On Thursday the Delaware state House unanimously approved a bill that would rob the owners of manufactured housing parks, of their private property rights.
This bill has seen many manifestations in the past, and some prefer to call it rent justification, when in reality all this is, is rent control, plain and simple.
It is the government stepping in and telling the rightful owner of a property how much they can charge for rent of that property.
The bill will now return to the Senate where it was already approved, since it was amended in the House, and if it is again passed in the Senate it will require only the signature of Gov. Markell, and why wouldn’t big government Jack sign it?
Each time a park owner wishes to raise the rent of their property, they would be forced to apply, one might say, come begging, to the Delaware Manufactured Home Relocation Authority for “PERMISSION” to do so. This so-called authority, would then use the arbitrary formula of the Consumer Price Index for urban consumers in the Philadelphia-Wilmington area for the preceding three years.
The park owners would have to demonstrate that the cost of maintaining their parks had risen more than that index in the preceding twelve months, if not, then the government would deny their right to raise the rent on the property that they own. This formula means that the landowners would always be behind the curve of rising cost.
If on the other hand the owner can prove that cost have risen enough to satisfy the “AUTHORITY”, then the “Authority” would determine an appropriate rent increase.
My friends, this is a most dangerous precedent for the state of Delaware to set concerning property rights. This is the state saying that as an owner of a property, you have no rights.
One has to ask, why just manufactured housing? Why not rental properties of all kinds? Why should any landlord be allowed to raise the rent of their property? How long before some feel good legislator decides to expand this heinous takeover of private property? Why just rental properties? Why shouldn’t government just take over all decision-making of any and all rates and charges incurred to rent or own a dwelling? Come to think of it, why should some be allowed to own land and homes when everyone can’t? Maybe government should just confiscate all property and then decide how much rent each person must pay to the government to live there. I bet you one damned thing for sure, if government were the landlord, there would be no rent control formula.
This legislation stems mostly from malcontents in the Long Neck area of Sussex County. This is an area with a large number of manufactured housing parks, and to a large extent these parks are populated with move-heres. People who have moved here from other states, some of these states had rent control, so you would think that these people would know the effect that rent control has on the areas that it is instituted in. The quality of life will see a down turn, property values will decline. Those who can afford to, will move out of these areas. Park owners will reduce the number and quality of amenities that they offer within the parks. Some owners may decide to sell the parks to developers and thus forcing the renters to relocate.
The truly ironic part of this, is that I have been to several candidate forums in the Long Neck area, and many of the same people and organizations that scream about protecting our rights and freedom, are some of the same people and organizations that are pushing for rent control, and in doing so, robbing the land owners of their rights and freedom.
To the renters, I would say, be careful what you wish for. You now have two masters, the park owners still have some options to reduce their overhead and protect their profits, of which I don’t think you will care for any of them, and second you have just invited government to play a larger role in your lives. Don’t be surprised if the government suddenly takes a larger interest in these parks, and begins to mandate improvements, said improvements will raise the cost above the CPI and thus will give the park owners that which they need to raise your rent.
The fact that any of you living in these parks actually think that you should live there without facing the increases that every other person in the world faces, confounds the mind. Hope you enjoy your new and improved way of living.
Unbelievably ignorant no facts comment. These billionaires/millionaires use the elderly, working poor, union retirees, and poor as cash cows. they put NO money into the infrastructure of their parks, its all profit. Continuing to raise the rents is pure greed! Some parks have sewers backing up into our homes, some have water so filled with nitrates they have buy it. Some have electric power not upgraded since the 1960s’ if you turn on a hair dryer, your electric blows if you also use the toaster! These greedy pigs care nothing about their tenants. Its like living in the 1600’s under feudal land barons. Our homes are on a postage stamp pc of property. When I bought my house my rent was $4000 that was 6 yrs ago, today its over $6500! Parks have rules and regulations written by their attorney which are not uniform or standard, and they use those rules to go after tenants. Those rules would be considered unconstitutional if a judge reviewed them. If they cant get you out of YOUR house for being behind in rent, they will use those unconstitutional rules against you…if you don’t have an attorney you will leave without a home. We are not permitted under the rules to have another person or family member move in with us to help with the rent. but they can steal your house and rent it for 3 times more than the lot rent…this is a greedy bunch of millionaires who must be reigned in. Rent justification is not rent control…only a moron would think that was true.
