The definition for sophistry is “a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning. a false argument; sophism.” That’s per Dictionary. Meriam Webster says it means “subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation.”
Someone could interview several community owners, investors, and residents and generate a wide range of responses to the claim that Frank Rolfe makes in a recent “Mobile Home University” post shared with his followers.
The core of his argument is stated in the headline and two opening paragraphs, show with bullets, which claimed the following.
ANOTHER REASON THAT MODERN LOT RENTS ARE UNSUSTAINABLY LOW
“How to Build and Operate a Mobile Home Park” was written by L.C. Michelon, the Director of Management Services for the School of Business at the University of Chicago, in 1955. In the book you will find this paragraph:
“Much of your income will come from services other than from space rentals. In a mobile home park these include the laundry, the store, the gas station, mobile home services and sales, the bottled-gas franchise, the storing of mobile homes, the hauling of mobile homes short distances, telephone calls, and so on” [from Chapter 14 “Increasing Net Income” page 115]
The top-left part of the featured image is from Rolfe/Mobile Home University’s post.
The pull quote Rolfe references may be accurate. But does that mean his claim and analysis are correct?
There is no need for federal or state research or reams of interviews or polling. The fact that thousands of ‘mom and pop’ manufactured home communities have been and continue to operate successfully for lower site fees – what Rolfe calls “mobile home park” “lot rent” – is all the evidence that is needed to disprove the core of his contention.
Consumer Group…
A consumer group that deals with issues that includes, but goes beyond manufactured housing, has indicated to MHProNews that they have serious concerns about what is occurring in the manufactured housing community space.
They are also vexed by allegations against some of the larger members of the Manufactured Housing Institute on the production, retail, finance, and community sides. More on that in the weeks ahead, as they have stated plans worth following as they announce and develop them.
That noted, they are certainly not alone. MHAction and others that ironically get funding through dark money channels from Warren Buffett connected “charities” and nonprofits, have certainly made their feelings known.
Senator Elizabeth Warren (MA-D), Senator Bernie Sanders (VT-I, self-proclaimed “Democratic Socialist”) and others have ripped operations that are connected with MHI.
But despite Rolfe’s claim, that “This is yet another example of why mobile home park lot rents are too low in the U.S.” there are logical and evidentiary reasons why what follows are objectively definable as a form of sophistry.
Here is the balance of what Rolfe said for he and his partner Dave Reynolds self-proclaimed “Mobile Home University,” which will be followed by some additional analysis.
1960s rents were $50 per month ($500 in today’s dollars) and that was break even?
When the early pioneers of the mobile home park industry built the bulk of U.S. properties in the 1950s through 1960s, the goal was to simply break even with the lot rent, and to make money with the additional services stated above. Those services are no longer offered or profitable in a modern mobile home park. But what’s important to note is that $50 in lot rent in 1955 is equivalent to around $500 lot rent in today’s dollars. So, at an average lot rent in the U.S. of around $300, this model means that parks are certainly not breaking even realistically at today’s low rents when you take into account capital expenditures and proper management costs.
The movie theater example
A movie theater attempts to make no money from ticket sales. If you look at what those tickets to “Ford vs. Ferrari” cost you – and then cost the theater to screen the move – you will see there’s no profit from it. In fact, many theaters actually lose money on ticket sales. They only screen movies to make their money in food and beverage sales. The average trip to the theater for two individuals costs $20 in tickets (at a loss to the theater) and $30 in popcorn, candy and drinks (which is about 90% profit). That’s why many theaters have recently halved the number of seats and instead focused on more food services – literally offering full meals brought to your seat at huge mark-ups. This is also the business model for modern gas stations, which often sell the gasoline at a loss to capture the convenience store sales.
But mobile home parks have no additional way to make money other than lot rent
A mobile home park is not a theater or a gas station, and it certainly has none of the money-making additions that the 1955 book would suggest. In fact, there’s nothing other than lot rent coming in to pay the bills. So if the original business model changed so much over the decades, how have mobile home parks survived? By cutting back on capital expenditures and hiring lesser management. A simple drive through many mom and pop-owned mobile home communities will immediately reveal this very obvious fact. Roads in poor condition, common areas abandoned and falling down, and zero enforcement of community rules.
