OLDER MOBILE HOME PARKS
IN THE LOWER MAINLAND
by
WILLIAM PARKER HALL
B.Ed., University of Alberta, 1970
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS
in
THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
School of Community and Regional Planning
We accept this thesis as conforming
to the required standard
THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
September, 1981
(c) William Parker Hall, 1981 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.
Department of School of Community & Regional Planning
The University of British Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5
Date SJT- 7 'f/
-7Q \ ABSTRACT
The mobile home is one response to the problems associated with the issue of housing affordability. For many individuals mobile home living in a park environment is a viable and attractive alternative to conventional housing.
Older mobile home parks, the focus of this thesis, are an integral part of the wider system of mobile home environments. The older parks existing today have been subject to many changing conditions, the scale, rate and nature of which have been felt by all those associated with parks and park living. The role of older parks is unclear and a situation exists which poses problems for some people and is of no concern to others. Older parks are criticized as being, among other things, unsightly, ill-designed, poorly located and the source of a variety of other problems.
At least two recent studies indicate that something should be done to improve conditions in existing parks. To begin this task it has been necessary to identify the conditions and problems and suggest a means to remedy the situation. This- study of older parks is designed to be used as a framework for developing a public policy regarding the place of older mobile home parks within the metropolitan environment of Greater Vancouver. Moreover, it is hoped that the study will provide an example for smaller communities in this province in how to deal with mobile home parks.
The research process has involved a detailed study of the nature of the mobile home and mobile home park in terms of general historical perspective and the particular
Canadian experience. A discussion of the state of the mobile home industry in Canada and background to the slow• down experienced since 19 74 serve to indicate the close ties between mobile home and mobile home park. Following a review of the constraints and regulations in the system of providing for mobile home parks, and variety of types and functions of these parks, the process and economics of park development are described briefly. The extensive literature review portion of this thesis is justified in terms of its non-existence in a Canadian academic format and the necessity for a more complete perspective of the analytical s tudy.
Empirical research for the thesis involved the compilation and analysis of existing physical, operational and management characteristics of thirty older mobile home parks in Langley, Surrey, Coquitlam and Maple Ridge. Data was obtained by first hand investigation of conditions in these parks and interviews with many parties concerned about the provision for mobile home parks. The interviews included some core questions but were largely unstructured
due to the nature of the investigation. Collection of this
data was made possible through a summer position in 19 78 with the former B.C. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and
Housing.
Motivation for research into this topic was based on the hypothesis that older parks are subject to criticism
from a stereotyped point of view and often unsubstantiated
claims of problems and inadequacies. The study does
identify certain problems associated with some older parks,
including poor design and location, park redevelopment and combined commercial-residential operations. Other problems however, can be associated with some parks of any age, and these include park entrance fees, regulations, rent control, the landlord-tenant relationship, poor design and the significant shortage of mobile home park spaces.
The research has clearly indicated that there is no such entity as a typical older mobile home park. Thus, the recommendations put forth are meant to account for the extent of variety among parks and to guide policy decision• making .
The most significant conclusions of this thesis are:
1. The evaluation of park quality is, like so many
<
qualitative judgements in life, a function of personal
and societal values and biases. What is adequate and functional shelter to one person may be substandard and offensive to another. 2. Some of the readily apparent problems with older parks can be construed more as institutional in nature rather than as defects that can be corrected by camouflaging o by moving them. 3. Older parks are victims of changing times, escalating land values and urban pressure on the land. It may be that the market will ultimately determine local government planning objectives with respect to mobile parks. This however, will be an evolutionary process, with parks of various forms and vintages remaining for many years to come. 4. The mobile home park is a unique form of land and dwelling tenure. As such, the relationship between landlord and tenant requires close and judicious scrutiny.
5. Official attitudes toward mobile home parks are only slowly changing. It is critical that local governments become more responsive to the issues at hand if the pressures on the existing park system are to be reduced
The strategies that can be developed to manage the problems must clearly identify the objectives in mind and for whom the problems are the objects of concern. This thesis will outline the concerns that must be examined in vi order to promote a comprehensive planning approach toward the future of older mobile parks in the lower mainland. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS vii
LIST OF TABLES xi
LIST OF FIGURES xiii
LIST OF MAPS xiv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT xv
CHAPTER
ONE INTRODUCTION 2
Problem Statement 2
Purpose of the Study 3
Methodology 5
a) Selection and definition of study area. ... 6
b) Sources of data 7
TWO THE EVOLUTION AND NATURE OF THE MOBILE HOME
AND THE MOBILE HOME PARK. . 9
Terminology 10
Historical Perspective 17
THREE BACKGROUND TO THE CANADIAN SITUATION 25
History 25
Geographical Distribution of Mobile Homes in Canada - General Perspective 32 The Mobile Home Lifestyle 37
vii viii
CHAPTER Page
Present State of the Mobile Home Industry
in Canada 41
Economic Recession 4 2
The Assisted Home Ownership Plan (AHOP)... 43
Financing 4 7
Land Development 4 9
Dealer Irresponsibility 50
Production - Site Provision Co-ordination. . 51
Consumer Attitudes 51
Dealer Organization 52
FOUR THE EXISTING SYSTEM OF PROVIDING FOR MOBILE
HOMES AND MOBILE HOME PARKS 54
Part One - Context 54
Categories of Mobile Home Parks 58
Part Two - Regulation of Mobile Homes and
Park Development 6 5
Land Availability 65
Legal Status 69
Zoning 7 0
Standards and Codes. 75
Recent Legislation in British Columbia ... 82
Part Three - Economic Perspectives 84
Unit Costs and Financing 84
Park Development Costs 88
Taxation of Mobile Homes 9 0 ix
CHAPTER Page
FIVE AN ANALYSIS OF OLDER MOBILE HOME PARKS
IN THE STUDY AREA 97
Scope of Chapter 97
Historical Legacy 102
Local Regulations 105
Analysis of Older Parks 106
Location and Distribution 106
Park Operation 120
Park Services and Physical Features 130
Quality Rating of Older Parks 139
Quality Rating Criteria 140
Summary 141
SIX PROBLEMS RELATED TO OLDER PARKS AND
PARKS IN GENERAL 143
Problems - General 143
'Closed' Parks 143
The Relationship Between Park Operators
and Tenants 146
Security of Tenure Issue 147
The Entrance Fee . . . 151
Rent Control 155
Problems in Older Parks 159
Motel-type Parks 160
Poor Design and Maintenance 161
Economic Pressure 162
Summary 162 X
CHAPTER Page
SEVEN CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND
SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY 164
Conclusions 164
Recommendations 16 8
Suggestions for Further Study 176
FOOTNOTES 179
LITERATURE CITED 185 LIST OF TABLES
TABLE Page
I MOBILE HOME MARKET PENETRATION, CANADA 31
II ESTIMATED NUMBER OF MOBILE HOMES IN PLACE IN CANADA - DECEMBER 31, 1974 33
III ESTIMATED NUMBER OF MOBILE HOMES IN PLACE IN CANADA - DECEMBER 31, 1976. 34
IV NUMBER OF MOBILE HOME PARKS AND MOBILE HOMES IN CANADA -1968 35
V COMBINED MANUFACTURERS' STATISTICAL DATA - NOVA SCOTIA 41
VI COMPARISON OF MOBILE HOME SHIPMENTS AND PRIVATE AHOP HOUSING SALES REFLECTING PENETRATION % TRENDS 4 5
VII CANADIAN MOBILE HOME MANUFACTURING CAPACITY. . . 48
VIII 1977 COST COMPARISON 86
IX 1977 ESTIMATED SERVICING COSTS 91
X 1977 ESTIMATED SERVICING COSTS, SURREY 92
XI 1973 ESTIMATED ON-SITE SERVICING COSTS,
GENERAL 93
XII NUMBER OF PARKS BY SIZE AND AGE 102
XIII DISTRIBUTION OF MOBILE HOME PARKS IN
THE LOWER MAINLAND 108
XIV OLDER PARKS (12 OR MORE YEARS) IN STUDY AREA . . 110
XV SIZES OF OLDER PARKS IN STUDY AREA 110
XVI NUMBER OF PADS IN OLDER PARKS IN STUDY AREA. . . 113
XVII PAD RENTAL FOR OLDER PARKxi S IN STUDY AREA .... 115 xii
TABLE Page
XVIII TYPES OF UNITS IN OLDER PARKS 116
XIX VACANCY RATES IN OLDER PARKS (1978) 120
XX PARK MANAGEMENT CHARACTERISTICS 121
XXI EXPANSION/UPGRADING IN OLDER PARKS (1978).... 125
XXII OLDER PARKS BY TYPE OF BUSINESSES ON SITE. . . . 127
XXIII OLDER PARKS SUBJECT TO REDEVELOPMENT 128
XXIV SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS IN OLDER PARKS 13 0
XXV TYPE OF HEATING FUEL IN OLDER PARKS 131
XXVI PLACEMENT OF WIRES AND CABLES IN OLDER PARKS . .13 2
XXVII CENTRAL STORAGE FACILITIES IN OLDER PARKS. . . . 133
XXVIII CENTRAL LAUNDRY FACILITIES IN OLDER PARKS. . . . 133
XXIX DISTANCES FROM OLDER PARKS TO NEAREST
CONVENIENCE STORE 134
XXX AREA SURROUNDING OLDER PARKS 135
XXXI LAYOUT OF OLDER PARKS 138
XXXII EXAMPLE QUALITY RATING FOR OLDER MOBILE HOME PARKS IN MAPLE RIDGE 14 2 LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE Page
1 MOBILE HOMES, TOTAL HOUSING STARTS AND
THE GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT 42
2 MOBILE HOME SHIPMENTS AND AHOP SALES 4 4
3 INDEX OF CONSUMER ATTITUDES TOWARD MOBILE HOMES IN CANADA 5 2 4 ASSESSMENT STATUS OF MOBILE HOMES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA, ESTIMATED AT DECEMBER 31, 1977 . 96 5 DISTRIBUTION OF MOBILE HOME PARKS BY SIZE AND AGE 99
6 DISTRIBUTION OF PARKS ACCORDING TO MONTHLY RENT AND AGE OF PARK 117
7 DISTRIBUTION OF PARKS ACCORDING TO MONTHLY RENT AND SIZE OF PARK 118
8 SAMPLE MOBILE HOME PARK LAYOUTS 13 6
xiii LIST OF MAPS
MAP NO. page
1 MOBILE HOME PARKS, VANCOUVER TO KENT 100
1A MOBILE HOME PARKS, VANCOUVER TO KENT 101
2 OLDER MOBILE HOME PARKS IN THE STUDY AREA . . . .112
3 SIZE OF OLDER PARKS (NO. OF SPACES) 114
4 TYPE OF OLDER PARK OPERATIONS 126
5 OLDER PARKS SUBJECT TO REDEVELOPMENT 129
6 QUALITY RATING OF OLDER PARKS 14 0
xiv ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Thanks to Dr. Hightower for his assistance and valuable criticism, and to Dahn for her patience.
xv The tendency to judge all mobile home parks by the worst of them has led to the imposition of restrictions that are likely to lower the general average of parks still further. Lack of controls, inadequate controls, or repressive and antagonistic controls based on faulty understanding have led to problems. The problems have grown to the point where they can be no longer ignored.
R. Newcombe, Mobile Home Parks: Part 1 CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
It was reported in an article in Fortune magazine over thirty years ago that homebuilding was the one sector of modern society that had remained largely unaffected by the Industrial Revolution.''" Now it is not certain whether the mobile home is a revolution in housing, but as a systems approach to building houses, the mobile home (or a derivation thereof) is destined to be an important factor in community development. Some individuals believe that the lower mainland of British Columbia may not be exactly fertile ground for development of this kind of living, but
Robert Collier, West Vancouver's Director of Development has stated that, ". . .if we really wanted to provide housing, 2 we could do it with mobile homes."
Problem Statement
Once the mobile home is moved from the dealer's lot it becomes a form of residential land use, and as such,
Knight has suggested planners and local governments should develop an active interest in the mobile home industry and
2 3 its potential impact on urban life. This thesis is concerned with a particular type of mobile home land use, 3 the older mobile home parks. That environment is often envisioned as a dusty, squalid place usually in or near an industrial area, crowded with trailers and tolerated only so 4 long as it is hidden from the eye of the general public.
These parks are the kind that come to mind when town councils and planning boards discuss the desirability of mixing houses and mobile homes.
Audain mentions unsightliness and ill-design as two of the problems in many of the older mobile home parks, and 5 that such problems are being ignored by municipalities. At least two recent studies, provincial and federal in scope, state that older parks present a variety of problems. This study seeks to describe the alleged problems in older mobile home parks, investigate why they exist, and provide recommendations for action which may help to alleviate these problems.
Purpose of the Study
The older parks existing today have been subject to many changing conditions which have created a situation that poses problems for some people and is of no concern to others. It has been said that something should be done to improve conditions in some existing parks. This is a conditioncomplesituationis necessarilx an.s dan highlyd problemappareny contentioust anthadt theons nissuee mussugges.t identiftT o meanbegiys nth tthioe remeds tasy k thiet 4
A recent report in Nova Scotia supports the thrust of inquiry undertaken in this study: ". . .a prerequisite to upgrading is the need for a physical investigation and grading of each park. Similar significant lists of items should be evaluated in every park." This study of older parks is designed to be used as a framework for developing a public policy regarding the place of older parks within the metropolitan environment of Greater Vancouver. Moreover, it is one step toward the formulation of a policy to improve park quality and protect the rights of present and potential residents of mobile home parks.
Motivation for research into the topic of older mobile home parks was based on the hypothesis that these parks are subject to unwarranted criticism from a stereo• typed point of view and often unsubstantiated claims of problems and/or inadequacies. The study does identify certain problems associated with some older parks, including poor location, park redevelopment, and combined commercial and residential operations. Other problems found in parks of any age include entrance restrictions, rent control, the landlord-tenant relationship, and poor design. In areas such as the lower mainland these occur in the context of a significant shortage of mobile home park spaces.
The research has clearly indicated that there is no such entity as a typical older mobile home park and that vague generalizations have contributed to both indifference and intolerance. General prescriptions are not appropriate in this situation. The generalizations offered provide a framework for classification of problems which can account for the extent of variety among parks and can guide policy• making .
Methodology
The first part of the research for this thesis was a review of the literature on mobile homes and mobile home parks with particular attention to the Canadian experience.
A discussion of the state of the Canadian mobile home industry as a housing provider, and particularly the slow• down in the growth of this industry since 19 74, helps clarify the close relationship between production of mobile homes and the mobile home park as a type of land use.
This section of the study also examines regulation of mobile homes and mobile home parks. An important aspect of this is the innovative role played by the Province of
British Columbia in mobile home legislation. The extensive literature review in this thesis is justified by both the lack of Canadian academic literature on this subject and the necessity of providing sufficient background and context for the empirical study.
The second step, a major part of the study, presents empirical data on existing physical, operational, and management characteristics of 30 older mobile home parks in Langley, Surrey, Coquitlam and Maple Ridge. Data was 6 obtained through first-hand investigation of conditions in these parks and interviews with park managers and other parties concerned about the provision for mobile home parks.
These data are presented and discussed in narrative and graphic form. The interviews included some fixed questions as to park age, size, amenities and so on, but were unstructured for the most part due to the nature of the investigation and the unpredictable reactions of many respondents.
The information assembled leads one, to conclude that some problems are readily apparent and that some older mobile home parks in the lower mainland are a problem to one degree or another. This data is not intended as definitive, rather they support certain theories and serve as a means of comparison among older parks. a) Selection and definition of study area:
The subject area for this study is basically
the rural-urban transition zone around Greater
Vancouver. This fringe area serves as an apt
description of the areas in which most of the mobile
home parks in the region are located.
Within the fringe area it is difficult to
distinguish among the parks on a strictly locational
basis because of the uniqueness of the subject area and
the diverse functions, ages and other characteristics of 7
mobile home parks. The municipalities in question are
semi-rural but rapidly urbanizing areas which differ
significantly from older suburbs and towns such as
Burnaby and New Westminster. In the fringe area there
has traditionally been space for park development; and
land use conflicts are, if not accepted, tolerated as a
fact of municipal regulatory practice. Policies
regarding the placement and operation of mobile home
parks can and do differ dramatically between this fringe
and more urbanized areas.
Finally the study area is defined by municipal
boundaries. Criteria for inclusion were municipal
regulation of mobile home park development, demand for
mobile home spaces based on access to urban services,
market demand demonstrably exceeding availability of
space, and existing patterns of mobile home park
development. b) Sources of data:
The data was collected for this study by:
1) Assembly and review of literature, studies and
reports dealing with mobile homes and mobile home
parks.
2) Extensive visits in several municipalities in the
study area to obtain information on prevailing
conditions through first hand observation and
conversations with municipal officials, planners at 8
all levels of government involved with the
development approval process, park managers,
dealers' and residents' associations, and Ministry
of Municipal Affairs and Housing Officials.
3) Review of public correspondence in Ministry files,
addressed to local newspapers and government
offices, dealing with problems experienced by mobile
home owners.
4) Attendance at meetings of representatives of the
mobile home industry, lending institutions, Ministry
Officials and tenants through a summer position in
1978, with the B.C. Ministry of Municipal Affairs.
These sources provided general information on prevailing local government attitudes toward mobile home parks and other types of mobile home development, experiments in model mobile home development and current and anticipated problems with mobile home park development.
The analysis identified certain problems which are common to many older parks, and others typical of mobile home parks regardless of age. The recommenda• tions provide a framework for reviewing existing policy pertaining to older mobile home parks. Some implications of possible action, and present policies are outlined, and suggestions are made for further study of older mobile home developments. CHAPTER TWO
THE EVOLUTION AND NATURE OF THE
MOBILE HOME AND THE MOBILE HOME PARK
North Americans are often criticized for having failed to develop their own unique and indigenous domestic architecture. While it may not be architecture (and this point could be debated), the mobile home is certainly a tried and true North American housing technology.
