MHBGROUP Custom Community Magazines Since 1974
Moon Valley
whisperings
REGION 8
SonomaMobileHomes.com SonomaMobileHomes.
Lisa M. Ro
707.360.55
Your premier Sonoma Cou mobile & manufactured ho Extensive experience working with buying/selling resource both Sellers and Buyers in 55+ and all age communities.
Text 1855 to 81035 for more inform LisaMRook@aol.com BRE#01129446
Whether you are looking to buy sell, Cotati Shultz RealorEstate, or merely need a free market analysis on your property, I’m here to help, call me today!
LISA M. ROOK, REALTOR DRE#01129446
lisamrook@aol.com
Shultz Real Estate
707-360-5571 Anna Harris & Berni Baxter
Serving Sonoma County since 2001 Specializing in Manufactured/Mobile Homes in 55+ and Family Parks Thinking About Selling…Call Today! Estate Disposition Specialists Free Home Evaluation = Proven marketing plan Access to our Preferred Vendor List Contractor and Inspector Recommendations Searching for a New Home…Call Today! Real time MLS emails notify you as soon as properties come on-line Lender recommendations that specialize in mobile/manufactured homes Award Winning Agents with over 1000 Units Listed / Sold Put our 36+ Years of Experience to Work for You!
Our Services
Roof Installation Roof Coating Roof Repairs Gutters
Decks & Steps Windows HVAC Awnings
Siding Dry Rot Skirting Painting
Anna Harris, Realtor® BRE License #02039513 707-321-9021 BaxterHarrisRE@gmail.com
Call us today for a free estimate
Berni Baxter, Realtor®
Family-Owned • 20+ Years Experience • Trusted Craftsmanship
BRE License #01353119
707-695-8121 BaxterHarrisRE@gmail.com
916 634 0004
nulead1@gmail.com LIC # 992899
Flexible Financing & Senior Discounts
September issue devoted to Sonoma City Council Mobilehome/TriPark Committee Closure and Conversion Ordinance Update issue editorials and information. NOTE: All translation into Spanish is done using Microsoft Translator in Windows 10. Número de septiembre dedicado al cierre y conversión de la ordenanza de Ordenanza de Viviendas Móviles/TriPark del Ayuntamiento de Sonoma Actualización, editoriales e información. NOTA: Toda la traducción al español se realiza usando Microsoft Translator en Windows 10. Volume 62 No 9 Moon Valley Community
Sonoma, California 1001 Fifth St. West
September 2026 Office-707-996-2818 1
MOON VALLEY HOMEOWNER’S ASSOCIATION Recent Board Members
EDITOR: Kathleen Tugwell CUL-DE-SAC REPRESENTATIVES: PASEO PALENCIA OPEN BUENA VISTA DRIVE, Glenn Tugwell 707-280-5305 CHIQUITA CAMINO, Open PAS PAJAROS Sue Weingarten 707-938-4444 DEL RIO PASEO, Dee Weaver 707-332- 9253 CAZARES CIRCLE, Kathy Sandoval, Bruce Olsen 408-203-8715 MANUELLA LANE, Jerrilyn Moorehead 707-695-1389 Mark: 707-980-2097 LA SERENA WAY, Carol Bojarsky 707-338-6742 JANERO PLACE OPEN EL CASTILLO VISTA OPEN
Bonnie Joy Kaslan, President • 707-695-7576 Jerrilynn Moorhead HOA Secretary • 707-695-1389 Dee Weaver,Backup Secretary/ Director • 707-332-9253 Kathy Sandoval, Treasurer • 408-203-8715 Carol Bojarsky, Director • 707-388-6742 KathyTugwell/GSMOL Rep, Whisperings Editor • 707-235-8233
m
7 12 13 14 15 18 19 20 21
MARCIA PETERSEN ALICIA OLVERA BRYAN MAURONI SANDI ROE MORGAN SANCHEZ GILBERTO SUASTEGUI CORDELIA SANTOS JOHANN GERLACH JOHN JOVINO KATHERINE BELIVEAU ALYSSA CONDER ROBERT KALLINS
ANNIVERSARY 2
LUILLY ZINTZUN & MARITZA CALDERON “9” 2
SEPTEMBER 2026 MON
TUE
WED
THU
1
2
3
FRI
SAT
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Reminder: A Celebration of Life for Herman Bojarsky will be held at 11am on Sunday, September 27th, in the main clubhouse, with lunch to follow. If you plan to attend please text Carol at 707-338-6742.
11 A.M. Celebration of Life Herman Bojarsky Main Clubhouse
3
This editorial scanned from Sonoma Valley Sun August 6, 2026 edition.
EDITORIAL: STAND UP FOR MOBILE HOME PARK RESIDENTS Reprinted from the Sonoma Valley Sun 7/4/26 Spanish Translation by Microsoft Word Translate The City of Sonoma adopted its Mobile Home Rent Control Ordinance in 1992, revised it in 1998 and again in 2016. The ordinance regulates rent increases and rental prices after a home comes out of vacancy while providing a fair profit for park owners. The purpose of the ordinance is to ensure protection of the residents of the parks, who are generally elderly and on fixed incomes, relying on social security and other savings. Their health and welfare depend upon the affordability of their mobile homes. The City was sued by park owners after the adoption of the ordinance, but prevailed in court. It was expensive litigation, but the City held fast and the City Council unanimously supported defending the ordinance. 4
Despite the term “mobile home,” these housing units are not really mobile and can’t be easily moved. If owned, a resident pays rent for the space it takes up in the park. If rented, the price is set by the park owner. Without the City’s ordinance, most residents would have long ago been priced out of housing. They are a vulnerable population, and protecting them and the affordability of their housing has been a moral imperative ever since the ordinance was adopted, and it needs to remain that way. Park owners through the 1990s were generally independent, “mom and pop” operations. But today, Mobile home parks are most often owned by huge corporations and venture capital firms; the days of “mom and pop” ownership are mostly over. These large companies are now actively attempting to convince cities throughout California to abandon their rent control ordinances. They are doing this by, among other tactics, threatening to close parks and force the residents to move out. In one case in Winchester, near San Jose, after closing a park the owner developed condominiums on the site. Our Sonoma mobile home park residents are justifiably concerned. They are seeing what’s happening in other communities and are afraid it will happen here. They have therefore hired expert legal advice to draft a series of amendments to Sonoma’s existing ordinance that will further protect them from threats of park closure. Those revisions, now named the Tri Park Ordinance Proposal, will be the subject of a City Council Study Session on August 19. We urge Council members and concerned citizens to pay close attention. But the City Council, itself, has an associated decision-making challenge. When City Council elections were “at large” instead of by district, gaining the mobile home park resident vote was instrumental in getting elected. Roughly 750 people live in the city’s three parks, and they vote at a high rate. Today, however, the district voting system means that all the City’s mobile home parks are located in just one district, so only one council member needs park resident votes. The strange and unfortunate irony of the situation is that district elections were chosen by the City Council to avoid possible litigation against the City related to the California Voting Rights Act, which was adopted to help disenfranchised, underrepresented populations gain political office and influence. The analysis that led to the creation of Sonoma’s five voting districts was based on census data, with the intent to ensure that various ethnic groups were included in each district. That was accomplished. But as a result, mobile home residents have become a disenfranchised, underrepresented group. That’s because all three of the mobile home parks in the City are in District 4, the former political clout those residents once had, city-wide, has been diminished. But even more ironic, Sandra Lowe, the council member who lives in their district, cannot participate in decisions affecting the parks. All because of a state regulation that requires any council member, living within 1,000 feet of a project under Council discussion that could conceivably enhance the value of their own property, to recuse themselves from voting on it. Sonoma’s mobile home residents have entirely lost their political influence. Preserving affordable housing has topped the Council’s list of goals for years, and the 488 mobile homes in Sonoma represent a huge share of our affordable housing. Preserving affordable housing doesn’t need lip service, it needs prompt action to strengthen the existing ordinance. Now is the time for the City Council to stand up for the park residents.