Liz, it’s nice to hear from you too. You state that what I wrote has no facts.
Well help us all out here.
Let us look at what Liz has written. Liz says,
“Some parks have sewers backing up into our homes”, really Liz? This is one of the tried and true retorts, though it has varied to include sewers running in the streets, but I have yet to have anyone using it tell me exactly which park. So Liz, name the park where sewers are either running in the streets, or backing up into the homes, and can you prove by facts that it is a result of the landowner’s negligence, or just the individual home owners over use of toilet paper?
Now let us look at Liz’s next gem,
” some have water so filled with nitrates they have buy it. “, and how exactly is that the fault of the land owners?
Liz goes on to say,
“Some have electric power not upgraded since the 1960s’ if you turn on a hair dryer, your electric blows if you also use the toaster!”
Liz are you actually claiming that if you use your toaster and hair dryer at the same time that the power in the entire park goes out? Or do you mean that individual homes have this issue, if so that again is not the fault or responsibility of the land owners. It means that you are living in a home that is in need of upgrades and that is your responsibility.
Liz says, “Our homes are on a postage stamp pc of property.” Now Liz certainly you are not saying that the land owners are actually shrinking you lot size, are you? The lots are the same size as when you moved in are they not?
And now Liz proves what I said above with this comment,
“Parks have rules and regulations written by their attorney which are not uniform or standard, and they use those rules to go after tenants. Those rules would be considered unconstitutional if a judge reviewed them.”
You see, Liz touts the Constitution, while seeking to rob the land owner of their rights. Of course they have rules and regulations Liz, how do you think the parks would look without them. Do you want more junk cars in driveways? Maybe you are okay with people never cutting their grass. The reason they are not uniform is because the parks are owned by private INDIVIDUALS! What you are seeking is a centralized regulator, GOVERMENT.
By the way, the Constitution only relates to laws passed by government, not to rules passed by private land owners, at least until you and your fellow travelers get your way.
As for this statement, “We are not permitted under the rules to have another person or family member move in with us to help with the rent. ”
You should go up to Georgetown and take a look at what happens when 15 or so, “family members” get together to pay the rent.
So rent justification is not rent control huh? Yeah Okay!
Your use of the term ,millionaire, shows you have class envy, you are jealous of those who have worked to create something for themselves and their families.
Liz thank you for being the first to comment on this topic and for being such a shining example of exactly the type of person I was speaking of.
By the way, in doing my job, I travel through many of these parks, they very in degrees of upkeep, but I have yet to see sewer running in the streets, I await your telling us which parks have that issue.
Millionaires and Billionaires Liz?
Most manufactured housing community owners are “mom and pop” operations that are often barely making the bills or at best moderately successful. It’s very rare that you find individuals making millions, much less billions.
Have you even considered the costs that those community owners incur? Their taxes increase every year, their maintenance costs increase annually (not every manufactured home on land is owned…many are rented out)…and they have to weigh and balance those costs against the ability of their tenants and potential tenants to pay.
Of COURSE rent justification is rent control…the government, in either instance, get the final word on the rent. Forget what the property OWNER wants/doesn’t want.
Now I sympathize with the home owners and renters of manufactured homes on leased land. Honestly I do. I’ve been there. And I don’t think it’s fair or right for a landlord to jack up their rates and force people out and off the property that they’ve staked their claim on and been given lease permissions for. However, I get hung up on “property rights”…what good are they if it’s not absolute? No one should ever, EVER be forced to allow someone on their property whom they don’t want there (without a warrant). There HAS to be a common ground to come to on this but I don’t know what that is. I wish I did.
