"Mobile Homes" by Faye Passowhttp://mnartists.org/work.do?rid=146162
Mobile homes are not safe, and not just in cases of extreme weather. A mobile home park is in danger of being displaced by an apartment complex in South Salt, with residents weary of what they would do if this happens. This article notes that people who live in mobile homes are economically disadvantaged, and have limited options if the land on which they are parked is sold. Traditional homes that are displaced due to construction projects, whether for roads or buildings, have more recourse-their homes are not meant to move. Therefore, as happened to my wife's grandmother, the displaced homeowner is compensated at fair market value for the loss of their home. Mobile home owners, on the other hand, who usually rent or lease the land on which they are parked, are expected to find a new place to "park" their domicile, without recompense.
A similar incident of displacement, cited in the above article, happened a couple of years ago, with the private sector pitching in to help residents find new homes, as there was no where in the current location to park their mobile ones.
Recent legislation, cited in the article about the mobile home park in South Salt Lake, mandates a minimum 9 month warning for mobile home owners about to be displaced. The article used the term "bittersweet" when referring to this legislation. The bitter part is that municipalities will not be allowed to protect mobile home parks with zoning regulations. Some legislators, though they appear to be in the minority, are proposing to give financial aid to displaced mobile home owners, to help them with the costs of relocating or acquiring a traditional home. Others are not as sympathetic. One Utah legislator appeared to trivialize the mobile home owners' plight, comparing their desire for relocation aid, with his desire to "go to Disneyland."
It appears that mobile home parks, which house people of lower income brackets, are not popular with legislators. Mobile homeowners in Oklahoma were given 35 minutes warning before a tornado struck. Their counterparts in South Salt Lake will likely be given 9 months warning before displacement. Is either enough time to prepare?
He doesn't live in a mobile home, how can we expect him to understand? It isn't as if we are asking lawmakers to walk in our shoes before they pass regulations that impact all of us.
ReplyDeleteMobile homes are inefficient, have little resale value, and a short lifespan. Yet they may be a feasible option for some in areas of high rent. What kills me is when I walk by a mobile home park and I see a couple of brand new jacked up pickup trucks that cost more than the home parked out front. For some it truly is a conscious choice. For them I have little enough sympathy. For those who would like to live somewhere safer but cant due to genuine budget constraints (often the elderly) that is a different story.
True. Is living in a mobile, for most people, just a bad option to begin with? In this country we pride ourselves in offering unlimited choice, so to speak. Yet, consequences are always attached. I agree, conspicuous consumption does not generate sympathy from me either. I think the operative question becomes: who is responsible for the family impact of those who choose to live in mobile homes yet spend more on flashy transportation, when forced to leave the mobile home park due to development? Are we right to pass judgment on people's "out of whack" priorities? I would say that we are if we are providing public funds. This sure gets sticky.
ReplyDeleteWe have a funny way of passing judgment sometimes. Take food stamps for instance. You can't apply unless you have less than $2,000 in cash assets. So, if you have more than that, and go out and buy new spinner rims for your truck, a big screen tv, and a new flyrod so you have less than $2,000 cash you now qualify. The only thing that has changed is the family has new toys and fewer cash reserves to weather any kind of financial difficult in the future. This makes them more liable to relying on government assistance in the future. We actually hamper their ability to break free from the system.
ReplyDeleteAmen! We perpetuate it. The government lacks faith in people's ability to provide for themselves and instead keeps the endless cycle of welfare dependence going.
ReplyDeletePaul, I have a different take on this issue. I don't see the government at fault here--what about the credit institutions that loaned the person the money for the tricked out truck, etc.? If credit wasn't so easy to obtain, then perhaps fewer people would have qualified for food stamps. Anyway, some of the people who buy these unnecessary items slam the government for being too generous while accessing government programs like food stamps or Medicaid simultaneously!!!
ReplyDelete