Laguna Rejects Mobile Home Rent Control

After the costliest election campaign in the city’s history, Laguna Beach voters on Tuesday rejected one of the most stringent ordinances in the state limiting rent increases at mobile home parks.

The emotional Measure A campaign, which pitted foes of rent control against anti-growth forces fearful that unchecked rent hikes would force out mobile home residents and usher in massive development, spurred an unusually high turnout of nearly 40% of registered voters.

With all but one of the city’s 13 precincts reporting, the No on A campaign led by nearly 300 votes. The unofficial final tally was 52.4% against the measure to 47.6% in favor.

Under the measure, mobile home park rents would have been rolled back to the levels of January, 1989, with annual rent increases restricted to 7% of a tenant’s current rent or 75% of the annual increase in the consumer price index, whichever is less.

Supporters of rent control in Laguna Beach argued that its defeat will have grave consequences extending beyond the city’s 448 mobile home households. They contended that opponents of rent control threatened to disrupt the current power balance on the City Council and to destroy the village-like atmosphere of the city by promoting development.

They pointed to previous plans to redevelop Treasure Island, a sprawling, coastal mobile home park and the city’s largest, into a tract of condominiums or hotels.

They also contended that supporters of development plans for Treasure Island and Laguna Terrace, another mobile home park, would try to unseat City Council members who expressed sympathy for park tenants by rezoning park property for mobile home use only. Darren Esslinger, a member of the family that owns and operates Laguna Terrace, called the allegations of development plans and threats against council members “absolutely absurd.”

After being heavily lobbied by mobile home park tenants, the City Council voted 3 to 2 in July to approve an ordinance imposing rent control on the parks. Opponents of the ordinance, however, sprang into action, gathering more than 1,500 signatures from residents and forcing the council either to rescind the ordinance or place it before the electorate. In August, the council voted 4 to 1 to call Tuesday’s special election.

“Everyone’s celebrating; we won,” said Tom Connor, manager of the No on A campaign, after the results were announced Tuesday. “I think we sent a strong message to three council members and their special interest backers that they made a very poor decision.”

Opponents of the measure launched a fund-raising effort that resulted in a city record $160,000 campaign--nearly five times the $33,000 spent by rent-control advocates--aimed at persuading Laguna Beach residents that there were no such plans to redevelop the parks and that rent control would lead the city down a path to deterioration.

“It just goes to show you what money can buy,” said Sam Alessi, a Thurston Park resident and president of the Yes on A campaign.

The opponents had warned that the ballot measure, though limited to mobile homes, would open the door to similar controls on apartments and other rentals. Rent controls, they warned, would force landlords locked into unreasonable rent schedules to defer maintenance and eventually would contribute to a lesser quality of life in the city.

For weeks, both sides besieged Laguna Beach residents with campaign mailings and telephone calls, topped by vigorous get-out-the vote drives before the polls closed Tuesday.

Both advocates and opponents of Measure A urged residents to take advantage of the convenience of voting by absentee ballot. The result was that 14% of the city’s 16,161 registered voters cast absentee ballots, considerably bolstering the election’s high turnout. Historically, single-issue special elections have generated low turnout.

Nervous tenants at Treasure Island kept vigil together after the polls closed. They said they had intended to hold a victory party in the park’s clubhouse but changed their plans when they were told Tuesday that use of the facility would cost $500.

Instead, the tenants set up folding tables on the pavement outside and waited in the chilly evening for the vote tally. They used a street light and candles for light and tried to warm up with wine and champagne poured into plastic cups.

Supporters of the Yes on A campaign said mobile home tenants have a special need for rent control because of the shortage of available spaces to which they could move their homes should rents become exorbitant.

Currently, rents at the city’s three mobile home parks range from $400 to $2,000 a month. Park residents range from senior citizens on fixed incomes to wealthy individuals who use their mobile homes--some of which sit on bluff tops with stunning, panoramic views--for vacations.

Supporters of the No on A campaign included operators of mobile home parks throughout the state and the Western Mobile Home Assn., the industry’s Sacramento-based trade organization. Those groups expressed particular concern about a provision that would prevent parks in the city from raising rents on spaces when mobile homes are sold and new tenants move in.

The industry groups had said that the so-called “vacancy control provision” would have made the Laguna Beach ordinance the toughest in the state.

The constitutionality of vacancy control provisions has been disputed in several court decisions. The U.S. 9th District Court of Appeals has ruled against them, and the issue is expected to be decided next year by the U.S. Supreme Court.

San Juan Capistrano is the only city in Orange County with a mobile home park rent control ordinance. Since 1979, voters have defeated ballot measures to enact rent control on all rental properties in Brea and on mobile home parks in Stanton, Westminister and Anaheim.

EDITION TIME ELECTION RETURNS

Measure A--Mobile Home Rent Control

100% Precincts Reporting Votes % Yes 3,035 47.6 No 3,344 52.4

Winning side of measures are in bold type.