Why higher lot rents are the only method available to bring old mobile home parks back to life
Just as 2+2 = 4, the necessity of higher lot rents to pay for greater capital expenditure and professional management is a given. A property we purchased in Texas is a good example. To repave the roads cost $240,000, the clubhouse and pool $40,000, the trees $50,000, and renovation of the abandoned park-owned homes $700,000. All the while, mom and pop’s lot rent was so low that it would not even cover the regular operating costs of water, sewer, taxes, insurance, manager salary and mortgage. The renovations cost as much as the property itself.
It all boils down to taking one of two paths
All old mobile home parks (and they’re all old, having only been allowed to be built between roughly the 1950s and 1970s by city ordinance) are at a fork in the road. They can either be demolished and cleared for re-development into a different usage (of which apartments are the most common) or they can be brought back to life at considerable expense. Higher lot rents are the only economic method to make the salvation of old mobile home parks possible. Otherwise, they will all end up like the original business model itself – gone as the result of changing times and starved for capital.
Why cities should do more to promote bringing old communities back to life – and why most won’t
An off-the-record discussion with most city managers would reveal the fact that most cities would like to eliminate their mobile home parks. They view them as costly from a tuition and city services standpoint yet without any positive merits. Much of their negative attitude stems from the poor condition many of these mom and pop properties exhibit. But the idea of bringing them back to life is also not appreciated, as the general hope is that the declining park will ultimately be redeveloped into a more attractive use of the land. That being said, we have experienced some city officials with the right attitude and it’s very refreshing. They tell us “do whatever you need to bring this park back to life and we’ll support you”. They know that affordable housing is a huge crisis and that, as long as there is a mobile home park in their city, it might at least be the best it can be.
Conclusion
The mobile home park business model has changed over the past half-century. So has America. There are many mobile home parks in the U.S. in poor condition, yet residents would like to have a nice place to live, and millions more need a place to live they can afford. Higher lot rents are a necessity to meet these desires. If lot rents could simply return to 1950s levels in today’s dollars – despite the fact that there are no additional profit centers – then communities could once again be great places to live.”
##
Additional MHProNews Analysis and Commentary, Paltering…
Palter is defined by Oxford Languages as: “equivocate or prevaricate in action or speech.”
Rolfe may have motivations for writing self-justifying posts like the one above. It might, in his mind, be useful in terms of attracting new investors, new students, to provide cover for investigators such as lawmakers, public officials, possible plaintiffs attorneys, media and others.
But beliefs, sophistry or paltering are not pure reality.
There is little doubt that some communities had site fees that were ‘too low,’ as evidenced by an inability for an owner to keep a specific property’s infrastructure up to snuff. But that occasional circumstance is not the same as “Another Reason That Modern Lot Rents Are Unsustainably Low.”
A more candid title might have been “Another Excuse We Can Give to Justify Predatory Behavior.”
Who says it is predatory, besides MHAction and their affiliates?
Van Cleef is a self-proclaimed SOB – Son of Bos’n. “Definitions of bos’n. 1. n a petty officer on a merchant ship who controls the work of other seamen,” explains Vocabulary. Van Cleef is also involved his community’s leadership as well as several manufactured home communities specific nonprofits. While Van Cleef and this publication may not see eye-to-eye on all topics, his take is nevertheless relevant.
In his open letter to Frank Rolfe, Van Cleef said the following.
Dear sir;
You should be placed on a pedestal as the Poster Boy for the nation’s current Affordable Housing Crisis.
For decades this nation had an example of affordable housing that worked beautifully. Families would establish a business to invest in communities where others could rent a place to live in their manufactured homes.
The site rents brought in enough money to support operations, maintenance and provide the owners with a comfortable living. They were similar to non-profit organizations, except they were not subsidized by any government agency and paid their fair share of taxes to support the local communities. We are talking about 44,000 to 45,000 manufactured home communities, depending on the sources considered, where millions of people lived comfortable lives in an affordable environment.
Unfortunately, because those owners didn’t raise the rents in accordance with the standards of the secular world, the Mom & Pop communities became targets for legal looting. People like you and those who attend your training, began descending on any park offered for sale and pounce.