This chapter will clarify the meanings of "mobile home" and "mobile home park." In so doing, a variety of local interpretations become evident. A short historical survey of the development of mobile homes emphasizes their relatively recent arrival on the housing scene and, hence, part of the reason for confusion over their place in the housing market today.
The mobile home has been referred to as a
"crackerbox" product which few people trust. In a similar fashion, the mobile home park has been described as little more than a place to tie up one's trailer, a place where sixty dollars will rent clearance for beach chairs and a barbecue; and $180.00 a month will yield a few trees, macrame classes, and a dog weight allowance of 12 pounds 7 per space. 9 10
Carl Edwards has responded to such criticism in the following manner: "... whatever its aesthetic short• comings, the mobile home has at least indicated that the factory approach can achieve impressive cost and time g savings." However, Edwards adds: It is clear that the success of a product is by no means assured either by a handsome design or by being easily produced. Between the concept and reality lie the many problems of human values, building codes, zoning, labour unions, marketing, aesthetics, traditions, real estate, finance, production, transportation, politics, and engineering, - to mention only the unavoidable.^
Terminology
Audain noted at the outset of his 19 75 study of mobile homes in British Columbia that nothing is more boring than having to face a series of definitions of terminology.
In the case of the mobile home, however, there is clearly widespread misunderstanding of the term. Even many local authorities have failed to reach some common ground on the nature and place of this type of dwelling. Is it a
Winnebago camped in Banff; is it low-cost housing; a second home; short-term shelter; a means for developing permanent special-purpose communities; or is it the building block for new designs in residential subdivisions.
One can see it is not readily apparent what the mobile home is, or, more accurately, what it is used for.
The Canadian Standards Association defines the mobile home as a vehicular portable structure built on a chassis, 11 designed to be used with or without permanent foundation as a dwelling when connected to required utilities.1^
The recent federal Joint Study Team on mobile homes in Canada acknowledges the difficulty in arriving at a working definition because different legislation makes different requirements. The report defines the product as:
. . . a housing unit designed, built and certified in a factory to a nationally recognized mobile home standard for use as a principal residence. It is constructed complete with the necessary plumbing, heating, and electrical systems. It is designed to be transported on its own under-carriage or by other means to a prepared site, and becomes suitable for permanent occupancy after proper installation on foundation supports and connection to utility services.^
Other definitions reflect a less technical approach to the product and an ambiguity of status not un• characteristic of a typical rural municipal conception of the mobile home. For example, the City of Brandon defines the "mobile house" as a vehicle that:
i) is so constructed as to be capable of being attached to, and drawn on highways by a motor vehicle, or which can be propelled by a motor vehicle engine installed therein, or thereon, and
ii) is intended to be used, and is used by persons for living, sleeping, eating, or business purposes, or any one or more or all of these purposes.^2
The By-law goes on to note that a mobile house does not cease to be such because it is at any time removed from its wheels and other running gear, or has been raised and placed on temporary supports. Brandon regards an "independent" mobile house as one which has a flush toilet 13 and a bath or shower.
Mobility appears to be emphasized in the majority of local interpretations of the status of a mobile home.
The Municipality of Cornwallis defines a "mobile house" as any compact and transportable detached one-family dwelling, designed with the capability of being moved many times within its useful life after fabrication on its own wheels, 14 other trailers, or detachable wheels.
Regulations made in 19 73 under the Community Planning
Act of New Brunswick governing mobile home parks, define a mobile home as a trailer containing a water closet and a bath or shower. A trailer is defined as any vehicle used for sleeping or eating accommodation . . . and so constructed as to be suitable for being attached to and drawn by a motor vehicle, notwithstanding that such vehicle is raised or its running gear removed.^
In Surrey, B.C., a mobile home means a structure manufactured as a unit but designed to be transported
(By-law, 1973, No. 4140). The regulation does, however, clarify,that a trailer means any vehicle, coach, house-car, or conveyance, more commonly known as a camper, etc., designed to travel on highways, constructed or equipped to be used as temporary living or sleeping quarters by travellers.
Confusion also seems to arise as to whether the mobile home is industrialized housing. To answer this 13 question requires a basic definition of industrialized housing. It is built almost entirely off site, by relatively unskilled labour, and standardized to permit assembly line production. There are essentially four kinds of industrialized housing produced today. These include the single and the double-wide mobile homes, modular units, single-family sectional, and prefabricated houses.
A modular unit is a factory-fabricated, transportable building unit designed to be used by itself or to be incorporated with similar units at a building site into a structure to be used for residential, commercial, educational or industrial purposes. The modules are of standard dimensions designed to meet the requirements of efficient production-line techniques, and transportation without chassis over existing roads and highways. Unlike the mobile home, modular units are placed on permanent foundations at the site and are governed by the National
Building Code. A sectional home is a dwelling made of two or more modular units, factory-fabricated and transported to the home site where they are put on a foundation and joined to make a single house. Furthermore, pre-fabricated housing makes use of factory-manufactured parts in on-site construction of a dwelling.
It is useful to include in this section on definitions one further term. There are several types of mobile home developments currently in vogue and there exist a variety of types of mobile home parks. These will be discussed at length a bit further on. As the Canadian
Standards Association has defined for its purpose a mobile home, so it has defined (through CSA Z240.7.1. - 1972) a mobile home park as a parcel of land with lots for lease or rent specifically intended for the placement of mobile homes
<= 4.-4. 17 for non-transient use.
Again, a more local interpretation of the term is illustrated by the City of Brandon, where the by-law does not use the term 'mobile home park1 . There are 'trailer parks' in Brandon's by-law, defined as areas intended to be used, and which are used primarily as sites for the placing or parking of mobile houses. Dependent mobile houses or those dependent on utility connections can be located in trailer parks in Brandon.
An interesting phrasing appears in the Township of
Langley By-law No. 1505 regulating mobile homes and parks wherein it is deemed expedient to control said entities
". . .to make them fit for human habitation and to generally protect the health of the inhabitants of the
Municipality." This phrase does not accurately reflect the progressive manner with which Langley is dealing with mobile 18 home parks at this time.
Another definition states that such a park is a mobile home development, not having a registered sub• division plan of lots, under single ownership and managed by a mobile home park operator. Lots are generally rented and 19 the essential services supplied by management.
Beyond definitions, the actual terminology being used is not really appropriate for the subject dealt with.
Rod Sykes, the former Mayor of Calgary, has long been an active and vocal proponent of the potential of mobile homes.
Words create images, and Sykes believes that the term
"mobile" home creates a bad image - that it does not imply housing, or at least, respectable housing. At any rate, research indicates that these homes are not really mobile, in terms of how many times they are moved, and that it is becoming more difficult, in technical or physical terms (not to mention the cost involved), to move the larger units being manufactured. One study reports that in the past five years, 9 5 percent of the mobile homes in Canada have not 20 been moved. Audain uses data indicating that fewer than
5 percent of the mobile homes on central and southern
Vancouver Island, in the lower mainland, and the Okanagan are moved during the course of the year. A higher percentage of mobiles are moved in some rural and northern regions, as was in the case of the Kitimat - Stikine District, where 2 0 percent of the mobiles in the region were 21 moved in 1974. Since conventional housing can be moved with relative ease by skilled companies, the term "mobile" is correct only in the sense that housing of this type is 16 built off-site and is transported to where it is going to sit for a long time.
Other terms to be reckoned with are "mobile home park," "trailer park," and "trailer court." Even the term
"tourist court" appears now and again. All of these terms can refer to the same entity. A travel trailer park means a parcel of land under single ownership which has been planned and improved for the temporary placement of travel trailers and other recreational vehicles (motor homes, not mobile homes) for transient use. A travel trailer park is, according to the national Rousing Act, a parcel of land providing overnight or short-term accommodation for travel trailers, recreational vehicles, campers, and tent trailers.
Individual lots are not normally equipped with sanitary services.
The Surrey Zoning By-law stipulates that a tourist trailer park is a parcel of land which has been planned and improved for the placement of travel trailers and other recreational vehicles for transient use. This By-law
(No. 4140, 1973) contains a separate section reserved regulating tourist trailers, parks, and camp-sites, including the provision of sanitary services.
The modern mobile home park is usually a well- planned residential neighbourhood, but the term "park" tends to lead to an association with industrial parks and the like, or simply with the idea of parking space for a mobile home. Trailer courts still exist and are the forerunners of mobile home parks. They are contemporary relics and are still not difficult to find in many parts of Canada and the
United States. The trailer court can vary in quality as a mobile home environment, and whether called by this name or some other, tends to be the worst offender for conjuring bad images of mobile homes, parks, and residents.
Sykes believes that the older mobile home parks can represent substandard living, and that this occurs in many
"backward" communities. In his opinion, a backward community is one that has turned its back on mobile homes, does nothing to develop good residential standards and services or zone land for them in good residential areas, complains that they don't pay their fair share of taxes, and in all possible ways downgrades them and the people who live 22 in them. In other words, mobile home parks are exactly what local government makes them, and substandard parks are a symbol of substandard municipal government. This argument was heard from many of those interviewed for this study.
Historical Perspective
The purpose of this section is to familiarize the reader with the developments that have taken place regarding the mobile home. The discussion focuses on the mobile as a type of housing, but it does not provide a detailed history of innovation within the mobile home industry. Moreover, most of the content of this section draws, of necessity, on the American experience, as there has been little documentation of the subject in Canada. It should be noted, however, that while many comparisons indicate similarities between the two countries, it appears that
Canadian society has been more reserved in its recognition of the mobile home phenomenon. In large part, this is a function of the severe winter climate; the attitude of
Canadian society toward non-permanent, dwellings; and the fact that mobile homes cost significantly more in Canada than they do in the United States.
The genesis of the mobile home lies somewhere between what primitive man used to carry his worldly goods, and the American enshrinement of the famed "Conestoga
Wagon." The modern mobile home stems from a quasi-tent trailer affair being commercially produced by the Sorlien
Ceiling Bed Company as early as 1921.
It was at this time that a certain Mr. Morrison of
Chicago convinced the occupants of 22 "outfits" camped at
Desoto Park in Tampa, Florida, that they should organize for better treatment, better highways, and self-regulation.
Later, the Tin Can Tourist Club of America was granted a charter in 1920,
. . . to unite fraternally all auto campers, and to encourage friendships among trailer owners, foster good relations with local residents, encourage clean and wholesome entertainment in trailer camps, foster cleanliness in their surroundings, and put out camp- fires . „ _ 19
In 19 29, Arthur Sherman, a Detroit vaccine manufacturer, established the first large scale production of trailer coaches (note the terminology). By 1935,
Sherman's Covered Wagon Company was so successful that it was only one of three hundred trailer manufacturers.
Curiously, it appears Ford and General Motors missed an important market trend around this time when they decided that the sales potential for mobiles was insufficient to justify diversion of resources.
A pre-war issue of American City magazine took an interesting stand and said the trailer was, "... either the coming liberator of the common man or the most devastating, unsocial, uglifying element since the scurge of 24 billboards, hot dog stands, and the gasoline station." If it was to be a useful tool or piece of equipment, said the magazine, this thriving infant industry would have to be carefully scrutinized and, it noted, adequate facilities planned for the accommodation of its products were needed, including properly planned, supervised, and maintained trailer camps, and permanent, attractive settings in permanent villages and roadside groups.
It was the opinion of Lewis Mumford that trailers would never amount to anything, yet the American Motor Association estimated trailers were housing a million people 25 in 1936. This demand for mobile housing prior to World
War II stemmed from depression conditions, a desire for new 20 forms of retirement housing, and the minimum investment required. Not surprisingly, some owners regarded them as a means to elude the tax collector and to avoid rent. This was not an altogether challenging task as only 17 states had statutes specifically regulating tourist camps in 1937.
At this time there began to appear a dichotomy in the type and quality of mobile home parks. On one hand, migratory workers lived in park sites with inadequate sanitary facilities and where over-crowding, mud, and dust were common. Ernest Bartley and Frederick Bair, authorities on mobile home parks, state of parks of this type which still exist: "... entirely too many mobile home 'parks' 2 6 aren't worthy of the name." On the other hand, W. H.
Ludlow of the Trailer Owners of America made the following recommendations for trailer parks, based on a model park in
Sarasota, Florida: parks should be close to the CBD; some cities could fill in marshes or use old fair grounds for parks; some could renew slum areas with trailer parks; some might want them on the outskirts of town; and some cities 27 might want to manage parks directly. The major question facing municipalities was whether to tax the trailer as a home or an automobile, with the industry strongly advocating vehicle status. A 1938 joint report of the American
Municipal Association and the American Society of Planning
Officials pointed to a number of aspects of trailer problems, such as traffic, taxable properties, trailer camp 2 8 planning layout, and ownership.
As a point of interest, Canada already had sanitary regulations for trailers in 1938 (in the provinces of
Saskatchewan and Ontario) covering ventilation, fixtures, and the discharge of wastes. No such regulations existed south of the border until a few years later. Furthermore, a marked difference from the present situation was the reasoning behind a rash of municipal ordinances restricting trailer use - that is, to restrict, but not to completely discourage trailers because of the tax or license revenue which they generated.
During the early war years there was a critical housing shortage and for a few years the mobile home industry boomed. However the demand placed on the industry produced inferior construction standards and the wartime mobile home became a substandard dwelling unit. As the housing shortage passed, the National Housing Agency moved away from what it regarded as stopgap dwellings, and ruled that trailers were not houses. Davidson notes the importance of this period as it marks the transition of the mobile home from a novelty to a necessity, and then to a 29 post-war housing alternative.
The demand for housing after the war resulted in a housing crisis and the mobile industry reduced the time lag present in conventional dwelling construction. The rapid growth of trailer parks in Florida and California led local planning commissions into the field of park standards. One such early code required that: all parks contain less than
1000 square feet per trailer and present a plan showing the exact location of each trailer and car; roads must be
20 feet wide and hard-surfaced; trailer-coaches must be not less than 10 feet from the road; each lot should provide some method of screening so that it is an entity separate from the rest of the park; and at least one shade tree per lot.
In 1952 the Trailer Coach Manufacturer's
Association formed an architectural committee to help operators plan and develop parks. It was estimated that to develop an attractive park required $50,000 in capital, at a cost of $500 to $700 per space. Average rental in a trailer park was $25 a month including utilities. A park called
Paradise on Wheels opened near Phoenix, Arizona; it was a
160 acre parcel with 2200 square feet of shopping and recreation area designed by Frank Lloyd Wright.
In her comprehensive work, Mobile Homes: The
Unrecognized Revolution in American Rousing, Margaret Drury identifies 1955 as a significant year because it marks the 31 beginning of the mobile home as an industrialized house.
It was then that the 10 foot wide model was introduced, thereby requiring movement by truck. In 19 55 over three million people lived in mobile homes and these units 23 comprised 6 percent of all housing units produced. A second development was the establishment of branch plants in various parts of the United States, thereby decreasing delivery costs. Thirdly, the Federal Housing Authority started to insure loans up to 6 0 percent of value of a mobile home park to finance new park construction. This action changed the status of trailer park developments from unimproved land to an accepted type of housing. Finally, the Mobile Home Manufacturers' Association continued its efforts to upgrade the quality of mobile home parks in parts of the country.
A 1958 issue of House and Home said that mobile homes 32 solved many housing problems. They were factory-built; had low labour costs and code exemptions; were built quickly; and had home and furnishings on one mortgage. The article also stated that mobiles were small and the parks were badly located, poorly planned, and lacking in community facilities and privacy. The mobile home was rather succinctly defined by Bronson Berlin in this way: ". . .if it looks like it's meant to be lived in and it looks like it really isn't meant to be moved, but it has wheels under it, 33 it's a mobile home."
The American Society of Planning Officials reported in 19 60 that mobile homes must be included in city planning.
According to the Society, opposition to the industry came from the prevalence of poor parks, inadequate tax laws, and the prevalence of a single mobile on a single lot in a 34 residential area. Robert Katz went further and described the mobile home as just one contributor to the monotonous 35 mediocre quality of American housing.
For the purpose of this study therefore, the mobile home is designed for permanent residential housing and is seldom moved once located in a mobile home park. The design may, to some, be unimaginative and in numbers, monotonous; but few forms of housing available generate the variety of opinions as to place, function, lifestyle and viability. CHAPTER THREE
BACKGROUND TO THE CANADIAN SITUATION
It is now appropriate to look at the place of the mobile home in the Canadian housing market and why this form of accommodation and lifestyle appeals to a growing number of people. This chapter concludes with a short discussion of the present state of the mobile.home industry in Canada and suggests factors affecting the industry which reflect a generally negative attitude toward mobile home market expansion.
History
Thirty years ago we were being told that housing was a social institution undergoing relatively rapid 3 6 change. The type of housing to be built, for whom and by whom it is built, are matters involving great conflicts of interests and sentiments rooted in the economy, society, and culture.
Housing problems and policy can be identified as a central issue in day to day life in this country. The variety of housing policy decision areas emphasizes the ramifications throughout society that are produced by certain action and non-action. Some of the issues related 25 to housing in the Greater Vancouver district can be
described as: affordability; quality; services;
accessibility; special needs; mix of opportunities; the
changing character of the family; skepticism over the
ability of government to govern; and area-wide co• ordination. One can see how it must be a challenging task,
to say the least, for the Housing Planner in Vancouver to
formulate a comprehensive housing policy in the face of such
a multitude of problems.
The housing delivery system has a wide array of
participants, from individuals, tenant and community groups
to government agencies, professional organizations and
labour. It is the interplay among these actors which
results in the form and supply of housing.