5
EDITORIAL: DEFENDE A LOS RESIDENTES DE LOS PARQUES DE CASAS MÓVILES La ciudad de Sonoma adoptó su Ordenanza de Control de Alquileres de Casas Móviles en 1992, la revisó en 1998 y de nuevo en 2016. La ordenanza regula los aumentos y precios de alquiler tras la salida de una vivienda vacía, proporcionando un beneficio justo para los propietarios de los parques. El propósito de la ordenanza es garantizar la protección de los residentes de los parques, que generalmente son ancianos y tienen ingresos fijos, dependiendo de la seguridad social y otros ahorros. Su salud y bienestar dependen de la asequibilidad de sus casas móviles. La ciudad fue demandada por los propietarios de parques tras la adopción de la ordenanza, pero ganó en los tribunales. Fue un litigio costoso, pero la ciudad se mantuvo firme y el Ayuntamiento apoyó unánimemente la defensa de la ordenanza. A pesar del término "casa móvil", estas viviendas no son realmente móviles y no pueden moverse fácilmente. Si son propiedad, un residente paga alquiler por el espacio que ocupa en el parque. Si se alquilan, el precio lo fija el propietario del parque. Sin la ordenanza municipal, la mayoría de los residentes habrían sido excluidos hace tiempo de la vivienda. Son una población vulnerable, y protegerlos y la asequibilidad de su vivienda ha sido un imperativo moral desde que se adoptó la ordenanza, y debe seguir siéndolo. Los propietarios de parques durante los años 90 eran generalmente independientes, operaciones familiares. Pero hoy en día, los parques de casas móviles suelen ser propiedad de grandes corporaciones y firmas de capital riesgo; los días de la propiedad "familiar" han quedado casi atrás. Estas grandes empresas están ahora intentando activamente convencer a ciudades de California para que abandonen sus ordenanzas de control de alquileres. Lo están haciendo, entre otras tácticas, amenazando con cerrar parques y obligar a los residentes a mudarse. En un caso en Winchester, cerca de San José, tras cerrar un parque, el propietario desarrolló condominios en el lugar. Nuestros residentes del parque de casas móviles de Sonoma están justificadamente preocupados. Están viendo lo que ocurre en otras comunidades y temen que ocurra aquí. Por ello, han contratado asesoramiento legal experto para redactar una serie de enmiendas a la ordenanza existente de Sonoma que les protegerán aún más de amenazas de cierre del parque. Esas revisiones, ahora denominadas Propuesta de Ordenanza Tri Park, serán objeto de una sesión de estudio del Ayuntamiento el 19 de agosto. Instamos a los miembros del Ayuntamiento y a los ciudadanos preocupados a prestar mucha atención. Pero el propio Ayuntamiento tiene un desafío asociado a la toma de decisiones. Cuando las elecciones del Ayuntamiento eran "generales" en lugar de por distritos, conseguir el voto de los residentes de los parques de casas móviles era fundamental para ser elegidos. Unas 750 personas viven en los tres parques de la ciudad, y votan a un ritmo elevado. Sin embargo, hoy en día, el sistema de votación por distritos significa que todos los parques de casas móviles de la ciudad están ubicados en un solo distrito, por lo que solo un miembro del concejal necesita el voto de los residentes del parque. La extraña y desafortunada ironía de la situación es que las elecciones distritales fueron elegidas por el Ayuntamiento para evitar posibles litigios contra la ciudad relacionados con la Ley de Derechos Electorales de California, adoptada para ayudar a las poblaciones marginadas y subrepresentadas a obtener cargos políticos e influencia. El análisis que llevó a la creación de los cinco distritos electorales de Sonoma se basó en datos del censo, con la intención de asegurar que se incluyeran varios grupos étnicos en cada distrito. Eso se logró. Pero como resultado, los residentes de casas móviles se han convertido en un grupo marginado y subrepresentado. 6
Esto se debe a que los tres parques de casas móviles de la ciudad están en el Distrito 4, la influencia política que antes tenían esos residentes en toda la ciudad se ha visto disminuida. Pero aún más irónico, Sandra Lowe, la concejala que vive en su distrito, no puede participar en las decisiones que afectan a los parques. Todo por una normativa estatal que exige a cualquier concejal que viva a menos de 1.000 pies de un proyecto en discusión en el Consejo que podría aumentar el valor de su propia propiedad, se abstenga de votar sobre él. Los residentes de casas móviles de Sonoma han perdido por completo su influencia política. La preservación de la vivienda asequible ha encabezado la lista de objetivos del Ayuntamiento durante años, y las 488 casas móviles en Sonoma representan una gran parte de nuestra vivienda asequible. Preservar la vivienda asequible no requiere palabras de palabra, sino una acción rápida para fortalecer la ordenanza existente. Ahora es el momento de que el Ayuntamiento defienda a los residentes del parque.
