Meeting Public Comments

Mette Kelley []

COVID and the derecho has brought the spotlight on the most vulnerable citizens in our State. Manufactured homes residents in Iowa can also add fear eviction to the list. We have no one to contact if repairs need to be done to water or sewer lines. Out of state owners seldom respond. To let this continue in Iowa is unconscionable. Please do the right thing. Mette Kelley, Mount Vernon

Elisa Hernandez Perez []

I urge the committee to support HF 442, since it establishes important protections for manufactured homes residents to bring their rights in line with those of other Iowa renters. It is a fundamental step towards guaranteeing that every Iowan has access to a safe and stable housing situation.

Nicole Clausen []

Please support this legislation. I am just ONE of many disabled Iowans who is living in real fear of homelessness due to the lack of legislation covering manufactured/ mobile home communities. The most recent rent increase will be equal to 44% of my monthly income. Add to that monthly utilities and this single mother/ sole provider has just $271/mo remaining to cover phone, gas, food, clothing, school fees, hygiene and household expenses, etc. And consider this: MANY Iowans receive LESS than I do! One disabled neighbor/ friend I know will now be spending OVER 50% of their total income on lot rent! This person will undoubtedly be unable to keep up with their utility bills due to the fact that they will also need essential products like toilet paper and soap! How sad is that? In AMERICA! I've researched the company who took over our park. You can too. Their disgusting business model can be found at www.mobilehomeuniversity.com This site outlines how they reel in lowincome families, the working poor, and the disabled with affordable rent, only to jack up the price so quickly that these tenants fall behind, giving owners opportunity to EVICT and since tenants are too POOR to move their property, the owners then receive the windfall income of the mobile home itself and sell it AGAIN for another profit! So, they basically force those living in poverty into homelessness to get rich. They know the poor typically do not have attorney representation, and they take advantage of that fact. Owners of my park, 5 seasons in Cedar Falls, tried this with me 3 years ago. First, they didn't complete THEIR portion of my APPROVED county relief rent assistance, then they took me to court trying to EVICT for the amount THEY chose not to collect from the assistance! Well, they weren't expecting a tenant had representation! (Thank you IOWA LEGAL AID) I proved my case and the court manager actually admitted during court that it was a fraudulent claim that I was not one known to leave my bill unpaid in my 13 years (at that time) living here. Case closed. They had to eat the cost of the rent assistance THEY let expire instead of collecting. They were NOT getting MY home. But, not everyone was so lucky. You see, I was not the only one they tried this with. I was just the only one who got a lawyer! A few families lost their homes. Stolen, in my opinion. Beyond that, our New owners switched from dumpsters to a city trash can service. That service costs everyone in town $11/mo.. everyone but us with the lowest incomes! We pay double and the court pockets the extra. Now THAT is actually listed in Iowa mobile home law as illegal, it was brought to their attention YEARS ago but again no accountability! As you can see, Iowa DEFINITELY needs some legal protections AND we need them enforced. Please, take this seriously as Iowans lives, especially our most vulnerable our elderly, our disabled and our children DEPEND ON YOU!

Brent Smith [North Liberty City Council]

My name is Brent Smith, City Councilor in North Liberty, IA. I am writing today in favor of HF 442.After having an out of state investment company come into our community, buy one of our mobile home parks, raise lot rents by 70% over 3 months and treat our residents terribly, it is past time to have rules in place to allow for protections for all renters including mobile home properties. Many of our local families were forced out of their homes, given no grace or assistance and the new buyer was able to make up new rules, evict folks for no reason or cause and give no notice for these actions. Some families tried to work with the new managers and were treated terribly. Our Council did what we could to work with our residents and pressure the owners to work with folks, but we had no legal footing and had no way to stop the abuse that was occurring. This bill can not wait for another session. Pass HF442 this session

Lynette Dailey []

We have lived in Table Mound Mobile Home Park for 18 years now. We were able to afford to purchase our home and raise our son here. When we moved here rent was 210.00 including utilities now our rent is 370.00 and now we pay sewage and water so it changes monthly.I love my home and do not want to lose it to a corporate take over. Thank you for your time.

