Strategies to Prevent
Displacement
Ishbel Dickens, Consultant (moderator)
Andrea Chiriboga-Flor, 9to5
Crystal Launder, City of Boulder, Colo.
Marisol Cortez, Vecinos de Mission Trails
Residents Have the Solutions:
Insights from a Case Study on
the Displacement of Mission
Trails Mobile Home Community
by Vecinos de Mission Trails
Presented for the 2016 I’M HOME Conference
November 15, 2016
Study Purposes

Make displacement--by its nature an erasure--visible

Document the lived impacts of city policy decision

Produce a written record of what happened at Mission
Trails

Honor the voices, words, and experiences of those who
were displaced

Produce information we can use to strengthen policy
protections and prevent another Mission Trails
Basic numbers

Total # Households Displaced: 106

# Households Interviewed: 51 (with 11 additional
households for which we had information about
specific impacts, either from family members
interviewed or through firsthand knowledge)

# Residents Interviewed: 62

# Residents Accounted for in Interviews: 178
When you heard Mission Trails would be rezoned and
closed, what would have been the ideal outcome for
you/your family? For all residents?

To be able to move somewhere free from threat of further displacement (11)

To be able to afford to move into a house, especially in the same area (6)

To be able to buy land and move trailer there (3)

To be able to move trailers into neighborhoods.
“One alternative would have been if people could have moved their trailers
into neighborhoods. [My mom] wanted to know if we could put a trailer in
the neighborhood where there’s houses. But I was told ... that you couldn’t
do that. [They] said, you’re not the only one that’s been asking that,
because there’s other people that’s been coming in here saying, well, I see a
little lot in between houses, maybe I can move my trailer there.”
What would have been ideal?

Notification – to be told up front what was being planned (5).
“S: The way I found out about it, it was when that guy that did my
restroom said, what are you putting all that money, you gonna
move this trailer? I said, why? He said, well, you know they’re
selling this place, right? I said, nawwww, we didn’t even know
that.
M: We didn’t even know that! They hadn’t even sent any notices.
And he knew!
S: And he didn’t even live there [at Mission Trails]! … And he’s the
one that told me—you know, you’re putting all this money into the
trailer and they’re gonna sell this place? I said, what?? He said,
yeah. They’re gonna sell it. Ohhh wow. I didn’t know…nobody told
me nothing.”
What would have been ideal?


More time to move out, so that residents could move out on their own
timeline (5)

At least a year

Six months to a year
Fix the park (3).

“Pues que el cambio iba a ser mejor, pero fue lo contrario. Lo mejor es que
hubieron arreglado, mas estable y mas comodo para vivir bien, solo faltaba que
arreglaran las trailas viejas y de eso. … Nos sacaron para nada. Solo murieron
gentes y ni han hecho nada. Solo hicieron el mal. / Well, [the ideal thing] is that
the change would bring about something better, but it was actually the opposite.
The best thing is if they had fixed the park, to be more stable and comfortable for
us to live well there…it only needed for the older trailers to be fixed, things like
that. … They kicked us out for nothing. People died and they haven’t even done
anything [with the land]. It’s only been for bad.”
What would have been ideal?


Just relocation assistance that covered the true costs of moving (3)

City supplement amount given by developers so that residents not forced into
debt. “When I was reading in the paper that year that all of this was taking place,
and they talked about that the city had given $54.5 million in incentives alone to
developers, I thought, really? You have that? … You could have given at least 2 or
3,000 of that to each resident of the Mission Trails so that they wouldn’t have had
to go into debt. Where we ran out, and you actually placed us into debt that we
didn’t have.”

Enough to buy land
Better assistance from local government (3)

City representatives who actually responded to residents (1)

Better assistance locating stable housing, and same level of assistance for everyone
(including renters, undocumented) (2)
What would have been ideal?

Developers find land or another park in good condition where residents
could move together as a community (2).
“I really wanted them to find a piece of property where they could… They footed
the bill, they paid for everything, and had to deal with all the hassles of doing it.
But get a piece of property where everyone could go together.”

Receive equity residents had built up (2)

into their trailer.

into the land itself.
“So many people lived there for so long. I was only there seven years. I wasn’t
asking a lot, just a little bit more--$4-5,000. Some people were there 30, 40
years…that wasn’t right. They helped support that land, because they were
living there. The people that were there longer should have gotten more.”
What would have been ideal?

Not have to continuing paying rent once park was rezoned.
“With me [the amount of relocation assistance they gave] was different. Because
I ended up not paying rent … so that I could put up the boards and other things I
needed for the house [she had to fix trailer skirting before her trailer could be
accepted for move in at any of the parks on the list approved by developer for
relocation assistance]. I didn’t pay rent for maybe 2-3 months, so [the
developers] said, you won’t be receiving the money that you were supposed to
be getting. I go, you know what, okay. Just give me what, you know, what I
should be getting then. ‘Well, we’re gonna take this off and that off.’ Okay. So, I
think I ended up with, what…$500 and something? Or $600 and something?”
What would have been ideal?
Moving from just relocation to prevention
Not
having to move in the first
place (12)
“For them not to do that to people
no more!”
Upstream Solutions
The right to simply be notified.
 Local and state laws should change to recognize mobile
home residents as homeowners with legal rights to
notification in the event of rezoning.
 Be able to move mobile homes into neighborhoods.
 The city is currently considering how to change the
Unified Development Code to allow “tiny houses” and granny
flats. Why not mobile homes?
 Fix the park.

