A Santa Monica Trailer Park — and Its Senior Residents — Face Off With Fancy New Development

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.    

Just quickly read this great piece about the VTP. May have some other comments on it, but want to note this while fresh in mind: Trailer home ownership, like home ownership in brick and mortar houses north of Montana (or, really, in homes or condos anywhere in our small burg), comes with ownership rights. In its wisdom years back, aiming then to protect its affordable housing stock, our Council zoned this property for mobile home residency use only. This landowner, which records should show inherited the property and the trailer park business on it, has done all he could these past two decades to dismantle the park. He has acted to have well over 40 trailers removed and never replaced from it so far, over 10 of which after this entrepreneur partner of his came along around 2006, escalating this effort to force trailer home owners off the land so other building could instead happen on it. Building, by the way, that would violate land use the present zoning allows. Sure, he can go out of the trailer park managing business if he wants. But, where in any law is it written he can also, and without even any conversation, simply break the legal ongoing residency contracts these trailer homeowners have rights with? Where is the City and the State in stopping him from this criminal action? They too have expectation that the land will continue to be used to protect its housing stock for those of low income needing homes they can afford, don’t they? Note too, that after decades of massive building here and around Santa Monica, there is now no place to which these trailers could be moved which would let these residents continue with this trailer living lifestyle they chose in this City in which their living situations dictate they continue residing. To repeat, if he doesn’t want to continue with this business, fine. Find another who does want to do that. More than anything else in this matter, everyone needs to realize that this is a unique real estate situation involving several parties in joined contractual relationship. So that might sink in, let me say that again: This is a unique real estate situation involving several parties in conjoined contractual relationship. It is legally not simply a situation of a landowner in isolation who has independent rights to treat the land as he alone may want to. His right to go out of business certainly needs to be respected. But the rights these trailer homeowners have in their homes need to be respected too. As do the rights of the City and the State. Further, a bit about this poorly conceived, Santa Monica history killing project planned for the property. These buildings are simply too big, too dense, and not at all appropriately suited for the neighborhood. They will allow only cramped living spaces. And they will further trash Santa Monica’s small town feel, and also worsen yet more its already frustrating traffic congestion and home space crowding problems. Restoring, not destroying, this still-viable, historic, genuinely affordable, low income housing business is the only real choice here.

Now that I've actually read the article on VTP, may I offer some more thoughts. I (and MANY others) had driven by the VTP over the years w/o even knowing it was there. How cool is that, given that it is quite a large bit of real estate, and that adds to it's uniqueness, IMO. Having spent a lot of time & effort to rehab the premises(pls. see previous post), I got to know a # of residents and enter some trailers. The trailers ranged from almost absolute crap to quite well done. It all depended on the owner & more so, the owner's income. So what if it is/was a trailer park. We're talking people here, not cargo containers. EVERYONE still there should be looked after with the "developer's" money to help ensure all have a comfortable future transition to another place of residence. Oh, and the proposed 'development', please nuke it before it starts.

The residents of the Village trailer park would have been long gone if they had not put up a valiant fight. Whatever values this city may have had re a mixture of different forms of housing are long gone to the highest bidder no matter how ugly, tall or dense. What a laugh that the new streets are a "benefit" or that the developer owner is generous and thoughtful. The city can delineate what new streets are needed to convert industrial lands to housing neighborhoods as is discussed in LUCE and developers can pay their fair share to take part in that development. Lorraine Sanchez

Santa Monica zoned this moble home park in its master plan over 20 years ago. Changing the land use makes the land far more valuable. We don't need more small apartments with high rents. We need open spaces, places for residents to own their own homes, rent controlled spaces for trailers. This is a real estate deal. The developer will make tens of millions of dollars. The residents are being screwed. What could be simpler? Support the park, demand that the be kept up, demand that rent control spaces be made available to seniors and others. No reason to pave paridise and put up expensive apartments.