A MOBILEHOME CRISIS: The Catastrophic Threat of Closure
By Lin Marie DeVincent/ Spanish Translation by Microsoft Word Translate Homeowners living in a mobile/manufactured home park have for decades enjoyed it as a unique place to call home. They own their home the same as any other dwelling, often with mortgage payments – but they also pay rent on the land beneath them. They pay utilities and are responsible for all home maintenance, including landscaping. The relative affordability, supportive neighbors and typically single-level homes make these communities well-suited both for families seeking stable housing and for seniors to age in place with dignity. They can depend on nearby services – such as hospitals, stores, churches, senior centers, libraries, schools – and each other. Housing security is central to these communities. In 1992, the City of Sonoma adopted its first Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO) after the threat of unreasonably high rent increases that would have forced homeowners from their homes. During the next 24 years, the RSO underwent various changes and challenges, until 2016, when the City unanimously approved the current ordinance. These continuing conflicts and resulting agreements gave homeowners the confidence that they would not face sudden rent spikes large enough to drive them out of their homes, while also supporting the park owners’ guaranteed rent increases. However, in 2024, this unique way of living – and homeowners’ confidence in their housing security – came under threat again when the park owners unveiled a new tactic to seek rent increases beyond what the law allows, by threatening to close the park unless homeowners agreed to pay more. Park owners have used this strategy in Petaluma, Cotati, Santa Rosa and Rohnert Park. The Sonoma park owners have not joined these county-wide attacks – yet. But homeowners say they need stronger and tailored protections in case new investors buy out the current owners or other unexpected changes occur. These threat-closure tactics motivated the homeowners in the three parks in Sonoma to ask the Sonoma City Council to amend Sonoma’s ordinance on mobilehome park closures and conversions. They hired an attorney and provided a draft law, called the Tri-Park Ordinance Proposal. The requested changes would bring the ordinance up to date and add local modifications that reflect the high value of Sonoma homes, including safeguards against the coercive park-closure threat.
7
During a meeting earlier this year, City Staff asked homeowners to explain their draft ordinance proposal in lay terms and describe the real-world consequences of the policy choices involved in mobile/manufactured home park closures and conversions. In response, the Tri–Park Committee created a Homeowners’ Survey, to which 114 households replied. Their answers describe a carefully constructed strategic foundation built over many years. It includes savings and retirement security, family stability, children’s schools, jobs, independence, neighbors, medical care and familiar daily routines. All these things work together to make their lives affordable, stable and sustainable. In addition, homeowners reminded the city that their homes cannot be moved. The term “mobile” is no longer applicable – these are not RVs. If owners could not afford rent increases, they would have to abandon their homes. Closure could mean losing their savings and accumulated equity. Many have no affordable alternative and fear being forced to leave Sonoma, move in with relatives, face bankruptcy or become homeless. Families would be uprooted from their jobs, schools, friends and support networks, while older homeowners would lose the people and services that allow them to remain independent. These homeowners are not talking about the inconvenience of changing addresses. They are describing the potential loss of homes they own and an entire way of life they could never rebuild. Survey respondents said the prospect of closure would be catastrophic, devastating and, in some cases, life-threatening. This is a high-stakes situation. The closure threat puts all these potential losses and fears on the bargaining table. It turns homeowners’ fear of losing their homes, savings, family stability and community, into leverage for rent increases that the law would not otherwise permit. This is more than a debate about land use, legal language or competing financial interests. It is a moral question about whether people who worked, saved, raised families, cared for their homes and contributed to this community should be protected from losing everything through no fault of their own. Sonoma has long valued and protected its mobile/manufactured home park communities. The current Council prioritizes fairness and affordable housing, and as such, it should adopt the Tri–Park Ordinance Proposal. We ask the public and the City Council to stand with these families, working households and older homeowners, by strengthening the Closure and Conversion Ordinance now. If park owners say they have no intention of closing or selling, they shouldn’t object to the proposed Tri–Park Ordinance. What happens to Sonoma’s mobile/manufactured homes and communities will say something lasting about all of us. Let it say that Sonoma listened to its neighbors and stood strong. Let it say that when families and seniors needed us to join them in appealing to the City Council, this community spoke up. Please email your Councilmembers and express your support for the Tri–Park Ordinance Proposal for the three city parks. And join us at the next Study Session on August 19, 6 p.m., Council Chambers, 1st Street West. Thank you. Lin Marie DeVincent is the Tri Park Committee Coordinator. For more information go to lmdevincent@comcast.net.
La Amenaza Catastrófica Del Cierre Por Lin Marie de Vincent Los propietarios que viven en un parque de casas móviles o prefabricadas han disfrutado durante décadas de este lugar como un lugar único al que llamar hogar. Son propietarios de su casa igual que cualquier otra vivienda, a menudo con pagos hipotecarios, pero también 8
pagan alquiler por el terreno que hay debajo. Pagan los suministros y son responsables de todo el mantenimiento de la vivienda, incluido el paisajismo. La relativa asequibilidad, los vecinos comprensivos y las viviendas típicamente de un solo nivel hacen que estas comunidades sean adecuadas tanto para familias que buscan vivienda estable como para que los mayores envejezcan en casa con dignidad. Pueden depender de servicios cercanos —como hospitales, tiendas, iglesias, centros de mayores, bibliotecas, escuelas— y entre ellos mismos. La seguridad de la vivienda es fundamental en estas comunidades. En 1992, la ciudad de Sonoma adoptó su primera Ordenanza de Estabilización de Alquileres (RSO) tras la amenaza de aumentos de alquiler excesivamente altos que habrían obligado a los propietarios a abandonar sus hogares. Durante los siguientes 24 años, la RSO experimentó diversos cambios y desafíos, hasta 2016, cuando la ciudad aprobó por unanimidad la ordenanza actual. Estos conflictos continuos y los acuerdos resultantes dieron a los propietarios la confianza de que no enfrentarían picos repentinos de alquiler lo suficientemente grandes como para expulsarlos de sus casas, al tiempo que apoyaban los aumentos garantizados de alquiler de los propietarios del parque. Sin embargo, en 2024, esta forma única de vivir —y la confianza de los propietarios en su seguridad habitacional— volvieron a verse amenazadas cuando los propietarios presentaron una nueva táctica para solicitar aumentos de alquiler más allá de lo permitido por la ley, amenazando con cerrar el parque a menos que los propietarios accedieran a pagar más. Los propietarios de parques han utilizado esta estrategia en Petaluma, Cotati, Santa Rosa y Rohnert Park. Los propietarios de los parques de Sonoma aún no se han unido a estos ataques a nivel condal. Pero los propietarios dicen que necesitan protecciones