05/17/1989 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e beyond the existing State law and staff feels it is complementary to that law. Ms. Johnson said Senate Bill 3280 would change the situation surrounding mobile home park displacement. The owner would be required to give 12 months. notice to the tenant. If the tenant moves within six months, his or her relocation expenses would be paid by the owner. Ms. Johnson said one provision in this bill would require the City to pay relocation costs if the City passed an ordinance, order, or resolution that would cause a park closure. The City has taken a position against this bill. Mr. Rutan asked about the rationale for granting moving expenses to a non-resident owner who rents the mobile home to a tenant. John VanLandingham, Planning Commissioner, said the way to preserve low-income housing stock is to move it. The commission is trying to help preserve the use by encouraging it to be moved elsewhere. He did not feel this provision would help subsidize an investment corporation because such a group probably would not fall into the low-income category and would not, therefore, be eligible for moving expenses. Responding to a question from Mr. Rutan, Ms. Johnson said if a mobile home is immovable, the owner could get the salvage value for the home. The tenant and possessions would then be moved into other housing. e Mr. Rutan expressed concern that the ordinance is targeted to certain mobile home parks in certain land use areas, which are defined as "at risk.1I He was also concerned that a number of bills at the State Legislature could affect the proposed ordinance. Mr. Holmer said the recent mobile home park conversion at Delta Villa was dealt with in ways similar to those provided in the ordinance (e.g., relocation assistance and assistance in meeting moving expenses). He felt successful resolution of the issues surrounding that conversion was possible because the owner was considerate of the problems faced by the tenants. Mr. Holmer said the question the council must answer is whether the City really needs this ordinance. He felt the City would benefit from the ordinance which would address mobile home park conversions in the most effective way possible. Mr. Bennett expressed his opposition to the ordinance. He said the question is not whether there is a need to help tenants displaced by mobile home park conversions, because the need is unquestionable. The question is who should pay for the expense of relocation. Mr. Bennett felt that the community, rather than the property owner, should take on the responsibility for helping displaced tenants of mobile home parks. Responding to Mr. Bennett, Mr. Boles said he assumes that if this ordinance were adopted, the property owner would arrange to recover the costs associated with displacement. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 17, 1989 Page 7