But which actors are responsible for what? Even
the "public interest" is a difficult concept to relate to housing. There exists a general public interest, a municipal public interest (politics), a municipal administrative interest (to minimize problems), and provincial public interests (the planning and providing of
services and facilities, education, transportation, and the administration and financing of municipalities).
Roles are unclear in housing. To illustrate, mobile homes have been dealt with by no less than seven different ministries in Ontario, each having its own 37 interest. One ministry is concerned with whether mobile homes are going to hurt the municipal financial structure, and another one is making sure that they are not too big to be carried on local roads.
Many of the housing problems in Canada are related to our general reluctance to accept change and innovation in this field. The roots of our society are in the land and it is land which is the integral part of our concept of home.
We find it hard to understand how people can actually choose to live in mobile home parks, and the idea of renting space seems to reinforce the attitude that mobile homes are little different than apartments. Drury's opinion applies equally to Canada:
. . . the concept of "home" is sacred to Americans, and there is expected natural resistance to change in this concept. The idea of making that "home" a consumer product that could have a limited life rubs against the grain of an American ideal. r
Why people choose the mobile home lifestyle will be discussed a bit further on, but first it is appropriate to see what has happened in Canada up to this time regarding mobile homes.
The mobile home industry in Canada first appeared in the late nineteen-forties, as a function of the great increase in population growth. Better sites became available, the quality of construction of the units was improved, and more occupants with relatively higher incomes seemed to help create an improved image of the mobile home. 28
It is difficult to determine the exact number of plants or people involved in the industry in the late
1940's, but as an official of the Canadian Mobile Home
Association has said, it is safe to assume that there were not many, if any, as most of the mobile homes in Canada at 39 that time were made in the U.S.
The competition among producers led to extensive streamlining of design. This in turn produced the infamous tear-drop shape - vertical sides, but the front, roof, and back forming a continuous arc. One has only to try to walk erect in this type of unit to appreciate innovation in design. Many mobile homes of this design can still be seen throughout the country. By the mid 19 50's the units had again become more vertical in design. Curiously, when the mobile home started to be considered more a type of housing by both buyers and manufacturers, the latter did little to make the unit appear more like a conventional home because the buyers preferred aluminum and steel structures designed and painted to appear more like automotive equipment than -t , , . 4 0 conventional dwellings. By the mid 1950's there were four mobile home plants in Canada, employing from three to four hundred people. The cost of a unit was in the $4 000 range and the unit was no larger than eight by thirty-five feet. This is about the area of the living room in some modern units. At this time the number of units produced yearly was still 29 insignificant, especially when compared to the 60,000 units built in the U.S. in 1947. As late as 1963, only 1562 mobile homes were produced in Canada. No industry records or statistics were kept until 19 63, nearly ten years later than in the U.S.
From 19 54 to 19 69 the most popular model of the mobile unit was the 10-wide by 50 (10 feet wide by 50 feet long). By 1969 it accounted for 98 percent of production in 41 the U.S. The 12-wide was introduced in 1962. Highway movement restrictions delayed rapid increase in the availability of this model, but by the end of the decade over half of the units shipped were 12 feet wide and 60 feet long. During this time the Canadian market continued to depend on American models to meet its ever increasing needs.
Nevertheless, by 19 69, the Canadian mobile home industry was a 75 million dollar enterprise. Twenty manufacturers produced approximately 10,000 units, and prices ranged from seven to nine thousand dollars.
During the early 19 70's the industry introduced the
14-wide model and the double-wide. In the U.S. there has even been some limited production and shipment of 16-wide mobile homes and "triple-wides" (with up to 2500 square feet of floor space). In Canada the years 19 70 through 19 73 saw the mobile home phenomenon take off. Between 1968 and 1974 the growth rate for the industry was over 25 percent 42 annually. In 19 74 domestic and imported mobile homes 30 accounted for approximately 21 percent of single family housing starts (see Table 1). In that peak year the
Canadian industry built over 28,000 mobile homes and 43 employed more than 5000 workers in 4 3 plants.
The Centre for Auto Safety in the U.S. has outlined the formula for the success of the mobile home, and the same formula can be applied to Canada. It is a radical deviation from the building materials, construction techniques, and financing and marketing methods of conventional housing; mobile homes are produced and sold more like automobiles than houses. The mobile home is not put up by a local contractor but manufactured by large corporations. It is built not on location but on factory assembly lines. It is sold not by a developer or realtor but by a dealer, and financed (in the main) not as a house but as a car. More• over, except for zoning, mobile homes have been subjected only minimally to controls by local, provincial, or federal agencies. Most important, until recently, a new mobile home was much cheaper (at least one-half the cost) than a new conventional home; and the growth of this market has been accomplished without the aid of government subsidies by and 44 large. The report of the Joint Study Team in Canada puts it succinctly: . . . the combination of single-family detached housing at a very low selling price that is instantly available and offers a different but attractive life style, has been adequate to over• come substantial disadvantages_ TABLE I
MOBILE HOME MARKET PENETRATION
CANADA
Mobile Home Single-Family Mobile Homes Shipments Mobile Homes Starts Total As a Dwelling Starts (Including Total As a Percentage Excluding Canadian Percentage of Excluding Mobile Imports) Canadian of Total Mobile Homes S ingle-Family Total Single- Year Homes-CMHC Data (CMHA Data) Housing Canadian Housing (CMHC) Homes Family Starts
1967 164,123 6,646 170,769 4.0% 72,534 79,183 8.4%
1968 196,878 9,150 206,028 4.4% 75,339 84,489 10.8% 1969 210,415 12,753 223,168 5.7% 78,404 91,157 14.0% 1970 190,528 12,272 202,800 6.1% 70,749 " 83,021 14.8% 1971 233,653 18,905 252,558 7.5% 98,056 116,961 16.2% 1972 249,914 25,029 274,943 9.1% 115,570 140,599 17.8% 1973 268,529 29,434 297,963 9.9% 131,552 160,986 18.2% 1974 222,123 33,090 255,213 13.0% 122,143 155,233 21.3% 1975 231,456 24,455 255,911 9.6% 123,929 148,384 16.5% 1976 273,203 21,126 294,329 7.2% 134,313 155,439 13.6%
1977* 241,400 16,598 257,998 6.4% 1st half
*Based on seasonally adjusted data through June 30, 1977. Adjustment factors from Woods, Gordon & Co. Imports estimated. 32
Geographical Distribution of Mobile Homes in Canada - General Perspective
Mobile homes can be found in virtually all settled regions of this country and in some largely unsettled areas.
Traditionally the industry has developed in two distinct geographic regions, Southern Ontario, and the western provinces, particularly Alberta and southern British
Columbia. The development of resource-based communities has been an important factor in the growth of the industry in
Western Canada.
Mobile homes are not found in downtown Toronto,
Vancouver, or Edmonton, though mobile home parks can be found not far from the centre of Edmonton, Burnaby, Port
Moody and Coquitlam. Where the mobile is located in or near a major urban area, it is usually within an organized park, designed for such a purpose.
It was stated earlier that Canadians have generally been more reluctant than the U.S. to accept mobile homes as a legitimate form of housing. British Columbia, on the other hand, has been referred to as the "mobile home 4 6 heartland of Canada." Indeed, there were 620 mobile home parks in this province in 1974 (see Table II). Tables III and IV provide a pattern for comparison.
No other province approaches the B.C. figure. For comparative purposes, the Mobile Home Manufacturers'
Association in the U.S. estimated that in excess of 26,000 mobile home parks were operating in 19 68 (providing 33
TABLE II
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF MOBILE HOMES IN
PLACE IN CANADA -• DECEMBER 31, 19 74
Number Number of Number of Mobile; Mobile of Homes in Homes not Parks Parks in Parks Total
Newfoundland 14 650 4,202 4, 852 Prince Edward Island 13 894 894 1, 788 Nova Scotia 77 6,153 9, 300 15,453 New Brunswick 78 3,500 8,193 11,693 Quebec 155 10,500 17,819 28,319 Ontario 134 9,400 21,248 30,648 Manitoba 37 2,900 6,740 9, 640 Saskatchewan 167 5, 338 4,700 10,038 Alberta 279 13,600 9, 311 22,911 British Columbia 620 26,700 17,720 44,420
Total 1, 574 79,635 100,127 179,762
Source: Mobile Homes, Problems and Prospects in excess of 1.5 million spaces), with over 1300 new parks being built in the nation each year. California, Florida, and Arizona, respectively, lead that nation in the total number of mobile homes.
Audain was not overstating the case when he reported that there is hardly a town or village in British
Columbia that does not contain one or more mobile home parks, usually located on the outskirts of the community.
The report states: TABLE III
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF MOBILE HOMES IN PLAGE IN CANADA
DECEMBER 31, 1976
CMHA STATISTICS
Mobiles in Percentage Mobiles Not Percentage Percentage o o, o Province Parks "o in Parks "5 Total "o
Newfoundland 747 13.4% 4, 832 86.6% 5, 579 100.0% Prince Edward Island 970 50.0% 969 50.0% 1,939 100.0% Nova Scotia 6, 840 39.8% 10,339 60.2% 17,179 100.0% New Brunswick 3,927 29.9% 9,196 70.1% 13,123 100.0% Quebec 13,277 37.1% 22,528 62.9% 35,805 100.0% Ontario 10,872 30.7% 24,571 69 .3% 35,443 100.0% Manitoba 3,442 30.1% 7,999 69.9% 11,441 100.0% Saskatchewan 7,165 53.2% 6, 307 46.8% 13,472 100.0% Alberta 20,079 59.4% 13,739 40.6% 33,818 100.0% British Columbia 30,736 60.1% 20,399 39 .9% 51,135 100.0% NWT & Yukon - - - - 176* 100.0% 98,055 44 .8% 120,879 55.2% 219,110 100.0%
*since 1974 CMHA estimates of mobile homes in and out of parks were used as a basis (December 31, 1974). 35
TABLE IV
NUMBER OF MOBILE HOME PARKS AND MOBILE HOMES
IN CANADA - 19 68
Number Number of Number of Mobile Mobile of Homes in Homes not Province Parks Parks in Parks Total
Newfoundland 8 538 700 1,238 Prince Edward Island 7 357 250 607 Nova Scotia 47 1, 599 1,600 3,199 New Brunswick 31 1, 511 2, 789 4, 300 Quebec 60 2, 500 4, 500 7, 000 Ontario 81 3, 676 8, 324 12,000 Manitoba 20 1, 041 3,959 5,000 Saskatchewan 132 3, 000 1, 700 4, 700 Alberta 105 3, 789 4,450 8,239 British Columbia 230 3,950 4, 200 8,150
721 21,961 32,472 54,433
Source: Canadian Mobile Home and Travel Trailer Association, Brief to the Federal Task Force on Housing and Urban Development, December, 1968, p. 10.
Approximately 6 0 percent of the mobile homes in British Columbia are situated in specially designed mobile home parks, which range from attractive, fully serviced parks ... to rudimentary collections of rundown units that would probably even embarrass John Steinbeck's "Cannery Row."^
The major concentrations of these parks are in the lower mainland (west from Hope), the Okanagan, eastern
Vancouver Island, and around Prince George. There are hundreds of mobile homes in the Kootenays but most of these are not located in parks. 36
Most of the mobile home parks can be found some distance away from city services and they must therefore provide their own, to one degree or another. These services are often not up to health, fire or density standards, with the situation tolerated due to a lack of regulations or the enforcement of them. However, it is precisely this process which has permitted sites to be developed without the costs or red tape which plague conventional housing development.
Forty percent of the mobile homes in this province are not located in parks, and those statistics that do exist appear to indicate that more mobile homes in Canada are located on private lots than in parks. Wells and septic tanks are the order of the day and the sites are often substandard, based on local by-laws and the National
Building Code. Nevertheless, these sites are serving a purpose, and as one recent report has said:
. . . the costs of development, operation, and taxes tend to be lower than those provided for site built housing, (and) owners of mobile homes express general satisfaction with their lifestyle.
In a later section dealing with alternative forms of land development for mobile homes it will be seen that there is a trend toward locating these units in subdivisions in some municipalities. The Mobile Home Lifestyle
Just as people who live in apartments, townhouses, and single-family dwellings have a style of living somewhat peculiar to the type of dwelling, so too the mobile home resident has developed a lifestyle. Why have these owners or renters chosen this way of life?
At one time it was a common belief that only migratory workers, vagabonds, and gypsies inhabited "house trailers." Today there are eight million Americans and several hundred thousand Canadians living in mobile homes.
Who they are and why they do so has been the subject of many studies.
If one goes by the results of several surveys in
Canada and the U.S., one could speculate that diversity of occupation, income, and age group are the pattern of mobile home residents. They are, among other things, teachers, bus drivers, farmers, retired couples, and young marrieds. But what seems to be diversity can be misleading according to data on two million mobile home owners in the U.S. in the 49
197 0 census. Only 2 percent of the mobile home households were headed by blacks; the average income for a mobile home family in 1970 was 7000 dollars (the national median was
9 59 0 dollars that year); only 6 of every 100 mobile home owners earned more than 15,000 dollars annually (compared with 17 of every 100 persons in the working population as a whole); 83 percent of the owners of mobile homes are married 38 couples; and 60 percent of the owners are blue-collar workers (where only one third of the American work-force is so classed).
Moore's 1962 study in the U.S. attempted to derive some more specific characteristics of mobile home owners. ^
He interviewed 167 families, representing each major stage of the family life cycle, in various regions of the country. Better parks were chosen since the aim of the study was to observe optimal mobile home living. Young married people gave the following reasons for living in mobile homes:
1) to build up equity
2) the economy of purchase (typically compared to
apartment living)
3) the unavailability of adequate alternatives
4) the possible temporary nature of employment
Analysts suspect the last reason stated may represent a rationalization for what the respondents at a more basic level think is cheaper, more sensible living for them.
All the surveys of mobile home owners in Canada have indicated that the cost factor was the major reason for 51 buying a mobile home. Other reasons include the ease of maintenance; ease of mobility (this appeared to have more to do with the relative ease of buying and disposing of the unit); an alternative to rental accommodation (for young 39 families); and the source of friends and mutual support provided by mobile home parks.
Studies in Nova Scotia reveal that mobile home owners come from every walk of life and that incomes vary considerably. One report states:
. . . Certainly, it can be said that those living in mobile home parks have a much broader cross- section of income than is found in conventional subdivisions or city blocks or developments. While there are some relatively low-income persons living in the units, many with substantial incomes have selected the mobile home simply because of
the lack of accommodation.c„
One of the most interesting things to emerge from studies of mobile home residents is the importance of the mobile home environment. This is the basis of many community-oriented studies, whether they are oriented toward physical, social, or institutional factors. The community aspect is critical for Bartley and Bair, who believe that, generally speaking, and certainly in urban and urbanizing 53 areas, the mobile home belongs in a good mobile home park. And this is what Richard Duke suggested in 19 53:
. . . Since 'trailerites1 form a community, perhaps it is best to first study the occupants of trailers, just as you study a permanent community. . . . Before we can determine how to improve the ^ situation, we must decide their needs. . . .
Community studies indicate vitality and neighbour• liness in mobile parks. Contractor observed this process in 55 her thesis several years ago. A sense of community spirit is perhaps one of the main elements in the attraction of the mobile lifestyle; owners are frequently ardent advocates 40
(and often defenders) of their preferred housing choice.
One can also speculate that mobile homes offer a sense of individual identity. While critics speak of "mobile monotony" (mobile homes look like mobile homes), and parks that resemble fields of densely packed coffins, there is an individualism in this mass produced product, somewhat akin to that which attracts us to the automobile. At any rate, how different from each other are conventional homes which wind their way around jig-saw crescents in suburban tracts?
A third element which seems basic to the mobile lifestyle is that many owners feel a sense of financial freedom. The shorter financial commitments and easier, cheaper maintenance seem to be the ingredients for a formula which saves money yet permits home ownership. The mobile park lifestyle provides the opportunity to rent a homesite without losing the "homeowner" identity.
The Joint Study Team makes some comments regarding lifestyle which are appropriate:
. . . While many restrictions may be placed on the (mobile) home's accessibility by way of financing, planning controls, and public attitudes, it is the mobile home owner and his perception of the mobile
home environment that counts.rr 56 and with regard to the economic sense of the mobile life• style: . . . Viewing a house as a dynamic investment with as much character as a potato future is a relatively recent phenomenon. Security in a home used to mean a refuge where one's family life was unchallenged and the structure would withstand the elements. Today security is defined by equity (or its potential), gross debt service ratios and
the ability to horse trade housing "units."57
Present State of the Mobile Home Industry in Canada
Reference has been made to 19 74 as the peak year where mobile homes accounted for 13 percent of all new housing units in Canada. From that year, however, the growth rate of the industry reversed, and by 1976 mobile homes accounted for only 7 percent of the new housing market. This downward trend is still continuing and there are some basic reasons. Table V below shows the collapse of the market in Nova Scotia, the major market for mobile homes 5 8 in the Maritimes.
TABLE V
COMBINED MANUFACTURERS' STATISTICAL DATA -
NOVA SCOTIA
Total Shipments in Year Manufactured Nova Scotia
1972 736 309 1973 1,042 338 1974 839 300 1975 959 447 1976 550 269
Total 4,126 1,663
1977 (Jan.-June) 49 25
The factors involved in the slowdown of the mobile home industry are discussed next. Economic Recession
The national economy entered a period of recession in late 1974, and many prospective home buyers in Canada postponed the purchase of a new home. For many of these people it is still not possible to enter the housing market.
Figure 1 below shows the recent historic correlation between mobile homes, conventional housing, and Canada's gross 59 national product.
