Shasta supervisors set 30-day deadline to take deeper look at mobile home rent stabilization ordinance 

Yesterday’s Shasta County Board of Supervisors meeting begged the question of equity versus good policy when it comes to rent stabilization for mobile homeowners. 

Invited by Supervisors Allen Long and Chris Kelstrom, Tehama County Supervisor Greg Jones presented an ordinance that’s soon to be implemented in Tehama as a solution to rent increases in mobile home parks. 

The Sum Up at Sun Up from Shasta Scout

All the latest news. Just one email. Weekdays at 6 a.m.

Email

Always free!

In Shasta, the issue has come to the board’s attention due to complaints by tenants whose mobile home parks were acquired by Harmony Communities, which owns a number of mobile home parks statewide. Residents at several local parks, who own their mobile homes but lease the land it rests on, say they are facing their second rent increase in the year since Harmony bought the park, with prices due to rise from $625 to $985 on Dec. 1. 

The rent increase is a similar issue to what Tehama faced last year at Bend Mobile Home and RV Park when residents were hit with rent increases exceeding 50%, Jones said during his presentation to supervisors, as he explained what considerations the county board took into account in Tehama.  

“The question wasn’t whether or not we should repeal the laws of supply and demand,” Jones explained. “It was whether a homeowner in a park should be treated equally from citizens who rent a home or apartment.”

“This ordinance does not pay anyone’s rent,” Jones continued, explaining that the law — which has been approved, but not yet formalized by Tehama — would simply set an outer limit borrowed from state law on how fast rent can rise for people who cannot move their homes. 

“It’s temporary, it’s predictable, and it applies the same rule to everyone,” he added.

Jones said Tehama County’s ordinance largely mirrors a state law known as AB 1482. That law limits rent increases to 5% plus the yearly change in the Consumer Price Index, with an overall ceiling of 10% in any 12-month period. But it doesn’t apply to those leasing space in mobile home parks, something that Jones takes issue with.  

He noted his belief that the measure he’s proposed in Tehama supports a free market since it doesn’t restrict the starting rent set for new tenants, only how much their rent can be raised over time.

Tehama’s ordinance, which Shasta supervisors could use as a model, doesn’t create a county-run program for handling complaints about rent or enforcement of legal violations. Instead, rent disputes would be resolved in court, and park owners who believe the cap prevents them from earning a fair and reasonable return could petition a judge for relief, Jones explained. 

The ordinance also includes its own sunset date, expiring in January 2030 unless updated or renewed by supervisors.

During yesterday’s meeting, homeowners from Riverland Mobilehome Ranch along with both  Bixby Knolls and Cottonwood Ridge Mobile Home Parks filled the seats and turned out for public comments. 

“We own our homes, yet we risk losing them because we cannot afford the land beneath them,” said Crystal Baker. “We are not asking for special treatment; we are asking for an opportunity to keep our homes.”

Discussion from the board was divided, with Supervisor Long advocating for his involvement in ongoing discussion in the hopes of reaching a mutual agreement between the tenants and Harmony before considering adopting a county ordinance. 

Supervisor Matt Plummer disagreed with that approach, saying if a law is needed it should be passed independent of any ongoing discussions with Harmony. But he also questioned whether AB 1482 is a good policy. 

“If you look at the other 12 counties that have rent stabilization ordinances for mobile homes … they tend to be more restrictive and have lower caps than the state bill,” Plummer said. “I think there is a question of whether or not it makes sense to do rent increase caps at all.” 

Back-and-forth discussion led by Long and Plummer left questions about how to proceed, leading Supervisor Kevin Crye to speak out, advocating for swifter action.  

“I want to hear what your plan is to give them an answer in 30 days,” Crye said to Long.

From their seats, tenants murmured agreement with quick action, showing concern and confusion over whether they were going to get an answer within the timeline needed to avoid the increase of rent that some fear could leave them homeless.  

Supervisors eventually voted unanimously to return to the issue within 30 days but only if an agreement is not made between the tenants and owners who are currently in dispute. 

Keeping in mind the Dec. 1 rent increase, the proposed timeline cuts close to exceptions listed in Tehama’s ordinance. One section specifies that rent stabilization applies only to rents that are implemented on or after the date the ordinance takes effect.

Given that ordinances typically require two steps, including a review of a draft ordinance and final approval or ratification, it’s unlikely the ordinance could be passed prior to the Dec. 1 date when Harmony plans to raise rent, Plummer confirmed after the meeting. 

That means yesterday’s delay in action could leave local tenants without recourse. 

In a conversation with a Shasta Scout reporter today, Long acknowledged the short timeline to act but said his hope is that an agreement can still be met between Harmony and mobile homeowners before Dec. 1 without the need for a new ordinance.

“I think there are steps in the intermediate that we can do to resolve this and try to get some mutual agreement,” Long said. 

Have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org