WEATHER »

Goleta Mobile Home Conversion Okayed

Court of Appeals Sides with Owner of Park and City of Goleta, Against the Residents


Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Share Article

For more than 10 years, the residents of Rancho Mobile Home Estates in Goleta have been fighting with the park’s owner over their collective future as an affordable place to live, winning some battles — including the protection of City of Goleta-approved rent control, a squabble that was petitioned all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court — but losing others. The latest loss was last week, when the California Court of Appeals sided with owner Daniel Guggenheim in his quest to convert the park from being a place where people rent their spaces into a more condominium-like setup where individuals can purchase the land beneath their manufactured homes.

Residents, who fear that their rent control protections will disappear when the first plot is sold, had fought that decision on a technicality, arguing that a state-mandated agreement about a conversion survey never happened, that the survey was not properly conducted, and that the City of Goleta had not properly evaluated that survey in approving the conversion.

The panel of three judges felt otherwise, which also put the City of Goleta in the winning column this time. But the city councilmembers were reluctant victors at best, as they’ve already spent more than $500,000 in legal fees dealing with Guggenheim’s requests, and hatched this now-approved deal as a way of avoiding more lawsuits. “While we are satisfied that the court recognized that the city’s decision is correct, the state legislature needs to fix this statute and make it clear that cities have the authority to protect their residents,” said Goleta Mayor Roger Aceves in a statement.

Explaining that he was “very disappointed and surprised” by the decision, the park residents’ spokesperson Ken Tatro said that they were not planning to appeal it, and would wait for the California Coastal Commission to make the next move, as the conversion proposal now must get their approval.

Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines

Get out while you still can. SB County does NOT want retirees on small fixed incomes, poor people, sick people, working folks squeaking by, or old people in its vicinity.

My family got the message 7 years ago and fled after 32 years of watching things change for the worse; the overcrowding, the pandering to tourists at the expense of locals, and the gentrification of the entire area.

There is nothing noble in "sticking it out" or fighting a clearly well-financed, well-organized system of exclusion. So my message to these folks and others in similar positions where it is a continual struggle just to exist there: get out while you can. Sell up and get out, hand these selfish jerks the keys to the mess...er kingdom, and let THEM clean it up and live with the results.

When they can't find anyone to fix their cars or mow their lawns, build their McMansions etc., when visiting grandma & grandpa involves a 4 hour plane ride to a more affordable part of the country because grandma & grandpa were priced out of their own area here, then the chickens will be home and roosting.

Our family fought this for 32 years; the best thing we ever did was get the heck out. We took charge of our lives and finances, and never looked back.

Last one off the SB Train to Nowhere, turn off the lights: because there will be no one left who knows how to change the bulbs

Holly (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There are thousands of UCSB retirees who would love to move to somewhere better than what Santa Barbara has become / is becoming but are literally stuck here because the University's health insurance only covers these zip codes.
SB really isn't that special anymore.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2013 at 6:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why so negative about SB? For one, this situation centers around the city of GOLETA. Second, is it so bad to buy the property instead of paying high rent each month? Yes, if this plan goes through, it would affect countless people and may would split from town. But for the people who are sticking it out, and making ends meet will benefit from this. These people aren't RUNNING AWAY from the problem. So if you want to leave, see ya. No one wants you here anyway.

AnnaV (anonymous profile)
November 8, 2013 at 1:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm sorry Anna, but the two above individuals are mental. Holly thinks that she is a dog, and Ken once posted a green-teal duck as his Facebook avatar leading people to call him "Kenneth Mallard Volduck". We dolphins hate it when humans do that deed.

Deeply disturbed?...I am.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
November 8, 2013 at 5:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry burts your bubble Anna but it's people like you and the problems you create that people are fleeing from. How you can be so deluded is your own problem but the problem is people like you. You're actually the unwanted one Anna, and you can have it all to yourself- you ain't worth it.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
November 8, 2013 at 12:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually, Anna's the one that's wanted. Which one will pay taxes to support the cushy public employee union benefits you so dearly want to protect? And who will spend money in the community? People like Anna will maintain their homes and take pride their community. Holly can enjoy life in a run-down eyesore in Bakersfield while people like Anna contribute to our community and our tax base.

Botany (anonymous profile)
November 8, 2013 at 1 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As always Botany misses the point. How deluded can you be to think renters don't wish to own property or perhaps do!

How do you know Anna maintains her home? How do you know she doesn't cheat on her taxes? It certainly doesn't read as if she's actuallly involved in the communityt other than the occasional personal appearance to be so clueless at best; ____________ at worst.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
November 8, 2013 at 1:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good luck with your straw dogs Ken. It's a documented fact that homeowners care for their residences much better than either tenants or landlords. And maybe she does cheat on her taxes, who knows? But probably not sales or property tax.

Botany (anonymous profile)
November 8, 2013 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Botany: I missed the part where Holly said she lives in Bakersfield. Can you show me where she said that?

billclausen (anonymous profile)
November 8, 2013 at 3:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

She intimated that she left SB mostly due to the cost of living among other things. Bakersfield was a hypothetical location where the cost of living is much lower and these gentrification issues don't exist. I think you knew that but just wanted to pull my chain.

Botany (anonymous profile)
November 8, 2013 at 4:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well let's just all buy a house or two and SB's problems will be solved. Houses grow on trees around here ya know.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
November 8, 2013 at 6:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

But let's face it, you can highlight and promote SB's flaws and less pretty side and people of all walks will still want to come here.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
November 8, 2013 at 7 p.m. (Suggest removal)

AnnaV/Botany: Is the issue that these people will be forced out by the park being converted into a condo-like setting where the only way to live there is by purchasing the place?

Yes, ideally home ownership is better for the reason Botany describes, but the reality is that most people in S.B. can't afford to buy homes which is the core of the problem.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
November 8, 2013 at 7:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, and that situation is not likely to change. But that being said, I don't support the owner of the property. It was purchased under the condition that rent control was there to stay and that was built into the purchase price. He is trying to weasel out of the agreement so he can get full market value for the property. I'd really like to see this A-hole reimburse the city for it's legal fees.

Botany (anonymous profile)
November 8, 2013 at 9:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And I agree with you on that Bitany. So why are we argueing? Oh yeah Marie Antoinette dropped by to scold commentators.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
November 9, 2013 at 12:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ok, I think this thread is getting a little silly.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
November 9, 2013 at 6:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
November 9, 2013 at 6:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: