industry their money supports.  

By predatory investment, I mean to imply that there is a power issue at work here.  Many of our residents are elderly (we have some who have lived here 40 years!!) and are not at a point in their lives to increase their income.  Others are disabled vets, some are young families.  All of us consciously positioned ourselves here to find a stable community at an affordable price.  This is NOT subsidized housing.  A rent increase of almost 40% is unconscionable.  We are low hanging fruit, sitting ducks, vulnerable.  Our power comes in sticking together despite efforts to scare us apart.

Lastly, by relationship I mean this:  All we asked for was an opportunity to meet with the owners to discuss our concerns.  So far, our overtures have been rejected.  Our communication is dysfunctional at best.  Seems that there could have been a better way.

Mr. Spear,

I suggest you actually read Dr. Esther Sullivan's 10 year ethnographic study on Mobile Homes, Manufactured Insecurity.  She told me personally that you cannot reduce 10 years of research into a 12 minute  TED talk!  Her research does not support your statements.  While it is true that the need for affordable housing exceeds the supply, she does not accept that predatory investors use mobile home parks as a source of passive income.  Indeed, she goes into great depth describing the negative impact on both the residents of parks and the community at large.  Please understand, you have done absolutely NOTHING to develop any kind of relationship between the residents of Akron Mobile Home Park and your opportunistic company, SCI.  In fact, you have used threats and fear to  intimidate us to get out.  While I agree that redevelopment has hurt mobile home parks, ours is not the case.  

Our downward spiral started when SCI purchased us.  

Please stop using bits and pieces of research that you spin to justify your actions.  These are transparent and ineffective towards making your point.  We and many others see right through you.

Gail Travers

Akron Mobile Home Park