Pixel Tracker

Friday, December 14 , 2018, 12:24 pm | Fair 63º


Goleta Council Green Lights Mobile Home Development Deal

Despite protests of park residents, the city moves ahead with an agreement to convert Rancho Mobile Homes to a tenant-owned subdivision.

Citing a potential loss of their current equity, residents of Rancho Mobile Home Park crowded Goleta City Hall to protest a development agreement that would convert the park to tenant-owned spaces from rentals.
Citing a potential loss of their current equity, residents of Rancho Mobile Home Park crowded Goleta City Hall to protest a development agreement that would convert the park to tenant-owned spaces from rentals. (Sonia Fernandez / Noozhawk photo)

Caught between a rock and a hard place, the Goleta City Council on Tuesday unanimously voted to move forward with a development agreement with the owner of Rancho Mobile Home Park, 7465 Hollister Ave.

“I have no love for Mr. Guggenheim,” Councilman Michael Bennett said of park owner Daniel Guggenheim. Nevertheless, Bennett and his colleagues reluctantly voted to push ahead with a proposed development agreement that would convert the park to tenant-owned spaces from rentals.

The vote came after hours of report, discussion and testimony from staff, Guggenheim’s representatives and attorney, and mobile home residents who crowded the chambers to standing-room-only capacity.

The meeting signaled what could be the culmination of years of litigation between Goleta and Guggenheim, who first sued the city when it adopted Santa Barbara County’s rent-control policies upon incorporation in 2002. Guggenheim called the act an unlawful taking: coach owners could pay low rents and then sell their units for more than they were worth because of them.

Four more suits followed, one for a moratorium the city imposed on mobile home park conversions as the state wrestled with legislation that could have changed the rules, one for an environmental impact report the city required for the conversion, and two for damages related to those cases.

The first case, lost and then won by the city, is currently before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The damages lawsuits have been stayed pending the development agreement, while the cases on the EIR and the moratorium were judged against the city, which is currently appealing those decisions.

Outside of the lawsuits, the state, according to city counsel Tim Giles, prefers conversion, having already made legal decisions that outweigh the rulings of local government.

Both city and park representatives asserted that the development agreement was a better deal than what the state would offer in terms of rent control.

“Any family that makes less than $80,500 a year will get better rent control than they would from the state,” said Guggenheim attorney Richard Close.

According to the proposed agreement, residents who wish to purchase their lots can do so at a 15 percent discount of the purchase price. The landowners also would be willing to finance 15 percent of the purchase price at 5 percent interest over 20 years. The city would engage in helping residents find funding sources, like the state-sponsored Mobilehome Park Resident Ownership Program loan at 3 percent interest over 30 years based on the buyer’s income.

Furthermore, tenants who qualify as low- and moderate-income who do not wish to purchase will experience rent increases “limited to the difference between pre-conversion rental rate and the market rate, over a period of four years ... but in no case could rental rate increases exceed the Consumer Price Index.”

Meanwhile, nonpurchasing residents who are classified as “above moderate” in their income would be subject to increases over a seven-year period up to $800 per month. At the end of the eighth year, the rents would rise to market rate. In contrast, state law provides for increases in a four-year period, with rents going to market rate in the fifth year.

Despite the better rent-control terms offered by the agreement, park residents were still worried about their loss of equity, something the development agreement did not address.

“You just robbed me of $175,000 of my investment,” said Rancho resident John Douglas. “Of course, we want to own our own homes, but not when it’s being rammed down our throat like this.”

Others inquired about a resident survey, a requirement for conversion. According to Giles, a survey was conducted in 2005 at the time of the conversion application, but most of the park residents boycotted it.

Residents of other mobile home parks also aired their concerns, worried that the precedent set by this decision would ripple out to their complexes.

“If you let this bully come in here and take all these people’s equity, it’s going to happen all over town,” said one commenter.

Yet other community members were incensed at the owners’ seeming reluctance to improve the park’s facilities: pipes, drains and hydrants that had not been upgraded since 1962.

“What is the owner doing with that money?” asked Rich Foster.

Still, as the City Council prepared to vote to move ahead with the agreement, members did wrap into their motion a requirement that Guggenheim pay for the fire-suppression upgrades recommended by the Fire Department instead of passing the costs on to the tenants. It’s not clear whether he will agree to such a requirement; but the answer will be clear at the council’s March 3 hearing.

Write to [email protected]

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made using a credit card, Apple Pay or Google Pay, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments and a mailing address for checks.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Noozhawk Supporter

First name
Last name
Select your monthly membership
Or choose an annual membership

Payment Information

Membership Subscription

You are enrolling in . Thank you for joining the Hawks Club.

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover
One click only, please!

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.
You may cancel your membership at any time by sending an email to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >