Points for oral Testimony on HB 1595: relative to tax collection procedures for manufactured housing in a manufactured housing park.

Rick Minard, Jan 14, 2010

The New Hampshire Community Loan Fund opposes BH 1595 because it would unfairly discriminate against owners of manufactured homes.

More than 25,000 homes in New Hampshire are manufactured homes.  They are safe, decent, and often relatively inexpensive.   Whether in a park or on fee-simple land, owners of manufactured homes pay property taxes based on the value of their homes, just like everyone else.

And just like everyone else, there are times when some owners of manufactured homes fall behind in their property taxes, creating problems for themselves and the communities in which they live.  [The New Hampshire Department of Revenue Administration [has no data] showing that owners of manufactured housing are any more or less likely to get behind on their taxes than owners of other types of comparably valued homes.]  Yet this bill would treat them differently.

This bill would allow towns to go after homeowners in manufactured housing parks, seizing their homes for tax sales after being in arrears for just six months.  Everyone else in town would have a two-year period in which to get his or her finances in order before facing such a devastating penalty.  This is unfair on its face and contrary to deep New Hampshire values that hold that all people should be treated the same under the law.

NH Community Loan Fund is deeply involved with manufactured housing.  For 25 years, we have helped residents of MH parks purchase their parks and manage them as cooperatives.  We provide financing and technical assistance, but don’t own any parks.  We have helped finance several hundred fair, fixed-rate conventional mortgages, treating MH just like stick-built instead of like cars or boats.  Default rate of less than .5 percent backs up the point that owners are responsible, hard-working, just like everyone else.

We work closely with residents and with the co-op management boards.  Those roles give us an understanding of the challenges of the individuals and of park owners.  We see opportunities for park owners and towns to work together when problems arise within parks.  They are difficult problems, but in no way does discriminatory practice make this better.

Notes from Hearing:

Rep. Ralph Boehm, Litchfield, sponsor testified that as former selectman he experienced problem that persists in town:  residents of MH park get behind, walk away from trashed homes, and leave them for the town to clean up.  Value of homes often too little for town to recoup its taxes so the rest of the town pays.  People say this bill would treat owners of MH in park different, well, they are different.  He lamented that the legislature had relieved park owners of responsibility for collecting property taxes for all units.

George Lambert, Litchfield selectman, made the same points.  Rep. Stetson asked how shortening the time frame would reduce the towns’ expense since it would still be acquiring the same home, just sooner.  Lambert didn’t have a good answer, but said that the law would improve the town’s leverage, allowing it to be more proactive, and maybe reducing further depreciation in the homes.

Tax collectors from Concord, Nashua, and Bow (representing the Tax Collectors Association) testified against the bill saying that it would actually increase town expenses by giving residents too little time to work out their problems, pay their taxes, and avoid losing the homes.  An issue, yes, but this is a counterproductive solution.  Plus it’s unfair.

I testified along the lines of the draft, above.  I did not submit written testimony.  Got a few questions: would co-ops be treated the same as investor parks under this law.  I said yes.  A question about CHLP mortgages gave me the chance to mention the low default rate:  that seemed to make an impression.

Elliot Barry, NHLA, stressed that the statute would pose obvious constitutional questions.  Also that this would be the worst time possible to pass the law because of the economy.  His work with park residents and towns often took the full two-years to resolve; shortening to 6 months would leave many more homeless.  He said that it was gratifying to be on the same side as the tax collectors and park owners.  Someone asked if there were data showing differences in tax compliance with MH or average value of MHs in parks.  Eliot said he’d never seen any.

Jodi Grimbals, Bianco PA, was there but didn’t testify.  We had a pleasant conversation.  The legal counsel for the Municipal Association was also there and didn’t testify.

No member of the committee indicated any support.

CityWatch

An insider look at City Hall

Vol 7 Issue 63
Pub: Aug 7, 2009

Article by: Katharine Russ
 

"Judge Tells Mobile Home Park Owners to Pay Up"

On the heels of an eight-day trial in April, Judge Gregory C. O’Brien, the arbiter employed by the County of Los Angeles, ruled in favor of homeowners from Mountain View Mobile Estates who sued the owners of the Park alleging dangerous conditions where they lived.

Gary Gibson et al alleged, in their lawsuit of March 2007, concerns with the electrical utility system, water outages, improper maintenance of the clubhouse, pool and spa, maintenance of swales, prevention of mud and water run-off, non lit street lamps, rodent control, bullying, passive-aggressive behavior directed towards resident “troublemakers”, and a widespread disregard for written and oral complaints.

The owner, G.J. Park Associates, and the Park’s management, M.A. Cirillo & Associates (dba Star Mobile Home Park Management) maintained that the Park was well kept and the company had spent millions of dollars to make repairs in the Park.

Homeowner after homeowner testified to the atrocious conditions that existed in the Park, the loss of appliances from power surges, trenches throughout the Park with no lighting to see the holes, and extended power outages that meant no heat or air conditioning.

One resident testified that tree roots had raised a 12 inch mound in his drive causing water to run under his home and stagnate. It created a stench that lasted four years.

O’Brien cited, “Disgorgement of rent is an attractive remedy. The Landlord collected the tenant’s money for which the tenants received in return endless insults to their sensibilities: Years of noise, mud, dangerous conditions, a studied neglect of simple services, a clubhouse with no furniture, a badly maintained pool and spa, and inexcusably rude, petty and bullying behavior." O’Brien described expectations by the witnesses as “hardly extravagant.   >> read more

(Katharine Russ is an investigative reporter and writes for the North Valley Reporter” www.northvalleyreporter.com . She can be reached at Katharine.russ@charter.net This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it )