3540 Porter Gulch
Aptos, California, 95003
January 31, 2000
Chairperson Mardi Wormhoudt
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
701 Ocean Street
Santa Cruz, California, 95060
Re: Unified County Wide Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance
Dear Chairperson and Supervisors,
During the course of my campaign for the supervisorial seat in the Second District, it has
come to my attention that our five jurisdictions in the county (i.e. the four cities and the county) are
not most efficiently and effectively representing and protecting the interests of our county
mobile home park residents here. Good representation and protection in this area is particularly
important because mobile homes comprise such a large portion of our senior and affordable
housing. I consider this resource as important as our water resource.
Although we are the second smallest county in the state, we have five different ordinances and
administrative function costs. Each municipality and the county have their own ordinances and
As a businessman who has owned and operated multi residential rental property in San
Francisco under its rent stabilization plan dating from its inception in the late 1970's, I have a long
term experience with this environment. I know that the logical business response to this
situation here would be a strategy along the lines of "divide and conquer." "Good business practice" would indicate attacking and trying to
lessen or invalidate these ordinances, one at a time. The opponent is vulnerable
because it is divided and weakened.
The disadvantage of this fractionalization is presently illustrated by Capitola's current
problems and legal challenges of its ordinance. Capitola and its mobile home occupants must
go it alone in their opposition to this challenge. However, if only one county wide ordinance was
in effect, covering all four municipalities and the unincorporated area, the interests of all park
occupants and all local government would be merged and united in the common purpose of the ordinance's intent.
Administration of the ordinance would be simplified, made more efficient and cost effective. Legal fundraising for
financing costs of legal challenges would have a much broader base of support. A one dollar
donation by each resident would immediately establish an approximate $30,000 legal fund. The effect of creating a well financed, county
wide united interest group would certainly be an immensely greater deterrent to legal challenge
than we have now.
A one year window would be opened to legal challenge of such an ordinance. However, the county's currently considered revisions, in any
case, indicate that now is a good time to be considering the possibilities and potentials of a united county wide treatment for this most important
resource-our affordable and senior housing stocks. I request and recommend to you that you agendized this matter for public hearing
and consider this approach to most effectively and efficiently provide representation and
protection to this most important group in our community.