For me, I have to side with the unalienable right to property…but also expect the property owner to do the appropriate thing and do right by the residents. Forcing them to do or not do something with their own property just is not the answer.
Tuxamus Maximus is a landlord (and hopefully a nice one) and honestly sees both sides of this problem. Liz states: “We are not permitted under the rules to have another person or family member move in with us to help with the rent. but they can steal your house and rent it for 3 times more than the lot rent…this is a greedy bunch of millionaires who must be reigned in.”
Tuxamus Maximus would like to see the lease agreement she has with landlord.
Tuxamus Maximus does limit the number of people that live in a dwelling for the simple fact that he doesn’t want to see 15 to 20 living under one roof built as a single family dwelling (the issues can run from serious plumbing issues to water usage that is way out of line).
Tuxamus Maximus will (or one of the property managers) usually allow additional tenants if they pony up a DEPOSIT so they have a dog in the hunt and take care of the property as well but Tuxamus Maximus doesn’t get involved with mobile homes for many reasons!
Tuxamus Maximus wonders why the tenant can’t reasonably negotiate with landlord? The answer to every question id NO until it’s asked and the nicer the question is posed the better the chance of getting a reasonable response.
Mr. Knotts and Reality Bites pose some interesting responses and request some interesting backup from Liz. I’d like to read the responses/proof. Proof is imperative!!!
No offense to Liz, I actually want to see what’s offered up as proof rather than conjecture but the bottom line is that I don’t understand why anyone would put their home on another lot and not expect rent to rise as time passes. Yes we have responsibility to the tenants but only as far, in Liz’s case, everything that is outside the home…MAYBE. If the hair dry goes out when the toaster is on…maybe the circuit breaker needs to be replaced…it’s NOT the landlords problem when it’s INSIDE the door of the home. If you don’t have even Phase 2 power…work with the landlord to make it happen. being nice can pay off at times. Electrical problem inside your home is YOUR problem. It’s YOUR home!
Tuxamus Maximus wonders as well…why would anyone buy a home and put it on someone else’s property and not expect to see rent rise over time? DUH. If I owned land and you put your trailer on it and moaned and groaned about every little thing??? I’d raise rent so I could wave goodbye to a problem or let the problem pay more for the privilege of being a pain.
PROOF is needed Liz.
Ripoffus Maximus owns the land doesn’t want to pay the infrastructure costs ie 2 phase wiring to each lot, sewer/water eyt wants to dictate how many people can reside in a home not owned by him. Then Ripoffus Maximus says he will raise the rent to drive a homeowner out. Ur a Slum Landlord says Ripoffus Maximus personifies why laws like the one currently in the legislature is needed.
Person who calls themselves, “ur a slum landlord”, wants to live at the beach in a park with waterfront and boat docking, with a pool and tennis courts, with walking paths, and paved roads, they don’t wan the rent to ever go up, and they want the landowner to pay for everything.
It is because of people like, “ur a slum landlord”, that no new parks are even being considered. And that is why there is no free market competition to keep the rent lower.
All it amounts to currently is 21st century serfdom.
Simply put ur a slum landlord wants land developers to incur all the expenses of developing their privately owned land.
Frank wants the “government” TAXPAYERS to incur the expenses of Lord Maximus Ripoffus developing his useless piece of property into a profitable one by footing the cost for the sewer/water, electric, roadways the bare essentials for buildable lots. Frank then says Lord Maximus Ripoffus shoud be able to charge homeowners whatever he wants for the “infrastructure”. Frank conveniently forgets the taxpayers not Lord Maximus Ripoffus paid for the infrastructure when the land was developed.
