“The proposed space rent increase is not effective and may not be collected unless and until awarded by an arbitrator,” said Danly in a Feb. 5 letter to Feeney and Sonoma County Housing Authority manager James Hackett. “The Hansens may refuse to pay the proposed increase pending a final decision by an arbitrator.”
Petaluma 360 tells MHProNews that Feeney, who lives in Newport Beach, backed away from raising the Hansens’ rent for the time being, but he attacked the concept of rent control.
“Rent control creates an artificial state,” said Feeney. “The byproduct of rent control is that it artificially raises the sale price of these homes. I’m going to continue to exercise my rights to raise the rent in conformity with the law.”
Petaluma’s manufactured home rent control ordinance was established in 1994. Danly said the purpose of the ordinance was for “preventing exploitive mobile home space rent increases, alleviating unequal bargaining power between mobile home park residents and park owners, and providing park owners with a guaranteed rate of annual space rent increase that accurately reflects the rate of inflation.”
Petaluma’s Housing Coordinator, Sue Castellucci, said there are seven manufactured home communities in Petaluma, and all of them are subject to the rent control ordinance. Unless tenants give up their rights to rent control, community owners must adhere to the city ordinance.
Last November, the Hansens received a rent increase notice from Feeney’s daughter Meghan, who serves as the property supervisor at the community. The notice said the rent for the Hansen’s mobile home would rise from $619 per month to $722.37 per month, beginning this March.
The Hansens live on a limited income. They base their monthly budgets on the guidelines established by the Petaluma rent control ordinance for manufactured home communities. The ordinance states that any rental increase above 300 percent of the annual consumer price index (CPI) automatically triggers an arbitration of that increase by a judge assigned to decide the matter.
In this case, Feeney, who has owned the Sandalwood property since 2001, chose to ask for an increase in the Hansens’ rent of closer to 500 percent of the CPI. Feeney argued that since he’d not raised the Hansens’ rent in 2013, he was allowed to combine two years worth of CPI inflation into one rental increase.
“We assumed that since there’d been no increase in their rent in 2013, we could combine the CPI rates for 2013 and 2014 and raise their rent by 5.6 percent,” said Feeney. “Danly is saying if you don’t use it, you lose it. To me that’s not fair.”
Castellucci said the ordinance was clear and a park owner was not allowed to combine CPI rates from different years and apply rent increases based on adding up the years.
“The vast majority of tenants have moved to long-term leases. We support that. The city prefers rent control,” said Feeney. “The problem for us is, we either have to constantly go to litigation or these tenants on rent control pay a ridiculously low rent. Why would anyone want to litigate a rent increase?”
Feeney has regularly gone to litigation over the years. In 2010, he settled a lawsuit he’d filed against the city over the rental ordinance. In 2013, he went to arbitration and lost in a case challenging Petaluma’s rent control policy.
In a Nov. 21, 2014, letter to the Hansens, Meghan Feeney told the Hansens that if they chose to go to arbitration over the matter, the rent would be increased by 50 percent instead of 16 percent.
“If you decide to arbitrate the proposed increase, we will amend it to seek an increase to $1,237 per month,” wrote Meghan Feeney. This figure was based on what Feeney said was the highest rent currently paid by tenants at Sandalwood.
On Jan. 31, the Hansens said they would not pay any increase in their rent without arbitration. Hackett wrote to Feeney on February 9, saying an arbitrator was selected to hear the case. But that same day, in a letter to the Hansens, Feeney told them the rent increase would be withdrawn.
“We will notify you of your next increase at a later date,” said Meghan Feeney.
In an email stating he would not proceed with arbitration, Feeney said he found Danly’s “over-reaching interpretation” of his proposed rent increase … to be “incomprehensible.”
Castellucci said Feeney has been the only landlord in the 10 years she has worked for the city to challenge the manufactured home rent control ordinance. She added that despite Feeney’s attitudes and legal challenges, the policy would not be revised any time soon.
“It is an ordinance of the city. In order to change that, the city would have to amend our general plan. I think it’s fair to say the policy will remain in place,” Castellucci said. ##
(Photo Credit: (Argus-Courier)
Article submitted by Sandra Lane to – Daily Business News – MHProNews.
