Jury rules Carson violated mobile home park owner’s constitutional rights, owes $3.3 million

[Brian4Liberty]

Jury rules Carson violated mobile home park owner’s constitutional rights, owes $3.3 million
By Sandy Mazza - 05/05/16

A federal court jury on Thursday ordered the city of Carson to pay $3.3 million in damages to a mobile home park owner for violating his constitutional rights when it repeatedly rejected proposed rent increases at his park.

The verdict is the latest skirmish in an epic court battle between Carson and James Goldstein, the city’s largest mobile-home-park owner. Goldstein has relentlessly pursued rent increases beyond what is allowed under the city’s rent-control measures since the 1980s.

The U.S. District Court jury decided Carson had no right to deny hefty rent increases at Goldstein’s Colony Cove mobile home park’s 404 lots in 2006. Colony Cove sits next to Goldstein’s other 400-lot park, Carson Harbor Village, on Avalon Boulevard.

The city “set rents at unreasonably low levels” after Goldstein bought Colony Cove in 2006, Goldstein’s legal complaint states. “This forced Colony Cove to operate at a loss for over five years (sometimes at a loss exceeding $1 million a year).”
...
Sunny Soltani, Carson’s lead attorney, called the jury’s decision a mistake and said she will seek a correction from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

“The city’s position from Day 1 in this case was that it should be a case for the trial court to decide, given the legal nature of the causes of action and the complexity (of the issues in the case). These are constitutional issues that should be decided by the court, not a jury.

“Onward and upward to the Court of Appeals.”
...
Goldstein’s first application to the city to raise rents at Colony Cove was for $618 per lot. The city instead allowed him a $39 monthly increase.

“He sued us in state court, then, in every year after, he sued,” Soltani said. “It was clear the purchase price was not supported by rents allowed by city ordinance.”

Goldstein’s court complaint lays the blame at the city’s feet. It claims that the park is luxurious “with amenities including a large, central clubhouse-style building with a kitchen, banquet room, swimming pool, Jacuzzi, card room, library/television room, exercise room, indoor spa and laundry room.”

City rent-control restrictions “do not permit Colony Cove to make a reasonable profit,” the complaint goes on. “Far from it. The city has essentially forced Colony Cove to shoulder an affordable housing burden that should be borne by the city taxpayers as a whole.”
...
More: http://www.dailybreeze.com/general-n...wes-33-million

[Brian4Liberty]

City rent-control restrictions “do not permit Colony Cove to make a reasonable profit,” the complaint goes on. “Far from it. The city has essentially forced Colony Cove to shoulder an affordable housing burden that should be borne by the city taxpayers as a whole.”

Uh, wut?

[oyarde]

Uh, wut?

Well , I dunno , but I guess if the city council is determining rents then the property owners should seek reimbursement from the general tax collection fund. It sounds like the 618 per lot increase would be annual which would be 51.50 per month and the city only agreed to 39. I have never lived anywhere that has rent control , but that should be illegal .Bizarre .

[Zippyjuan]

He dropped an earlier $70 million lawsuit against the city over his other trailer park. http://www.dailybreeze.com/general-n...f-rent-control His net worth is over $100 million.

Goldstein, who dropped his lawsuit against the city last month, has been a thorn in the city’s side for decades. A resident of the Hollywood Hills, where he often hosts celebrity events at his decadent mansion, he recently launched James Goldstein Couture, a fashion line featuring the animal skins and designer-label cowboy-style ensembles he often wears.

Goldstein is famous for wearing outrageous outfits when he sits courtside at more than 100 National Basketball Association games each season.

The city has been in litigation with Goldstein for decades because city officials repeatedly denied his requests for large rent increase at the parks, which fall under the city’s rent control ordinance. When he sought to convert the parks to resident ownership, the city saw it merely as a tactic to block city-imposed rent controls.

Carson lost court battles in 2008 and 2009 to block conversion at the two parks, but appealed the Carson Harbor Village case. Meanwhile, Goldstein filed two separate $70 million claims for the delay in approving his requests.