Gone are the days of the laissez-faire semi-nonprofit organizations that took the care and well-being of the residents into consideration. Similar to the world of those who live in apartments today, for the investors it is the return on the investment and meeting their imaginary “market rate” which became their only goals. And yes, the money started to roll in… (See: Homewreckers)
Really, you should stand up and look to the world and proclaim, “This was my idea!”
It was your idea to buy up the parks and efficiently increase the rates to drain all of the resources from the people who lived in those parks and throw them out for government agencies to support. Those people had only one major financial resource. Their homes. You undermined the value of those homes, took those homes from them through foreclosure and then fed them to the dogs.
Widows and widowers, disabled, veterans, and families who live in your communities are all fresh meat. Your parasitic organizations don’t care about the impact of Manufactured Home Community Rent Increases on the residents of their parks. Their goal is to capture as much of their financial blood as possible and then throw them out into the street for someone else to rescue.
You Should Be Proud.
You took a fully functional, non-subsidized form of affordable housing and found a way to make a profit by destroying it.
What a man! What an example for others to emulate!
Oh, yes! That’s right! You even established a school to teach others your process, to expand your chaos even further.
Today I saw a marketing letter from you saying that your progress to date has been insufficient.
“We have for years been writing about the reasons that mobile home park lot rents make no economic sense – they are at least 50% to 100% too low compared to market rents.”
A 50% to 100% rent increase for someone who is already paying over 50% of their income to rent dirt on your properties is insane! Only a sociopathic person, such as you, our Poster Boy for the Affordable Housing Crisis, could come up with such a vision.
The Hypocrisy of Ignorance
For someone who claims to know so much about Manufactured Home living, you sure like to pretend to be ignorant of the basic truths. In your letter you state;
“Austin has a metro population of 916,906 with a median home price of $369,000 and an average three-bedroom apartment rent of $1,897 per month.”
Apartment rents are flat rates that cover all expenses related to living in that apartment. The roof leaks, call the landlord. The stove doesn’t work, call the landlord. The landlord covers all maintenance, taxes and often the utilities.
At a Manufactured Home Park, you are renting the dirt your home sits on. You pay the maintenance, taxes, utilities, insurance, and you even landscape the dirt – donating the value of that landscaping to the park owner. The owner maintains the infrastructure and not much else.
But, you know that. After all, you were the one that stated that mobile home park “is like a Waffle House where the customers are chained to their booths“. Even if they had tens of thousands of dollars to move their home, there are no new parks to move them to and you are working hard to ensure no new ones get built. Finally if they were actually able to sell their home at a decent price, given the affordable housing crisis, they would still have nowhere to go.
So, stand proud! You and your fellow parasites will continue to suck the financial blood out of your residents until they either die from the stress or are kicked out in the streets for society to support.
All Hail the Vampire King!
Sincerely yours;
Robert E. Van Cleef
PS: Gal 6:7 – Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.”
“All Hail the Vampire King…” who is destroying affordable manufactured housing, and “Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap,” said Van Cleef.
Ouch, but that says much.
To learn more about Rolfe, including the question as to why MHI has not yet reportedly invoked their so-called code of professional conduct against him and his firm, see the related reports herein or below the guidelines.
We recommend that news tips NOT use company, nonprofit or organizational emails or cell phones. To report a news tip, click the image above or send an email to iReportMHNewsTips@mhmsm.com – To help us spot your message in our volume of email, please put the words NEWS TIP or COMMENTS in the subject line.
Rolfe and company are part of what could be described as a heads they win, tails you lose” business model.
All on Capitol Hill were welcoming and interested with the discussion of manufactured housing related issues on our 12.3.2019 meetings. But Texas Congressman Al Green’s office was tremendous in their hospitality. Our son’s hand is on a package that included the Constitution of the United States and other goodies. MHProNews has worked with people and politicos across the left-right divide.
Tony earned a journalism scholarship and earned numerous awards in history and in manufactured housing. For example, he earned the prestigious Lottinville Award in history from the University of Oklahoma, where he studied history and business management. He’s a managing member and co-founder of LifeStyle Factory Homes, LLC, the parent company to MHProNews, and MHLivingNews.com. This article reflects the LLC’s and/or the writer’s position, and may or may not reflect the views of sponsors or supporters.
