https://pleasantonweekly.com/square/print/2010/03/04/vineyard-villa-gets-a-new-lease-on-life


Town Square

Vineyard Villa gets a new lease on life

Original post made on Mar 4, 2010

For the Pleasanton City Council, Tuesday night's meeting was a love fest like none other as council members, the owner of a mobile home park and many of the residents who live there shook hands and applauded a new agreement that all three sides had rejected only a year ago.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, March 4, 2010, 6:42 AM

Comments

Posted by Pat
a resident of Vineyard Avenue
on Mar 4, 2010 at 8:36 am

As a resident of Vineyard Villa, the uncertainty of what was to come was a big concern to everyone. Old fashion Government...people talking and not talking thru big attorney's is what made this work. I applaud everyone who was involved. I do believe the city council did what they were suppose to do...work for the people of their city.
Thank you again!


Posted by Lee
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 4, 2010 at 11:04 am

Read this over carefully. It appears that Guggenheim, at 72, is going to wait 10 years before he begins the conversion. This means he is going to wait..and he may be dead before this happens. In the mean time, all you residents need to realize he is just delaying the process and for the time being, things stay the same.

In 10 years, the value of the land will be much higher than it is now. How will residents pay for it then, when they can't pay for it now? This will have to be dealt with by the city all over again! Let's hope that in 10 years the city council will work to make sure that residents can continue to live there.


Posted by Pat
a resident of Vineyard Avenue
on Mar 5, 2010 at 8:12 am

We do not have to purchase the land ever if your a resident now. You can continue to rent.
There is a option to buy if you want, but its not mandatory if you live here now.


Posted by Mike
a resident of another community
on Mar 5, 2010 at 10:10 pm

Pat--

I am also a mobile home park resident in California, and would like to clarify a little about mobile home park condo conversion to you.

Yes, if your park converts, you have a choice to rent or buy. Sounds good, right?

Learn some more about it. Those who do not buy will be in big trouble. After one lot is sold, your local rent control goes out the window. (Yes, there is some provision in the code for some controls on rent increases for those who can certify as "low-income", albeit with no enforcement mechanism.)

There will be many residents who do not qualify for those low-income rent controls, but could not possibly afford to buy their "lot". Their rent control will be phased out over four years, and then the park owner could raise it to whatever level he wants to. What if he quadruples the rent? Then no one could afford to stay there! Yet, then they will be unable to regain their equity by selling their home--

because conversion == total equity loss, for those who do not buy.A home is one's largest investment, and it could all be lost. Some might be paying a mortgage, and would be expected to pay it off, if they lose their home, although they did not receive any money for it.

Why conversion = equity loss? Because if you try to sell your home, the prospective buyer does not have a choice, but has to purchase the "lot" from the park owner. If the prospective buyer has to purchase the "lot" from the park owner for hundreds of thousands of dollars, how much do you think they will pay you for your old mobile home? Pretty much nothing! Or the new buyer could say--"take it with you! I'll put up a new one here, on "my lot".

Condo conversion = disaster for mobile home park residents.


I would suggest that people look at the following web sites, for further info:

www.shamconversions.com


www.deserthomefront.com


Posted by missed something
a resident of Kottinger Ranch
on Mar 6, 2010 at 3:57 pm

I heard form somebody that the city council agreed to pay a legal settlement of over $700,000 to the owner of the mobile home park. Is that true? How come the weekly did not mention this in their article? Is the weekly trying to make the council look good and not uncover how they did not follow our own city legal council and now the taxpayers are paying this large settlement? Looks like the writing here is really propaganda for the people running for office this November.


Posted by missed something
a resident of Kottinger Ranch
on Mar 7, 2010 at 5:49 pm

I just read in the Independent Newspaper that the City is paying a settlement to the Mobile Home Park owner of $750,000 of our taxpayer money. If the city is so flush in money, they should have given this money to the school district; not to the owner of a mobile home park.