más fuertes y personalizadas en caso de que nuevos inversores compren la exclusión de los actuales propietarios o ocurran otros cambios inesperados. Estas tácticas de cierre de amenazas motivaron a los propietarios de los tres parques de Sonoma a pedir al Ayuntamiento de Sonoma que enmendara la ordenanza de Sonoma sobre el cierre y conversiones de parques de casas móviles. Contrataron a un abogado y presentaron un borrador de ley, llamado Propuesta de Ordenanza Tri-Park. Los cambios solicitados actualizarían la ordenanza y añadirían modificaciones locales que reflejen el alto valor de las viviendas de Sonoma, incluyendo salvaguardas frente a la amenaza coercitiva de cierre de parques. Durante una reunión a principios de este año, el personal municipal pidió a los propietarios que explicaran su propuesta de ordenanza en términos sencillos y que describieran las consecuencias reales de las decisiones políticas implicadas en el cierre y conversión de parques móviles o prefabricados. En respuesta, el Comité Tri–Park creó una Encuesta de Propietarios, a la que respondieron 114 hogares. Sus respuestas describen una base estratégica cuidadosamente construida a lo largo de muchos años. Incluye ahorro y seguridad para la jubilación, estabilidad familiar, escuelas de los hijos, empleo, independencia, vecinos, atención médica y rutinas diarias familiares. Todas estas cosas trabajan juntas para hacer que sus vidas sean asequibles, estables y sostenibles. Además, los propietarios recordaron a la ciudad que sus casas no pueden ser trasladadas. El término "móvil" ya no es aplicable: estas no son autocaravanas. Si los propietarios no pudieran permitirse los aumentos de alquiler, tendrían que abandonar sus casas. El cierre podría significar perder sus ahorros y el patrimonio acumulado. Muchos no tienen una alternativa asequible y temen verse obligados a abandonar Sonoma, mudarse con familiares, enfrentarse a la bancarrota o quedarse sin hogar. Las familias serían arrancadas de sus trabajos, escuelas, amigos y redes de apoyo, mientras que los propietarios mayores perderían a las personas y servicios que les permiten mantenerse independientes. Estos 9
propietarios no están hablando de las molestias de cambiar de dirección. Están describiendo la posible pérdida de viviendas que poseen y de todo un modo de vida que nunca podrían reconstruir. Los encuestados dijeron que la perspectiva del cierre sería catastrófica, devastadora y, en algunos casos, potencialmente mortal. Esta es una situación de alto riesgo. La amenaza de cierre pone todas estas posibles pérdidas y miedos en la mesa de negociación. Convierte el miedo de los propietarios a perder sus casas, sus ahorros, la estabilidad familiar y la comunidad, en una forma de negociar aumentos de alquiler que la ley no permitiría de otro modo. Esto es más que un debate sobre el uso del suelo, el lenguaje legal o intereses financieros en competencia. Es una cuestión moral sobre si las personas que trabajaron, ahorraron, criaron familias, cuidaron de sus hogares y contribuyeron a esta comunidad deberían ser protegidas de perderlo todo sin que sea culpa suya. Sonoma ha valorado y protegido durante mucho tiempo sus comunidades de parques móviles y prefabricados. El actual Ayuntamiento prioriza la equidad y la vivienda asequible, por lo que debería adoptar la Propuesta de Ordenanza Tri-Park. Pedimos al público y al Ayuntamiento que apoyen a estas familias, hogares trabajadores y propietarios mayores, reforzando ahora la Ordenanza de Cierre y Conversión. Si los propietarios del parque dicen que no tienen intención de cerrar ni vender, no deberían objetar la propuesta de la Ordenanza Tri–Park. Lo que ocurra con las casas móviles/prefabricadas y las comunidades de Sonoma dirá algo duradero sobre todos nosotros. Que diga que Sonoma escuchó a sus vecinos y se mantuvo firme. Que diga que cuando las familias y los mayores necesitaron que nos uniéramos a ellos para apelar al Ayuntamiento, esta comunidad alzó la voz. Por favor, envíen un correo electrónico a sus concejales y expresen su apoyo a la Propuesta de Ordenanza Tri-Park para los tres parques de la ciudad. Y acompáñanos en la próxima Sesión de Estudio el 19 de agosto, a las 18:00, en la Sala del Consejo, 1st Street West. Gracias. Lin Marie DeVincent es la coordinadora del Comité Tri Park. Para más información, visita lmdevincent@comcast.net.
El alcalde Ron Wellander, ron.wellander@sonomacity.org, concejal John Gurney, john.gurney@sonomacity.org, concejal Patricia Farrar-Rivas, patricia.farrar-rivas@sonomacity.org, el concejal Jack Ding, jack.ding@sonomacity.org(La concejal Sandra Lowe ha tenido que recusarse de esta campaña porque posee una propiedad a menos de 1.000 pies de uno de los parques y, por tanto, según la ley estatal, podría beneficiarse económicamente de su voto.
MOBILEHOME MECHANICS The following is a summary of an expert witness declaration submitted by the California Attorney General's office in litigation brought by the Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association (WMA) against the State of California. It was prepared by Dr. Esther Sullivan, a nationally recognized sociologist who has spent years studying manufactured housing communities, park closures, displacement, and the manufactured housing business model. Her opinions are grounded in academic research, fieldwork, resident interviews, housing data, and direct study of the industry itself. This is a court document, not a mobilehome resident advocacy paper. 10
[Sullivan ¶¶ 1-6] It explains why manufactured housing communities sit in such an unusual place in housing law and housing policy. Mobilehome park residents own their homes but rent the land underneath them. That makes them different from ordinary renters and different from ordinary homeowners. Their largest asset sits on land controlled by someone else. [Sullivan ¶¶ 17-19, 23-25] That fact changes everything. If an apartment tenant cannot afford the rent, they may have to move. That can be painful and disruptive, but the apartment itself is not their asset. If a conventional homeowner needs to sell, the house and land move together as one piece of property. Mobilehome owners are caught in between. They own the home, but not the place where the home has to stay in order to keep its value. [Sullivan ¶¶ 17-19, 23-25, 33-41] That is why mobilehome park regulation can look unusually strong. At first glance, some protections may seem to press close to the line between ordinary regulation and interference with private property rights. Dr. Sullivan does not offer a constitutional analysis, but her declaration explains the unusual facts behind those protections. The home is not really mobile. The resident cannot simply pick it up and leave. The usual market exits do not work. [Sullivan ¶¶ 32-46, 61-64] The phrase "mobile home" hides the reality. Once these homes are installed, they are difficult, expensive, or impossible to move. Some older homes are not movable at all. Even when a home can technically be moved, there has to be another legal, available, affordable space to receive it. In many communities, that space does not exist. So the resident's equity depends on staying put. [Sullivan ¶¶ 33-36, 40-41, 62] That immobility is not just a hardship. It is part of the economics of the mobilehome park business. Dr. Sullivan explains that manufactured housing communities have become attractive to professional investors, private equity firms, REITs, and other sophisticated operators because they offer steady income, high demand, limited new supply, and low resident turnover. Investors understand the basic leverage. Residents are unlikely to leave because leaving means losing the home itself. Put plainly, the residents are stable because they are stuck. [Sullivan ¶¶ 41, 52-57, 63-64] That gives park ownership leverage that does not exist in ordinary rental housing. Rents can rise. Fees and separate utility charges can be added. Maintenance can be deferred or inadequate. Many residents absorb the burden because the alternative is not just moving somewhere else. The alternative risks losing their largest asset. [Sullivan ¶¶ 23-31, 36-41, 58-60] Closure belongs in that same category. A park closure or conversion is not just a private business decision. It reaches far beyond the owner's balance sheet. It affects homeowners, the local affordable housing supply, community stability, and people who may have no realistic replacement housing. That gives a city good reason to look carefully at what relocation really means, what compensation really covers, whether replacement housing actually exists, and whether the 11