FIGURE 1 MOBILE HOMES, TOTAL HOUSING STARTS AND THE GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976
=== Change (%) in Mobile Home Shipments, Over Previous Year (CMHA) Change (%) in Total Housing Starts, Over Previous Year (CMHA) Change (%) in GNP Per Person Employed, Over Previous Year (STATS- CANADA) — — Mobile Home shipments that should have been anticipated The Assisted Home Ownership Plan (AHOP)
This federal housing program, begun in 1974, initially involved both non-repayable subsidies and interest-reduction loans. To some extent AHOP was successful in providing affordable housing. The program reduced initial mortgage payments, thereby attracting buyers who might have elected to purchase a mobile home without assistance. This needs to be investigated, but Figure 2 shows that the timing of AHOP corresponds with the decline of mobile home purchases. Table VI also provides data reflecting the pressure which AHOP has placed on the mobile home industry across Canada.60
Mobile home manufacturers are free enterprisers yet they believe that government housing assistance programs should be developed for mobiles to allow competition with conventional builders. The manufacturers would like to see this assistance made available to mobile home buyers and land developers. This must go against the grain of the industry in general since the absence of government controls has been instrumental in developing mobile homes as low cost housing.
Put briefly, governments at virtually every level have not taken the initiative in giving the mobile home adequate recognition and the financial benefits that are available to the conventional home owner. 44
FIGURE 2 MOBILE HOME SHIPMENTS AND AHOP SALES
CANADA
1974 1975 1976 1977 1st half
Total Starts
7.2% If. 6 0/' AHOP Sales p 17* b.&*~ Mobile Home Shipments
BRITISH COLUMBIA io.e< (Including N.W.T. & Yukon) ALBERTA 1974 1975 1976 1977 1st Half 1974 1975 1976 1977 1st Half
ToS. T.S.
b Mid
1.3" j. a% A.S. 1111 1U1 22.V' 13.7 % M.H.S. IA.S. Note: In Albert1=1.2*a th=e AHOP program has not developed significantly. v 1.1 ° The province has its own M.H.S, provincial equivalent program. TABLE VI
COMPARISON OF MOBILE HOME SHIPMENTS AND PRIVATE AHOP HOUSING SALES REFLECTING PENETRATION % TRENDS
Six Months Average Unsold Est. Future Ended Monthly Designated Months Sales
1974 1975 1976 June 30, 1977 AHOP Sales Inventory : UNITS % UNITS % UNITS % UNITS % Dec/June 1977 June 30, 1977 In Inventory
MARITIMES: AHOP Sales 605 11 1,074 26 1,251 51 790 76 131 1,044 7,. 9 M.H. Shipments 4,959 89 3,024 74 1,191 49 244 24 TOTAL 5.564 100 4.098 100 2.442 100 1.034 100
QUEBEC: AHOP Sales 3,055 35 5,155 51 6,783 59 4,585 71 764 5,031 6.. 5 M.H. Shipments 5,719 65 4,955 49 4,712 41 1,844 29 TOTAL 8,774 100 10.110 100 11.495 100 6.429 100
ONTARIO: AHOP Sales 660 12 3,521 47 7,731 72 5,800 86 966 17,136 17.. 7 M.H. Shipments 5,048 88 4,016 53 3,045 28 911 14 TOTAL 5.708 100 7.537 100 10.776 100 6.711 100
MANITOBA: AHOP Sales 101 5 357 22 348 21 406 53 67 448 6.. 6 M.H. Shipments 1,790 95 1,298 78 1,302 79 355 47 TOTAL 1.891 100 1.655 100 1.650 100 761 100
SASKATCHEWAN: AHOP Sales 663 26 622 23 404 17 807 62 134 564 4.. 2 M.H. Shipments 1,838 74 2,107 77 1,997 83 497 38 TOTAL 2,501 100 2.729 100 2.401 100 1.304 100 TABLE VI, CONTINUED
Six Months Average Unsold Est. Future Ended Monthly Designated Months Sales 1974 1975 1976 June 30, 1977 AHOP Sales Inventory UNITS % UNITS % UNITS % UNITS % Dec/June 1977 June 30, 1977 In Inventory
ALBERTA: AHOP Sales 552 8 682 12 463 7 181 8 30 761 25.3 M.H. Shipments 6,111 92 4,987 88 6,003 93 1,979 92 TOTAL 6.663 100 5.669 100 6.466 100 2.160 100
BRITISH COLUMBIA: AHOP Sales 460 6 1,220 20 2,646 48 2,949 68 491 4,231 8.6 M.H. Shipments 7,576 94 4,200 78 2,877 52 1,362 32 TOTAL 8.036 100 5.420 100 5.523 100 4.311 100
TOTAL CANADA: AHOP Sales 6,096 16 12,631 34 19,626 48 15,518 68 2,586 29,218 11.3 M.H. Shipments 33,041 84 24,587 66 21,127 52 7,192 32 TOTAL 39.137 100 37.218 100 40.753 100 22.710 100
Source: CMHC, CMHA 47
Financing
Mobile homes are usually purchased through consumer loans or chattel mortgages. Lending institutions have now extended terms up to 15 years, thereby enabling the mobile home to remain affordable in the face of increasing size and costs. In spite of price increases lenders refuse to extend the amortization period (although there are exceptions such as some provincial housing corporations). Consumer financing agencies do not wish to make mobile homes a special case for financing, yet mortgage departments are hesitant to consider loans on mobiles because of their
supposed "mobility", assumed depreciation rates, and variation from the National Building Code.
The industry has been upgrading standards of mobile homes since the early 197 0's, but a combination of these costs and those of the larger units has removed the
industry's cost advantage in recent years. The market pressure for larger mobile homes has occurred at a time when cost pressure has forced down the size of conventional houses.
The high demand placed on the industry in the early
1970's also led to a significant number of low quality units, just as had happened in the U.S. after the war. When
the demand dropped in the mid 1970's most manufacturers were
in a state of over-production. As a result numerous plants have closed and hundreds of employees have been laid off. 4 8
In 1976 there were 130 mobile home dealers in B.C., 118 in
1977, and currently there are 90 dealers in the province."^
In 197 7 the industry nationwide was only operating at
4 0 percent of its potential capacity (see Table VII below).
The high fixed overhead costs for these manufacturers account for 15 percent of the cost of a new unit, and this is felt in the increased price of mobile homes.
TABLE VII
CANADIAN MOBILE HOME MANUFACTURING CAPACITY
Est. Est. Dec/75 June/76 Oct/76 June/77 Po tent ial
No. of plants operating 43 41 36 33 46
Approx. no. direct labour employment per plant 109 103 78 103 183
Total direct labour 4, 695 4,238 2, 816 3,388 3,412
Est. employment incl. related services 14,085 12,714 8,448 10,164 25,236
Approx. average daily production rate 107 97 64 77 191
Approx. annualized production rate 25,755 23,237 15,447 18,586 45,840
% of capacity 56% 51% 34% 41% 100%
Source: Estimates from Canadian Mobile Home Association 49
Land Development
The question of land availability for mobile homes will be addressed in later chapters. Suffice it to say here that there seems to be a high degree of municipal resistance to such developments, especially in the larger metropolitan areas but also in smaller cities and towns across Canada. Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia are showing signs of responding to the needs of mobile home owners, and Nova Scotia will likely follow their lead.
Legislation at every level of government has been either outmoded or has failed to keep up with the rapid development of the mobile home, and there have been few guidelines for the planning and design of parks. Many communities have failed to acknowledge the role of mobile home parks (Calgary, Red Deer, and Regina are among the few notable exceptions), and consequently, it has been left to the often ill-prepared park owners to meet the demand for suitable space.
Obviously land availability has been an issue for quite some time. It is an issue which grows out of traditional and conservative attitudes toward housing in this country. A recent (1976) study of municipal government attitudes toward mobile homes in Ontario found that most municipalities have either negative or non- 6 2 existent policies on mobile homes. In this sample of 194
Ontario municipalities, 50
- 11.9% had an official plan that recognized
mobile homes
- 34.5% did not recognize mobile homes
- 53.6% did not have an approved official plan
- 18% defined a mobile home for zoning purposes
- 81% had no specific zoning category for mobile homes
- 8 6.1% had no land zoned for mobile homes.
The Joint Study Team feels that such negativism and apathy toward mobile homes are a result of,
. . . misconceptions regarding the assessment revenue from mobile home parks, the poor image these developments bring to mind in the general public, the unawareness of good mobile home developments, and the absence of recognized guidelines to assist in planning.^
The Audain Inquiry found community attitudes toward mobile home parks very significant in keeping serviced land for mobiles at a premium. Some reasons for municipal reluctance were financial, some were aesthetic, and others were social. But the crucial factor, according to Audain, that produces negative opinions about mobile home parks at the municipal level is ". . . the image civic officials and others form from being constantly exposed to older parks that are poorly planned, grossly overcrowded, and ill-
• 4- • A "64 maintained.
Dealer Irresponsibility
Mobile home dealers are often involved in providing sites for the units. The unpopular image of mobiles is 51 partly attributable to the dealers themselves. As sales were the main criterion, little consideration was given to location. This left many mobile homes in spaces with few amenities and little or no planning of services, landscaping, and so on. Audain's study indicated that dealers often reneged on commitments to supply adequate
siting and servicing, and warranties were frequently not honoured. The literature on complaints, problems, and consumer action regarding construction standards and park regulations is extensive. Indeed, most of the complaints voiced at public hearings during Audain's investigation concerned warranty servicing on specific malfunction of parts of the mobile home.
Production - Site Provision Co-ordination
All types of residential land use requires planning well in advance of housing availability. As mobile home manufacturers use factory production techniques, it is difficult for them to gear production to the development approval process. Delays in this process tend to inhibit efficient marketing of the mobile homes.
Consumer Attitudes
Surveys show that consumer confidence in mobile homes has been declining since 1972. The implication here
is that mobile homes are not considered to be a sound investment or equity-building technique; this matter is far from certain, as will be shown later.
FIGURE 3
INDEX OF CONSUMER ATTITUDES TOWARD
MOBILE HOMES IN CANADA
Ratio 1961 =.100 Scale
h 130
L 120
h 110
h 100
h 90
80 H 80
19621964 1966 19681970 1972 1974 1976
Source: Woods Gordon
Dealer Organization
A lack of "potential and demonstrated profits" has hampered the development of new and existing mobile home dealerships. The vulnerability of smaller dealers and 53 manufacturers to present market conditions is shown in the business failure of at least two enterprises in the interior of British Columbia; and in the Maritimes five out of six plants were closed in 1977, and one was producing a single 65 unit per day. During the 1974 peak of the industry there were 4 3 plants in Canada - today there are 3 8 including
6 manufacturers in B.C.
Given the preceding background information, it is now appropriate to examine the existing system of providing for mobile homes and mobile home parks. Although the latter is of direct concern to this study it will be obvious that a discussion of one element necessarily involves a discussion of the other. This leads to what are probably the only two general statements that can be made up to this time regarding the topic in question. In the first place the mobile home park has become a unique and readily recognizable form of residential land use. Secondly, it is not unreasonable to assume by now that the mobile home park reflects the "characteristics and idiosyncrasies" of the pre-assembled mobile home unit to a greater degree than does its counterpart, the conventional home and subdivision.^ CHAPTER FOUR
THE EXISTING SYSTEM OF PROVIDING FOR
MOBILE HOMES AND MOBILE HOME PARKS
Chapter Four completes the literature review portion of this thesis with a discussion of those aspects which significantly regulate the development of mobile home parks. The objective of this section is first placed in context and various types of parks are then described in order to appreciate the complexity of the land use issue as it relates to mobile home parks. The institutional frame• work to which parks must conform draws on zoning, standards and codes, special legislation (the B.C. experience), and basic economies of mobile home ownership and park development.
Part One - Context
Where to put mobile homes? This has been a problem since the "Okie" migration during the Depression. Much of the literature implies that public officials and the general public would like to see as few units as possible placed on individual plots whether owned or rented by the occupants.
Bartley and Bair represent the typical official attitude in the early 1960's toward mobile homes when they
54 say that the mobile is out of place when it is on its own or when it is a "back-yard parasite" to conventional dwellings.
At this time these authors saw a mobile home as a good living unit only if it was located in a good mobile home park. Only in this location could the mobile home be seriously considered in the comprehensive plan. They acknowledge that it has problems and creates problems, no different from other land uses, and that ". . . the mobile home park has just as real a place as the duplex or the 6 7 apartment house."
It was mentioned earlier that regulations at every level of government have failed to keep pace with the development of the mobile home and park. Those regulations that existed in the early 1950's, and which are still in effect today in many localities, were not designed for the modern mobile home or its location. Audain assigns much of the responsibility for unpleasant mobile home parks to the inadequacy and lack of enforcement of these regulations.^
Regulations were often applied to vehicles auxiliary to cars and trucks that required access to com• munal facilities, and limited occupancy of trailers to those within reach of such facilities. Many regulations applied only locally, but the procedures used, albeit they employed low standards, did set precedents for trailers in situ.
Standards were set in some cases, as in British Columbia, by the Provincial Health Act and the Provincial Land Services Act, and they were, and still are primarily enforced by local bodies.
Many regulations adhered to today are no longer appropriate to the situation, and many problems which frustrate mobile home owners, park owners and developers, local officials, and the public are the result. Newcomb suggests the following as examples of discriminatory or inappropriate regulations14-- : 69
1) Restricting mobile homes to parks or tourist camps. In
general, communities only allow mobile homes in licensed
parks. This makes it more convenient to enforce
regulations concerning health and safety.
2) Keeping mobile homes out of residential areas, through
zoning. Mobile homes tend to be found literally
anywhere other than residential areas. The rationale
for restricting them to commercial districts is that
because units are often sold at parks, a park operation
is a commercial enterprise, or that mobile home parks
are an interim land use.
Bartley and Bair believe that the mobile home park can be manipulated as a buffer between commercial and residential districts. This is the idea of interim land use, in terms of space and time - with little regard to the fact that the park is a residential area, with needs similar 57 to other types of residential areas. Of course the question which naturally arises from this is,
. . . should mobile homes be singled out for special notice in zoning ordinances or should they be accepted as residential units, allowable in " residential districts on an equal footing with other residential structures but required to meet objective criteria applicable to all residential structures irrespective of the method of delivery to
the site?7Q
Other techniques are used to effect the same result as banning mobile homes. In some parts of the U.S. local authorities have the power to regulate the duration of stay of a mobile home in one place or in the municipality.
Essentially this is similar to giving the parks conditional use permits, whereby zoning boards can zone land for other purposes when a term is expired. Another tactic is to give parks inappropriate zoning classifications which are always a disadvantage for the park. Fifteen percent of the communities surveyed by the American Society of Planning
Officials reported that they allow mobile homes only in 71 areas zoned for commercial or industrial use.
Another regulation which is particularly relevant to the Canadian experience is the use of housing and building codes and the power to control and abate public nuisances. By using building codes as a requirement for long-term mortgaging, government and private lenders can control or eliminate the mobile home as a potentially viable investment in housing. 58
Categories of Mobile Home Parks
As a general rule the mobile home park should be considered, Newcomb says, ". . . as a large scale, medium density, multiple family residential use. Location and design of individual parks will depend on the purpose or 72 combination of purposes to be served."
Mobile home parks have been classified in a variety of ways depending upon the function of the park. Broadly
speaking, the literature identifies three types of mobile home parks, all of which rent or lease their spaces.
The "housing park" is that type which provides convenient, economical housing for employed couples and young families who prefer mobile home living because it gives proximity to shopping, schools, and places of employment. Housing-oriented parks usually provide good underground utilities and adequate landscaping.
Tenants in housing parks require limited on-site recreation facilities as they spend much of their time outside the park. They desire a location for convenience to everyday life and which will allow informal living with a residential atmosphere.
Housing parks tend to be older, charge lower rentals, and provide smaller spaces. They are usually
located in high employment areas.
The "service park" differs from the housing oriented in that it has desirable features within the park 59 and a preferred residential location. The park emphasizes recreation and organized social participation. A more elaborate type of park, it attracts the retired and semi- retired.
A service park can be divided into areas with children and those without children. Many of the residents own travel trailers or motor homes. To a certain extent the residents depend on the organized social activity offered by the management; group participation and recreation facilities go hand in hand. Besides the "organization" available, perhaps the most important element in the service park is the convenient and attractive environment.
Service parks must be able to provide for the more permanent, larger single and double-wide mobile homes, though they often include an area.reserved for climate- oriented transients (hence the nomenclature - "Mobile home and Tourist Park"). These parks are usually found in
smaller communities or the suburbs (periphery) of cities and larger towns. Generally, the parks located in the Lower
Mainland are of the housing and service varieties.
A third type of mobile home park is that which is resort-oriented. These parks are characteristic of
California, Florida, Arizona, and Nevada, areas recognized as seasonal resorts or health spas. They offer a rather luxurious environment with correspondingly higher rentals.
Residents usually build on to their own homes to provide even more living space than large double-wides now offer.
It is not uncommon to find elderly couples living in these homes and occupancy is mostly on a year-round basis. Very few parks in British Columbia could be classified as resort parks.
Bartley and Bair have discussed mobile home parks 73
in terms of what kind, for whom, and where? They believe that both the entrepreneur and the planner should begin by
surveying local conditions. They emphasize that the problem
is not what kind of a mobile home park is called for by national averages, but how many of which kinds of parks are
indicated by present and probable future local needs. The
following checklist of types of mobile home parks is offered:
1. For permanent residents (occupancy for more than one
year)
a. Young people with school children.
b. Middle-aged people; only a few children. c. Retirees; few or no children.
2. For semi-permanent residents (occupancy for less than a
year)
a. Military
b. Students
c. Construction workers
d. Other 61
3. For transients (short period occupancy); primarily for
vacations
a. "En route" parks - for overnight stops by travel
trailers, mobile homes. Most users stop only one
day, few local attractions.
b. "Stopover" parks - serving as route parks, but with
sufficient nearby attractions so that most users
stay several days.
c. "Destination" parks - serving as route parks or
stopover parks, but with sufficient nearby
attractions so that most users stay from a week to a
month.
