Westminster : Law on Mobile Park Conversions Debated

A contingent of mobile home park residents has urged the city Planning Commission not to change the city’s park conversion law that requires park owners to relocate renters to a comparable area or buy their coaches.

About two dozen elderly residents who attended a meeting Monday told the commission that without the law’s protections they would be forced to leave the county or be left homeless. About 11% of Westminster’s residents live in 18 mobile home parks.

But park owners said the law has to be modified because of a new state law that calls for “reasonable relocation costs to be paid to tenants” should a park’s land be converted to other uses, such as apartments or office structures. The state law will go into effect Jan. 1.

Norman McAdoo, part owner of Kensington Gardens mobile home park, said the current conversion law is “anti-conversion.” He said park owners could not convert their parks under the ordinance.

Lee Miller, owner of Los Alisos Mobile Home Park, said the city law must be changed because it is “in excess of state law.”

Planning Department spokesman Michael Bouvier said commission members will probably “loosen up the conversion law to bring it more into conformity with the state law. I can’t see them making it more strict,” he said.

The city law allows for a conversion for health and safety reasons, for conditions beyond the control of a property owner or for public necessity and convenience.

If a conversion is approved, the park owner has to determine the financial impact on each tenant and provide adequate compensation. The owner must relocate each tenant to a comparable park with similar job and school opportunities.

The conversion ordinance was passed in 1983 after the city passed a rent-control law in 1981 governing rent increases for park residents. The rent-control law required arbitration in cases of proposed rent increase where a majority of tenants objected.

The council rescinded the rent-control law last March. Tenants then filed suit against the city to reinstate the ordinance but lost each round, including a hearing before the state Supreme Court.

The courts ruled that the rent-control ordinance was unconstitutional and said the city had improperly delegated its authority to an arbitrator. The courts also ruled that tenants had to pay back rent to park owners totaling an estimated $1 million.