Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Mobile home park owners should stick to zoning promises

The recent action by the Pinellas County commissioners in refusing to rezone property being used by mobile homeowners as homes on their rented lots is commendable. It is inspiring to see our elected representatives speak out for the people. We should remember them at the polls when they come up for election again.

Mobile home park developers have made a serious promise when they initially asked for their property to be zoned "R-6," the designation for mobile home developments and mobile home subdevelopment. The zoning allows them to rent or sell the land only for mobile home use, and based on this designation they encourage people like you and me to invest amounts sometimes exceeding $100,000 to buy and locate a manufactured home on this land. Some homes cost less while others cost more. The point is that a good-faith decision to put a home on R-6 zoned land is done because there is a belief that the owner of the property is also acting in good faith.

We understand that the owners are entitled to make a reasonable profit on their investment. And if you examine the rents many of them are charging you will find that their return on investment is very good. They also know that they have a "captive" customer because most mobile homes/manufactured homes are not really mobile once they have been placed on the rented lot.

Florida law offers minimum protection. The only real hope for protection must come from local commissioners who will refuse to let voracious developers buy up these parks with the intention of getting the zoning changed from R-6 (restricted for mobile homes only) to one that allows condos or townhomes. A promise is a promise!

Please don't allow these injustices to succeed. County commissioners, voters and all who believe in fair play: Don't allow any more R-6 zoned inhabited property to be changed.

Serious problem finally is noticed

Re: Protecting mobile home dwellers, editorial, Aug. 29.

Thank you, Ken Welch, Pinellas County Commission vice chairman, and other county commissioners for finally taking the plight of "mobile home" dwellers to heart! Florida state law does offer minimal protection for "mobile home" residents but as we are finding out "mobile homes" are not "mobile" at all! Either they are too old to be moved and no other park will accept them, or they are too large to be moved. The alternative is a pittance reimbursement that won't even cover a security deposit/first month/last month rent on an apartment. Finally someone is taking notice of this very serious housing issue!

Protect these elderly citizens

Re: Protecting mobile home dwellers.

Thank you! This article is the best you have had on the concerns of those who own "manufactured housing" in Pinellas County! There are a few parks where young families reside, but the majority of these rental and resident-owned homes are owned by people like me! I am 83 and frankly I would be lost if my property was taken and my non-mobile home destroyed! You spelled out the plight in excellent fashion!

The cities and county officials need to do more to help these elderly citizens and voters by protecting them from greedy park owners and the even greedier builders, who are searching for any land to build condos on! I am all for growth but not at the ruination of elderly citizens residing in their owned homes on rental property! We need some local force speaking out against the destruction of their homes!

Supply alternative housing

Re: Protecting mobile home dwellers.

Bravo to the Pinellas County commissioners for standing up to the developers who wanted to take 178 homes to build new townhouses.

However, mobile home parks take up space. I live in a park, and I realize that some parks can be a blight on the community. As an alternative to simply paying the homeowners, why not require the developer to provide a "compensation" tower (a separate building not part of his expensive investment) which would be offered to the mobile home dwellers for 20 years at the same rate they are now paying. Think what this would mean to the community! And think how lives would be changed for the better!

Why protest at BayWalk?

Am I missing something? People are protesting the war in Iraq, but they are protesting in front of BayWalk in St. Petersburg. Why are they doing it there? Why don't they go to the Pentagon, or the White House? Why don't they protest in front of recruiting stations? What is so special about BayWalk that they think their protests will be heard better there?

Do they think that the people they are inconveniencing will then submit a bill in Congress that will stop the war? Or do they think that one of the businesses will take up a petition and contact their legislators on their behalf? I find it very strange. Am I the only one?

United on free speech

My brother and I have been traveling to BayWalk for two years, to show an opposing view to the antiwar protesters (both of us areProtestWarrior members and support the administration). But over the last couple of months we have also sided with the St. Pete For Peace group as regards the First Amendment right to free speech. We don't see eye to eye on many things, but on this topic we certainly agree.

I find the bullhorns, drums, and general anti-administration shouting to be obnoxious, but I'll happily support their right to do it.

We have been there every other weekend or so standing against the antiwar protesters, but in this we stand with them, and always will.

Resist arctic drilling

Recent articles concerning the high price of gas and the oil crunch have brought to the forefront our country's need for true leadership. Our congressional leaders should be focusing on the future. The future is not just about oil, but about maintaining the balance of nature, and giving our children a world where nature is respected and valued. Instead, a reactionary Congress is prepared to sell our future to big business.

Congress will vote next month on a "budget reconciliation" bill that would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to massive oil development and set a precedent for other exploitation of currently protected areas. There is very little usable oil in the refuge, much less than what America uses in one year, and this oil would take decades to extract. This oil would not lower gas prices or reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Regular people would not benefit in any way from such a venture; the proposal will only profit those already made wealthy from the oil industry.

Our senators and representative should actually try to be the leaders we so desperately need, taking a stand and opposing any such bill.

[Last modified August 31, 2005, 01:21:25]