But the city’s fortunes changed in 2010, when the state’s 2nd District Court of Appeal supported Carson’s argument that Goldstein’s desire to convert his parks was just a sham to increase rents. The state Supreme Court upheld the appellate decision, and the city again rejected Goldstein’s conversion application on the grounds that his motive was only to increase his profits.

But Goldstein made a comeback in 2012 when a Los Angeles Superior Court judge reprimanded Carson officials for denying his conversion requests, and ordered them to reconsider his appeal. They did, and again determined that Goldstein was just trying to get around rent control rules.

The city’s big break in the lengthy court saga came in 2013, when Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law Senate Bill 510 requiring mobile home park owners to secure a majority of tenant support before converting their properties. Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had upheld the rights of property owners to charge market rents by striking down similar bills.

But Goldstein didn’t back down. He appealed to the state appellate court, which in August, denied his request. The city won that battle by arguing that protected marshland next to Carson Harbor Village needs expensive maintenance that residents could not afford if conversion to private property was approved.

Goldstein asked the state Supreme Court to reconsider that decision but, on Oct. 28, his petition was denied.

[Zippyjuan]

Well , I dunno , but I guess if the city council is determining rents then the property owners should seek reimbursement from the general tax collection fund. It sounds like the 618 per lot increase would be annual which would be 51.50 per month and the city only agreed to 39. I have never lived anywhere that has rent control , but that should be illegal .Bizarre .

I believe it is actually a MONTHLY increase in rent- not annual.

Goldstein’s first application to the city to raise rents at Colony Cove was for $618 per lot. The city instead allowed him a $39 monthly increase.

The requested increase would raise the rental costs $7,416 a year per lot. Times 404 lots comes to about $3 million a year. For most mobile home renters, that can be a significant amount. And if you can't afford the rent increase, it is hard to pick up your trailer and move it to another affordable spot if you own it.

http://www.dailybreeze.com/general-n...trol-challenge

He has, however, continued to seek hefty increases of about 30 percent — average rents at the park ranged from $600 to $900 two years ago — and the city has continued to oppose them, allowing hikes of 10 percent.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

The requested increase would raise the rental costs $7,416 a year per lot...For most mobile home renters, that can be a significant amount.

That is about the going rate in many southern California areas. Carson CA (subject of this story) is adjacent to Long Beach. This trailer lot in Long Beach goes for $900 per month. https://www.mhvillage.com/Mobile-Hom...hp?key=1418995

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I lived in New York City, a place with rent control/stabilization. It really was not a good deal because the landlords skimped on everything: threadbare carpets, rickety appliances, paint jobs long overdue, etc. My front door was a hodge podge of peeling paint and who knows what else. The grout on my tiled kitchen floor was coming up everywhere. I bugged the super and landlord several months to work on it. Finally, he did the work, but it was a shoddy job. Might as well left it alone.

The apartment building owners also played games with broker fees. Many places would charge a finder's fee to "help" you find an apartment. What it amounted to was landlord Smith charging you a $1000 fee to rent landlord Jones' apartment. Jones did the same thing by listing Smith's rentals and also charging you the $1000 finder's fee. They would simply advertise the other guy's apartment and charge you the broker fee. Both Smith and Jones acted as a broker for one another.

Rent control also created an artificial living condition of millions of people living in a cramped area. Such tight living affects every aspect of living.

Government advocates and progressives actually fail with rent control because the owners will always find a way around it. I lived in much better apartments around the country with no rent control. The apartments were much nicer and were a better value.

[Zippyjuan]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...suing/2610469/

Today, the pre-fab "look" can look just like a site-built home. The most basic single-section models run about $30,000-$70,000, about the cost of some automobiles. Home plans can be customized, with many models in the $100,000 price range.

In most cases, mobile homes are sold without land, and there is a fee to "set" them on a plot with a septic tank or hook up to public utilities. From there, the average rent in the U.S. is around $200 to $300. Combine that with the monthly mortgage or finance cost on the actual mobile home, and you're looking at $700 to $1,000 monthly – less than the average apartment rent – and with a chance to have a small yard, perhaps a pet and the feel of a neighborhood.