Karla Shepherd [Table Mound mobil home park]

I am writing to support the HF442 bill. My husband, whom is disabled, an I chose this mobile home park 10 years ago because we had relatives here an they all had good things to say about the management team. And they were right. There wasn't a yearly raise an when there was one it was $10 to $15. After Impact bought the park, rents started to go up dramatically! They put in refurbished water meters for us to pay water an we also pay for sewer an garbage now, an those rates continue to go up as well as the rent. Many people moved out but many people were also evicted because its no longer a reasonable, cost efficient place to live. Impact, in our opinion, are predators and are ruining our way of life. Please Help Us To Be Treated Fairly. Thank you

Marlene Krukow []

I fully support this bill. As a new homeowner and buying a mobile home, being removed from our homes and going month to month, etc are not disclosed to you in any way on the contract with the park when you move in and purchase the home.I don't understand how it is right that a person can lose their life investment to these silent owners who just see us as numbers.I see families losing their homes with nowhere to go.I don't understand how these parks can charge rates for lot rent and provide no service. My lot rent is over $6,300 a year and my lot is very small (I can mow it in 15 minutes) This is robbery. I have looked at homes that pay less than half that a year. They at least get a tax deduction. Mobile homeowners do not even get that.The parks say they provide infrastructure. I can't even get in the storm shelter due to the park changing the keys all the time and not communicating. Some of the lights have been out in the park since I have been here since 2019.in the entire park (305 homes) there is only one whole speed bump left.The park will not even spray weeds.I do so appreciate the work that is put into this from our Legislators and Senators we need protection just like homeowners. The protection to keep our homes. Please help us and support us in this matter.

Bob Welsh []

I am a 94 year old retired minister. For years I have been an advocate for the poor. I have through the years known many whose only hope of owning a home was through owning a mobile home.I have been alarmed about the recent actions of corporation who are seeking to make a few dollars (in their world) off the backs of low income persons.This legislation seeks to level the playing field.Please vote to assist the low income Iowans. This legislation will not prevent corporations from making money. It will however give tenants some rights.

Malinda Allen []

I urge you to support HF 442 to secure fair treatment of mobile home park residents. It is far too easy for the park owners to force renters out by setting onerous rules, harrasseing the renters, and raising rents to unsustainable and unfair levels. Many of the homes physically cannot withstand being moved, and where would the people move them to? To another town? Maybe lose their jobs because of the relocation? Lose established social bonds and community services? It is very expensive to move a mobile home, anyway. People who choose mobile homes are the working poor, the elderly, and many have disabilities and are on fixed incomes. WE MUST ENSURE THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE TREATED FAIRLY and that they have the same rights and protections as other renters. Please support and vote YES on HF 442.

suellen klossner [table mound resident ]

I support this bill.I think more should have been included but it is start to insure homes that are purchased,in good faith,in Iowa Mobile Home Parks are protected.There are so many people that you do not hear from that have given up because this situation has been unheard and addressed for too long.There needs to be stability for people buying HOMES as this causes people on a daily bases undue stress then add to that the covid crisis.I know it's there land however we take care of our homes,yards,and upkeep on the property.I have lived here for 11 years and find it difficult to feel secure,never have I been late on rent never a problem caring for my home or their land.The land improvements that I have done such as the double driveway,the drain tile placed across the entire back hill,the walk way between the house and the sheds,the new roof,siding,all the investments could be so easily taken away.What little time and energy you would have to provide for us,protection in our investment and ease the cost of relentless increases.There is so much more I could say to encourage you to consider to make a change that has been brought to your attention time and again.

Teresa Hundley []

I support this bill. I previously lived in mobile home park that was bought up by one of these greedy corporations. All they ever did was increase rent and not fix problems such as frozen pipes in the ground before the water meter and unfortunately there is no action you can take for this. Sincerely

Sue Flogel [Table Mound MHP]

I have lived in this mobile home park for 3 years. Our out of town owners have been shady, increasing rent, fees and utilities. We have to have lawyers look at our leases because they are impossible to decipher. Many residents live on fixed incomes, and they cannot afford the rising costs of keeping our homes here. I fully support this bill.

