Mobilehome rent stabilization

Thanked the council for moving the mobilehome rent stabilization item forward, said more work remains, and asked whether the 2 percent cap applies to last-minute rent increases park owners slipped in before passage.

Speaking through her daughter translating, thanked the council and voiced support for the 2 percent maximum annual rent cap.

Said her park sent a second, higher rent increase (3.62 percent vs. her neighbor's 3.4 percent) after she spoke up, and urged the council to pass the ordinance for consistent, non-discriminatory treatment.

A familiar local speaker urged the council to demand a reasonable profit — not 0% — protect residents from retaliation, and not cave to lawsuit threats, noting the city has won big lawsuits before.

A school board member speaking as a resident and business owner suggested a 4% cap with a 2% floor and a $50 maximum dollar increase, and said park owners should reserve funds for capital expenses.

An IE Tenants Union member who door-knocks at Crestmore and Bravo parks supported the 0% cap and a moratorium on new one-year leases, arguing landlords should sell to cooperatives or land trusts.

A Riverside council member called in to voice full support for Jurupa Valley's rent stabilization ordinance and offer her city's experience as a resource.

A 52-year resident of Jurupa Cascades described rent rising from $940 to $1,300 since 2019, alleged retaliation six days after the last hearing, and reported frequent water shutoffs, urging the 0% cap.

Urged the council to keep pushing toward 0% or 70% of CPI, raised retaliation fears silencing immigrant residents, asked for a moratorium on increases and capital improvement fees, and a $5,000/day penalty for retaliating park owners.

A 23-year resident of Santiago Estates said her space rent rose $50 every July 1 to $1,215, and questioned why street repaving occurred only now, right before the ordinance, urging a 0% cap.

A Hometown America resident on Social Security detailed COLA math versus rent increases, new residents paying $1,388-$1,600, and said she hoped for a cap far below the 3.4% she faces in January.

Strongly opposed any rent freeze or artificially low cap without a fair-return mechanism, citing Escondido, Petaluma and San Jose hardship awards of 10-14% and warning of litigation and MNOI petitions.

Representing WMA park owners, argued a 0% cap won't stop costs from rising and will trigger expensive hardship applications with larger, less predictable increases; asked the city to 'administer before you amend' and update the base year to 2026.

With the Manufactured Housing Educational Trust, urged rejection of any cap, citing Paul Beard's legal analysis on due process and takings and noting no comparable jurisdiction imposes a 0% cap.

A manufactured housing community owner described 300% insurance premium increases and rising infrastructure costs, calling a 0% cap an absolute non-starter and highlighting parks' local economic contributions.

A parks district director speaking as a citizen, he called 0% a good start but proposed helping residents form cooperatives to buy their parks, and urged stronger anti-retaliation protections.

Attorney for the Manufactured Housing Educational Trust argued the ordinance's 0% automatic adjustment, exclusion of attorney fees from hardship costs, and ban on retroactive increases violate due process and takings protections.

A Glen Avon resident supported the 0% staff recommendation and urged adding full vacancy control so rent limits survive a tenant's move-out.

Speaking in Spanish with translation, a Bravo State Park resident described families and seniors losing homes to annual increases and urged the council to protect tenants.

A mobilehome park resident speaking in Spanish said rents and supposedly-included utilities keep climbing, describing her rent rising from $1,020 to nearly $1,800 in about seven years.

A park manager for four local parks said she welcomed the ordinance but was surprised park owners weren't invited to the table, and asked to participate.

A District 2 resident advocated for mobilehome tenants, relaying concerns she has heard from park residents.

An ICLS attorney began describing eviction impacts on mobilehome tenants but was redirected to speak at item 19A.