closure would make an already serious housing shortage worse. [Sullivan ¶¶ 3-7, 33-46, 6164] Dr. Sullivan does not describe closure as a bargaining tactic, but the conditions she documents explain why it can become one. Closure is not only the final act of shutting down a park. In the investor arsenal, even the possibility of closure can change the whole conversation. Residents who know their homes cannot realistically be moved may accept rent increases, settlement terms, or other concessions they would not if they had real housing options. [Sullivan ¶¶ 33-41, 52 60, 62-64] This does not mean every park owner behaves the same way. It means the law has to take this structure seriously. One party owns the land. The other owns the home. And the home cannot function as a home unless it remains on that land. [Sullivan ¶¶ 17-19, 23-25, 40-41, 61-64] That is the central lesson to take from this declaration. Mobilehome owners do not require unique legislation because they are asking for special treatment. They require it because the housing arrangement itself creates a special imbalance. The resident has homeowner-level investment without homeowner-level control. The park owner has landowner rights, but those rights operate over other people's homes, savings, stability, and often their last affordable housing option. [Sullivan ¶¶ 46-47, 60-64] Link to court document: AMENDED DECLARATION OF ESTHER SULLIVAN Page 1 of 1 7/21/2026 D
MECÁNICA DE CASAS MÓVILES A continuación se presenta un resumen de una declaración de perito presentada por la Fiscalía General de California en un litigio presentado por la Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association (WMA) contra el Estado de California. Fue preparada por la Dra. Esther Sullivan, una
socióloga reconocida a nivel nacional que ha pasado años estudiando comunidades de viviendas prefabricadas, cierres de parques, desplazamientos y el modelo de negocio de viviendas prefabricadas. Sus opiniones se basan en investigación académica, trabajo de campo, entrevistas a residentes, datos de vivienda y estudios directos de la industria en sí. Este es un documento judicial, no un documento de defensa de residentes de casas móviles. [Sullivan ¶¶ 1-6] Explica por qué las comunidades de viviendas prefabricadas se encuentran en un lugar tan inusual en la legislación y la política de vivienda. Los residentes de parques de casas móviles son dueños de sus casas pero alquilan el terreno que hay debajo. Eso los hace diferentes de los inquilinos comunes y de los propietarios comunes. Su mayor activo está en terrenos controlados por otra persona. [Sullivan ¶¶ 17-19, 23-25] Ese hecho lo cambia todo. Si un inquilino no puede permitirse el alquiler, puede que tenga que mudarse. Eso puede ser doloroso y disruptivo, pero el apartamento en sí no es su activo. Si un 12
propietario convencional necesita vender, la casa y el terreno se mueven juntos como una sola propiedad. Los propietarios de casas móviles quedan atrapados en medio. Son dueños de la casa, pero no del lugar donde debe quedarse para mantener su valor. [Sullivan ¶¶ 1719, 23-25, 33-41] [Sullivan ¶¶ 17-19, 23-25, 33-41] Por eso la regulación de parques de casas móviles puede parecer inusualmente estricta. A primera vista, algunas protecciones pueden parecer rozar la línea entre la regulación ordinaria y la interferencia en los derechos de propiedad privada. La Dra. Sullivan no ofrece un análisis constitucional, pero su declaración explica los hechos inusuales detrás de esas protecciones. La casa no es realmente móvil. El residente no puede simplemente recogerla y marcharse. Las salidas habituales del mercado no funcionan. [Sullivan ¶¶ 32-46, 61-64] La expresión "casa móvil" oculta la realidad. Una vez instaladas estas viviendas, son difíciles, caras o imposibles de mover. Algunas casas antiguas no son móviles en absoluto. Incluso cuando una vivienda puede ser trasladada técnicamente, debe haber otro espacio legal, disponible y asequible para recibirla. En muchas comunidades, ese espacio no existe. Así que el capital del residente depende de permanecer en su lugar. [Sullivan ¶¶ 33-36, 40-41, 62] Esa inmovilidad no es solo una dificultad. Forma parte de la economía del negocio de parques de casas móviles. El Dr. Sullivan explica que las comunidades de viviendas prefabricadas se han vuelto atractivas para inversores profesionales, firmas de capital privado, REITs y otros operadores sofisticados porque ofrecen ingresos estables, alta demanda, oferta limitada y baja rotación de residentes. Los inversores comprenden el apalancamiento básico. Es poco probable que los residentes se vayan porque irse significa perder la vivienda en sí. En pocas palabras, los residentes son estables porque están atrapados. [Sullivan ¶¶ 41, 52-57, 63-64] Eso da a la propiedad de los parques una ventaja que no existe en las viviendas de alquiler ordinarias. Los alquileres pueden subir. Se pueden añadir tarifas y cargos de servicios separados. El mantenimiento puede ser diferido o insuficiente. Muchos residentes asumen la carga porque la alternativa no es simplemente mudarse a otro sitio. La alternativa corre el riesgo de perder su mayor activo. [Sullivan ¶¶ 23-31, 36-41, 58-60] El cierre pertenece a esa misma categoría. Un cierre o conversión de parque no es solo una decisión privada. Va mucho más allá del balance del propietario. Afecta a los propietarios, a la oferta local de vivienda asequible, a la estabilidad comunitaria y a personas que pueden no tener viviendas de reemplazo realistas. Eso da a una ciudad una buena razón para analizar detenidamente qué significa realmente la reubicación, qué compensación cubre realmente, si la vivienda de reemplazo realmente existe y si el cierre empeoraría una escasez ya grave. [Sullivan ¶¶ 3-7, 33-46, 61-64] La Dra. Sullivan no describe el cierre como una táctica de negociación, pero las condiciones que documenta explican por qué puede convertirse en una. El cierre no es 13
solo el acto final de cerrar un parque. En el arsenal de los inversores, incluso la posibilidad de cierre puede cambiar toda la conversación. Los residentes que saben que sus casas no pueden ser trasladadas de forma realista pueden aceptar aumentos de alquiler, condiciones de acuerdo u otras concesiones que no aceptarían si tuvieran opciones reales de vivienda. [Sullivan ¶¶ 33-41, 52 60, 62-64] Esto no significa que todos los propietarios de parques se comporten igual. Significa que la ley debe tomarse esta estructura en serio. Una parte es propietaria del terreno. La otra es dueña de la vivienda. Y la vivienda no puede funcionar como vivienda a menos que permanezca en ese terreno. [Sullivan ¶¶ 17-19, 23-25, 40-41, 61-64] Esa es la lección central a extraer de esta declaración. Los propietarios de casas móviles no requieren una legislación única porque estén pidiendo un trato especial. La requieren porque la propia disposición de vivienda crea un desequilibrio especial. El residente tiene inversión a nivel de propietario sin control a nivel propio. El propietario del parque tiene derechos de propietario, pero esos derechos afectan a las viviendas, ahorros, estabilidad y, a menudo, a última opción de vivienda asequible de otras personas. [Sullivan ¶¶ 46-47, 60-64] Enlace al documento judicial: DECLARACIÓN ENMENDADA DE ESTHER SULLIVAN Página 1 de 1 21/7/2026 D
Apathy is rampant until it hits home...
