A Lot Is At Stake for Both Sides in Mobile-Home Park Rent Issue : Election: Measure A would cap annual increases at three sites in Laguna Beach.

As voters ready for a special election Tuesday to decide if a mobile-home park rent-control law should go into effect, activists on both sides predict grave consequences if they do not win.

Backers of Measure A, which would cap annual rent increases at the city’s three mobile-home parks, say a majority of “yes” votes will spare residents from “economic eviction” and prevent possibly massive commercial development of the picturesque coastal properties on which the parks rest.

Opponents, however, say approval of Measure A would grease a slippery slope leading to additional rent-control laws, prompt costly legal challenges and force mobile-home park owners to forgo future maintenance of their properties.

The emotionally charged campaign has become the most expensive in city history, generating a tremendous level of interest with about 3,000 requests filed for absentee ballots from the city’s 16,161 voters.

“Because it is a single-issue election and affects so few people directly, I am surprised at the number of (absentee) ballots issued,” said Laguna Beach City Clerk Verna L. Rollinger.

As of Nov. 2, those opposing rent controls have spent an unprecedented $160,000 on their campaign, nearly five times the $33,000 spent by Measure A supporters.

Opponents of the measure have been able to flood Laguna Beach residents with mailers while supporters of the measure have relied mostly on canvassing door-to-door and by telephone.

Contributors to the anti-Measure A campaign have included mobile-home parks throughout the state and the Western Mobile Home Assn., the industry’s state trade association based in Sacramento.

If outside interests with deep pockets can sway this election, Measure A backers say, it will be an ominous sign for city politics. They argue that those hoping to build condominiums or hotels where the parks are would next try to unseat City Council members who have been sympathetic to park tenants and have rezoned park property for mobile-home use only.

The rise of development interests, they warn, could change the village-like character of Laguna Beach. Repercussions from Tuesday’s election, they say, will reach far beyond the city’s 448 mobile-home households.

“I don’t think it’s far-fetched at all,” Councilman Robert F. Gentry said of the alleged threat to the present council. “We are a major stumbling block to making megabucks in our community from large-scale land development.”

Measure A opponents deny such allegations and say they are fighting to prevent the seeds of rent control from being planted in the coastal city, as well as the ensuing deterioration of housing if landlords could not afford maintenance costs.

“We firmly believe rent control will spread to other forms of rental housing within a very short period of time,” said Richard Hall, a Costa Mesa businessman who, along with an investment group, owns Treasure Island Mobile Home Park. “When that happens, cities just go downhill fast.” About 47% of the city’s housing is leased.

The cost of renting a space for a mobile home at the city’s three mobile-home parks ranges from $400 to $2,000 a month. As the rents vary, so do the economic means of the residents of the parks, who range from senior citizens on fixed incomes to wealthy individuals who vacation in their mobile homes.

The city of Laguna Beach has been grappling with the issue of rent control for mobile-home parks for about two years. After being heavily lobbied by park tenants, the council voted 3 to 2 in July to approve an ordinance that would roll back mobile-home park space rents to January, 1989, levels and hold future annual rent increases to either 7% of the monthly rate or 75% of the annual consumer price index increase, whichever is less.

In the month before the measure could take effect, however, opponents gathered more than 1,500 signatures to force the council to either rescind the measure or require a referendum.

If Measure A is approved, it will set in place one of the most restrictive rent-control ordinances in the state, particularly since it includes a vacancy-control provision that fixes the rent even when the current tenant moves out.

Stephen Esslinger, operator of Laguna Terrace Park in the city, said that if Measure A passes he will sue to block implementation of the vacancy-control provision.

While the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that cities cannot constitutionally restrict rents charged to new tenants, California state courts have disagreed. The issue now is before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Esslinger contends that the city’s mobile-home tenants are not currently suffering, but that they will enjoy an economic boon at the expense of mobile-home park owners and operators if Measure A passes. Rent control, he said, will increase the value of individual mobile homes while decreasing the future income, and thus market value, of the parks.

He said an appraiser has determined that if the voters approve Measure A, the market value of Laguna Terrace Park “will decline overnight by $2 million.” At the same time, he estimates, the potential market value of each of the mobile homes in the park will increase by about $20,000.

“The ordinance is designed not to help tenants but to hurt park owners,” he said.

Park tenants, however, say rent control will meet their immediate needs, while the vacancy-control provision would keep the park more affordable.

Chris Cotter, manager of the Yes on Measure A campaign, said mobile-home tenants have a particular need for rent control because they have few options if higher rents forced them out of the current parks. “If they were to move, they would have to move out of town,” he said.

The rent-control measure has drawn support from those living outside the parks too, because they see a stable mobile-home community as a bulwark against further development.

Mary Douglas, a Measure A supporter and a member of the board of directors of the South Laguna Civic Assn., predicts that if rents are not bridled, tenants will leave the parks. That would allow more development.

Tom Conner, manager of the No on A campaign, said he believes proponents of the measure are using the development issue to overcome the philosophical distaste of many Laguna Beach residents with the concept of rent control.

“The pro-rent-control people don’t talk about rent control. They talk about development, bluff preservation and traffic, all the things that have traditionally swayed voters in this town,” he said. “None of those items are mentioned in the rent-control ordinance.” The linking of rent-control opponents with development was shrewd, he said, since “development is a four-letter word” in Laguna Beach.

Laguna Beach Mayor Neil G. Fitzpatrick, who opposes the rent-control measure because it is not limited to low-income tenants or primary residences, also contends that the development issue is a “red herring.” He said the people of Laguna and their council would never allow large-scale development of the mobile-home parks--even if tenants were forced out by skyrocketing rents.

Reactions to the balloting vary somewhat at the three parks, though tenants generally support Measure A.

Anxiety about redevelopment runs highest at the city’s largest park, Treasure Island, a serene community sprawled along the oceanfront. For years, residents have feared their 27-acre enclave would be developed. Hall said that at one time, he planned to close the park within the decade for a condominium and single-family home development, though he has since abandoned such ideas.

Treasure Island tenants say the park’s uncertain future makes it very difficult to sell their mobile homes to anyone but the park owners, who now own about 25% of the units. Park residents contend that by forcing tenants out with rent increases and buying up remaining mobile homes, the park owners are closing down the park bit by bit, thus defusing opposition to redevelopment plans.

At Thurston Trailer Park in Laguna Canyon, residents are in the process of buying the park from its current owner.

The owners of the third park, the Esslinger family, say they have no intention of redeveloping Laguna Terrace Park. “It’s absolutely absurd,” Darren Esslinger said. “They’re trying to scare people.”