H1134, the bill to help North Carolina Counties remove their abandoned mobile homes, has reached a stage where many legislators feel compelled to shape it before it becomes law. This is good. It means that the bill has legs and that it will probably be enacted in some form.

The bill is sponsored by Phillip Haire (Jackson-D) with Lucy Allen (Franklin-D), Joe Tolson (Edgecombe-D), Carolyn Justice (Pender-R). It is not a coincidence that each comes from one of our state’s rural areas. This issue is most severe in rural counties. Moreover, the funding that the bill provides matters because many of these counties are strapped by a lack of revenue and steadily increasing Medicaid costs.

A lot happened on Thursday.

In House Finance, the bill was amended by Rep. Julia Howard (Mocksville-R) to include abandoned mobile classrooms.

There was much debate, led mainly be Rep. Bill Daughtridge (R-Rocky Mount) and Rep. Curtis Blackwood (R-Matthews), to exempt property owners who were not rightful owners of the abandoned home in question from being sued by the county for removal of the mobile home in question; an amendment to this effect was also adopted.

The Solid Waste Management Fund, from which the monies to fund the grants in this bill will be drawn had roughly $1,000,000 in revenue and $1,000,000 in expenditures this year. However, the landfill tipping fee surcharge enacted last year, which will expand the revenue base of the Fund, has not kicked in yet, and in fact, a bill to delay the tip fee start date (H2541) has passed House Finance. Rep. Haire said he would offer an amendment that would align the effective date of this bill with that of the effective date of the landfill tipping fee.

The decision to strip out the liability clause may be a big deal.  Certainly, it removes some of the “stick” that counties have in their efforts to clean up the homes.  It can be a problem getting an absentee landowner to pay attention to this problem.  That is especially the case when a land owner is actually a mortgage company or servicer based out of a P.O. Box in New York.  County code enforcement officers are limited in their ability to accomplish anything across state lines.

The successful programs in Brunswick and Scotland Counties both have these liability provisions.  However, in the case of Brunswick, it hasn’t been necessary to use that rule very often.  They have managed to remove more than 1200 homes with a program that is almost entirely based upon the voluntary consent of land owners.

North Carolina’s H1700, a bill to reward park owners to sell to residents and non-profits, shifted directions today.

The bill came before the House with language that would have provided a tax credit equivalent to seven percent of the gain made by owners.  That gain would have been usable against tax liabilities for up to three years.

Two changes took place.  First, Paul Stam (R-Apex) pointed out that the bill would do nothing for owners who sell their park at little gain or even at a loss.  In many instances, park owners face that exact dilemma.  With stagnant wages in many rural counties, cash flows at parks have leveled off.  Often times, people that would have bought a home and put it in a park could, until recently, qualify for a mortgage through a subprime arrangement.

With that in mind, Stam asked for staff to consider an amendment.

Secondly, staff from Revenue considered changing the language on the incentive from a tax credit to a deduction.

The bill may be heard on Monday in the House.  It could still pass the House and make it across to the Senate this year.

The title of my book is “This is My Home.” The words sprung from something that a woman living in a nice single wide in Durham told me. She was angry. A local community development official asserted that she did not live in a house, as her “home” was in fact in a land-lease park. “This is my home,” she said.

Her assertion would seem to be self-validating. If she says her singlewide is her home, then it is. Yet the law finds a more nuanced perspective. The Supreme Court has often become the arbiter of disputes about this very topic.

Search Warrants and Mobile Homes

The Fourth Amendment says that police have to get a search warrant to search your “home.”

That is not true if they want to search an automobile. The motor vehicle exception creates a different standard for Fourth Amendment protections when the police want to search a car. Police can search a car, or any mobile vehicle, if they have probable cause. The logic, expressed in Carroll v. United States (1925), was that the mobility of a car creates an urgency that makes the procedural endeavor of getting a warrant an undue burden.