UASL, is mixing metaphors. Your hatred of all things successful is showing. First of all, the infrastructure within the parks was paid for by the land owners and then recouped by requiring people to pay rent to live there. You know the free-minded people who chose to move their 1950’s single-wide “MOBILE” homes into the parks.
Of course any improvements will be paid for in the same way, the landowners will pay up front and recoup the cost through the rent paid. You know the capitalist model of free market. Yearly increases in up keep and maintenance will cause the rent to go up as well. If USAL is talking about infrastructure improvements outside the parks that taxpayers do pay for, well those would have been made no matter if they were running past a developed park or a corn field, at least with the parks there, there are more tax payers to spread the cost over. And don’t forget, the land owner is also a tax payer.
UASL would have the landowners eat those increases until some unaffected government “AUTHORITY” decides that the landowner has lost, “ENOUGH”, then they can raise the rent.
USAL wants the world on a platter, and then someone to wipe the dribble from the corner of their mouth.
But what USAL and the others pushing this agenda are going to get is government up in their business in ways they did not foresee when they decided to run begging to “KING” government, you haven’t seen serfdom yet, but you will.
Emotions aside, this will be the tennants undoing. By the creation of the oversight to ” justify increases” you have given the land owners a mechanism to give you the shaft and break it off.
Want the road paved, sewer upgraded, water treated and nitrate free? That costs millions if not billions. If the land owner presents that to the oversight, it would surely ” justify the increase ” they are seeking. If the cost is too high, the park will be found in violation of other state agencies and when the upgrades can not be paid for the park will close and you will be landless with a portable house with no where to take it.
It is a loseing proposition for the tennants, not the land owner who would then be free to re-develop their land into a more profitable, possibly county subsidised infrastructure up grade for other uses.
If you believe in conspiracies, the overwhelming support by pro land owner elected officials should indicate to you tennants that it was not compassion for your poor choices ( house on leased property ) that drove this bill.
Clearly a case of be carefull what you wish for.
“many of the same people and organizations that scream about protecting our rights and freedom, are some of the same people and organizations that are pushing for rent control,”
Yes and yet they cannot discern the hypocrisy that they practice. Everthing for me, but not for thee. That’s really the ruination of today’s conservative, failure to practice what they preach.
Regardless, the arguments always seem to focus on the margins – rich land (park) owners (of which there are several in Long Neck) and poor people. The reality is somewhat different. The argument should be focused on private property rights and the public good.
Every property owner has rights to use their property as they wish, but those rights are not unilateral. In exercising their rights, if they impact the public, in terms of infrastructure (think roads, wasterwater, etc.) the public, in the form of government has rights as well. Consequently, one cannot exercise their private property rights to the detrimant of the general welfare of the public or other private property owners.
It is true that those who set up house in a MH park have an obligation to understand what they are committing to. Personally, I would never plop a home on land I don’t own because I know I can’t move it and would be forever held hostage to a possibly capricious land owner. Still, many people have done just that, in some cases out of perceived need (no alternatives). In other cases because they believed it would be cheaper. I don’t understand the latter belief, since the laws of supply and demand dictate price. Still it is what it is.
The question is, faced with the reality of escalating lot rents contrasted with limited income, what serves the public good with a minimum of constraint on the individual land owners? And let’s be clear, it is right, just, and correct to constrain the use of private property for the public good, unless one were to go so far as to suggest that their neighbor has the right to dump toxic wastes in their backyard, and not even the most ardent liberatarian, fringe conservative would buy into that.
I abhor “rent” control and believe in a supply and emand economy. However, I also recognize the concept of the public good and recognize that there is always going to be tension between individual (property) rights and the public good.