Try to lock in your land rental rate, since that's a significant part of the monthly cost, and picking up & moving is tricky (it can cost as much as $25,000 to move a mobile home). Because moving mobile homes is prohibitively expensive, there is an active resale market. If you snag a used mobile home with an affordable lot rent, you could get your total monthly cost down to $300 to $500 a month.

He wants to raise his to about $1200- $1500 a month just for the space. But he should have the right to charge whatever the market will bear. Many mobile home parks have been closing down to replace them with more expensive (and profitable) buildings.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/... <br /> <br />

the average rent in the U.S. is around $200 to $300.

Not in Southern California. Look up the going rates, like the one that I posted.

Average is also not a good real estate measure. Median is used because of wide variations, regionally to even locally. You're not renting a lot in Long Beach or Inglewood CA for $250 per month. I even had a relative who lived in a trailer 1985. The lot rent was $150. This was outside a medium sized Midwestern city. There's no way Southern California lot rent is $300 over 30 years later.

I would think you should know this Zip, since Long Beach is right in your backyard. Or, is the the other guy running the ZippyJuan account this spring? Are you the ZippyJuan from England or the ZippyJuan from Southern California? Don't you have these variations in the UK?

[CaptUSA]

He wants to raise his to about $1200- $1500 a month just for the space. But he should have the right to charge whatever the market will bear. Many mobile home parks have been closing down to replace them with more expensive (and profitable) buildings.

Ok, who has this account now, and what have you done with the last Zippy?

[acptulsa]

I believe it is actually a MONTHLY increase in rent- not annual.



The requested increase would raise the rental costs $7,416 a year per lot. Times 404 lots comes to about $3 million a year...

Rents ranged from $600-900 and he wants to raise them 30%, according to what you quoted, and you believe that works out to $618 per month?

Just the sort of mad math skillz one would expect of a fan of the Federal Reserve.

[Zippyjuan]

Rents ranged from $600-900 and he wants to raise them 30%, according to what you quoted, and you believe that works out to $618 per month?

Just the sort of mad math skillz one would expect of a fan of the Federal Reserve.

He has proposed many different rate increases for the trailer parks (and filed many lawsuits over it). Those were two separate proposals.

If they were to be approved, many could not afford the increases and if they owned their own mobile home be forced to abandon them (and lose the money they paid for them) because of the difficulties of finding a new location and moving it.

[osan]

These are constitutional issues that should be decided by the court, not a jury.

Note how the sore loser attempts to invalidate the very process, blindly asserting that the very basis of that process (jury) is incapable of making the right determination as proven by the fact that they found against them. There's airtight, credible logic for you.

How much would anyone be willing to bet against me when I assert that, had the jury found otherwise, they city of Carson would be lauding the victory as proof positive that the system works and that juries are eminently qualified to do God's work in such cases?

FAIL.

[osan]

Uh, wut?

The statement in question presupposes the validity of the whole tax deal. Given that validity, the statement is correct. If taxation is valid and if what the city is doing is effectively rendering Goldstein's property a low-income complex, then I would agree that the cost of providing parasite housing should be borne by all and not just the property "owner".

As for the validity of the tax model...

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

If they were to be approved, many could not afford the increases....

How do you know that?

[osan]

He has proposed many different rate increases for the trailer parks (and filed many lawsuits over it). Those were two separate proposals.

If they were to be approved, many could not afford the increases and if they owned their own mobile home be forced to abandon them (and lose the money they paid for them) because of the difficulties of finding a new location and moving it.

OK Juan - who owns the property in question, i.e., the mobile home park? This is a serious question. Who owns it?

[fisharmor]

Talking about what owners should and shouldn't do with mobile home parks is fallacious from the onset.
Mobile homes only exist because they dodge numerous laws pertaining to housing, including tax laws.
They are a direct creation of the state.
Nobody actively seeks to live in a mobile home.
If the state stopped encouraging their existence by effectively punishing alternatives, every last one of them would disappear within a decade.