Fierce backlash prompts San Jose to temporarily hold off on changes to mobile home park ordinance
San Jose has pumped the brakes on changes to its mobile home park ordinance after fierce backlash from residents, who derided a proposed one-time,10% rent increase and accused city leaders of ignoring their concerns when crafting the new rules.
Under the proposed changes, the rent increase would be triggered when a home is sold, a rental registration would be required and specific procedures would be adopted to solve rental disputes. Landlords also would be allowed to pass on capital improvement costs to residents.
With its 58 mobile home parks — which collectively have over 10,000 spaces and represent a significantly cheaper housing option than traditional homes — San Jose has more than any other city in the state so the proposed changes were particularly concerning to residents at a time when affordability has become a critical issue.
“I’m not opposed to park owners improving their parks,” said mobile home resident Kelly Hunt. “I’m opposed to allowing those costs to be passed on to homeowners without full financial transparency. If I apply for financial assistance, I would be required to provide documentation to prove my need for subsidy. Park owners should be held to the same standard before being subsidized by low-income residents.”
San Jose’s Housing Department, however, said the amendments were needed to bring the ordinance — which had not been significantly changed in 33 years — up to date, add tenant protections and balance property owners’ interests.
But amid vociferous community pushback at Tuesday’s City Council meeting, councilmembers deferred the move until a more collaborative agreement can be reached.
District 7 Councilmember Bien Doan noted that rents could increase sharply when mobile homes change hands, making it more difficult for new buyers to afford them.
“Capital passthroughs can shift significant costs onto the residents, many of whom are seniors or are on fixed income. Without adequate safeguards, in my view, these mechanisms undermine long-term affordability and housing stability and any policy that expands or relies on them should be approached with extreme caution,” said Doan, who has the largest number of mobile home parks in his represented area..
San Jose adopted its mobile home park ordinance in 1985 with the expressed purpose of preservation, preventing excessive and unreasonable rents and allowing owners to receive a fair and reasonable return.
The most recent significant change to the ordinance came in 1993, when annual rent increase limits were reduced from a flat 5% to 75% of the change in the local Consumer Price Index, with annual minimum increases set at 3% and the maximum capped at 7%.
Property owners currently can seek rent increases over the allowable amount by demonstrating through what’s known as a fair return petition that rents are insufficient to cover costs and provide a reasonable return.
Housing Director Erik Solivan said that the rent stabilization strategic plan was adopted by the City Council in 2024 to evaluate and improve city policies. Hence, prompting changes to the ordinance to further San Jose’s goals of housing stabilization, unit preservation, and outreach.
A city memo noted that in 106 jurisdictions across the state that regulate mobile home parks, 71 provide some form of vacancy ability to change rental rates after a transfer of ownership. That includes 46 that allow limited changes, including 21 with a maximum one-time 10% rent increase after a sale.
The memo cited a significant rise in operating costs over the past 10 years, including a 195% increase in insurance premiums for 19 of the 58 mobile home parks in the city.
“When preservation is not built into policy, pressure builds elsewhere through deferred maintenance, increased conflict and ultimately fair return proceedings that affect entire communities,” said Ryan Jasinsky, director of property management for Brandenburg, Staeder & Moore, which owns several mobile home parks in San Jose. “The Housing Department proposal takes a balanced approach.”
Solivan added that the one-time 10% increase proposed in San Jose does not apply to estate transfers and would not affect the fair return petition process.
The other major change rankling residents and housing advocates was the city’s proposal to create a petition that would allow landlords to pass on capital improvement costs to residents. The city had proposed limiting those capital improvement impacts to no more than a 2% rent increase.
Alison Cingolani, director of policy at housing advocacy nonprofit SV@Home, questioned the need for some of the changes, noting that property owners could still petition for rent increases by opening their books.
“There is already a process in place for mobile home park owners to apply for an exception to allowable rent increases in order to cover increased operating costs or fund capital improvements,” Cingolani said. “It requires park owners to demonstrate the need to increase costs, and it’s almost never used. We oppose the 10% space rent increase when the mobile home is sold. A higher space rent would reduce the sale value of the mobile home over time.”
District 2 Councilmember Pamela Campos, who represents residents of 10 mobile home parks, said in the past 15 years, the city has only received eight fair return petitions.
“We have very little data to justify the introduction of a 10% rent increase when a mobile home is sold or transferred,” Campos said. “I understand that 10% is similar to rent increases permitted in other jurisdictions, but we shouldn’t rely on an arbitrary number for such a significant change to the (mobile home rent ordinance), which protects thousands of residents across the city.” Instead, she said, rent increases should be informed by analysis and evidence that demonstrate the need and value for mobile home park owners and residents.
While changes to the ordinance have been in the works for more than a year, residents and even some members of the city’s housing commission said they were kept out of the loop until recently.
Commissioner Ruben Navarro noted that in December, the advisory board declined to endorse many of the proposed changes, and that no verifiable evidence was presented to show that mobile home parks were in financial distress under current conditions. He also questioned the transparency of how the ordinance was crafted.
“Internal documents reveal that the mobile home park owner representatives helped draft these proposals, which is deeply concerning and undermines confidence in this entire process,” Navarro said.
City officials acknowledged the need to examine them more thoroughly.
“I recognize that the department did do a lot of meetings and went out to stakeholders,” District 1 Councilmember Rosemary Kamei said. “However, it seems that when we don’t make policy in partnership with those impacted, they don’t feel heard under those circumstances. The community outreach feels like a pronouncement from on high, no matter how well-intentioned, (as) many speakers have noted.”
