Issues

Written by Leanne Pohman on April 29 in the NC Times

Pinocchio was punished by a growing nose for telling lies. So I keep looking at the noses of Oceanside's
Councilmen Jerry Kern, Jack Feller and Gary Felien to see whether their noses are growing.

Their noses should be growing, so why can't I see a change? As a mobile-home owner, I know I pay a monthly
fee that goes toward covering city costs related to the Oceanside rent-control ordinance. Margery Pierce, Oceanside's
neighborhood services director, told my neighbor that when she calculates the amount I and other mobile-home owners
get charged each month for city rent-control ordinance costs, she even has to account for the costs of pencils used
by her office.

Rent-control city costs are being paid and have been for years from a monthly user fee just like other city services
are paid for by fees. Oceanside taxpayers have not paid millions to cover the city costs for rent control, yet that lie
is repeated over and over. So shouldn't those pushing Proposition E, the Kern, Feller, Felien so-called "vacancy decontrol"
ballot measure, be tripping over their noses by now?

Then it dawned on me. Nose growth only results from "sins of commission," or full lies, and doesn't result
from "sins of omission," or what politicians call "spin." One of Prop. E's expensive political consultants
must have told supporters "half truths" could be effectively used to create anger at mobile-home owners
and rent control.

A recent letter to the editor from a Prop. E supporter did cross the line from "half truth" to nose-growth
territory: "To date, rent control litigation and administration has cost this city around $3 million ---- money
that could have gone toward parks, public safety, or a number of beneficial services."

Usually, Prop. E supporters cite the city cost of rent control but fail to mention the monthly fee users pay
to cover the cost, a "half truth." This writer goes even further by implying that taxpayer money paid the city
cost, which is a falsehood.

The rent-control ordinance currently on Oceanside's books says city costs must be paid for by something
called a registration fee paid monthly by users of rent control. My monthly fee to cover the Oceanside city
cost to administer the rent-control program is adjusted when the city, not mobile-home owners, determines
the registration fee is insufficient to cover city costs. In other words, the full truth is that mobile-home owners
pay their own way.

A public records request from the city of Oceanside asking for the budget detail for the mobile home registration
fee showed that our monthly fee will produce revenue to the city of $294,008 for 2012. The listed detailed costs
for the city are projected at $266,463.

Now I am not an accountant, but isn't that an extra $27,545 to the city above projected city costs? This information
and more is available at www.omha4oside.com, which is the website for the Oceanside Mobile Homeowners Association,
a nonprofit, mutual benefit organization.

By Dick Blom in the letters to the editor, NC Times dated April 26

Actions are incomprehensible, fiscally irresponsible

I find the actions of Oceanside City Council members Jerry Kern, Gary Felien and Jack Feller to be b
oth incomprehensible and fiscally irresponsible regarding affordable housing in Oceanside. They struggle
to find redevelopment funds for 288 affordable apartments and town houses. They consider various deals
with developers to include a few more affordable homes in their projects. All this indicates how affordable
housing is a good thing for Oceanside, a most desirable objective.

But this majority of three is incredibly anxious to get a vacancy decontrol law into effect to eliminate the
2,200-plus affordable homes that Oceanside already offers in our mobile-home parks. These are the homes
that will be removed from the affordable category by the ballot Measure E in the June election. If this ballot
measure is passed, it will do away with most of the affordable housing currently available in Oceanside.

As for the money being discussed for affordable homes, what\\\\\\\'s never mentioned in council meetings is the
hundreds of thousands of dollars the homeowners of our existing affordable homes provide each year to
Oceanside. For 2012, it will be approximately $300,000 that these mobile-home owners provide Oceanside
that totally funds any part of city government devoted to administering the mobile-home ordinance 16B.

Forum article written by Norm Kelly in the NC Times dated April 18

This should be called David vs. Goliath. But then again, when considering the odds against
mobile-home residents, maybe it should be called David vs. King Kong.

For those of you who watched the recent KOCT debate on vacancy decontrol, it was easy to
draw the conclusion that park owners can barely gather up enough cash to patch a pothole.
Well, guess what? This group of out-of-town owners now has a war chest of over $300,000
and growing. You can expect a blitz of propaganda in your mailbox any day now.

What about the park residents? You know, the old folks who are somehow taking advantage of
these mobile park businesses? They have accumulated about $26,000, primarily resulting from
fundraisers, doorbell-ringing, and small donations from the residents themselves. They are at
an 11:1 disadvantage.

Clearly, this exposes the myth that park owners are practically broke. And if indeed they are,
why don't they apply to the city's Manufactured Home Fair Practices Commission for a deserved
increase in space rates? None have, and for good reason.

In order to apply for an increase, the owners would have to reveal information regarding their
current operating profits or losses. And guess what that would display? Large profits, some as high
as 59 percent. It required a Superior Court decision just to discover that information.

Mobile-home parks are making plenty of money, and if they are not, there are existing systems
in place to assure that they do, assuming that the problem is not simple incompetence.

Another hidden issue is that these parks do not represent the "highest and best use" of the land
they occupy. That is another issue the owners would prefer to keep to themselves. The reason?
No one can require a park owner to run a mobile-home park. But here we have the pesky problem
of the 3,500 Oceanside citizens who occupy these parks.

Local and state law provides for compensation or relocation of these residents if a park is closed.
That is expensive. It is far more economical to enlist sleazy practices such as vacancy decontrol.

Of the California cities employing this vacancy decontrol, none have the radical version that Oceanside
envisions. All others have some kind of "cap" on rent increase upon sale of property, Most are in
the 10 percent range, but vary from 5 percent to 25 percent.

And once rented, the new occupant continues under rent control. Oceanside proposes unlimited
rent increases, and eliminates rent control for the new owner. Since the current ordinance is funded
by an assessment of park residents and park owners (not taxpayers), in just a few years, the entire
ordinance will simply collapse due to the diminishing numbers under rent control.

Those stating that a resident can stay under rent control for "as long as they live in their home" do not
understand the effects of the law they support, or are lying.

Can David prevail against King Kong? It's up to the voters on June 5.

written by Bonnie Wright in the NCTimes

It is the nature of a political arena to be filled with lies and scams, but I never thought
I would witness it firsthand so blatantly or that I, along with approximately 3,000 others,
including 700 veterans, who have worked and supported our community and country most
of our lives, would be the target of the evil results.

The Oceanside majority council supported several wealthy non-Oceanside resident park-owners
and their backers to enable them to satisfy their greed. Those self-proclaimed "poor" park owners,
who rent us an empty parking space, are using over $300,000 in campaign funds from park owners,
their associations and developers, compared with less than $50,000 funding mainly donated by
people on fixed incomes, to win a costly election they forced on us. ...

They claim that our homes, with improvements, landscaping and utilities, all at our own expense,
have little value ---- until they take them for their own use. Please check facts that are public
record regarding their claims of city administration and taxpayer costs, lawsuits and campaign
donations. ... Please vote no on E on June 5.