This article's inaccuracies, in fact, paint a bleak outlook for the trailer park residents, the 14 who can't move to mountain view which, by the way, does not have the grim view that is described in the article. We are talking about 14 people in question, all of whom have been offered a brand new trailer that can be moved, the majority if whim have the option to move just 4 blocks away. The article discusses the living conditions of these people and it sounds like the majority have run-down trailers in need of improvement. How on earth is giving them a brand new trailer contributing to their suffering. The manner in which their lives are painted in the article, these people have no other forms of help available. It seems to me, that Mr. Luzzatto is giving them better options than either the city or the state aid programs.

At last! I can tell y'all that VTP is a last bastion of humanity. I've had quite a history there, as a goto fix-it guy , friend of the then-current on-site manager, John. I've repaired so many problems, mostly electrical, some plumbing, some gas lines. I have also designed and installed some really effective lighting systems around the park to bring it into the modern age. This was in the 90's. That place was SO VERY MUCH in need of updating of ALL the utilities that, ultimately the powers-that-be of VTP, forked over the $$$ to put in new elec. meter pedestals for every lot, along with associated service upgrades. As for the other utilities, I am guessing that those were addressed as well.(Probably not). I cannot empathize how so very far behind that particular enclave was in terms of utilities and general modern thought. It is not their fault, so many of these tenants had settled in to their "ways". Think inbred with a dose of NIMBY. Treat them with respect, please. As for the developers, they can GOTOHELL!!!!!!

Good news does not sell papers or increase ad revenues and circulation. That is the nature of media today hence the tone of sensationalism in this article under the guise of suffering and human misery. The falsifications and implications are repugnant. The article needs to stick with the facts. There are only 42 full-time residents--the rest are second homes or extra trailers owned by people in the park, and 28 of those 42 can move to Mountain View, a trailer park owned by the city four blocks away. The rest of the residents can take advantage of a number of options, including a Section 8 equivalent for those residents who can't qualify for Mountain View or CCSM. Additionally, the developers have offered to move their trailers to another trailer park, and that if they cannot be moved they have offered to buy them a NEW one that can be moved. I have NEVER heard of a more accomodating developer. These people have better options than almost anywhere in the nation. Kudos to Mr. Luzzatto for taking care of these folks! Those of us who live here are excited about the prospects of the east village. The trailer park brings no value to the city and this development, once accomodating the residents, will be an improvement.

The Developer Luzzatto does not care about the residents of the trailer park. He tries to buy the City Council's vote by offering $ 2 million transportation fee, $ 386,000 to the City Children Tuition Subsidy, $ 25,000 to the Bergamot Station light rail, and offer to build 62 feet of Pennsylvania Ave Extension at $2,3 million. The residents of Village Trailer Park offered an alternative plan which would allow the trailor park to exist on a smaller scale and the rest of the land to be developed. This seems to be the humane way to go, as at present there is no good way to accomodate the residents of the trailer park: Not enough spaces availuable at the other trailer park and not enough really low income and affordable housing in Santa Monica. Santa Monica vowed for protection of renters with the best rent control law. Santa Monica vowed for preserving established neighborhoods and Village Trailer Park is a small community long integrated, established and deserves preserving. Santa Monica aims for selfsufficiancy and being a livable city, but all these planned developments make this totally impossible. Traffic in this area, the Pico Neighborhood, is already at the brink of standstill several times a day, and two small new pieces of street can not mitigate the traffic as it has to go through the same main streets. The air quality of the LA area is the worst in the whole USA (documented by LA Times)! Expo Light Rail will not eliminate the new car trips of new developments, as only a small percentage of people will take the train and it can not transport any goods. I would strongly suggest that the City Council look at the alternative plan the residents of the Village Trailer Park put forward, as it is most likely the best plan for all concerned including residents of the Pico Neighborhood..

If receiving almost 20k to move out of my apartment into a better one paid for by someone else is "cruel behavior", sign me up for a double dose of cruelty!