How would you rate conditions at
Mission Trails when you first moved in?
2 (Not great - lots of
issues)
11%
1 (Terrible - really bad
condition)
7%
Average
rating:
4.03
3 (Okay - Park had some
issues)
7%
5 (Good - no major
problems)
55%
4 (A few issues, but
overall liked living there)
20%
Fix the park: Upstream Solutions
 1)
Bad and/or declining conditions are not
inevitable but rather are a function of who
owns/manages a park.
 2) Looking empirically at the history of
Mission Trails, good management is
possible. However,
 3) Land speculation, not management, is
the real issue.
Preserving Manufactured
Housing in Adams County
Colorado From a Community
Organizer Perspective
Background
 RTD Public Transit System $7.6
billion build-out
 9to5 canvass along West Corridor
and Southwest Denver
 Launch of Affordable Transit
Campaign
 Reinstatement of 16L
 Reinstatement of #4 Morrison
Route Bus
 Displacement of
leaders/residents along new light
rail lines
State of the Denver Metro Region
Burdened: 47%
Severely Burdened: 24%
- 60,000 shortfall of homes for those making $20,000
or less a year could afford – Denver Post, Dec 13, 2014
Rising Rents
 2010-2013: 5% annually
 2014: 9.2%
 2015: 14.2% in January (highest in country)
Stagnant Income
 Median rent in the city grew by 10.8% while median
household income increased by 1.2% (2013)
 Renter must make $35 an hour to afford median
priced rental
Adams County