The above checklist is useful for obtaining some idea of who is "living" in a mobile home park, and therefore what function the park is serving. Clearly many of the parks will serve several functions, just one or two of which will give the park its character. Each park will have peculiar characteristics and facility requirements.
Keeping local needs in mind it also becomes evident that if there is relative diversity in the occupants of mobile home parks in general, as has been suggested by many surveys, then there must be a type of park which resembles or displays requirements similar to those of the residential subdivision; in other words, "general occupancy" parks.
Newcomb describes the general occupancy park as being dependent on the economic base and demographic composition of the population of an area. He goes on to say that the size and characteristics of an area may be such as to create a good market for parks, but that an appropriate location is equally important. A nice view, trees, and a few amenities must be complemented by proximity to economic and social activity centres - shopping, public transportation, schools, churches, and recreation and cultural facilities. Moreover, like any good residential location, the park should be free from offensive sources of pollution. Typical site requirements for mobile home parks will be discussed in a later section dealing with park standards and site planning guidelines.
There is another method of classifying mobile home parks, one which uses as criteria the age of the park.
A "permanent occupancy" park is one where the location is not likely to be overrun by growth leading to a change to some other use. This is the park which is in demand and which, for a variety of reasons to be discussed presently, is in short supply. It is a residential use and should be located where there is conventional multiple family housing or on the urban fringe. Surprisingly,
Hartley and Bair suggest that although it is not desirable to locate a park in established single-family residential areas, it can be fitted in with appropriate screening;
". . . such parks may well benefit established residential areas by providing an appropriate transitional use. between commercial or high-density residential districts and single- 75 family homes."
"Transient occupancy" parks are in a location which is good now and for some years ahead, but it is likely to be 7 6 desirable or necessary for other purposes later. They are designed to serve the needs of mobile homes on the move.
This type of park is not common but when it does exist it has no place in residential areas. What one finds more often is the type of park which caters to both permanent and transient users. Several of these parks are located along the King George Highway in Surrey, British Columbia, where they attract tourists from the United States. It is usual practice to situate these parks adjacent to a major traffic artery for reasons of access.
"Transitional" and "temporary" parks are those where the location is essential at the time for construction housing or other short term purpose, but conversion to 77 another use in the near future is probable. In the urban or pre-urban context this park is a temporary urban use which is often transitional to another type of use.
Temporary parks need to be regulated carefully and in a manner which recognizes the nature of the park.
Unfortunately, these parks are usually found outside the jurisdiction of not only community planning, but zoning and subdivision control as well. The temporary nature of the situation is frequently used as an excuse for the lack of 64 planning and land use controls in these parks. A good example of how such a situation can produce a serious problem and community liability is the mobile home dilemma at Ft. McMurray, Alberta. The following comment is relevant:
. . . It is well to remember that psychologically the owners and builders of conventional housing do not distinguish between the "crash" mobile home park and the park they envision later in their minds eye as they drive down a road adjacent to a site where a permanent mobile home park is proposed. So thoroughly conditioned has the average person become that, while conventional housing available under crash conditions is often of an extremely substandard calibre, somehow he can make future distinctions between the semi• permanent and permanent in conventional housing but will seldom make such distinctions for mobile home parks.
A temporary park can be transitional to a variety of urban land uses. In the U.S., mobile home parks are serving an interim use between what were drive-in theatres and what may eventually be shopping centres or industrial estates. A park has been proposed for an area near Sidney,
British Columbia, on land recently removed from the
Agricultural Land Reserve. One is left to speculate on the ultimate motives of developers in such instances. The advantages of judicious planning of infrastructure and utilities and their adaptability to another form of development have not been ignored in the past. 65
Part Two - Regulation of Mobile Homes and Park Development
The remainder of this chapter will deal primarily with the institutional framework that regulates the planning, development and operation of mobile home parks.
The following extract serves to introduce that system, once wryly referred to as "collection action in control of individual action":
Mobile homes are substandard housing, badly constructed. They don't meet our building codes. We can't inspect them because they arrive ready built. A new mobile home robs a local contractor and workers of a chance to make a deal. Trailer camps look awful. If these so-called 'mobile home parks' are allowed at all, keep them in commercial or industrial districts along major highways or down by the railroad tracks—preferably in swamps or abandoned gravel pits or as buffers between junk
yards and gas stations._q
Land Availability
The issue of land availability for mobile home parks can be approached from several angles, all of which are closely interrelated. One could talk about attitudes,
institutional resistance, zoning, standards, or the demand for mobile homes, and the question of where to put the home would be of concern to each topic. Audain makes the point by saying, "... certainly, the lack of serviced land for mobile homes constitutes the greatest constraint to the 8 0 growth of this form of accommodation."
The problem of substandard mobile home parks relates to the same issues that hamper the availability for suitable sites for parks. The problem is a circular one.
The process begins with mobile homes being relegated to areas inadequate for medium density residential development.
This results in little or no planning, and the parks which are developed reflect the restrictions placed on developers.
The circle becomes more "vicious" when local officials, offended by unattractive parks, and to one degree or another responsible for them, refuse to zone more and better quality land for new mobile home developments. As one comment goes,
". . .the zoning restrictions on mobile homes demonstrate a town's determination that there be metaphorical tracks for a 81 mobile home park to be on the other side of."
Reference was made earlier to the conservatism of
Canadian society in its acceptance of the mobile home. This trait applies not only to consumers but to lending institutions, professional planners, and even the mobile home industry itself. A particularly lucid quote is apt here: Lacking the opinion-moulding facility of the automobile industry, and confronted with a vastly more delicate market, the (mobile) home manufacturer has been forced to tread the line of
conservatism.Q_ o A
Whether or not this explains the relatively unattractive product of the past twenty years remains to be seen.
Later chapters will deal with the availability, in terms of both past and present trends, of mobile home sites in the general study area (that is, Greater Vancouver). The purpose here is to outline likely causes of the scarcity of mobile home space in the nation as a whole. These factors are based on certain assumptions put forward by the Joint 8 3
Study Team on Mobile Homes.
1) There is strong public and municipal resistance (one is
usually a reflection of the other) towards mobile home
developments on the assumption that:
a) Mobile home developments are built to poor site
standards, downgrading the overall appearance of the
whole municipality.
This is an issue which involves value
judgements as to what constitutes a "quality
environment," not to mention the arbitrary
imposition of these values into the decision-making
process.
b) Mobile home developments do not pay their fair share
of municipal revenue.
This problem will be discussed under
taxation, licensing, and assessment. It is also a
problem that applies to many forms of low-cost
housing development.
2) It appears that new B.C. Provincial Legislation (Agri•
cultural Land Reserve) and regulation of rural
developers, based on ecological/conservation
considerations, inhibits the potential for mobile home
developments. 68
3) Are mobile homes low-cost, low-density, single-family
housing? The balance is changing between land
development costs and manufacturing costs. The
increasing costs of servicing land for low density
residential developments has inspired the growth of
condominiums and townhouses in the conventional housing
market. Mobile home developers have not been able to
come up with a marketable option for providing medium-
high density "attached" mobile dwellings.
4) Mobile home developments are accused of depreciating
adjoining properties, being unattractive, and
deteriorating more quickly than site-built houses.
Public housing and low-cost housing could just as easily
be the subject of discussion here.
5) Older parks have a reputation for being unsightly and
temporary. One study of town planners' attitudes toward
mobile homes indicates that residents of 8 0 percent of
all the communities surveyed wanted to exclude mobile
homes; this negative attitude undoubtedly carries much 84
weight with zoning boards. Curiously, another study
in the U.S. shows an apparent disfavour with mobile
subdivisions; more than half the communities surveyed in
an ASPO study did not allow mobile home subdivisions but
only one-fifth of the communities banned mobile home , 85 parks. 69
6) The fragmented nature of the mobile home industry can be
partly blamed for the bad image.
a) Manufacturers have only played a minor role in land
development.
b) Warranty responsibility is unclear.
c) Advertising and display methods are primitive (that
is, units are often unskirted and unleveled on
dealers' lots).
d) Municipalities and the public are unaware of the
current quality standards of mobile homes.
Legal Status
The legal definition of real property is based on land and structures permanently fixed to the land. If such is not the case, then the property is classed as personal.
The mobile home may be capable of being moved but it is essentially immobile once placed on a site. Nevertheless, the potential to be moved makes the mobile home personal property. This legal classification can ultimately determine the nature of regulations that control the mobile.
Immunity to regulations applying to conventional housing is often argued as the prime reason for the growth of the mobile home industry and the proported advantages over conventional housing and forms of industrialized housing. Conversely, the inapplicability of conventional housing regulations for mobiles can be seen as the reason 70 for the relative decline of the industry in recent years and the upper hand which low-cost and government assisted housing has at this time.
Zoning
The rationale behind mobile home park zoning can exhibit prejudice, ignorance, apathy, or appreciation of the place of mobile homes in a community. The inconsistency of such zoning does not appear to be evident to those responsible for taking action, as indicated below:
. . . Old trailer camps, offensive to city planners, exist because new parks, which would push them out of business, are not allowed to be built; new parks
are not allowed to be built because city planners Rg are concerned about them becoming old trailer camps. and the following:
. . . There has developed among many planners, citizens, and governmental authorities a strange and almost paradoxical pattern of reasoning. The zoning power that is used today on the one hand to protect conventional residential property is used on the other hand to shunt other residential property, the mobile home park, off into the very commercial or industrial district whose encroachments on conventional residential property are so much deplored. o /
In general, and certainly until recently, mobile home parks have been kept out of residential areas. To recapitulate, mobile homes are sold off of lots, and this form of merchandising does not sit well when it comes time to designate zoning for the units. Some municipalities approach this problem by separating land uses - commercial for sales activities, and certain types of residential for 71 mobile home parks. The Surrey By-law No. 414 0, 19 73 clarifies the local position in its definition of a mobile home park as a parcel of land which, among other things, shall not include vehicle sales or other lands on which mobile homes are manufactured or placed solely for the purposes of storage or inspection and sale. The relevant
Langley By-law (No. 1505) contains a similar provision.
In contrast to the Surrey and Langley examples, mobile home parks are often defined as "commercial" in zoning by-laws. One rationalization used to support non• residential zoning for mobile home parks is that the parks often include under single ownership and management a mobile home sales operation, convenience store or coin laundry. A different rationalization is based on the fact that the spaces in a mobile home park are often rented to residents who own the mobile home dwelling but not its site, and the rental of spaces is obviously a commercial enterprise. Both of these rationalizations do in fact treat mobile homes differently than other types of residential structures.
Zoning for local commercial uses in conventional neighbor• hoods does distinguish uses independent of land ownership.
Apartments and conventional single-family homes are classed as residential uses regardless of whether they are available for sale or rent to their occupants.
Judicial decisions and legal opinion in the U.S. are divided on the propriety of excluding mobile home parks 72 from residential areas. The more common rule allows exclusion. Examples of litigation in the U.S. are given below:
. . . There is ample justification for confining trailers and mobile units to areas where they will not injure the investment in conventional houses of other owners, hurt taxable values, and impede town development.gg
A minority of courts have held a different viewpoint:
. . . mobile home owners are entitled to have developed for their use a small acreage where they can park their trailers and rear their families in decency and relative comfort, that the health, morals, and general welfare of the community would be promoted by providing a housing
site.89
In their comprehensive work on the law of mobile homes in the U.S., Hodes and Roberson state:
. . . Zoning exists because of the recognized need for affording people an opportunity to live in sections apart from those devoted to commerce, trade, and industry. . . . Forcing inhabitants of mobile homes into unsuitable neighbourhoods by compelling them to live (in such areas) can only
result in inferior mobile home parks. . . .o n
Architectural Forum, the bastion of non-commitment to intolerance or tolerance of mobile home parks in the U.S., emphasizes the need for "... democratic policy . . . neither to exclude nor to ignore the trailer park but to zone and regulate it ... so that it may be a more pleasing 91 part of the community. . . .
Previous extract comments, may have left the impression that new parks are not being built. This is not the case. Parks have been built in.unprecedented numbers since 1970 in Canada and the U.S. But whether this has been sufficient to satisfy the demand for mobile home space is another question, and one which is complicated by factors to be discussed in terms of the problems of parks.
Drury feels that the most significant development since 1955 has been the establishment of more and better- 92 quality parks for mobile homes. She refers to a 1961 report of ASPO as one of the first breakthroughs in creating a positive attitude of planners toward mobile homes. In a similar vein, Davidson sees the main factor in the growth of 9 3 mobile home parks as the changes m local zoning.
How are mobile home parks zoned? The American experience indicates that the most common techniques are to designate a park as a permitted use in specific residential zones; as a special exception in specific zones; or to limit parks to a special mobile home zone.
In modern zoning ordinances permitted uses are described in the schedule of district regulations. Parks must be mentioned in this schedule to be allowed, along with any conditions of use. Bartley and Bair do not support a separate municipal mobile home ordinance as they assume comprehensive conditions will be treated by other ordinances.
A special exception, or special use permit, is defined as a land use, . . . allowable where the facts and conditions prescribed and detailed in the ordinance as those upon which a special exception may be granted are determined to exist by an appropriately designated governmental authority.g ^
Bartley and Bair regard this as a good means for the zoning control of parks, except that too often a special exception and a variance are used interchangeably. A variance is granted because of unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty; a special exception can be granted simply by meeting ordinance requirements. The authors feel that use variances, which permit in a zoning district a use otherwise prohibited, are really amendments to the zoning ordinance, and hence, are not appropriate to the administrative process 9 6 of approving park development proposals.
A qualification to the apparent advantage of the special exception is the need to recognize the antipathy of a local government toward mobile homes and, given this, the need to have zoning boards acquainted with the unique aspects of mobile home parks.
Another technique is to create a mobile home park district, whereby a district line is drawn around a mobile home park or parks. This technique is in effect, spot zoning, and is criticized as making little sense in designating large areas for one purpose considering the unpredictability of market trends. Nevertheless, the City of Red Deer has a general policy of making provision within its zoning and development plan and in residential districts, for areas zoned and developed for mobile homes and low-cost 75 housing. These developments are interspersed with other forms of housing to achieve a variety of income ranges.
Within the context of communities in the lower mainland the most common zoning classifications for mobile home parks are those of the mobile home park zone, the tourist-commercial designation, and the non-conforming use in a commercial or residential zone.
It is generally conceded that no zoning plan is perfect and that it must be flexible to comply with changing trends and ideas. This is particularly true for mobile homes and parks. It is the task of planning and zoning boards to control or limit changes so that the intent of the
zoning plan is preserved. In this region it has been necessary for a developer to obtain a special permit or a zoning change that will allow for the construction of a mobile home park. This procedure varies with the community but the officials who judge proposals for mobile home parks are concerned with such aspects as location, site plans, potential tax revenue, the number of children in the park, and the impact of the park on the neighbourhood.
Standards and Codes
It is necessary to look at established standards for both mobile homes and parks because they are a constraint on financing and the availability of land.
Detailed analysis of workmanship and technical problems however, is outside the scope of this study. 76
In 197 3, the mobile home industry adopted the
Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Z240 standard for mobile homes. It is a performance standard. Mobile home manufacturers pay for CSA certification of their product's compliance with the CSA Z24.0. standard. CSA does not approve quality control procedures in the certification of mobile home plants, and the process is the same used by CSA for most other mass produced items in Canada. The CSA Committee on Mobile Homes and Travel Trailers is primarily an industry-oriented group. The goal of the Association is, as the name implies, to provide national standardization and consistency.
All new mobile homes sold in Alberta, B.C.,
Manitoba, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, P.E.I, and
Newfoundland must meet CSA standards for structural, electrical, plumbing, and oil heating requirements. In
B.C., Z24 0 has been approved by the Electrical Energy Inspection
Act and by Regulation 39 6-73 of the Municipal Act, which exempts mobile homes . . . with CSA certification under Z24 0 from building permit requirements and thus from the 97 provisions of the National Building Code. The Motor
Vehicle Branch also refers to Z24 0 in regulations governing vehicles allowed on public highways.
Implementation of the Z240 standard has generally improved the quality of mobile homes in Canada. Nonetheless,
Audain believes that the Z240 standard is not sufficiently comprehensive and that it should be broadened by CSA. One
suggestion is for CSA to incorporate specifications set out
in CMHC's Canadian Code of Residential Construction.
There is considerable controversy over the fact
that two building codes exist - one for mobile homes and one
for conventional homes. The mobile industry favours
separate but equal standards and believes the standards set by CMHC and other levels of government are inappropriate for regulating mobile homes. The CSA has developed an Kill
standard (more or less equivalent to the National Building
Code) for manufactured homes. This standard is available for mobile homes and in 1976, mobile home manufacturers produced 799 CSA A277 units, about 4% of total mobile home 98 production. The A277 standard provides for regional variations and heavier specifications (e .g., snow load,
insulation, etc.). In 1974 these specifications and related factors increased the price of a $25,000 double-wide unit by 99
$1000.
Why has the industry not adopted the Kill standard for double-wides, which most closely resemble conventional bungalows, hoping for better municipal acceptance than is the case for Z240 single-wides? The industry reacts by stating that building standards vary across Canada. This diversity of standards is a major problem for producers of factory-built housing, since it is difficult to design to a single standard that can be expected to meet all local requirements within
a factory's marketing area.1nn 78
So the mobile home industry has chosen to develop the Z24 0 as a single national standard. This preference is based on complexities of the conventional certification process, the performance-innovation orientation of the industry and the unique nature of the product.