Consequently, I reluctantly support some method of managing the escalation of lot rents. HOWEVER, I also believe that we (although I already knew this) should learn from these experiences and make whatever changes are necessary to mitigate this problem in the future. For example, to mitigate the ignorance of people who buy MHs and intend to put them on someone’s else property, I would mandate full disclosure by the park owner, and the MH sellers, that lot rents are subject to constant increase. I would also mandate that MH sellers inform potential buyers of the average cost to move a MH home. Finally, I would require buyers, to sign these notifications that they were so informed and recognize the financial impacts of buying a MH home. This will not prevent people from screaming about rent increases, but it may force them to think about what they are doing before they do it.
“detrimant” should have been “detriment”
News flash- the government knows all and tells all regardless of the facts and the failures of the policy.
Every aspect of an owners land is regulated by some government entity such as DNRC ets so if conditions are in violation there is a process to follow and seek redress. If the conditions are so sub standrad the ultimate control is with the renter, you may sek other living options.
If Landowners greedy but then so are the renters. The landowners want to raise the rents to market rates and the renters want to pay less than market rate, so who is really the greedy one?
Rent control in the end will hurt the renters who will find the best option for the landowners is to sell the land for what ever zoning specifications will allow. Public good is never served when individual rights are abrogated by government fiat.
Dave, I am not sure your “public good” argument is a good idea in this case.
In my view arguing the public good would apply if the park owner’s actions affected the property that was contiguous to theirs, or if their actions affected the community (not the specific mobile home community) in general.
In this case raising the rent only affects the people who entered “FREELY”, into a private contract with the park owner. Raising the rent does not affect the farmer next door, nor the person who rents in another park even.
If we are to use Dave’s logic of “for the public good”, then why can’t the government step in and force me to lend out my spare room to a homeless person? After all I am just being greedy in not providing a shelter to someone at whatever rate they deem affordable.
The true cause of this is government. Regulations that restrict putting mobile homes on smaller privately owned lots, is what makes it near impossible to move some of these homes out of the parks, or to allow actual competition with the parks. If people had the option to buy a small lot of their own, rather than renting, then the lot rents would have a free market control upon them. Competition!
So the people seeking the government’s intervention are simply seeking the wrong solution from the correct source.
To me rent justafication or control is a form of entitlement. Irony is that these folks abhor govt. intervention or entitlements….. unless it benefits them. Go figure.
As trailer park supervisor for Sunnyvale Trailer Park, I can assure you that Ricky, Julian, and bubbles are drunk and on drugs and they can’t even pay their current lot fees.
Does anybody know where I can get a little drinky poo around here?…………Randy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ozmz_3VdDSg
Tuxamus Maximus is Rolling On The Floor Laughing My A@# Off (ROFLMAO) for a number of reasons at the expense of ‘ur a slumlord’. If only “ur a slumlord” had understood what I’d written the writer had know I don’t own any trailers. Not even one. I don’t own land of which a trailer sits on the land. Would never get involved with that kind of tenant relationship. That’s why Jerry Springer has a show.
No trailer parks for Tuxamus Maximus. Tuxamus Maximus lived in one once long ago. Tuxamus Maximus prefers bricks and sticks.
Tuxamus Maximus (Lord Maximus Ripoffus) appreciates what Frank, Dave and Waterpirate wrote as they pretty well said all that needs saying and they all stated it well. Yet to see where Liz Allen has bothered to prove anything and “ur a slumlord” faults Lord Maximus Ripoffus for all his/her problems in life.
Tuxamus Maximus AKA Lord Maximus Ripoffus has only this advice to offer to anyone that doesn’t like the situation in which they live and don’t own both the home and the land. MOVE. Put the wheels back on and MOVE. It’s a free world and no one put a gun to your head when you signed any lease. MOVE. GO. LEAVE. KICK ROCKS. Take all the other BLIGHTS to the landlords property with you as well. Buy your own property and get everything you need for your home installed and then maintain it and when it breaks look in the mirror and tell that person your woes.
Tuxamus Maximus doesn’t want to walk in your shoes (long ago he did) again and you sure couldn’t walk in mine because you wouldn’t understand all that comes with owning property let alone a home, or homes, that hopefully appreciate in value (if the tenant is at least ‘gentle’ to the home) over time.