Matt chapman [NA]

Thank you considering the folks whose homes are in manufactured housing parks again this year. This bill has many great provisions that would get us on our way to having more security in our communities. When buying these homes folks just do not understand how precarious their investment is with no fault evictions and the small window they have when their lease is ended or terminated. Not to mention the cost of moving a home if that is even an option. While the increase to 90 from 60 days is an improvement, if nofault eviction is an option, no one will feel secure in their homes. That is why I would implore you to amend HF442 to prohibit no fault evictions. I would like to quickly share what the use of nofault evictions led to in my community Midwest Country Estates. One of our tenants who had bought her home in 2016, one of the newest homes in here, was nofault evicted in 2020. Her rent payment was refused, and after court she was given 60 days to sell or move her home. She paid $62,000 in 2016 and could only get $22,000 from another park that purchased her home. She is disabled and was making it. Now she lives in an apartment and is on the CIRHA waiting list. She feels this has ruined her life and says she reads the bible every night before bed to help put this behind her. This should not happen to anyone. That is why I am so focused on this part of the Iowa Code. I do not understand why this part of the code exists, but while it does, no one in manufactured housing parks will feel secure and more tragic outcomes will happen. Thank you for your consideration.

Kimberly Qassebji [Tablemound]

The practices being used by these mobile home park owners are unacceptable. People who live there can least afford the prices going up and up. There needs to be regulations on what these companies can do such as evicting a resident and keeping their home or raising prices making it hard to keep a home. There is a huge gap in the law that allows these practices to occur and not only are they using it they are teaching others how to do it.

Alysia Brandenburg [Table Mound]

We have lived at Tablemound for a year now and people always had good things to say,but the rent had increased and you cant do much to fix your home up,and if you dont keep it up you get a violation wrote up and if you get three then your out. We have some elderly people and help them as much as we can for repairing to where they can afford it. The rent we were told will go up again and nothing is done for improvements other than getting threatened. I am for this bill to be passed. The majority of people here are on a fixed income. Please help this community.

John Pregler []

Shelter is a core human needed to live, and therefore, affordable housing is a core human right. I support HF 442 and would include requiring any seller to give the collective tenants first right to purchase at fair market value and create their own nonprofit association. Perhaps with assistance from the fund created by HF 442. I would also require any landlord to purchase at fair market value any vacated home due to eviction and inability to move their mobile home. Manufactured and mobile homeowners deserve the same property rights and protections as those of us who happen to also have title to the ground upon which our homes and retirement investments sit. It is time for some common sense and equity in property law.

Len Sandler [Law and Policy in Action Clinic]

HF 442 would be an improvement over current law. But the bill should clarify the rights of tenants to keep the homes they own in a manufactured housing community, provide additional specifics about rental agreements, and eliminate confusion about the usage and meaning of terminating, canceling, renewing and not renewing tenancies and rental agreements. A top priority for mobile home owners is to be able to keep their home in the park so long as the park is in operation, they meet their financial obligations, obey state and local laws and reasonable park rules, and are good neighbors. Residents have little security now. Requiring landlords to give tenants 90 days notice to remove their home from the park instead of the 60 days under current law is of little practical use or value to tenants. The interests of landlords and tenants can best be served if rental agreements are written, last for a term of one year, are renewable, and limit the grounds by which a park owner may recover possession of a mobile home lot or space. HF442 should require that: Landlords provide tenants with a written rental agreement rather than simply offer one. Written leases are a standard practice and a cost of doing business that reduces or eliminates disputes and court actions based on verbal agreements and statements. Rental agreements have a minimum term of 12 months unless the tenant requests a shorter term or the landlord and tenant agree to a longer term. This allows both parties to negotiate the duration of the lease rather than forcing tenants to accept monthtomonth leases that can be terminated with only a few months notice. Rental agreements automatically renew unless the tenant gives the landlord 60 days notice of their intention to not renew or the landlord gives the tenant 90 days notice they will not renew the rental agreement because they have good cause grounds for terminating a tenancy under 562B.10.4A.a. as amended and noted below. The rental agreement will renew upon the same terms and conditions with the exception of rent increases permitted by HF442 and updates to park rules and regulations if the landlord gives the tenant advance notice. Renewals should apply to leases for a fixed term as well as those that convert from a fixed term to a monthtomonth or other periodic tenancy. The provision in 562B.10.4A.b authorizing a landlord to not renew a tenancy for any reason not prohibited by law with 90 days notice should be eliminated to provide tenants with continued stability, security and a place to live. Grounds for terminating a tenancy should not include a legitimate and material business reason the impact of which is not specific to one tenant because that clause imposes no practical limits on landlords. Landlords could justify retaking possession merely by taking action against two tenants at the same time. Sincerely,Len SandlerClinical ProfessorBenjamin NevittClinic Law Student

Connie Simon [TableMound Trailer Park]

Please help us stay in our homes. Please stop out of town investors buying up trailer parks and raising our rent to the point we can no longer live in our homes.