House construction in British Columbia falls within the scope of Part 9 of the National Building Code of Canada
197 5. This Code is meant to provide a minimum standard for all low-rise, year-round housing including that financed under the National Housing Act. The NBC covers most aspects of house construction, including minimum space requirements, and refers to established standards for materials. The overall purpose of the NBC, whose contents are under continual review, is to assist municipalities in adopting building by-laws to guide new construction under their jurisdiction.
CSA Z24 0 and the NBC Part 9 differ in three main ways. The Z24 0 standard covers only one type of permanent shelter, the mobile home, and variations in construction are minimal compared to the wide range of conventional housing dealt with by the NBC. CSA Z24 0 generally assumes constant conditions, though there are some provisions for climatic extremes, while the NBC takes into account differences in site conditions. Concerning legal status, the NBC forms the basis of local building by-laws but adherence to the CSA
Z240 standard is on a voluntary basis. Nevertheless, many 79 municipalities in this Province now cite the Z240 standard in their building by-laws. Finally, Z240 is very general in scope and its requirements are less stringent than the NBC.
Detailed differences between these sets of regulations are not relevant to the purpose of this study.
Moreover, proposed changes to existing codes will likely make dramatic modifications. For example, since May 1,
1979, all mobile homes manufactured in Canada are required to comply with standards of mobile home construction as prescribed by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation through the National Building Code at that date.1"01'
Another CSA Standard, the Z240.7.1-1972, has been formulated as a guide to good practice in setting up and administering mobile home parks, but it is not intended to be the basis of a certification programme. This twenty-six page booklet contains only general design considerations such as the following guideline for site planning:
. . . Park planning should adapt to individual site conditions, type of market to be served, reflect advances in site planning techniques, and be adaptable to the trends in design of the mobile home itself. . .
Several appendices deal with fire safety recommendations, recommended procedures for inspection of mobile home parks, and suggested rules and regulations relating to the responsibilities and conduct of mobile home park tenants and landlords. Park regulations will be dealt with in the next chapter of this thesis, as they appear to be the object of 80 concern to some individuals. It is felt that many parks are too tightly controlled and that tenant conduct is often required to be a function of a particular park operator's personality. Even this CSA Standard suggests that, for example, ". . . Drunkenness or any acts of immoral conduct 103 will not be permitted. ..." "... Children and pets will not be allowed to trespass on other mobile home lots, 10^ sales lots, laundry rooms, or clothes drying yards. . . ."
Park regulations are an excellent example of just how unique a residential environment is the mobile home park.
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation publishes a handbook supplement to their site planning manual which deals with site planning for mobile homes. The objective of this book is to provide criteria for the acceptance of mobile home parks or subdivisions where mobile homes financed under the National Housing Act may be located. The handbook contains a variety of mandatory and suggested requirements for project design, community planning, driveways and walkways, open space, and so on, generally following the same sequence as the Site Planning Handbook.
The CMHC handbook is too general in scope to be relevant to the needs of modern mobile home parks.
Municipalities are provided little guidance on what to expect from a mobile home park by statements like, ". . .It is hoped that individual municipalities will draft occupancy and maintenance by-laws to ensure that developments are kept 81 105
in a good state of repair." or ". . . The maximum density of mobile home developments will be governed by side yard requirements and lot areas.n^®^ What is needed is a
set of model park plans, recommended ordinances, and design
standards, incorporating broad regional differences which account for the needs of different kinds of parks in different areas of the country. Local guidelines have been prepared by most provincial governments, such as British
Columbia's Model Residential Mobile Home Parks By-law.
These are valuable in the establishment, extension, design, and servicing of mobile home parks. Another useful example of an ordinance governing parks is that prepared by B. D.
Towers, a consultant planner who was involved with the
"Lifestyle for Tomorrow" seminar and workshop held in
Toronto in 1974. This is an ordinance enforcing minimum
standards for parks and establishing requirements for their 107 design, construction, alteration, and maintenance.
Order-in-Council 3130 under the British Columbia
Health Act (1967) has until recently been the principal set of regulations governing mobile home park development in
B.C. These standards were intended primarily to establish minimum public health requirements in unorganized areas or municipalities having no park development by-laws. Many existing parks were developed to this minimum level of
service standards, with little concern for the quality of environment created. Good quality, well designed parks 82 cannot be legislated just as good quality townhouse or row housing developments cannot be legislated.
Recent Legislation in British Columbia
British Columbia has taken a lead in Canada with respect to government response to the needs of those connected with mobile homes and park living. A primary objective of the former Ministry of Municipal Affairs and
Housing was to ensure that a network of legal, financial, and administrative institutions was responsive to changing
social and economic conditions. To this end, Bill 34, the
Mobile Home Act was proclaimed on April 1, 1978 .
The Act, which provides legislative authority for a
Mobile Home Registry, is the first in Canada. An aim of the
legislation is to ensure a high standard mobile home park and, thus, encourage more local governments (particularly in
the Lower Mainland) to permit the use of land for such
purposes.
The Registry functions in a manner similar to the
Land Registry in protecting the buyers and sellers of
houses and land. It keeps a record of all claims against
all mobile homes (mortgages, taxes, liens, etc.). This means that one can search the register and obtain all
pertinent information when buying a mobile home. The
Registry aims at providing lenders with better security which may in turn result in better terms for mobile home 83 purchasers. A significant exception to the Registry are those mobile homes located on land owned by the occupant or on land held under a registered lease with a term of not less than three years. The home can only be registered if the owner wishes to relocate or sell the mobile home, or a security instrument such as a conditional sales contract is to be registered against it.
The Mobile Home Act also incorporates changes to the new Residential Tenancy Act (effective 1 November, 1977) , which is administered by the Office of the Rentalsman. Mobile home owners residing in mobile home parks are now protected, according to law, in the following manner:
1. A landlord (mobile home park operator) cannot charge an
"entrance fee" of more than half of one month's rent;
2. A landlord cannot unreasonably withhold consent to an
assignment of a lease by a mobile home owner even if the
lease is only on a month-to-month bases;
3. A landlord cannot charge a fee for consenting to the
subletting or assignment of a lease in his mobile home
park.
The Mobile Home Act also provides a means whereby municipalities throughout the Province will be able to collect full property taxes through control of relocation.
There are also provisions which amend the British Columbia
Municipal Act by restricting the amount of a license fee that a municipality can charge for a mobile home park. Where a 84 mobile home is moved from one municipality to another, the taxes will be apportioned in relation to the length of time it was located in each of the municipalities. A relocation permit is now required before such a home is moved.
Technical amendments were also made to ensure that mobile homes continued to be eligible for Municipal
Incentive Grants on the same basis as other housing when the
Revenue Snaring Act became operational April 1, 1978. These grants are designed to encourage municipalities to promote house construction on already-serviced land, to develop more land for "medium density, modest size, affordable" housing, and to speed up the housing approval process. Grants of
$2,000 per unit are made to municipalities and regional districts, half from provincial funds and half from CMHC.
Local governments can claim grants for mobile homes that carry the minimum CSA Z240 certification, are intended for permanent occupancy, are connected to an approved water and sewage-disposal system, and that are part of a project which consists of at least 25 units per hectare.
Part Three - Economic Perspectives
Unit Costs and Financing
Detailed analysis of the construction, durability, maintenance, and operating costs of mobile home living are not within the purview of this study. Moreover cost comparisons between mobile homes and other forms of housing are difficult to make because mobiles are different from 85 site built housing in practically every detail. Never• theless, an attempt will be made to provide a brief outline of cost and how it relates to other competitive types of housing.
The mobile home overall price indicated in
Table VIII includes retail purchase price, retail sales tax and costs for transportation, set-up, steps and skirting.
The retail purchase price usually includes furniture (though this is less popular lately), range, refrigerator, drapes, and floor coverings; but if these items are not required there is a reduction allowed. The range of retail prices for mobile homes extends from $17,000 to over $40,000 in
British Columbia. The prices vary depending on such things as quality of materials, interior finish, size of the unit, delivery destination, and whether or not the dealer is involved in providing a space in a park for the mobile home.
The foundation, blocking, freight, utility hook-up, interim finance, warranty, sales tax, retail overhead, and retail profit are part of the dealer's markup. Markup varies greatly and can range from 25 to 40 percent markup on cost. Set-up or siting costs include connection of services consisting of electrical power, water, sewage, and fuel oil.
The average cost in Canada of a typical 14' x 68' model mobile home as estimated by C.M.H.C. in 1977 is as follows: TABLE VIII - COST COMPARISON
Single-Wide AHOP Single- NHA Single- Single-Wide Mobile Home Family Family Mobile Home Unit Description in Park Dwelling Dwelling on a Lot
Square Feet of Living Area 896 982 1,065 896
Construction Cost $ 14,244 $ 27,575 $ 31,734 $ 14,244 Site Amenities 819 - - 819 Dealer Markup 3,766 - - 3,766 Land - 10,075 7,042
Retail Selling Price $ 18,829 $ 34,617 $ 41,809 $ 25,871
Down Payment: Percent 15% 5% 5% 15%
Amount $ 2,824 $ 1,731 $ 2,090 $ 3,881 Mortgage Fee - 329 397 - Term of Loan: Years 15 25 25 15
Interest Rate 13.5% 8.0%* 10.25% 13.5%
Balance (including fee) 16,005 33,215 40,116 21,990
Monthly Costs: Loan Payment $ 204 $ 253* $ 366 $ 280 Park Rent (Monthly) 80 - - - Property Tax 26 48* 59 39
Net Direct Cost Per Month $ 310 $ 301* $ 425 $ 319
Monthly Cost Per Square Foot .35 .31* .40 .39 Family Annual Income to Qualify @ 30% 12,400 12,040 17,000 12,760
oo *First Year Source: C.M.H.C. (1977) ON 87 Mobile Home $ 17,805 Amenities 1,024 Retail Selling Price Without Furniture $ 18,829 Furniture and Appliances 2,934 Retail Selling Price $ 21,763
Table VIII is based on data derived by C.M.H.C. and reflects
1976 costs.
The purpose here is to compare the costs of mobile homes in parks with the costs of their major competitor since 1974 - the A.H.O.P. single-family dwelling. The only figure which could be debated is that of park rent which, in the case of a new park in the Vancouver area, averages
150 dollars per month.
In the Fall of 1978 the Bank of Nova Scotia required 2 5 percent down over 15 years at 13.5 percent and the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce required 15 percent down over 10 years at 12.5 percent. Mobile homes located on rented land in parks, supported on piers or blocks are financed as personal property. British Columbia has made housing financing assistance available to mobile home owners residing in parks through the Borne Purchase Assistance Act
(H.P.A.A.). A $1000 Grant is available on a new mobile home where the applicant is the first occupant. A $2500 Grant is available in the form of the Family First Home Programme for families wishing to purchase their first home; the mobile home in this case does not have to be new. 88
The $5 000 B.C. Second Mortgage Loan is now available on new or used mobile homes located in mobile home parks through an amendment to the H.P.A.A. Applicants must retain a minimum equity in the mobile home of at least
5 percent of the cost or purchase price. Also, if there is a chattel mortgage or conditional sales contract registered against the mobile home, the Second Mortgage cannot exceed
the difference between the value of the mobile home itself and the amount registered against it. The interest rate is
the rate required for insured loans under the N.H.A., and
for both forms of assistance, the mobile home must be
subject to assessment. One further grant is the tax rebate programme, the Provincial Home-Owner Grant, for property
taxes and is available to mobile home owners living in parks or on their own land.
It is worthwhile to note that Alberta is taking an openminded view in treating mobile homes as a housing alternative. Through the Direct Lending and Starter Home
Ownership Programmes, loans up to $46,000 are available with
40-year amortization periods, for both conventional mobile homes and homes on permanent foundations.
Park Development Costs
The costs of developing a new mobile home park partly explain the low vacancy rate and low turnover in virtually all parks in the Vancouver area. With few exceptions, new parks are developed by well-managed and 89 well-capitalized corporations which secure capital from conventional lenders. The scale at which these developers typically work is exemplified by a project in Surrey where a consortium of five dealer/developers are involved in a combined strata and lease project for 150 mobile homes.
C.M.H.C. have shown considerable interest in mobile home parks. Through public initiative the development of parks may be financed under Section 40 of the National
Housing Act, or under Section 42 provisions whereby land assembly loans may be made to a province or municipality.
Under either provision what is preferred is the conveyance of a registered freehold interest or a registered long-term leasehold interest. C.M.H.C. is involved with a development south of Barrie, Ontario that has been financed through the
Royal Bank for more than $5.5 million in N.H.A. mortgage 115 loans.
The success of large parks has won the financial support of major lending institutions, banks, and even mobile home manufacturers. Generally these institutions stipulate the minimum size of park for economic investment at 150 units and a density of 7 to 7.5 units per acre, and prefer up to 300 units at a density of less than 8 units per acre. Mortgage loans can be obtained for up to 7 5 percent of the value of the park upon completion; and the calculation of completed value tends to vary from 5 to 7 times annual gross income. 90
Once again Alberta appears to be a step or two ahead of other provinces with its Mobile Home Park
Programme. In this case loans of up to 85 percent of the development costs are available with a 25-year amortization period and interest rates at the Alberta Home Mortgage
Corporation commercial rate. In 1976 three parks with 469 lots were financed by the Corporation.
Summaries of estimated costs of developing mobile home spaces appear on the following pages. Table IX is an estimate of costs calculated by the Ministry of Municipal
Affairs and Housing in 1977. Table X is an estimate calculated by officials of the former Housing Corporation of
British Columbia for a proposed development in Surrey, B.C.
Both of these estimates are based on prices in effect at
Victoria and Surrey in March 1977. Table XI illustrates cost increases occurring since 1972-73, when this estimate of costs of improvements for a typical mobile home community was prepared.
Taxation of Mobile Homes
The assessment status of a mobile home varies according to the tenure of the land on which the home is located. In British Columbia the Mobile Rome Park Fee Act came
into effect May 1, 1971, prescribing monthly fees depending on the size of the home, payable by operators of mobile home parks to the municipality. The majority of mobile home 91
TABLE IX
1977 ESTIMATED SERVICING COSTS
(PER MOBILE HOME SPACE)
Item of Work Minimal Deluxe
Clearing $ 187 $ 187 Site Information 100 100 Servicing - Sanitary 579 579 Water 593 593 Surface Drainage 229 - Underground Drainage - 866 Road 963 963 Utilities 0/H 256 - Utilities U/G - 1, 804 Legal Survey 62 62 Support Pad 120 573 Driveway 120 328 Engineering 800 1, 000 Landscaping - 500 SUBTOTAL $ 4, 009 $ 7, 555 Contingency 791 1, 511 TOTAL $ 4, 800 $ 9, 066
"''Based on prices in effect at Victoria in March, 1977, for a large development of mobile home spaces 4 5 1 wide on easily developable sites. 2 of the following: Deluxe means development including all curbs, gutters, underground storm drainage, underground wiring with ornamental street lighting, concrete support pad and driveway, and extensive landscaping. Minimal development eliminates these features or uses lower cost alternatives. 92
TABLE X
1977 ESTIMATED SERVICING COSTS - SURREY
Total Area - 18.36 acres
Yield - 183 pads (10 pads per acre)
1. Land Costs $ 699,000 Interest at 9.75% (prime plus 1% outstanding 1 full year) 68,000 $ 767,000 $ 767,000 2. Development Costs (Surrey estimates) a. Offsite Costs - Cranley Drive $ 285,000 b. Site Preparation 20,000 c. Onsite Services (10, 000 per pad includes landscaping, 4% inspection, and 5% engineering design) 1,830,000 d. Municipal requirements i) Impost (1460/pad) 267,000 ii) 4% Inspection on offsite costs 11,000 iii) Security Deposits (1%) 24,000 $ 2,437,000 $ 2,437,000 3. Interim Financing on Development Costs $ 119,000 1 year @ 9.75% x .5 year x 2,437,000
4. Management Fee 3.5% of land & development costs $ 112,000
5. Marketing 2.5% of sales $ 86,000 Total Anticipated Expenditures $ 3,521,000 93
TABLE XI
1973 ESTIMATED ONSITE SERVICING
COSTS - GENERAL
Improvement Cost per Space
Sanitary $ 341 Water Distribution System 200 Service Connections 590 Site Grading 161 Paving including the pad 665 Underground Electrical Distribution System and Electrical Service Equipment 272 Street Lighting 93 Landscaping 230 Miscellaneous Structures including Service Building 177 Recreation Equipment 74 Park Accessories 40 Sidewalks and Gravel Pads 25 Miscellaneous 41 Planning Engineering and Site Supervision 235 Total Cost of Improvements per Space $ 3, 144 Less Grading 161 To compare with Table X $ 2, 983
Note: The cost of land is not included in the above figures 94 owners paid 6 0 dollars per year, and the Act applied to all land occupied by two or more mobile homes.
The Mobile Home Tax Act of 19 73 superceded the 1971 act. Accordingly, a mobile home situated within a mobile home park is deemed an improvement for the purpose of real property assessment and taxation. Parks are defined here as a location where one or more mobile homes are situated on
land which is rented or leased by the owners of the mobile homes. Each mobile unit is assessed in the name of the owner of the mobile home, while the owner of the park is assessed on the value of the land which constitutes the park. This scheme led to mobile homes being assessed for municipal taxes for the first time in British Columbia in
1974.
There is general disagreement as to whether
licensing or assessment yields the best revenue return for municipalities. The current trend is toward assessment partly because provincial taxes are usually less than the
Home-Owner Grant. In Ontario, however, the relevant
legislation excludes from real property assessment many mobile homes found in parks today because the homes are not
"affixed to land."