“Trailer Park Boys” was one of the best comedy series ever made, and Jim Lahey was a classic.
These guys will make you want to move into a trailer park just for the ambiance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyhXtVUROkI
“If we are to use Dave’s logic of “for the public good”, then why can’t the government step in and force me to lend out my spare room to a homeless person?”
Good point Frank. However, my reference to the “public good” was not in the act of renting a lot, room or whatever. It referenced the public good of resolving the existing issue and doing something to ameliorate its reccurence. I actually have little sympathy for those who buy a MH, with so little forethought that they could not foresee these lot rent increases. “Lack of planning on your part does not consitute an emergency on my part” However, when the impact is greatly felt by many, society must deal with the issue in some manner for the public good. It is ever thus in a democracy, where choices must be made between absolute liberty and the need to have a functioning civilized society.
So I opt for some form of “rent control” but with additional requirements that MH home buyers must be told and understand what the impacts are by park owners and MH sellers. They should be cognizant of these things anyway, but sometimes you have to hold people by the hand, use little words, and all that. The point is, I recognize the existing problem and am willing to do something relatively moderate but more importantly, I want to prevent its recurrence.
Dave, What you wrote is great. In a perfect world it would be perfect or at least close to it. I don’t deal with mobile homes or lots. If an individual, or family owns a plot of land and wants to put a mobile home/dbl wide on it that is a choice they make. I’ve been in many over the years and some are really NICE and if not told otherwise I wouldn’t have known some were dbl wides at all. Maintained and treated well either can be a great way to enjoy owning a home.
Homes and apartments is what I rent. I hate the apartments although they usually provide a great income they are a lot more trouble. A few examples involving just a simple thing like toilets. If you break the tank off a toilet YOU BROKE IT and it’s going to be paid for by you. How tenants can say it’s my fault the toilet broke, or state “I don’t know how it happened is beyond my wildest comprehension. I’m over 50 and yet to break my first toilet tank….or seat. I’ve been cussed out when a tenant gets an invoice for a new toilet THEY broke. Property managers have been ‘told’ they need to replace toilet seats because one broke. Really? I’ve replaced those cushioned seats in my home that were nice until the vunyl broke and it wasn’t fun to sit on but learned my lesson and no more of those seats on any toilet I own. If they want a cushioned seat they can put it on and give us the old seat. We’ve been ‘told’ we had to replace light bulbs! We don’t. they can sit in the dark. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. I could go on and on but the bottom line is you can’t teach stooooopid. They feel entitled just because they pay you rent. I’ve replaced toilets and not billed in the past and will in the future. Recently replaced 36 upper level toilets because it was easier to replace all of them with new Toto’s that will not overflow and cause extensive damage. long run I save money. Now have 35 perfectly good toilets for use as replacements when over sized people break tanks off and they can pay me $150 for the replacements I’m paying to store in a storage unit.
If tenants (not all by any means) didn’t feel entitled, had a least some working knowledge of what it means to own, and maintain, something other than a car maybe your idea would work. But the real world won’t let that happen. Pie in the sky but I do like your thinking.
Tuxamus Maximus likes Dave’s thinking most of the time but this one just won’t ‘flush’. Sorry…couldn’t pass on that one!
One more thing and it’s off topic. DE GOP going belly up is almost funny if it weren’t so sad. Forest/trees kind of thing. Real Republicans out there that just can’t open wallets to bullies like DA. But like I wrote earlier…you just can’t teach STOOOOPID.
Property rights if abrogated for public good should come with adequate compensation to the land owner.
I think the fundamental difference between your apartments, Tux and a double wide in a MH park is that if your tenants don’t like the arrangement (or don’t want to replace their bulbs) they can pack their bags and leave.
