Click here if you’re having trouble viewing the slideshow on your mobile device.
San Jose leaders on Thursday promised expanded protections to hundreds of Westwinds Mobile Park residents caught in a property dispute and threatened with eviction.
Mayor Sam Liccardo and Councilmember Lan Diep announced a new citywide proposal that would give greater leverage to mobile home owners whose parks are facing redevelopment.
The new proposal creates a “mobile home park” designation, and would require much higher review standards for redevelopment of the communities. Any new projects would also require city council approval.
“We are absolutely committed to doing everything we can to protect our residents,” Liccardo said at a briefing at Westwinds. The council is expected to act on the measure within weeks, he said.
The Bay Area’s highest-in-the-nation housing costs and short supply of homes has brought tremendous pressure to bring lucrative redevelopment to mobile home parks. Several large Bay Area communities, some built nearly 50 years ago, have been threatened or closed in recent years.
This week, Rep. Ro Khanna, D- Fremont, introduced legislation to allow the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to help preserve affordable housing and support the acquisition and preservation of manufactured and mobile home communities.
More than 1,600 residents of Westwinds in North San Jose received notice last week that a dispute between property managers MHC Operating and property owner Nicholson Family Partnership could displace them by August 2022, when an agreement between the two parties expires.
Both sides insist they do not want to displace residents. MHC sued the Nicholson Family Partnership last week in Santa Clara County Superior Court, claiming the owners asked MHC to evict residents before the contract expires. The partnership denied the charge and said it seeks to protect affordable housing.
No redevelopment plans for the property — the largest mobile home park in San Jose and fourth largest in the state — have been submitted to the city. Liccardo said the property owners have discussed plans for the park with city officials, and assured officials they do not want to evict residents.
“Whatever the intentions are of the private parties, they are not totally transparent at this point,” Liccardo said. “You’ve got a legal fight brewing right now, and it’s obvious that someone decided to drop a nuclear bomb. The result has been a lot of sleepless night by 723 families. I’m not terribly happy with that.”
Councilmember Diep, who represents residents in the park, said new protections would allay residents fears. “I don’t want them to spend another night worrying about what’s going to happen to them in 2022,” he said.
But Huy Tran, who is challenging Diep for his District 4 council seat, said at a rally in the park later on Thursday that the council should have acted on the proposal two years ago, and advocated for another moratorium on park closures. Tran said the council has not paid enough attention to mobile home park residents.
For many middle-class workers trying to buy a home, he said, “mobile home parks are the last opportunities.”
Diep has supported a moratorium on mobile home closure, and said he has consistently supported residents.
San Jose offers protections beyond state requirements for mobile home owners facing redevelopment and displacement, said Nadia Aziz, directing attorney for the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley.
The city requires reimbursement for the fair market value of a home. Displaced residents qualify for moving assistance and up to 24 months of rent subsidies. They can also form an association and bid to purchase the property and preserve the community, she said.
“San Jose has done a lot of things to help protect mobile homes,” said Aziz, who helped negotiate a settlement for residents affected by the planned redevelopment of Winchester Ranch Mobile Home Park in the city.
Despite assurances from more than a dozen elected leaders, city and state officials and housing advocates visiting the park Thursday, residents remain concerned. Many are angry and confused about the dispute and long-term prospects for the community. Some have lived in the park for decades, and say they can’t find affordable housing outside the park.
Sarah and Alex Young, both 31, purchased a mobile home five years ago with their parents and another family member. The couple decided it was a safe, stable and affordable place for Sarah’s parents to retire.
The family splits the bills and pays roughly $1,200 a month in rent. The Youngs want to stay in the park, support Sarah’s parents and sister, and save for their own home. The uncertainty about the park’s future has complicated those plans.
“We can’t make any decisions,” Alex Young said, “until we absolutely know what’s next.”