In this Province mobile homes outside of parks come under provisions of the Assessment Act. Homes on a permanent foundation are assessed in the name of the landowner, while homes not permanently affixed may or may not be assessed depending upon the area in the Province where they are situated. The distribution of mobile homes in British
Columbia by assessment status is estimated in Figure 4. 96
FIGURE 4: ASSESSMENT STATUS OF
MOBILE HOMES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA (Estimated at December 31, 1977)
LOCATION -> B.C. NUMBER -> 55,000 ASSESSMENT -* A N.A. -«-• NOTE: A = Assessed; STATUS + 2,300 NA = Not Assessed
IN PARKS •<- 2 or more NOT IN PARKS Single 32,000 mobile homes on 23,000 mobile homes rented land A NA 2,300 Eligible for Homeowner Grants since 1973
• OWNED LAND LEASED LAND 9,000 14,000 A NA A NA 900 1,400
Home not "fixed1 to the land
SUBDIVISIONS One mobile home One mobile home and 1,500 on a single lot a house on one lot NA 5,500 2,000 NA NA
150 550 200
Note: A 10% figure was used to estimate the number of mobile homes outside mobile home parks that are not assessed.
Source: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Research Section, 1978. CHAPTER FIVE
AN ANALYSIS OF OLDER MOBILE HOME PARKS
IN THE STUDY AREA
Scope of Chapter
The purpose of this chapter is to investigate the
existing situation and characteristics of older mobile home parks (as defined below) in several lower mainland municipalities. This is based in part on interviews with a
sample of 30 park operators in the district municipalities
of Coquitlam, Langley, Maple Ridge and Surrey. Other data
is based on first-hand investigation of conditions in each of the study parks. The interviews and field studies were
undertaken during the late Summer and Fall of 1978.
The investigation is focussed on basic factors such
as physical features and operational and management
characteristics of the older parks. The survey results are presented in a series of tables and are accompanied by
qualifying and descriptive remarks pertaining to various
aspects of those mobile home parks studied. This data is
first presented by municipality to show the distribution,
size, and number of older parks within the total study area.
Summary data reflecting conditions in all of the study parks
is in the second part of the analysis. 98
In this study the term "older mobile home park" has been defined operationally to include parks established before 1966 and having at least ten spaces for mobile homes.
Included were parks that are exclusively for permanent residents of mobile homes, and others which may combine ten or more mobile home spaces with spaces for travel trailers, or motel or other tourist accommodations. Very few parks in the lower mainland contain less than ten spaces, so the effect of this arbitrary limitation is to exclude some anomalies that are not "parks" in the usual sense. It should be noted that the definition used here is not the same as that used by the B.C. Government for mortgage financing and mobile home registry purposes.
The age and size of all mobile home parks in the municipalities studied is shown in the bivariate graph
(Figure 5) on the following page. Of the 35 parks still in existence in 1978, only nine were less than ten years old and six of these nine were no more than three years old.
Twelve were from ten to twelve years old, having been opened in the mid 1960's, and all but one of the remaining fourteen dated from a four year period in the mid 1950's.
As Table XII shows, the new parks tend to be larger than the older ones. The distribution of older study parks as compared to all mobile home parks in the study area and in the lower mainland is illustrated on Maps 1 and 1A. 99
FIGURE 5: DISTRIBUTION OF
MOBILE HOME PARKS BY SIZE AND AGE
(IN 1978)
< ; l ! : i ! : 1 : 1 1 ! ! i * 1 ' 1 | | i 1 1 I 1 : 1 1 • Mil MM 1 1 1 1 MM ! ! ! : 1 1 1 j MM ! ! ! •Ml i I i i i M i MM 1 i t ! i • Mil MM 1 1 i i 100- : ! 1 1 i i i MM ! i t 1 i i ! I _., 1 I 1 i i1 | i i 1 .1 I i I j i i ; i M i i i * ' • , ! 1 1 i 1 i ' • I i 1 w i ! • i CJ i ? 1 ! i < i ! . i i Mi i i i ! Cfl | i 1 : ! i M .| I , -| ! i i o ! 1 I t i : 1 M I 1 I « i i 1 1 ta i 1 I 1 ': : M 1 ca 1 s t 1 | : i ! • M i ' ! ! 1 1 ! z i ! i 1 MM i i 1 ! ! 1 I I 1 I ! t 1 1 1 1 i ! MM' ' i I 1 M 1 1 i 1 • i — 1 ! i i ! i ! M i i !: I i ill: I ! ! ! 1 . 1 ! • i. I e i j ! i . 1__ ! | i 1 ; ! ; | — 1 • _ - — — — — 1 .1.1 1 10 15 20 25 30
AGE OF PARK
Source: Compiled by author from field survey. MAP 1 MAP lA 102
TABLE XII
NUMBER OF PARKS BY SIZE AND AGE
Age
Size <10 >10 Total
>90 4 3 7
<90 5 23 28 9 28 35
Historical Legacy
The subject of trailer courts and/or mobile home
parks has been a source of continuing debate in most of the municipalities in the lower mainland for a number of years.
Studies range from those sketchy appraisals prior to local auto-court by-laws (circa. 1955), of what trailer life was
like, to development plans for 300 unit "total environment" parks.
Local attitudes twenty years ago are illustrated by
the following statements: "Little attention to housekeeping and yard maintenance is required by trailer occupants, thus promoting a minimum of responsible home life." and
. . . arguments against the growing tendency of trailers to be used for year-round urban living allow of no conclusion other than the abandonment of trailer courts in favour of normal types of
housing.1Q8
Mobile homes did not begin to appear in significant numbers
in the lower mainland until about twenty-five years ago, when the standard was the eight by thirty foot unit. People 103 were using this form of housing in association with activities like the logging and sawmill industries at various locations along the perimeters of the Fraser Valley.
There were also recently retired people and those in search of a more hospitable winter climate among those who opted for trailer court life for some of the reasons outlined in previous chapters. Whatever the facts may have been, however, it was the association with mobile home residents where perceived by others as transients, which contributed to a reputation of undesirability in relation to mobile home s.
Nevertheless, many units came to rest in what were originally designed and intended as overnight camp spots.
Some land was developed as parks, thereby providing a business and living for small operators while a few individuals or companies gradually got involved in developments on a larger scale.
Many of the problems associated with the auto and trailer courts resulted from outdated auto court by-laws.
Most lower mainland municipalities have shared common experiences with regard to the subject in question. These include the mixture of tourist trailers and mobile homes, overcrowding, and poor site development in terms of design, services, landscaping, amenities, and location. Such problems were also a product of greed, the opportunity of making quick and easy money, the failure to distinguish 104 between permanent and transitory facilities, and neglected and inadequate local regulations. In most municipalities there has been little or no attempt to approach mobile home parks in a comprehensive and open-minded manner. The usual way of dealing with them has been on an incremental basis, as specific problems arise, with a never-ending series of amendments to local zoning regulations.
The suitability of mobile home parks in a rapidly urbanizing area like the lower mainland has been questioned for almost as long as the parks have existed. Local officials have voiced concern over the preemption of relatively undeveloped but potentially urban land by mobile homes and the possible creation of barriers to the planned growth of the community. This concern is reflected in the lack of areas zoned for mobile home parks in Vancouver, and the adjacent municipalities (Burnaby, New Westminster,
Delta, Richmond, and the North Shore municipalities).
On the other hand, among the more rural and less urbanized municipalities removed from the inner ring of the
Metropolitan Area, there are the jurisdictions within the study area which do provide for mobile home developments.
Parks have emerged in these areas because of reduced pressure for land and a more widely dispersed population.
Of course the problem now is that the parks have been viewed, at least covertly, as having no potential for 105 alternative types of development- Development pressure has now changed this view.
Local Regulations
Section 702-b of the B.C. Municipal Act permits local councils, through zoning by-laws, to divide a municipality
into defined zones and to regulate the use of land, buildings, and structures within such zones. Section 714-i of the Act authorizes a local council to regulate the construction and layout of trailer courts, mobile home parks, and camping grounds, and requires that such courts, parks, and grounds provide facilities specified in the by-law.
As indicated earlier there are several categories of zoning by-laws which regulate parks in the four municipalities in the study area. Many of the older parks existing in these areas are permitted to operate through their designation as a non-conforming use. Section 7 05-2 of the Municipal Act states: "A lawful use of premises existing at the time of adoption of a zoning by-law, although such use does not conform to the provisions of the by-law, may be continued. . . .109
From 1974 to 1979 the common method of park development was the land use contract in a designated development area. These contracts contain the.conditions for the use and development of the land. Two parks were 106 developed in Langley and Surrey under land use contracts.
Under the 1979 Municvpal Amendment Aet, land use contracts were replaced by a formula for imposing development conditions and municipal development charges.
A brief review of zoning provisions and development practices for mobile home parks in the four study area municipalities is necessary as context for understanding the
situations of older parks in these jurisdictions. Langley and Maple Ridge do not provide for parks in their zoning by-laws, though in both cases they could be allowed under land use contracts. Coquitlam allows mobile home parks in their RMH-1 district, and Surrey has three zoning districts
in which parks are permitted uses. In all four municipalities most of the older parks are non-conforming uses under the current zoning.
All four have by-laws separate from their zoning by-laws which regulate all mobile home developments, whether non-conforming, allowed by land use contract or in appropriate zoning districts.
Analysis of Older Parks
Location and Distribution
The older parks in the study area and throughout the lower mainland are an integral part of a system of mobile home parks in the same area. Their location and distribution in each municipality reflects quite accurately the fact that parks tend to be situated along major traffic 107 arteries and in proximity to commercial areas. Table XIII provides a breakdown by municipal jurisdiction of all the mobile home parks between Vancouver and Hope. In the Fall of 1978 there were approximately 4,500 mobile home units located in these parks.
As can be seen from Maps 1 and 1A, most of the mobile home parks in the lower mainland are located on east- west and north-south axes. North of the Fraser River parks are located along or near the Lougheed and Barnet Highways, while south of the River the parks are strung, out along the
King George Highway and the Fraser Highway. In the Township of Chilliwack parks tend to be grouped along or near Vedder
Road, with four large parks situated remotely along
Chilliwack Lake Road and near Cultus Lake.
Their proximity to the "inner core" of the
Metropolitan Area is a major reason for finding many parks in Langley, Surrey and Coquitlam. A negligible rate of park development east of Coquitlam is explained by the traffic bottleneck caused by a now inadequate Lougheed Highway.
Only in Pitt Meadows in the last five years has a mobile home development been initiated; and this is under co• operative tenure on land made available through Provincial
Government participation.
South of the Fraser River, there is a marked cutoff in the number of parks once past the intersection of
Highways 1 and 11 in Abbotsford. Reasons for this include 108
TABLE XIII
DISTRIBUTION OF MOBILE HOME PARKS IN
THE LOWER MAINLAND
Number Percentage Jurisdiction of Parks of Total
Abbotsford D.M.* 1 .86 Burnaby D.M. 0 0 Chilliwack City 2 1.72 Chilliwhack D.M. 10 8.62 Coquitlam D.M. 9 7.76 Delta D.M. 0 0 Dewdney-Alouette R.D. (Electoral Areas) 5 4.3 Fraser-Cheam R.D. (Electoral Areas) 24 20.69 Greater Vancouver R.D. (Electoral Areas) 2 1.72 Kent D.M. 2 1.72 Langley City 1 .86 Langley D.M. 12 10.34 Maple Ridge D.M. 6 5 .17 Matsqui D.M. 6 5.17 Mission D.M. 4 3.45 New Westminster City 0 0 North Vancouver City 0 0 North Vancouver D.M. 0 0 Pitt Meadows D.M. 1 .86 Port Coquitlam City 1 .86 Port Moody City 2 1.72 Richmond D.M. 0 0 Surrey D.M. 24 20.69 Vancouver City 3 2.59 West Vancouver District 1 .86 TOTAL 116 100.00
*District Municipality 109 the restrictions placed on development adjacent to a controlled access highway, the restrictions posed by the
Agricultural Land Reserve, and the feeling that commuting time is too great a disadvantage when parks are located east of the Clearbrook area. Perhaps the most curious distribution of parks is that situated on Hatzic Island, east of Mission. Four small parks and two modified strata- type projects involving mobile, pre-fabricated, and modular units are located here along Shook Road.
The distribution of older parks (as defined) by municipality in the study area is shown in Table XIV, and their approximate location is illustrated on Map 2. The
Table also gives the average age of these parks by municipality. In Coquitlam and Maple Ridge all of the parks in both areas fit into the category of "older parks."
Conveniently, fifty percent of the older parks in the study area are located north of the Fraser River, with the remaining fifty percent immediately south. Surrey contains the lion's share of parks in the Vancouver area and over
2 0 percent of all the parks in the lower mainland. Nearly half of the parks in Surrey fit into the category of older parks.
The minimum, maximum and average size in acres of the older parks is given in Table XV. On the whole, these parks average around 5 acres, yielding densities considerably higher than those recommended by the Model 110
TABLE XIV
OLDER PARKS (12 OR MORE YEARS) IN
STUDY AREA
Number of % of Municipality Older Parks Average Age Municipal Total
Coquitlam 9 18.44 years 100 Langley 5 16.4 years 41.66 Maple Ridge 6 14.83 years 100 Surrey 10 19.3 years 41.66
TABLE XV
SIZES OF OLDER PARKS IN STUDY AREA (ACRES)
Municipality Minimum Maximum Average
Coquitlam 2.3 30.59 7.78 Langley 5 27.5 12.27 Maple Ridge 2.1 8.13 4.23 Surrey 1.1 10.0 4.81
Mobile Home Park By-Law and the most recent zoning regulations in each of the municipalities. While modern by• laws stipulate densities of between 7 and 9 units per acre many of the older parks have densities of 10 to 15 units per acre. The figures for Coquitlam and Langley are somewhat distorted by three older parks in each area which have larger sizes and lower densities roughly compatible with modern regulations. Most of the newer parks that have been developed are well over 10 acres in size and have densities MAP 2 112 averaging 6 to 7 units per acre. The high densities in the older parks cause poor physical appearance and fire department access. What they have is the minimum area needed for the unit and auto access to it. But the fact remains that discussions indicate very few of the parks encountered had a history of fire damage nor did the park operators acknowledge that a threat of potential fire hazard existed. The residents of these parks do not seem to mind living close to one another and they reinforce their opinions by offering the example of high density living in
Vancouver's West End.
As mentioned earlier most of the older parks contain less than 75 spaces and this is indicated in
Table XVI along with comparative figures for all the mobile home parks in each of the four municipalities. Once again the three parks referred to distort the average size in park spaces. Twenty of these older parks contain between 3 0 and
99 spaces. The distribution of older parks according to the number of spaces in each park is given on Map 3. The largest concentration of popular parks in the lower mainland is located along the King George Highway in Surrey.
Breakaway Bays Mobile Home Park contains 2 57 mobile units, with a 64 space expansion phase currently underway.
All of the study parks rent spaces on a month-to- month basis, as opposed to a fixed-term lease arrangement.
This practice appears to be one of the drawbacks of parks in 113
TABLE XVI
NUMBER OF PADS IN OLDER PARKS IN STUDY AREA
(BY MUNICIPALITY)
All Parks Older Parks Park Spaces Older in As Percentage Munic ipality (pads) Parks Study Area of All Parks
Coquitlam 1 - 9 0 0 0.0 10 - 29 1 1 11.1 30 - 49 3 3 33.3 50 - 99 3 3 33.3 100 - 149 0 0 0.0 150 or more 2 2 22.2
Langley 1 — 9 0 0 0.0 10 - 29 2 2 16.66 30 - 49 2 2 16 .66 50 - 99 2 8 16.66 100 - 149 0 0 0.0 150 or more 0 0 0.0
Maple Ridge 1 _ 9 1 1 16.66 10 - 29 1 1 16.66 30 - 49 3 3 50.0 50 - 99 1 1 16.66 100 - 149 0 0 0.0 150 or more 0 0 0.0
Surrey 1 - 9 0 0 0.0 10 - 29 3 6 12.5 30 - 49 3 6 12.5 50 - 99 4 6 16.66 100 - 149 0 4 0.0 150 or more 0 2 0.0 MAP 3 terms of the availability of mortgage financing from conventional lenders. A number of park operators expressed a willingness to offer a lease/rental agreement to their tenants but it seems that park residents prefer the monthly rental charge, even when a 3 0-day cancellation provision could be incorporated into a lease. Table XVII shows that monthly rents in Coquitlam and Surrey, the more central of the four municipalities, contain more parks with rates of
100 to 124 dollars per month. This could also be a reflection of local demand for mobile home spaces and the relatively shorter distance to commercial and industrial areas.
TABLE XVII
PAD RENTAL FOR OLDER PARKS IN STUDY AREA
Monthly Rent Municipality (Single Wide)* Older Parks
Coquitlam $ 60 - 99 4 100 - 124 4 125 - 150 1
Langley $ 60 - 99 4 100 - 124 1 125 - 150 0 Maple Ridge $ 60 - 99 4 100 - 124 2 125 - 150 0 Surrey $ 60 - 99 4 100 - 124 5 125 - 150 1
*The rent may include some services and/or utilities in addition to land rent. 116
Correlations between monthly rent and park size
(number of spaces) and park age were attempted in Figures 6
and 7. The distributions show that rents are lower in
smaller parks and, with some exceptions, are generally lower
in the older parks. These conclusions also served as
another indicator in the decision to use as study parks
those which were at least 12 years old.
The rates indicated apply to single-wide mobile
homes (12 wides or less), and usually include the charge for water, sewage, and garbage. Rates for double-wides average
10 to 2 5 dollars per month more. Aside from two parks in
Coquitlam where double wides are a significant portion of
the total number of homes, these larger units are not
common in the older parks. Table XVIII indicates what types of units and how many of each are in the older parks.
