Laserfiche WebLink
21 <br /> <br /> <br />Manufactured home parks are an important affordable housing resource that are <br />increasingly at risk. In a number of cases, these communities are located in suburban areas <br />where encroaching development pressures can lead to park closure and redevelopment.62 <br />Transportation projects can threaten all or parts of manufactured home communities as well. In <br />other cases, park owners have failed to make necessary infrastructure investments leading to <br />systems that are either failing or require large investment due to deferral. There are actions cities <br />and counties can take, however, which can help protect these assets and increase the likelihood <br />they will remain affordable homes well into the future. <br /> <br />The first thing to consider is what signals the city is sending the development community <br />with respect to these land uses. In its 2008 comprehensive plan, St. Anthony repeatedly <br />recommended the Lowry Grove manufactured home park as an area of likely redevelopment. <br />This sent a signal to developers which led to multiple bids to purchase which resulted in the <br />closure of the park for redevelopment, displacing approximately a hundred households. A more <br />constructive approach would mean a statement from cities in their comprehensive plans that <br />manufactured home park communities are an asset to the community which the city values. <br /> <br />The city could go farther with its land use policies, however. In Washington State, <br />several cities have enacted local zoning ordinances which bar the rezoning of a manufactured <br />home park unless there is no longer an economically viable means to operate as a manufactured <br />home park. Such a protection at least ensures that when redevelopment threatens a manufactured <br />home community, the City Council will have some say. This ordinance was challenged by a <br />park owner and has been upheld as a valid measure by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.63 <br /> <br />When a MH park is closed pursuant to a nine months notice from the park owner, state <br />law provides for partial relocation benefits for displaced residents. The local governing body <br />plays an important role in the closure process. 64 If the closure requires a variance or zoning <br />change, the local agency must notify all park residents. Upon receipt of the nine month park <br />closure notice the local planning agency must request the governing body to hold a public <br />hearing. That hearing is an opportunity for the local government to review the closure statement <br />and consider the impact of the closing on the park residents and the park owner. This is an <br />important opportunity for the local government to ensure the notice is in compliance with the law <br />(which is not always the case) and that the residents are adequately protected. The locality also <br />has responsibility for appointing a neutral third party to serve as paymaster and arbitrator when it <br />comes to relocation payments to residents. The statute establishes a Trust Fund to cover <br />relocation payments, which is funded by contributions from all park owners and residents. The <br />other authority the local government has is to provide for additional compensation for displaced <br />residents where appropriate. The locality cannot increase the park owner’s financial obligation <br />for relocation payments but it can impose additional contributions on other parties including the <br /> <br />62 Greta Kaul, Trailer Parks May Be the Twin Cities’ Most Endangered Form of Affordable <br />Housing, MINNPOST (May 31, 2018), https://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2018/05/trailer- <br />parks-may-be-twin-cities-most-endangered-form-affordable-housing. <br />63 Laurel Park Community LLC v. City of Tumwater, 698 F 3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2010). <br />64 Minn. Stat. 327C.095.