Well, what about a mobile home? It turns out it is not so simple. In California v. Carney (1985), the justices held that travel trailers deserve to be classified akin to cars. The decision has been interpreted to be relevant for situations involving boats, airplanes, and campers as well. Carney says that when a person living in a motor home is wanted for a felony, the police can enter his or her home at will.

In South Dakota v. Opperman (1976), the Court spelled it out further. It held that people have a lower expectation of privacy when they choose to live in a motor home

That means that people living in travel trailers (or boat houses, or airplanes, or cars) cannot expect that police will need a search warrant to enter their abode.

People living in mobile homes that no longer have wheels or a means of motorized transport are accorded a higher level of protection, however.

Mobile home residents have an advocate in Justice John Paul Stevens. He saw the inequity in the law for people who live in “mobile” homes. Justice Stevens insisted, in a dissenting opinion in U.S. v. Ross (1982), Stevens writes that officers should be able to recognize when a vehicle is actually a “living quarters.” In such an instance, he says, it deserves a higher level of protection, even if it doesn’t look like a castle. The residents have the right to expect privacy over their quarters. He points to a decision, United States v. Chadwick (1977), that found that although luggage is mobile, it should be accorded protection from unreasonable searches.

All of this is meant to provide another wrinkle in the many ways that the law currently undermines people living in manufactured housing.

The answer to the question “What is wrong with our manufactured housing communities” has less to do with any specific problem and more to do with a thousand little shortcomings.  It is not just the lack of real property rules, not just the financing, not just the lack of consumer protections….Dayenu!

The list goes on and on.  Someone once asked if you can die by papercuts.  I imagine that trying to build wealth in a manufactured home faces the same kind of hazard.

Let me offer another way that residents in land-lease communities suffer from systemic disadvantages — the ability to qualify for credit under the Community Reinvestment Act guidelines.  CRA credit goes to banks when they make investments, serve consumers, or make loans to low and moderate income borrowers.

Most land-lease communities have little trouble qualifying for enough low and moderate income residents within their boundaries.  Yet they are not given the same attention.

Why?  Perhaps the government believes that their homes don’t count as “homes.”  Perhaps they would like to limit the scope of the CRA.  Perhaps it is something else.

But imagine if land-lease communities did qualify.  Even if the qualification only extended to loans on park acquisitions, then non-profits and resident owned cooperatives would be emboldened to act by the marginal increase available loans.  That would mean more control by residents over the land in their communities.  That cannot help but improve things.

Downstream, its also likely that when residents can put funds to use in their communities, that they will direct more investment into infrastructure.  That means more clean water, fewer broken septics, and more street lights.

North Carolina’s proposed legislation (H1700) to protect residents in park closures moved one step closer to becoming law on Friday.  The bill left Judiciary II and now moves across the Legislature Chambers into the Senate.

This bill, sponsored by Susan Fisher of Asheville, would provide park owners with an incentive to sell their properties to resident-owned cooperatives or to non-profit managed ownership groups.

A sticking point between advocates and industry was resolved in committee.  The issue at hand was a rider attached to the bill that required park owners to mail notification letters to each park tenant in the event of a closure.  This would have been in addition to existing state law that requires advance notice of 180 days in the event of a closure.

Representatives in the house Judiciary II committee agreed to language that requires that park owners inform the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency.

This brings the NCHFA into the scope of actors participating in park closures.  Advocates are attracted to this change because it may bring dividends later.  If notification makes NCHFA more aware of the scope of problems facing residents of manufactured housing parks, it follows that they will be more open to creating financial products for park acquisition or even unit financing in years to come.

Chris Parrish, a Board Member of North Carolina’s Manufactured Housing Institute, supports the changes, too. Parrish owns a first class land-lease community, Parrish Manor, outside of Garner, North Carolina.  His motives may be benevolent, or merely pragmatic.  Certainly, he runs his own park in a way that reflects well on his concern for families.  Then again, his support could stem from a perspective that says that park acquisitions by non-profits in North Carolina are, at best, years away from being a viable alternative.