LAKEPORT, Calif. – The Board of Supervisors on Tuesday voted unanimously to let the voters decide on whether a senior mobile home park rent control initiative should become law in the county's unincorporated areas.
Earlier this year, the group “Save Our Seniors” collected more than 2,500 valid signatures in order to place the measure on the June 2014 ballot.
The document defines a senior mobile home park as one where 80 percent of the homes have at least one person over age 55. It rolls back rents to Jan. 1, 2012, and requires that rent increases be based on the percent of Social Security benefit increases.
Save Our Seniors also supported the collection of signatures to qualify a similar initiative for placement on the ballot in the city of Lakeport's next municipal election, set for November 2014.
Registrar of Voters Diane Fridley took the initiative back to the board for consideration on Tuesday.
She had first gone before the board with the initiative early last month, at which time the board ordered several department heads – including County Counsel Anita Grant, Social Services Director Carol Huchingson and Community Development Director Rick Coel – to complete reports on the initiative's potential impacts.
Coel's report raised issues regarding the potential for a decrease in available senior housing if park owners sought to convert to nonsenior parks or not to expand their park facilities. Reduced revenue for park owners also has the potential to lead to an increase in blight if park owners are unable to keep up with property maintenance and utilities costs.
Huchingson said the initiative could have a positive impact by stabilizing rents for long-term tenants in senior mobile home parks, and would not have a measurable impact on Section 8 households.
Grant advised the board in her report not to adopt the initiative as an ordinance, raising the concern that it might not survive judicial scrutiny.
Ahead of the meeting on Tuesday, Doug Johnson of the Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association sent board members a letter asking them not to approve placing the initiative – which he called “grossly defective” – on the ballot, arguing that the board's approval will lead voters to believe that it is “legally and constitutionally sound.”
Johnson said that because no studies have been conducted, it's not known how many of the county's parks would fit into the senior park definition either upon the initiative's approval or in years to come. “And nobody knows how much such a rent control program would cost taxpayers.”
Johnson also wrote, “Any law that proposes – as the rent control initiative currently before your Board does – to strip almost all the economic value of an (sic) property in perpetuity, without just compensation and a rational process of appeal, is a gross violation of the Takings Clause and the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”
Weighing options
Fridley said the board had until Dec. 10 to decide whether to accept the initiative, unaltered, as a county ordinance or place it on the ballot next June.
After reviewing the reports from the county department heads, Supervisor Denise Rushing noted, “It seems that the key phrases in all of these reports come from county counsel.”
The two options were to adopt the ordinance without alteration or submit the initiative to voters, Rushing said, with Grant urging against the former.
Grant said the board could direct her office to file a petition for writ of mandate to challenge the lawfulness of the initiative.
Supervisor Rob Brown said the board didn't need to take until the Dec. 10 deadline to make a decision. “We've got the information we need. There shouldn't be any surprise here.”
He added, “Basically we have an ordinance here and it's got a lot of flaws in it.”
Richard Filipowicz, owner of Kelsey Creek Mobile Home Park in Kelseyville, said his park will not be affected by the initiative. However, he said he opposes the initiative, asserting that by asking for rent control a small minority is asking the balance of taxpayers to subsidize them.
Filipowicz said there would be increased costs to the county through litigation and bureaucracy, asserting that the county would have to administer the initiative if it becomes law.
Supervisor Anthony Farrington countered that the initiative doesn't require the county to administer it. Brown added that he believes that's a flaw in the ordinance and that it isn't enforceable.
Farrington said he didn't want to get into a debate on the merits of the initiative. He said the initiative's proponents went through the process and qualified for the ballot.
“I think we have a job as electeds to honor that process and system that is before us,” Farrington said.
Maria Teter, who lives at Sterling Shore Mobile Estates in north Lakeport, said her monthly rent was $399 when she first moved to the park six years ago. It's now nearly $700 per month. She's concerned that if her rent continues to go up she could lose everything.
Bill Eaton, a member of Save Our Seniors, addressed statements by Filipowicz, saying there is no bureaucracy in the initiative.
Eaton explained that as soon as Social Security cost-of-living increases are implemented, rent can go out. “There is no need to seek bureaucratic approval, it's just automatic,” he said.
Fridley said Grant will provide impartial analysis of the initiative in the sample ballot booklet, with both proponents and opponents to the initiative also able to submit arguments and rebuttals.
She said the ordinance will be available for anyone to review at her office on the second floor Lake County Courthouse, and she may print the ordinance in its entirety in the sample ballot booklet as well.
Supervisor Jim Comstock thanked the departments for their analysis. “It almost certainly faces major legal challenges,” he said.
Comstock asked what would happen if the board asked Grant to seek a writ of mandate. Grant said in that case the county would ask the court to determine if the initiative is lawful.
She said she can take that action before the election or after the election. “The county's posture may change depending upon who else may decide to challenge it if it passed.”
Board Chair Jeff Smith wondered if the writ of mandate should happen before the election. “We're going to end up having to do that one way or the other anyway.”
He questioned if it would be more beneficial to pursue a writ of mandate before there's a chance of it becoming law, when the county would have to defend it.
Grant said there are two schools of thought on the matter. An appellate court has said that due to the cost of putting an item on the ballot, there's good reason to seek such action beforehand. At the same time, the California Supreme Court has said that the democratic process should be allowed to move forward and legal review should take place after an election.
If the county takes no action to challenge the initiative, Grant said it is likely the county will have to defend it if it becomes law.
Lakeport resident Nelson Strasser, a Save Our Seniors member, gave the board a number of legal examples to explain why he believed seeking a writ of mandate was “a fool's errand.” Strasser argued that it was unlikely that a judge would throw it out.
Rushing moved to put the initiative before voters next June. “At this point I think we let the voters decide,” she said.
The board approved placing the initiative on the ballot in a 5-0 vote, with proponents in the audience applauding the action.
Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.