For a MH owner in a park, things are not so easy. It’s kinda hard and expensive to move of those things. It’s not quite a captive situation but it isn’t far off. The lack of alternatives is what drives me to my opinion. It’s not sympathy. Rather it is pragmatism. There are a great many people who cannot afford to move their MH or even abandon it and rent one of your apartments. On one hand, they should have known better than to get themselves in that situation. On the other hand, they may have had little recourse. I would find it difficult to have as my only response to them “Well it sucks to be you!”
I don’t like bail outs anymore than the next guy. Bailouts of any kind for anyone. But there are people who go hungry or are homeless. I’m not happy about it, but if they are hungry, I have to feed them. I’ll piss and moan about it, but I’ll do it because the alternative is to do nothing.
Dave, I too have come to value your opinion, if not always agreeing with it, however, I have to say that this idea of public good has the possibility of getting out of hand, and then you have to ask who gets to decide what is the public good?
Today it may a compassionate person such as yourself, tomorrow it may be a person more like myself who believes in individual responsibility, and the day after that it may be a person who has absolutely no compassion.
This is the problem when government steps in to decide what is and should be a private dispute.
First of all let me go back to my earlier point, that being, why only mobile home renters in parks? So if I rent on a private single lot, and I am just as “TRAPPED”, am I not as important to the public good? If I live in one of TAXI-MAXI’s apartments, am I not a part of the public good?
This legislation will only grow out of hand until government is setting all rent levels and those “FORCED” to rent will not only be at the mercy of “GREEDY LAND OWNERS”, they will also be at the mercy of the government.
Frank,
Excellent points. But to make what could be a long comment, short, let me say this. We all are personally responsible for ourselves, but as citizens (and human beings) we live in a society in which we recognize that we are our brother’s keeper as well.
But that bridge can indeed go too far and when considering the public good, we need to debate where that point is. We discuss the absolutes between personal responsibility and societal responsibility as if it is a binary condition between two poles. The reality is, things are not that black and white. It is a worthwhile discussion to have about where one draws the line and I don’t believe that a line once drawn cannot be redrawn, in either direction.
So let me caveat what I feel. If we created a better informed public, who recognized the pitfalls of buying an MH and renting in an MH park and even perhaps had the price of moving the MH home once included in price of the home. In short if we provided some corrective measures to the industry, I would be in favor or redrawning that line.
A short case in point. In Sussex County, if you were my neighbor and you built up your property several feet higher than mine so that all water flows from your property to mine, I have no recourse. There is no ordinance that says you cannot exercise private property rights in that regard, regardless of the impact to me. I can’t even sue you, because what you did was entirely legal.
I’m a fairly intelligent guy, but when I moved to Delaware a few years ago, do you think I knew that? Nope. It never entered my mind to even check something like that. Fortunately, I moved into a development where the developer controlled the building of homes. But if I had not, I would have been hosed in this county.
Personal responsibility is vital to our nation, but the public good is just as vital. The constant debate is where to draw that line. Sometimes “rent control” may benefit society. Sometimes it doesn’t. It shouldn’t be an automatic response. But neither should it be dismissed out of hand. “Buyer beware” is a good thing, but sometimes societal remedies are necessary. I’ll not criticize those who believe a remedy is inappropriate because as you and Tux have shown, there is validity to your arguments. But I am willing to engage in civilized debate on the issue because that’s how society and our nation should work.
Now, off to golf at Baywoods! (I love that course!)
“Now, off to golf at Baywoods! (I love that course!)”
I’ll be the guy in the white pickup pulling my mowers ,and yelling FOUR out the window, in the middle of peoples back swing . That’s always good for a cheap laugh.
Tuxamus Maximus or Taxi Maxi wonders why those that whined have yet to come back with anything even remotely associated with proof of the situations that offered.
Tuxamus Maximus also understands Dave and Franks opinions and although I have never gotten involved with the move of a mobile home I know it can be done. Don’t like the situation you’re in MOVE THE TRAILER or shut the pie hole and pay the rent. Every problem has a solution and now it seems government will be the solution for the homes on wheels.
