A reality-check offering, if I may, after reading some of these misinformed or disingenuous comments. It’s a bit unclear just where some of these assertions come from. Owning a home—a key factor here—OWNING a home, but paying for use of the space it is on, is a unique real estate legal arrangement. Ownership and rental are not commonly so joined in a business way. But rights of ownership and rights of space rental are still rights. As well, the property in this case is zoned mobile-home use for a reason. The City intended to protect a housing resource when it zoned it for that use, for that land use to be sustained, and for that resource to be protected over time too. It should be noted too, that this is a unique, hard to replace, these days now impossible to move, and a much-needed resource for those of low income looking to live in this small town. But, of course, the property owner can go out of business and sell it to another who wants to continue doing that. Ceasing doing the business has never been in question. However, the zoning requires the same kind of business use if land ownership changes. And, changing land ownership is a matter totally separate from the space-use rental arrangements in this matter. Although going out of the park management business is fine, so acting does not also mean that it is ok to also seek to force these home OWNERS off the property. Seeking to do that then violates their legal rental contracts. An ongoing business agreement for space rental is a valid contract, even though the property owner may want to cease the business-use the land designation requires. Belaboring this—but, it’s key in the matter—home OWNERSHIP, combined with rental usage of space, is a unique business relationship. Unlike other realty arrangements, it requires unique treatment. Though not also a rental-rights issue, consider this perhaps perspective-broadening thought: If a thief walked into a home north of, for example, Montana blvd, and told the homeowner that he had to, for nothing more than a moving-cost dispensation, move out so his home could be bulldozed and the land-development aims the thief sought could then be realized, would that be a reasonable way to be acting? Would that only half-different situation, what with the implied wealth/legal-clout difference, likely meet the same years-long treatment this park-closure matter has? Some new legislation may yet come out of this contention over rights. For now, it would be more helpful if all could focus on this thieving aspect of the matter, and not on this grossly inappropriate, overly large development sought and these insultingly unfair and impossible relocations proposed.