Press Democrat, Monday, July 20, 2027
Petaluma mobile home park could serve as a test case for cities and residents fighting closures and conversions Petaluma has served as a proving ground for tightened mobile home park regulations and is poised to do so again as the owners of Little Woods Mobile Villa seek to push forward with shuttering Christopher Brown in Little Woods the 78-space park off Lakeville Highway. mobile home park , Petaluma, The city has been a ground zero of sorts as a group of park owners where parking is at a premium. If have launched a flurry of lawsuits over new rules passed to limit residents have visitors or more rent increases on mobile home spaces and bolster resident than one vehicle, they are forced to find street parking a quarter protections as part of a wave of tighter regulations regionally and mile away. (Kent Porter / The Press at the state level. Democrat) By Marisa Endicott | In June 2024, Little Woods owners notified the city of their intent to close, setting off a lengthy, complex and not often used process that has emerged as one of the flashpoints in the wider fight over mobile home park regulation. “I think it is a rare occurrence,” said Petaluma Assistant City Attorney Dylan Brady. “I know there’s no case law. It’s very new.” Closing and converting mobile home parks, which are governed by different rules than other housing, comes with noticing requirements, a relocation impact and compensation assessment conducted by a consultant of the city’s choosing and at the cost of the park owner, and an ultimate decision by elected council members. While Petaluma’s guiding rules have been in place for two decades, California tightened its own laws on the process starting in 2021. Advocates say the strict regulations are necessary to preserve a slim share of 14
affordable housing and protect low-income residents who own their homes but rent the spaces below them and have few affordable options to relocate. The homes themselves are often difficult and costly to move. In May 2025, after their unsuccessful protest, Little Woods ownership paid a roughly $200,000 deposit to the city for the relocation assessment, which started later that year. But, owners also filed a claim for a refund, and in November 2025, sued the city over the cost, asking a judge to deem it unlawful. That case, and a similar one out of Petaluma’s Capri Villa with the same owners, are ongoing. Meanwhile, on June 29, Little Woods submitted another legal filing to compel the city to produce the report. Little Woods owner Nick Ubaldi said the city’s tightened rent control drove them to pursue closure in the first place. Now, “they’ve collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from us, and they’re just playing games,” he said. “We’ve basically been left in (the) lurch here.” He noted that the city had originally estimated completion of the report, outlining how much it will cost to close the park, by the end of March 2026. After multiple inquiries, Ubaldi said, it’s been “radio silence.” The report is still in process, Brady said, but nearing completion and expected within the next couple months. “I think everybody agrees that property owners should have the ability to use their property,” Brady said. But, nearly 100 residents could be displaced “through no fault of their own,” he added, noting the city wants to make sure the report accounts for the true weight of that impact and meets the complex legal requirements. “It’s a big deal.” The Lakeville Highway property is only zoned for mobile home parks, and owners haven’t pursued a change in zoning for any other building to date. Protections and pushback Other cities, too, are grappling with the threat of park closures and the backlash around protections. A national legal group recently waded into the legal fight in Windsor, where Ubaldi is challenging the town’s emergency moratorium preventing the closure of another of his family’s parks. The lawsuit was initially dismissed but is up on appeal. Ubaldi and his family own at least six mobile home parks outright in Sonoma and Napa counties and have stakes in a number of others across the state. He has been an outspoken critic of regulations he said have “effectively strangled” his business, and his parks have been at the forefront of much of the related litigation in Petaluma and several other cities in Sonoma County. Little Woods ownership has brought six lawsuits against Petaluma. Another lawsuit, filed in federal court with the owner of nearby Youngstown Mobile Home Park, relating to Petaluma’s rent restrictions and the state’s closure law was dismissed in 2024. While Ubaldi isn’t alone in pushing back, Petaluma hasn’t seen the same resistance from all owners, Brady said. Ubaldi also works for Stockton-based Harmony Communities, a controversial mobile home park management company that oversees dozens of properties in California and Oregon, including Ubaldiowned parks in Sonoma County. A KQED analysis of property records showed Harmony Communities has become a major player, managing roughly 80 parks in California as of 2025. The wave of local and state regulations shoring up mobile home rent increases and protections in recent years came in response to widespread advocacy from residents. Many are older and retired or living on low or fixed incomes. The rising cost of living and fear of displacement has pushed them to the brink, residents say. In some parks, including some managed by Harmony Communities, residents have described — and in some cases sued over — aggressive tactics, pointing to harsh rule enforcement, eviction threats and passed-through expenses. After hearing from Sonoma County and other mobile home residents, Rep. Mike Thompson recently reached out to the Sonoma County district attorney to look into their concerns and state Attorney 15
General Rob Bonta, requesting he review allegations of unfair business practices and consumer harms. Separately, Thompson, D-St. Helena, asked the Trump administration to investigate anti-competitive practices by institutional mobile home park investors — a point of focus in the national debate over mobile home parks. Pressures on the ground Christopher Brown has lived in his old Great Lakes trailer at Little Woods for 30 years. Over that time, “there’s been hiccups,” which he characterized as a two on the Richter scale. Since park owners and management have escalated their fight over city regulations, accompanied by a series of rent hikes, eviction threats and other changes, “it’s been an eight to 10,” he said. “They can cross the line on all levels. Our city has been great, but the thing is, we’ve been dealing with this for years now.” With the impending closure, it’s a “fear of not having a place to live,” he said. The interview for the relocation report was “emotional.” “Someone comes in your house, asks all these questions,” about the home’s value, health issues, family nearby. “It made it feel real that I’m going to have to go somewhere, and I don’t know where I’m going to go.” Brown is anxious to see the results. “The sooner I know, the sooner I can start negotiating how I’m gonna function,” he said. He’s tried applying for housing, but