1. caveat to the argument of like it, or move it. Is the lack of places to move it to. The county some years ago focused on allowing the construction of golf courses and denied the expansion or adition of more trailer parks. So it is really a monopoly since space in a new park with cheaper rent is not available, plenty of T times. It is a catch 22 unless the county will allow the building of more parks that the dissillusioned could move their trailers to. These people are still responsible for teir own bad decisions, but the rent control is not a free market solution.
Tuxamus Maximus understands waterpirates point but also wonders if somewhere in Sussex there isn’t a park that is willing to have the unhappy soles paying higher rents move the trailers in for much less in lot rent. Western Sussex? Somewhere not near the water? Is there no land for sale in Sussex? If they want to be in nirvana it costs money. A quick google search of Mobile home lots for rent in Sussex County comes up with 157 parks! Every problem has a solution. The solution may not be the one that makes the home owner happy but surely there is a solution that doesn’t include rent control. If it starts with trailers when does it apply to homes and other rental properties? Considering the state of affairs of the DEGOP I don’t see this getting any better for landlords anywhere in Delaware.
I think that may be the true reason for the buzz. They want the water view for what the lease was signed at, several or many years ago. Clearly a ” cake and eat it too ” situation.
New York has been under rent control since ’43. It seems to work well. There are no shortage of tenants, or millionaires in New York City….
Some of the people wanting rent control should read this CATO policy analysis. Rent control tends to actually reduce the number of available low cost rentals according to this.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-274.html
Sorry, nice try but not evean close. We allready have rent control, it is callled subsidised housing/ the projects. Your example of rent control in new yourk city just does not compare. In your example we will asume that the tennant owns nothing but the chattels and goods within. On long kneck the tennants own a portable house that has a title fro DMV and depriciates faster than a yugo. I can understand not forceing senoirs out of the city, but not forcing someone out of a park on the water with ammeneties provided to them that I must purchase in the free market does not sit well with people.
Tuxamus Maximus wonders where the people that posted earlier are now because he’s wanting to see the leases and read the PROOF. We’re all just banging our heads against the same wall here wondering why they moan and groan about rising rates. MOVE on out of the water views, near the beaches and next to the corn and soy bean fields. The money they save over a period of time will offset the cost of putting the wheels back on and MOVING. Free market based rentals should be what makes the rules be it trailers, apartments, homes, campers, tents, condos, hotels/motels or whatever one wants to rent. Are we done here yet?
Taxi-Maxi, as I said above, the government in this case is not the solution, but is the problem. Here in Delaware you can’t place a mobile home on a private lot unless you have a minimum of three acres. If the government would remove this restriction more of these people would have an opt out of the parks.
Well aware of the 3 acre lot rule and all I’ve got for that is there has to be three acres somewhere in western Sussex that is available. Near Burnt Swamp maybe? Water views there!
When people move here from some white trash industrial hell in Chester PA paying 700 bucks a month for 400 sq ft in an old building with gun fire outside, these water front trailer parks look pretty good. Its still feudal of course
Tunnell had so many expenses at his trailer empire that he had to open up his own bank and use bank funds for pay day loans to stay a float
Most of the trailer parks in Sussex County not owned by Robber Baron Tunnel are owned by out of state investment company slum lord parasites trying to squeeze the poor for ever more
OFFS!
Dragging up an old thread that deserved to die a dignified death? Are you under the thumb of a robber baron?
It’s showed up as a most commented thread.
No, but I peed on one of their beaches at sunset last night at Burton Point
Odd, as you claim the mantle of environmental stewardship.
It’s not like i pooped
So If I advocate for regulations for stopping developers from raping bulldozing every last piece of land and forest and then I pee on a deserted beach, my position is invalid?
Your position is not invalid, but I was hoping you were barefoot.
I was!