Nota
the big problem with Mobile Homes is they are considered personal property in Mass. not Real Property. They do not pay real estate tax only the land is taxed. They may be taxed like a car excise tax. They sit on leased land and cant be counted in the housing market.

This is an interesting and relevant topic, and I hope we can focus on it long enough to bring all of us up to a higher level of understanding of Wareham's mobile home demographics.

I would like to toss out something that is no more and no less than an observation, and I am asking if anyone  can either support  the observation with real numbers or tell me I'm all wet.

My observation has been repeated often enough for me to try to avoid being on Cranberry Highway during the morning and afternoon "Yellow Bus" hours, because if you do get caught behind a school bus it's slow going as coveys of kids board or get  off at the mobile home parks.

I don't doubt for a minute that BOW is right about the 55 and older rule in some of the parks, but aren't some of them now open to young families?

Does anyone in town have a handle on these statistics?  Is there any kind of recognition at the State level of the  tax impact of, say, two or three hundred kids from mobile homes  on the school budget of a town?

The reason I appreciate the three posts before this one is that they show an understanding of the Big Picture.  Conversations about housing in Wareham  should not exclude, as our COA director's report apparently did,  the ramifications of our mobile home  population. The over-riding reason for talking about them is that they are there.

Good morning!

Kinsailman: your points are correct. the individual unit owner pays a fee to the Board of health, while the owner of the underlying land pays property taxes on the land (based on the number of units thereon) and on any structures on the land. BUT, these units are occupied by PEOPLE. People who have the right to vote in Wareham, to use any & all facilities such as beaches, to send students into the school system, etc. To me, the classification of these dwelling units as real or personal property is immaterial.

In Wareham, and other communities with large numbers of units, they are marketed just like single-family dwellings or condominium units. You can check out listings online.

the leased land is not an issue. Many places in massachusetts have residential units on leased land. Dennisport, for one. there is a condo complex in Rockland (I think it's Rockland) on leased land. You have buildings in front of Cranberry Plaza on leased land. Huge portions of Manhattan have structures on leased land, including high-end residential units.

It distills down to the simple fact that these ARE residential dwelling units, bought & sold as such, and ought to be counted for Chapter 40B purposes.

Dick W. The Board of Health has statistics on the number of parks and the number of units in each one. That is because the unit owners pay their fees to the BoH. I doubt that they have demographics on the residents, nor do I know who would have such data. Perhaps the annual Town census for total breakdown. And the School department for figures on students from the parks.

Why is it that a nation that figured out how get a guy on the moon can't solve the problem of getting  our government to rule that mobile homes should count as  affordable housing?      I keep hearing that our State Rep "is working on it", but where do her efforts  run aground ?  Why do we citizens "play ostrich" with  what seems to be a major contributor to the Westfield dilemna ?

Would a petition with 5000 signatures get the Governor's attention?  Not a petition to tax them, but one to have them count for what they are: affordable housing.

Last edited by Dick Wheeler (2010-03-12 10:57:32)

I was even more uninformed than I thought!  40  Massachusetts towns formally resisting 40B.... Shouldn't we be joining forces with this group ?
I hope others will visit the "Repeal 40B " site you've listed.  Many thanks.
Maybe we can get a rally going in Wareham.  It would help the health of our ailing town if we could find one cause on which we all agreed....and this is the best candidate I've seen.

Thanks.

The reason I'm digging into the Mobile Home Catch-22 is that I'm trying to connect the dots in the Westfield Saga. 

As I see it, the only way that the  mobile home/40B injustice can be explained is that when push turns to shove at the  State level the lobbyists for the developers find a way to block it.  When you ask the question, "How do they block it?", I'd have to say that I don't know, but that i have always subscribed to Churchill's notion that it is better to be skeptical in the beginning to avoid becoming cynical later on.

Now shift to Westfield. How many times has this project come back from the dead?  We've lost count. What breathes life back into it?  My hunch is that it is a variation of the Developer Lobbyist "persuasiveness" that causes the Mobile Home/40B injustice to die every time it gets to The State House.

It stands to reason that in a project involving tens of millions of dollars for the pockets of the successful bidder that perhaps several hundred thousand would be set aside for "public relations". 

What could have been a better public relations "investment" after Westfield went down in flames at Town Meeting than to breathe life back into  a failing journal  that had championed both the project and its chief proponents on the BOS.  Remember those heart rending editorials  in November and December about not having the funds to pay printing bills?

Then suddenly the  financial problem not only solved itself overnight....it became financially possible for the paper to continue to be distributed free to its undiscerning but faithful readership!  And with the rebirth of the journal came the umpteenth rebirth of Westfield.  I'm too much of a devotee of crime novels to call it a coincidence.

If there is any truth to the opinion that one's vulnerability to the special kind of wooing for which lobbyists are noted increases if one's personal finances are in disarray, think of the extremely vulnerable clients that the lobbyist for a favored Westfield developer had back in December.

Which of the following two speculative "crimes" do you feel has a better chance of being "real":

     *  That a volunteer  organization in support of a pubic library lauded state-wide for its professionalism was somehow able to pull off a $3 million dollar embezzlement scheme involving 123 citizens over a twenty year period by pilfering the change earned by a copy machine, or....

      * That a weekly journal that has become a SouthCoast legend for it its twisted logic ,and which was in imminent danger  of folding due to its inability to pay its printing bill, was revived by a"loan" from an outside entity that admired the journal's support for a development project of great humanitarian potential and wanted it to resume  its coverage of the project and its unwavering support for the heroic efforts of the town's elected leaders.

Dick Wheeler wrote:

I keep hearing that our State Rep "is working on it", but where do her efforts  run aground ?

Our State Rep belongs to the party not presently in power nor likely to be in power any time soon.  Accordingly, her influence is limited.

The matter has been mentioned on at least a couple of occasions to our invisible State Senator, but my understanding is that he shows zero interest in becoming involved.  Given his political affiliation, this is not exactly surprising.  I do not state this as a criticism, but merely as an observation.

Dick Wheeler wrote:

As I see it, the only way that the  mobile home/40B injustice can be explained is that when push turns to shove at the  State level the lobbyists for the developers find a way to block it.

I doubt that the matter has ever proceeded far enough on Beacon Hill for the developers to call in the lobbyists to kill it.

Dick Wheeler wrote:

Would a petition with 5000 signatures get the Governor's attention?  Not a petition to tax them, but one to have them count for what they are: affordable housing.

Given his shaky position, I doubt the current governor would be willing to take on anything that carries any risk of alienating supporters - but the idea certainly has merit after the November election takes place.

Last edited by Petethemeat (2010-03-14 01:44:41)

A bit of a digression... Rather than cater to the "affordable" developers and builders
jamming new houses down our throats, has our leadership ever considered a publicly subsidized program to assist the owners of the substandard houses scattered throughout the Swifts Beach Community (how many?) and other "beachy" areas which house seasonal renters (school age kids and some desperate for a roof).  Rather than condemn the houses for the substandard conditions why not encourage improvements that would create a large number of affordable housing units.  So much of the younger generation do not want to be saddled with the expenses and work of a second home.  The grandparents  are sick of supporting  a" hotel" for the kids and grandkids and are looking for an escape.   

Over the years, I personally rented houses that look OK, but had only one access, no smoke alarms, inadequate heating and parking.  Just this year, I witnessed an elderly man and his son start work on a rundown small house on Barnes Street and within two months the makeover created a cozy cottage.

Last edited by mama bear (2010-03-14 19:01:59)