affordable options come with long waiting lists. Meanwhile, on June 30, Brown received notice that ownership is seeking another monthly rent increase — $189.81 in Brown’s case, far above the $5.18 allowed this year by city limits tightened in 2023 to 70% of the annual consumer price index, the average measure of goods and services in an area. That rent increase would bring Brown’s rent for the land beneath his home to $660 “and take out every cent I have,” he said. He has a roommate but also an income of $1,300 per month. The move triggers an arbitration where a park owner can make the case they aren’t getting a fair return, and residents can fight it. At Little Woods, it is the fourth arbitration in as many years. The first arbitration, in 2023, sought to increase rents by 300%. All three previous arbitrations have come out in residents’ favor, although owners have appealed the decisions. The process is costly and time consuming for all involved, and residents have pooled resources and fundraised with outside support to mount their defense. Although Ubaldi has challenged bias in arbitrators’ previous rulings for Little Woods, Brady, the Petaluma assistant city attorney, said he believes those results “show the ordinance is working fine.” While Ubaldi did not provide Little Woods’ specific profit margin, right now, he said “it’s not that the park is losing money, it’s that every single year the park is going down in value because it can’t keep pace with inflation.” “They’ve made it untenable to operate as a mobile home park,” he said. “There has been plenty of options put on the table to negotiate away from this closure, and we’ve been rebuffed every which way we turn,” he added, referencing efforts to get rid of limits on rent increases at point of sale. “We have no option left but to arbitrate every year or to close the business.” To Brown, however, it feels like “they’re wanting to terminate the mobile home park because they’re not getting their way.” “They’ve banded together, and they have these deep pockets,” he said, referencing owners and companies like Harmony Communities and groups like the Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association that have poured money into the fight against regulations in Petaluma and beyond. “Look at how much money they have spent, but yet they’re saying they’re not making enough money from us?” He pointed to the trail of arbitrations, lawsuits, alleged threats of displacement, a move to suddenly restrict residents’ on-site parking. “They know what it does to people,” he said. 16
What About Water? As summer heat bears down on the planet, we see more and more news about water shortages and drought in areas that are usually worry free. Our valley has had its struggles with dry years, and I think mounting evidence of climate change effects and memory of those years has made us more aware of and curious about where we, Moon Valley Villagers, actually get our water. Here’s the nitty gritty. We’re aren’t on City water and are incredibly fortunate that we don’t (so far!) need to pay a monthly water bill. Let’s keep it that way by using our water responsibly and hope rain comes in abundance in years to come.
I asked Google: What is the source of water at 1001 Fifth St., Sonoma, Valley of the Moon Mobile Home Park? The primary water source for Valley of the Moon Mobile Home Park at 1001 5th St. West is groundwater pumped from two active on-site wells. Unlike systems that purchase municipal water from the city, this community operates its own independent, community-owned water system (identified by the State of California as Water System CA4900595). Water System & Source Profile • Water Source: Groundwater drawn from the Sonoma Valley Groundwater Basin. • Infrastructure: Two active, deep wells that pump directly into the park's local distribution infrastructure. • System Type: Registered as a Community Water System (CWS), which serves a permanent residential population year-round. • State ID: Listed officially in state drinking water databases under System Number CA4900595. [1] Water Management & Safety Because the park operates an independent public water system, it is regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board rather than receiving treated water through City of Sonoma pipes. The park management is directly responsible for: • Routine Testing: Regular sampling for chemical contaminants, minerals, and bacteriological safety. • Infrastructure Maintenance: Maintaining pumps, storage tanks, and the local pipeline network that serves each lot. • Water Quality Reports: Issuing an annual Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) to park residents detailing testing results and safety compliance.
Excert from Sonoma Valley Sun/August 6th Will Shonbrun: The Myth of “Sustainability” Part 2/Water and Economic Sustainability In California, we are now living in the time of less water. This could be a temporary condition, or it could be the new normal, as former Governor Jerry Brown suggested. All indications point to the latter as we move further along and deeper into climate change and global warming, especially here on the West Coast. In this time of water scarcity, we must make intelligent and just decisions as to its use and distribution.
17
State Court: Counties Must Protect Rivers from Groundwater Pumping
Sonoma County Must Do Environmental Review Of Its Well Ordinance The California Court of Appeal issued a decision in Russian Riverkeeper and California Coastkeeper Alliance’s long-running lawsuit over Sonoma County’s groundwater well ordinance, delivering two significant wins for California’s rivers and the communities that depend on them. First, the Court squarely rejected the County’s attempt to escape the Public Trust Doctrine altogether, reaffirming that counties across California share the state’s responsibility to protect rivers, streams, and the fish and wildlife that depend on them when permitting groundwater wells. Second, the Court affirmed that Sonoma County violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by adopting its Well Ordinance without required environmental review and upheld the lower court’s order rescinding the County’s claimed CEQA exemptions. On appeal, Sonoma County asked the Court to “decline to follow” Environmental Law Foundation v. State Water Resources Control Board, the landmark 2018 decision holding that counties have a fiduciary duty to consider impacts to public trust resources—like salmon and steelhead—when issuing well permits. Had the County succeeded, counties statewide could have washed their hands of any responsibility for the harm groundwater pumping causes to interconnected rivers and streams. The Court of Appeal refused, holding that counties share responsibility for administering the public trust when authorizing groundwater pumping that impacts public trust resources. “The most important part of this decision is what the County failed to achieve,” says Sean Bothwell, Executive Director of California Coastkeeper Alliance. “Sonoma County spent years and significant taxpayer money trying to convince the courts that counties have no duty to protect our rivers from excessive groundwater