Highest concentration of mobile home parks in the county
Federal Heights
About 40% of people identify as Latin@ (Census from 2010)
By 2018 there will be 6 new light rail lines going through Adams
County
 Annual growth rate is above 1%, annual job growth rate is above 2%
9to5 Organizing Model
Vision: Our vision is an economically just world where poverty and
discrimination have been eliminated, the contributions of women are
recognized and valued; all women and their families thrive.
Mission: To build a movement to achieve economic justice, by engaging
directly affected women to improve working conditions.
Board of Directors = Our members
• - “Nothing About Us Without Us!”
- Aim is to always hire more of our members
 9to5 believes that systemic change is accomplished by engaging
directly impacted women through organizing, involving and
developing leaders; to achieve equality, economic security and
social justice, at the workplace and beyond.
9to5 Organizing Model (cont.)
 Directly impacted women shape and lead our campaigns. We focus on work with
this core constituency, while including others who share our goals and vision.
 Our member-led campaigns build power by winning concrete changes in
corporate and public policy and by creating a movement of directly affected
people
 We believe that all forms of oppression are linked, and address these issues of
oppression and social justice in all aspects of our work.
 We empower directly affected folks to engage in the political process and hold
elected officials accountable. .
 Commitment to developing leaders.
 Model our principles. Be the change we want to see.
 Address root causes.
 Strive to end all forms of oppression
 Be at the forefront of change.
Shady Nook & Belmont Mobile Home
Parks
 #4 Bus Route Campaign in Fall 2014
in neighborhood of Westwood
 About 90 homes, mostly
monolingual Spanish speakers and
families with children
 St. Charles Town Company
 OED loan
 Del Corazon apartments at 60%
AMI
 Unofficial mobile home helpline
 Federal Uniform Relocation Act
Denver Meadows Mobile Home Park
Background & Demographics
 Denver Meadows is 20.41 acre located near the Fitzsimmons
development and next to 1-225 at 2075 Potomac Street. The new R line
will run near the park at the end of this year.
 120 families living in mobile homes and another 120 RV renters.
 Mobile home residents pay almost $900 for plot rent- no common areas
or services
Denver Meadows Mobile Home Park Demographics
 About 92%, own their homes or are paying to own, and are low-income
Latino, Spanish as primary language families.
 67%, make between $500-3,000 in gross monthly income
 There are a few seniors and people with disabilities.
 Some of these families have lived in the park for up to 20 years. Most of
the families living here have children, with 67% of households indicating
minors residing in the home.
 13,000 unit deficit of affordable housing in the City of Aurora & 0%
vacancy rate
Denver Meadows Mobile Home Park Timeline
 Jan 2016: Began organizing residents around management issues
● April 28th: Residents discovered public notice about potential zone change
● May 11th: Planning commission meeting, there were more than 150 people
that shared 6 hours of testimony, and at the end it influenced the
commission to vote against recommending the change to city council
because lack of community engagement
● May 2016: Subsequent retaliation. Meeting with owners- park set to close
regardless of zone change in 2016
Denver Meadows Mobile Home Park
Timeline
● July 11th: City Council Meeting on Rezoning there were
about 100 people who participated in the meeting. At the
end, the city council voted to table the decision until there
is a plan for the residents.
● September 22: National Day of Action for Housing to
demand rent control and declare a Housing state of
Emergency.
● October 2016: Became official Home Owner’s Association
(HOA) registered with the state.
● During these months we have met with various agencies
and organizations that have interest in working with us to
get community ownership over the property.
● Up to this point we have been featured in about 14 articles
and news video clips
Where We Are Now & Next Steps
 Still looking to secure funding for community land trust or resident
owned community or community benefits agreement
 Continuing to build relationships with potential stakeholders and city of
Aurora to find solution that works for residents
 Began working with Berkeley Village residents: Same owners as Denver
Meadows, 400 homes, mostly home owners, unincorporated Adams,
mostly monolingual Spanish speakers, within ¼ mile from Gold Line
 Pioneer Village: About 120 families, less than ½ mile from Gold Line
 More money should be going towards organizing and not direct service
for policy changes, CLTS, ROCS etc. – strategizing on how to convince
foundations to fund advocacy over direct services
 Working with Senator Kefalas on policy solutions, such as Right to
Purchase. Limiting types or rules that can be implemented, mandatory
mediation, more accountability for maintenance issues
-
HOMES FOR ALL NATIONAL CAMPAIGN
 Community and Housing are a human right, not a commodity to be
exploited for profit
 Land and housing should be collectively owned and controlled by
communities
 Land and housing should be developed in a way that is sustainable for
the planet
 Land and housing should be accessible, permanent, quality, and
connected to economic, social and cultural networks and institutions
 9to5.org/housingreport
 9to5.org/Colorado
 Right to the City Homes For All: Rise of the
Renter Nation, Corporate Landlords
 [email protected]
A Municipal Role in Displacement Prevention
Vista Village Mobile Home Park
Boulder, Colorado
Boulder, Colorado
Orienting to Boulder, Colorado
• Size: 25.8 square miles
• Population: 104,810
• Housing Units: 44,725
• Affordable Housing Goal: 10%
• Affordable Units: 3,319 (7.3%)
• Mobile Homes in Parks: 1,191 (2.6%)
• Median Home Value: $626,850
Mobile Home Parks
• MHPs: 4 parks, 1,191 homes
• Area II (nearby): 4 parks, 358 homes
• Established: 1950s to 1970s
• Pre-1976 Homes: 65%
Cooper Center
Race Dot Map:
Pockets of Diversity
Preservation Policy
7.08 Preservation and Development of Manufactured Housing
Recognizing the importance of manufactured housing as an option for many
households, the city and county will encourage the preservation of existing
mobile home parks and the development of new manufactured home parks,
including increasing opportunities for resident-owned parks. Whenever an
existing mobile home park is found in a hazardous area, every reasonable effort
will be made to reduce or eliminate the hazard, when feasible, or to help
mitigate for the loss of housing through relocation of affected households.
Preservation Policy
• Mobile Home Park Land Use & Zoning
• Mobile Home Park Ordinance
• Park Purchase & Deed Restriction
• “Key Affordable Housing Tool”
Vista Village Mobile Home Park
Preservation Practice: General
1991: Grants, weatherization & energy efficiency
1993: Mediation services
1996: Mobilizing for a Change; community
organizing + park ownership+ legal issues
1998: Homeownership program for park purchase
landlord tenant guide + home repair workshops
2015: Legal defense funding
Case Study: Mapleton MHP
• 1996: City purchased Mapleton Mobile
Home Park ($3.5M)
• Goal: Flood improvements & ResidentOwned (still), Affordable Park
• Issues: financing purchase, financing
infrastructure upgrades, park
management
• Outcomes: Flood improvements
completed, 120/135 lots deed restricted,
resident ownership is a work-in-progress
• Ownership/management structure:
nonprofit owned, resident owners
association leases and governs park,
contracts with management company
Case Study: Boulder Mobile Manor
• 1985: City tried to purchase; lacked
financing
• 1997: Housing authority purchased
• Original Intent: Operate as rental,
phase in homeownership
• Housing authority discovered
homes were deteriorating,
infrastructure failing
• 2011: Reopens as Read Oak Park,
award winning LIHTC funded rental
community
Preservation Practice: What’s happening Now
• Ponderosa MHP: Disaster
Resiliency Planning Grant (2015)
• Mobile Home Park Resiliency
Design Workshop (upcoming)
• Mobile Home Park Infrastructure
Study (Summer 2016)
• State-level Advocacy (Fall 2016)
A Final Thought (from 2015 City Council Mtg)
Boulder
Malibu
(5 homes for sale/recently sold)
(6 homes for sale/recently sold)
Home Price (range): $29,900 to $87,000
Home Price (range): $1.5 million to $3.0 million
Lot Rents: Low $600s
Lot Rents: $1,500s