It depends on your viewpoint. If you work for a developer, or real estate syndicator or real estate agency, you resent any aspersions cast on your industry or it's members. If you care more about people than profit, you will see Marc Luzzatto as canny developer who knows he has to get a permit from the Rent Control board in Santa Monica to vacate affordable housing. Pain to people is of no concern to him. Managing to extract that permit is his goal and that's the ONLY reason the park has remained open. There's no "goodness of his heart" within miles. Interestingly, the residents have different tastes than the industry representatives who have commented below. They prefer their older trailers with their yards at an affordable space rent per month to living in a shoe box with little light and paying 5 times the price for the privilege. Lovely development? Only if you think you're going to make money from it.

The implication – whether intentional or not – that the planned closure caused a suicide is irresponsible. Yet that’s exactly what @JillStewart tweeted. Most suicides are linked to long-term mental health problems. Why is that ignored here? I feel for the residents; I see the need for development. But I think the way LA Weekly is considering serious mental health issues and direct causality is a mistake. There’s simply no grounds to imply that the man would still be alive if the developer hadn’t purchased the park.

I had to move out of my apartment a few years ago when it was torn down to become fancy condos I couldn’t afford. I got 60 days’ notice, not six years. The developer seems to be providing far more than he needs to. Isn’t that worth reporting? His actions don’t suggest that he’s “unmoved” by their plight. It’s not like it wouldn’t have been cheaper to close the park in ’06.

I just went to the city’s website. Has the reporter, the editor, or anyone else bothered to read the background? The city and the developer settled litigation six years ago when the developer agreed to keep the park open while seeking permits. Now he’s being vilified after he held up his end of the deal? How about a balanced article?

The developer is moving people who live in 50-year old tin boxes that can catch fire into nice new places and giving them money...am I missing something here?

State law on trailer parks is pretty clear. Park owners cannot be compelled to stay in the business of operating a trailer park. If he wants to close it, he can. It’s not the city of Santa Monica saying that, but the state law. The developer is making a business decision in a humane way and shouldn’t be demonized for that.

@Morgan I take issue with your tone. This article could be better, but the writer is neither stupid nor cruel. She’s just trying to sell ads. That said, Stuart focuses too much on the past and ignores the future. If this site is going to be two blocks from the light rail and mass transit only works with high-density housing, does it make sense to keep an old rundown trailer park? We have a terrible traffic problem in LA and the only solution is mass transit. Doesn’t it make sense to put denser development at rail stations? This issue is glossed over. She takes sides without much input from the developer. Most stories have at least two sides, and I wish this one had covered both.

my neighbor's mother makes $86 an hour on the internet. She has been out of work for 6 months but last month her pay was $8994 just working on the internet for a few hours. Go to this web site and read more... кshLazy.com

What's lost in your article are the great lengths and expense to which this developer has gone to accomodate the park residents. If this park was owned by a large national developer it would have gone to seed as a land investment many years ago. Instead your article attempts to vilify exactly the type of business owner we should be actively trying to attract to our city. Your presumption that this development would lead to automatic riches for the owners would be laughed out of the room by anyone who knows anything about real estate or investments for that matter. No project is a sure thing, this project included, particularly in a difficult economy. Mr. Luzzatto came to the table with options that would be absolutely unheard of in any other city in this country. The well being of the residents and the public at large is a concern for us all; it is not the exclusive responsibility of Mr. Luzzatto. He has done more than can be reasonably expected of him anyway.

Thanks for pointing out the misspelling—we've gone ahead and corrected it online, and we will be running a correction in next week's paper. I don't believe Mr. Luzzatto is responsible for the residents' deaths, nor do I believe the article suggests that. I do believe that when there are deaths like those in Village Trailer Park, we as a community have a responsibility to ask ourselves why they happened and what (if anything) could have been done to prevent them.