pumping. The Court of Appeal shut that door in a decision that now binds every county in California. Counties can no longer pretend the Public Trust Doctrine doesn’t apply to their actions.” The Court also affirmed the heart of the Keepers’ CEQA claim. When the County adopted its amended Well Ordinance in 2023, it declared itself exempt from environmental review, claiming the ordinance would protect the environment. The Court of Appeal found no substantial evidence supporting that claim. By the County’s own calculations, roughly 95 percent of well permit applications would remain rubber-stamped through ministerial review, and the County admitted it could not quantify any water savings from the ordinance’s conservation measures. As the Court explained, the County’s “intent” to protect the environment and its “expectation” that water use would decline are not evidence—and cannot substitute for the environmental analysis CEQA requires. “For nearly two decades we’ve watched creeks run dry and salmon runs collapse while the County issued hundreds of well permits a year without ever studying the consequences,” says Don McEnhill, Deputy Director of Russian Riverkeeper. “The Court of Appeal has now confirmed what we’ve said from the beginning: the County cannot simply declare its ordinance good for the environment and skip the analysis. It must actually study the impacts of groundwater pumping on the Russian River and its tributaries—and show its work to the public.” 18
While the Court of Appeal deferred to the County’s legislative judgment on the specific terms of the ordinance—applying what it described as “the most deferential level of judicial scrutiny”—it did so only after confirming the County remains bound by its public trust duties. And the ordinance the County adopted must now go through the CEQA process, requiring the County to publicly disclose, analyze, and mitigate the environmental impacts of its groundwater permitting scheme, including impacts to threatened and endangered coho salmon, Chinook salmon, and steelhead in the Russian River watershed and to groundwater supplies. Both CEQA and the Public Trust Doctrine demand decisions made that impact our shared public resources be based on careful analysis and include measures to mitigate the impacts. Russian Riverkeeper and California Coastkeeper Alliance remain committed to working with the County to ensure that the required environmental review is meaningful and that Sonoma’s rivers, streams, and fisheries are protected for future generations. California Coastkeeper Alliance represents Waterkeepers programs statewide as they fight for drinkable, swimmable, fishable waters for all Californians. CCKA defends and expands California’s protective legislation and strengthens the function of our State Water Board. For more information, visit www.cacoastkeeper.org or @CA_Waterkeepers on social media. Russian Riverkeeper’s mission is to ensure now, and in the future, that the Russian River’s mainstem and its tributaries are drinkable, swimmable, fishable, and equitably shared. Russian Riverkeeper actively pursues the protection and restoration of the Russian River’s mainstem, tributaries, and interconnected groundwaters through focused, scientifically based advocacy, public outreach, and direct engagement with the Russian River community. For more information, visit www.russianriverkeeper.org or @rriverkeeper on Instagram. Source: https://sonomasun.com/2026/08/08/state-court-counties-must-protectrivers-from-groundwater-pumping/
“There is immense power when a group of people with similar interests gets together to work toward the same goals.” ― Idowu Koyenikan, Wealth for All: Living a Life of Success at the Edge of Your Ability
19
HOSPITAL & RECOVERY SUPPLIES
Available for residents of Moon Valley Phone Kathy Vick at 619-322-9246 for more information. Items available are free for 90 days (wheelchairs, standard walkers, bedside commodes (often in short supply), shower chair, crutches, canes, etc.
m 20
Serving Sonoma, Napa and Solano Counties Commercial • Residential
707-585-2481 www.ReyffElectric.com
� �
6)f'elbd 6)f'elbd urance Agency, Inc. urance Agency, Establis/JedInc. 1963
Ix.I OC47l19 Establis/Jed 1963 Ix.I OC47l19 California's# 1 Manufactured California's# 1 Manufactured Home Insurance Specialist Home Insurance Specialist
weibellnsurance.com weibellnsurance.com
00 -653-5565 -653-5565
The Mobile Rates Home Insurance Leader • Senior
SMALL JOBS R-US Spring Forward into those Neglected Projects!
FREE ESTIMATES u Roof Repairs u Leveling - Steps - Carpeting - Exterior u Mobile home washing - Gutter Cleaning u Plumbing - Electrical u Paint - Deck Refinishing u Fencing - Driveway Coatings
THAT • Senior Rates $80 000 16 000 WON’T 100COST 000 YOU 1 000 8 000QUALITY40REPAIRS 000 AN ARM AND A LEG. $80 000 16 000 100 000 000 000 8 000 40 000 The marketplace is constantly changing.10 11 000 100 50,000 20 000 $100 000 000 • insurance Free Quotes 1 000 100 000 50,000 20 000 $100 000 of ex-10 000 ADVANCED SERVICES Free We• offer freeQuotes quotes and almost 60 years $120,000 1,000 60,000 24,000 100,000 12,000 1,000 60,000 Lic. #ADV0005 24,000 100,000 perience toBroker help you find the best $120,000 policy for your12,000 65,000 100,000 1,000 13,000 City Business 26,000 $130,000 • No Fees 65,000 100,000 1,000 26,000 $130,000 mobile Call now and let us get to work 13,000 • Nohome. Broker Fees 70,000 28,000 100,000 1,000 $140,000 14,000
707-588-9817
for you! 28,000 subject100,000 1,000 $140,000 14,000 homes 70,000 to change, and may no Rates are ekamples of replacement cost on newer manufactured wflh a $1000 deductible, Rates are ekamples of replacement cost on newer manufactured homes wflh a $1000 deductible, subject to change, and may no
Years Working 30on Mobile Homes Whole Home Re-Pipes •“Any” Plumbing Repair • Water Heaters • Under Home Leaks • Drains Cleared Fr e Ho e In • Gas Leaks Qu me ote s • Emergency Calls Rick (707) 695-0016
mrplumberservice.com • Ins. 1,000,000 Contractors License #494596 • All work guaranteed
To advertise in this magazine, please call
1-800-828-8242 x3107 or email us: info@mobilehomeboard.com
MHBGROUP
Custom Community Magazines Since 1974
www.mobilehomeparkmagazines.com
Wickens Wickens ree estfim ates Construction Construction & & Home Home Improvements Improvements
Licensed - CA #845399
+ THE BEST ALUMINUM INSULATED ROOF SYSTEMS!
+ KITCHEN & BATHROOM REMODELING + REPLUMBING & WATER HEATERS + INSULATED VINYL SIDING & SKIRTING + WINDOW & DOOR UPGRADES + PATIO COVERS & ENCLOSURE ROOMS + PAINTING - EXTERIOR & INTERIOR + COLUMN EXTENDERS & PRIVACY SCREENS + DECKING & STEPS & RAMPS
Reputable
+ RELEVELING/REBLOCKING & EARTHQUAKE BRACING + WHEEL CHAIR LIFTS
District Sales Manager Bruce Palestini
707 249-6430
Office: 707-447-7475 Toll Free: 877-443-7475
www.wickensconstructionandmhs.com Family Owned and Operated
Let us Make Your Home a Comfort Zone
Serving Your Area since 1992
Lic #1016168
#1 Coleman Dealer in The North Bay Coleman Certified Comfort Experts Service and Repair • New Installations Senior Discounts • Rebates may Apply Financing Available • Free Estimates on new Installs http://www.stoutshvac.com
707 527 1504 stoutshvac@att.net