PLEASE VOTE "NO" ON "PROPOSITION 98" & "YES" ON PROP. 99"
Original post made by Walter on May 13, 2008
Please read the information that is being sent...its misleading!
PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT YOU VOTE IN THE "DIRECT PRIMARY
ELECTION" ON TUESDAY, JUNE 3, 2008 & PLEASE MAKE SURE
THAT YOU READ THE FINE PRINT ON PROPOSITION 98 & 99
BILLIONAIRE INVESTMENT MULTI-MOBILE HOME PARK OWNERS,
WHO ORIGINALLY PURCHASED MOBILE HOME PARKS AT PROPERTY
PRICES THAT WERE COMPENSATORY WITH CITY NEGOTIATED
RENT RATES & "PRODUCER PRICE INDEXED" RENT INCREASES
HAVE NOW FIGURED OUT A WAY TO BYPASS THIS CONTROL &
SET RIDICULOUSLY HIGH RESIDENTS RENT RATES DIRECTLY.
THE OWNERS & THEIR HIGH POWERED COURT ATTORNEYS
REALIZE THAT THIS WILL FORCE THE PARK RESIDENTS TO
MOVE, SINCE THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY THE NEW LAND RENT
BENEATH THEIR OWNED HOMES & ALSO WILL ELIMINATE THE
POSSIBILITY OF THE RESIDENTS SELLING THEIR HOMES TO
FUTURE BUYERS BECAUSE OF THE HIGH LAND RENTS THE NEW
BUYERS WOULD BE FACED WITH. IN THIS MANNER, THE PARK
OWNERS CAN SYSTEMATICALLY REMOVE THE RESIDENTS FROM
THEIR HOMES AT VIRTUALLY NO COST TO THEM & HAVE THE
PROPERTY NOW VALUED AT TEN-FOLD THEIR ORIGINAL
PURCHASED PRICE TO SELL OR BUILD INVESTMENT
THE PARK OWNERS ARE TRYING TO ELIMINATE CALIFORNIA
CITY RENT CONTROL LAWS THAT COVERS SENIOR MOBILE HOME
RESIDENTS SO THEY'VE SOMEHOW MANAGED A WAY TO ADD IT
TO "PROPOSITION 98" TITLED "EMINENT DOMAIN, LIMITS ON
GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY, INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT". OF COURSE THIS SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD THING.
NO ONE WANTS TO LOSE THEIR HOME BECAUSE SOME INVESTOR
WANT TO BUILD A SHOPPING MALL. THE PARK OWNERS ARE
SPENDING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON DECEPTIVE
ADVERTISEMENT SHOWING SAD SCENES OF CHILDREN BEING
EVICTED FROM THEIR HOMES, ETC. ACTUALLY "PROPOSITION
99" TITLED "EMINENT DOMAIN, LIMITS ON GOVERNMENT
ACQUISITION OF OWNER-OCCUPIED RESIDENCE, INITIATIVE
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT" DOES EXACTLY THE SAME THING
AS "PROPOSITION 98" & BARS USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN TO
ACQUIRE AN OWNER OCCUPIED RESIDENCE FOR CONVEYANCE TO
A PRIVATE PERSON OR BUSINESS. ONLY "PROP. 99" DOES
NOT ELIMINATE CITY RENT CONTROL LAWS & CITY
NEGOTIATIONS WITH MOBILE HOME PARK OWNERS.
SO PLEASE VOTE "NO" ON "PROPOSITION 98" & "YES" ON PROP. 99" &
THEN WE'LL HAVE THE BEST FOR EVERYONE THATS EFFECTED.
THIS WILL ALLOW US & MANY SENIOR CITIZENS ON FIXED
INCOMES TO REMAIN IN OUR OWNED HOMES ON RENTAL LANDS &
WILL ALSO NOT ALLOW PRIVATE RESIDENCE HOME OWNERS TO
BE REMOVED FROM THEIR HOMES BY THE SAME AVARICIOUS
PRIVATE INVESTORS & LOBBIED STATE OFFICIALS USING
"EMINENT DOMAIN" FOR THEIR GREEDY PURPOSES
on May 13, 2008 at 8:53 am
There will be a townhall meeting on this at the Vineyard Villa Mobile Home Park on Wed. May 14, at 7pm. City Attorney and others will be speaking. I think we all need to attend to see how the we can save our homes. I am a senior in another park, and live on social security. I have worked hard all my life raising my family. Now I come to a time in my life, that am in fear of loosing my home if this passes. I don't know where I will go. I do not want to be a burden on my kids. This is just not for us seniors, but families that have children in apartments and condos.
What is this world coming to?
on May 13, 2008 at 10:49 am
Pleasanton Weekly Staff,
Will you be at the Wednesday, May 14th meeting and doing a story on the issue?
I think quite a few of us in different neighborhoods would be interested to know if our seniors are being looked after or being taken for a ride by others.
on May 14, 2008 at 4:36 pm
I do not understand why mobile home parks are included in this...
Apartments and condo's yes because of the upkeep...like carpeting, painting, etc and in MHP people own their own home...
God the Government is taking over! Pretty soon they will come after home owners....oh they do...its called property taxes