TABLE XVIII
TYPES OF UNITS IN OLDER PARKS
Motel Older Single- Double- Units Municipality Parks Wides Wides Present
Coquitlam 9 568 191 yes
Langley 5 230 21 yes
Maple Ridge 6 190 14 yes
Surrey 10 395 34 yes FIGURE 6: DISTRIBUTION OF PARKS ACCORDING
TO MONTHLY RENT AND AGE OF PARK*
AGE OF PARK
*Source: Compiled by author from field data. FIGURE 7: DISTRIBUTION OF PARKS ACCORDING
- TO MONTHLY RENT AND: AGE OF PARK*
200-r i I t ! 1 . I ' ! • - i i | iiM i ' i 1 • I i ' 1 1 i ! 1 I i i 1 ! i i i 1 1 . 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L . ; 1 1 ! I . 1 1 1 i I i 1 1 i 1 ' ! 1 1 150- 1I J I ! ! 1 I 1 ! i w ; i ! 1 ! a i 1 | ! 1 ! 1 I 1 i i W 1 i i i i ! i 1 1 ! 1 1 ; | 1 1 | i 1 1 i i z i m | 1 ! i 1 i • 1 MM I I i 1 ! os o "i i 1 'ill 1 i 1 1 • 1 1 II 1 i i 1 ( z . ! i III! 1 \ ' i i 1 I OS > • 1 1 I 1 ! i 1 1t 1 1 I 1 >< 100-4- 1 X i 1 ! ! ! ! i i 1 1 1 1 1 Eh • 1 -*— i ! I i l O i i 1 < i ! s ! 1 i i • ! i 1 ! 1 I i1 jI i ! i i i • i ! ! ' i 1 1 1 ! 1
, ; < 1 j -! 1 i ! i ! 1 i i I 1. J ; i ! ! ! 1 i • ! • ; —
! •» i..A. — ... _ — - — — — i j 50- ! 1 1 50 Ido 150 ?,00 3<50
NUMBER OF PADS
*Source: Compiled by author from field data, 119
There were units for sale in every one of the study parks, from a minimum of one to a maximum of 27 units on the market at a given time. The homes were for sale through
dealers, real estate agents, and privately through the owners. In some instances park operators noted that some
homes had "For Sale" signs in their windows at all times; in
these cases the owners were speculating by asking what was
thought to be an outrageous price based on the value of the
park space. Should the owner be offered what he is asking,
he is more than willing to sell, and then move on to try a
similar sale in another park. They are able to do this because they have the capital to buy and sell where they want.
While the vacancy rate in apartments has varied
from zero to 5 percent for the last few years the pad vacancy rate in established parks has consistently been virtually zero. The turnover of families can vary from nil
to ten or fifteen percent per year but the number of vacant
spaces in older parks is rarely greater than one or two
spaces for all the older parks together. Moreover, what
turnover there is usually involves just occupants, since the mobile homes are more marketable and worth far more when they remain in a park. The vacancy rate, as of September
30, 1978, for older parks in the study area is provided in
Table XIX. 120
TABLE XIX
VACANCY RATES IN OLDER PARKS (1978)
Pads in Occupied Total Total Older Older Pads in Percent Municipality Parks Pads Parks Parks Older Parks Occupancy
Coquitlam 9 760 9 760 760 100.0
Langley 12 753 5 251 251 100.0
Maple Ridge 6 200 6 200 198 99.0
Surrey 24 1652 10 439 438 99.8
Park Operation
Over half of the older parks are owned and managed by the same person. Owner management is thought by some to have a direct and important, if intangible, effect upon the quality of the park itself. This study did not attempt to quantify this aspect but a number of observations can be reported. In some of the employee managed parks the quality of the park was high but residents indicated that it was not a friendly place in which to live, often because of the larger size. Smaller, owner-managed parks are generally congenial, neighbourly communities. They tend to be tidy and efficient operations where residents are protective and take pride in their homes. A few informal discussions indicated most park tenants prefer smaller parks, less than
50 units, as opposed to what they felt were large-scale,
"compulsory socializing" mobile home parks. 121
Restrictions of one kind or another were found in
virtually all of the older parks. Table XX shows that more
than two-thirds of the parks exclude families with
children, and suggests park operators much prefer older,
retired couples. No parks surveyed could be described as
"family-oriented."
TABLE XX
PARK MANAGEMENT CHARACTERISTICS
N = 30
Owner-managed 18 (60%)
Children permitted 9 (30%)
Subletting permitted 16 (53%)
Oriented toward seniors 19 (63%)
Written regulations on resident's behavior 27 (90%)
Restrictions on Mobile Home Units:
Limited to units sold by certain dealers 6 (20%)
Limits on size or age of units 25 (83%)
"Good condition" 25 (83%)
Park operators can afford to be this selective in
their choice of tenants because there is sufficient demand
by older couples. With high demand and low vacancy rates it
is a park operator's market. Furthermore, the design and
location of the parks are not suited to children. Even among the parks where children are permitted, few have play 122
areas of any merit. Access to schools and playgrounds is
also poor. A frequent response by operators when questioned
as to why children were discouraged from their parks was a
rationalization involving the fixed capacity of septic sewer
systems.
Another restriction relates to whether or not a mobile home that is owned by someone not residing in the
park can be sublet. Recent legislation does not allow a park operator to unreasonably withhold permission to assign
a sublease. However, nearly 50 percent of the operators
contacted were not in favour of renting spaces to people who did not own their mobile home.
Over 8 0 percent of the parks would not or could not accommodate mobile homes of a certain age or size. This
restriction implies that only new or nearly new homes would be accepted in the event of a space vacancy. . Some operators reported that they would accept used Z24 0 certified mobile homes but they must be in very good condition. But in many cases Z240 14-wides could not fit in these parks because they were designed for 10- and 12-wides.
Very few of the older parks (Table XX) displayed ties to one or more mobile home dealers. The older parks do not appear to be sales tools for the marketing of mobile units. Though there are degrees of being "open" or "closed" to certain models and ages of homes, the extremely low vacancy rates in parks would seem to reduce the effect of 123
this aspect of park operation on the local situation.
Three of the larger parks are effectively closed and allow
in just those mobiles marketed by the dealer who developed
and owns the park. Three other park operators allowed
dealers to pay the rents on any vacant spaces thereby
guaranteeing sales to those dealers.
Ninety percent of the older parks have a set of
regulations which tenants must accept (Table XX). These
regulations vary from ordinary rules like "no toleration of
fast driving" to those for which the justification is hard
to understand. Following are some excerpts from park
regulations encountered during the study:
- No additional people to stay in trailers without
Manager's consent.
- The Manager's decision will be final where no written
rule is concerned.
- The Management reserves the right to refuse any
request.
- Visiting pets are not allowed in this park.
- No cars or any other vehicles shall be repaired in or
on the premises.
- Parents and their children are not to take short-cuts
through other tenants' lots regardless of permission
of that tenant.
- Any complaints are welcome but official complaints
must be in writing. 124
- In the event of a mobile home owner wishing to sell
the mobile home, the Management must be notified and
permission obtained prior to the mobile home being
listed or sold.
- Any mobile home sold must be moved off the pad, unless
written permission is obtained from the Management.
Obviously, there is a need for some restrictions in parks
or, as Audain remarked, "Indeed, firm regulations
judiciously enforced are likely to be one of the hallmarks 118
of an attractive and well-run mobile home park."
Park regulations are fairly similar from one park
to another, with extremes being the exception to the rule.
In fact in many of the older parks visited, operators and
tenants acknowledged the existence of regulations but the
absence of any justifiable reason to even discuss them.
Actual park expansion and/or upgrading or the potential for so doing is a significant aspect of analysis.
Population growth pressure and low vacancy rates indicate
that expansion of some parks could alleviate part of the problem. Yet only seven parks indicated that expansion had recently occurred or that it was probable in the near
future (Table XXI); fourteen park operators indicated that park expansion was impossible due to local controls, the tremendous costs of expansion or lack of land ownership.
Several park operators reported recent upgrading work, an on-going program of upgrading, or the planned upgrading of 125
TABLE XXI
EXPANSION/UPGRADING IN OLDER PARKS
Action Older Parks
Recent/probable expansion 7
Recent/probable upgrading of facilities 13
Expansion impossible 14
park services and facilities. Such a program included
paving, landscaping, new lighting, new wiring, hook-up to municipal sewer services or other related activities. On•
going programs of upgrading occur in many parks where the owner manages the park.
In defining a mobile home park for the purpose of
this study it was stated that a park could include a motel-
type, monthly rental operation of stick-built units as well as mobile homes. In a sense such an operation is not
strictly a park but it does remain that these are areas of residential dwellings, often accounting for thirty or more mobile units (one-half the size of the operation). Some of the residents of these motel-parks have lived in them for years and have no need or desire to live elsewhere.
Map 4 and Table XXII show the distribution of older park operations by type throughout the study area. Twenty percent of these parks are combined motel and mobile units, with approximately the same amount being combined camp spots MAP 4 127
TABLE XXII
OLDER PARKS BY TYPES OF BUSINESSES ON SITE
Mobiles Mobiles/ Mobiles/ Mobiles/ Municipality Only Motel Campers Dealership
Coquitlam 6 1 2 -
Langley 2 - 3 -
Maple Ridge 3 3 - -
Surrey 5 2 1 2 16 6 6 2
and mobile units. Fifty percent of the parks in Maple Ridge
are motel/mobile courts, none of which are good examples of
either type of operation. It is generally held that
separation of these two uses is in the best interests of all
concerned, especially since it represents a combined zoning
classification - commercial and residential.
Only two parks studied are fronted by mobile home
dealers owning the parks, and in both cases the parks are rated in this study as low quality (to be defined later) with one of these two parks expected to be redeveloped for a
shopping centre within a year.
Park redevelopment is another aspect to the issues concerning older mobile home parks. Table XXIII indicates that redevelopment to another land use has been approved for two parks. In these instances the park owners are selling the land to commercial interests, resulting in the 128
TABLE XXIII
OLDER PARKS SUBJECT TO REDEVELOPMENT
Redevelopment Redevelopment Red evelo pmen t Redevelopment Approval Approval Not Municipality Approved Pending Probable* Planned
Coquitlam 1 2 2 4
Langley - 1 - 4
Maple Ridge - . 2 2 2
Surrey 1 1 3 5 information obtained from interviews. displacement of almost fifty mobile home owners. Under the existing vacancy situation these mobile units will likely have to compete for a handful of spaces in those parks that will accept older units if and when a vacancy exists. In addition, it is likely that six more parks will be redeveloped for other uses in the not too distant future.
Furthermore, based on existing trends in the Vancouver area and elsewhere, it is reasonable to assume from local opinions and conditions that at least seven more parks will be threatened by redevelopment. Map 5 points out those parks subject to redevelopment. As can be seen from the map those parks facing the most serious threat are located in the vicinity of the Coquitlam Town Centre. MAP 5 130
Park Services and Physical Features
The conditions analyzed in this section of the
study describe selected services and features of the older
parks. Some of the tables presented are self-explanatory
while others require a brief description.
More than half of the sample parks are connected to
a municipal sewer system (Table XXIV). Most of these parks
are located in the more highly urbanized areas of Coquitlam
and Surrey, reflecting a relative concurrence of park
development with provision and extension of municipal
services. A number of park operators mentioned that their
parks would be connected to the municipal supply in the near
future. The forty percent of parks using some kind of
septic system are located mainly in more rural areas, with
five mobile units per tank appearing to be the average.
TABLE XXIV
SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM IN OLDER PARKS
Type of System Older Parks
Septic Tank 12 (40%)
Municipal System 17 (56%)
Treatment Plant 1 (4%)
Although most operators expressed little dissatisfaction with the septic system they did prefer an eventual hook-up with local services, presumably for reasons of reduced 131 maintenance and greater park prestige. The one park
operator maintaining his own sewage treatment plant offered
the comment about it that "you'd have to be crazy to
operate one of these things."
The most common type of heating found in the parks was a combination of oil and propane (Table XXV). Other
parks used a combination of oil, propane and natural gas and
a few parks contained one or two all electric mobile homes.
In the two parks using solely propane gas, the individual
storage tanks were quite prominent, with little done to
conceal or disguise the tanks from view.
TABLE XXV
TYPE OF HEATING FUEL IN OLDER PARKS
Type of Fuel Older Parks
Oil 10 (33.3%)
Propane 2 (6.6%)
Electricity
Natural Gas
Combination of any of above 18 (60.0%)
In very few older parks are telephone and hydro cables located underground (Table XXVI).. Of course this is not too surprising since some older conventional residential areas still have overhead wiring, but the trend is to gradually install all such services underground. The same 132
trend is not occurring in the mobile home parks. Whereas at one time, overhead services were appropriate in view of the
different types of mobile units moving in and out of parks,
the units are more or less "permanent" now with unsightly
power poles and wires intermingling with homes. The costs of putting this service underground are prohibitive in many
parks since the charges would have to be passed on to the
tenants.
TABLE XXVI
PLACEMENT OF WIRES AND CABLES IN
OLDER PARKS
Placement Older Parks
Overhead 26 (86.6%)
Underground 4 (13.4%)
Combination 0 (0%)
Storage facilities for bulky items are required by park tenants just as they are required by apartment tenants.
Table XXVII indicates that fifty percent of the parks do provide such facilities for the storage of recreational vehicles, yard maintenance equipment and the like. In some of those parks containing no central storage it was indicated that most residents owned small metal storage sheds located adjacent to the mobile units. 133
TABLE XXVII
CENTRAL STORAGE FACILITIES IN OLDER PARKS
Availability No . of Older Parks
Central Storage 15 (50%)
No Central Storage 15 (50%)
Nearly three-quarters of the sample parks provide
central laundry facilities (Table XXVIII). In most of these
parks the water systems were not designed to accommodate
clothes washers and dryers at every mobile unit and, moreover, many older mobile homes were not designed with
these facilities in mind. Today, compact washers and dryers,
have become standard equipment in the newer units, or space
for them is provided.
TABLE XXVIII
CENTRAL LAUNDRY FACILITIES IN OLDER PARKS
Availability No. of Older Parks
Central Laundry Facilities 21 (70%)
No Central Laundry Facilities 9 (30%)
Surprisingly, more than half of the older parks were found to be situated within one mile of some sort of convenience store or other type of commercial facility.
Only one park contacted actually had a grocery store as part of the operation and this store did a lot of business with
non-park residents due to its proximity to a secondary
highway, but still part of the park property (Table XXIX).
TABLE XXIX
DISTANCES FROM OLDER PARKS TO
NEAREST CONVENIENCE STORE
Availability No. of Older Parks
Commercial facilities in park 1 (4%)
Commercial facilities within one
mile of park 17 (56%)
No commercial facilities nearby park 12 (40%)
Although a commonly held stereotyped image of the
location of older mobile home parks is one of dust, nearby
trucks and factories, this study shows that no sample parks are located in an industrial area. Table XXX indicates the
distribution of parks according to the surrounding land use.
The combination of land uses which appears most often is
residential and commercial strip development. Another
combination appearing often is rural-residential, including acreages and small subdivisions, and small-scale commercial and business activities. This is common in Langley and
Maple Ridge. Land use adjacent to.older parks is one of the criteria used later in a quality rating for parks. 135
TABLE XXX
AREA SURROUNDING OLDER PARKS
Land Use Older Parks
Residential 6 (20%)
Commercial 8 (26.6%)
Industrial
Rural/Residential 7 (23.3%)
Combination of any of above 9 (30%)
One-third of the study parks adhere rigidly to the stereotype "herring-bone" pattern of mobile home layout within the parks (Table XXXI). Here, the homes are situated - at right angles (or at a slight angle) to a road which runs straight until the park boundaries are reached. The view is monotonous and little is done to counteract the similarity in shape of individual units. A conventional grid pattern was found in a number of parks, thereby yielding a degree of difference in the orientation of units; in fact, when this pattern was combined with a varying topography (two distinct levels, for example), the effect was rather creative. Only in one motel-park operation was there no effort to situate the homes in an orderly fashion, but because of the small number of units involved this cannot be construed as a significant problem. Some sample park layouts are included in Figure 8 in order to provide the reader with a basis of comparison where park layouts are concerned. FIGURE 8
SAMPLE MOBILE HOME PARK LAYOUTS
Source: Newcombe Part I
Variety in Setback Use is made of varying both the setback and the mobile home stand.
Diagonal Grouping The diagonal grouping provides an interesting central court system. Circular Cul-de-sac The conventional cul-de-sac can be attractively modified for mobile home parks.
Semi-circle
Where space is restrictedf the semi-circle grouping can be used as efficient alternative individual frontage on streets. 138
TABLE XXXI
LAYOUT OF OLDER PARKS
Layout Pattern Older Parks
Grid pattern 12 (40%)
Herring-bone 10 (33.3%)
Modified cul-de-sac 7 (23.3%)
Informal Grouping 1 (3.3%)
Virtually all of the interior roads of the parks
are asphalt paved and in good condition. Widths vary from
fifteen to forty feet wide, and the latter have an
appearance of "pavement landscaping." Curbs or some other means of edging are not common and speed limits, while
strictly enforced by park management, are further controlled
physically by "speed bumps." Parking is usually sufficient
for two vehicles at each mobile home and more often than not
at least one vehicle is parked on the side of the roadway.
It is a generally accepted regulation that all mobile homes in parks should be skirted to conceal the chassis and the older parks are no exception. Any new unit
that comes into a park must be skirted within 30 days. The quality of skirting, both in materials and workmanship, left
something to be desired in many instances, and there is a lot of room for improvement of the physical appearance of a mobile home with regard to the use of attractive skirting. 139
Those parks contacted appear to contain mobile
homes of various vintages. The one statement that can be
made here is that just because a park is twelve or more
years old does not necessarily imply that all the mobile
units in the park are also that old. Most of the homes
ranged in age from mid-nineteen sixties models to those just
a few years old. Some homes were of such unique design that
it was impossible to estimate an age for the unit. Many
homes were ten and eight-wide models and showed obvious
signs of wear and deterioration. A few units appeared
substandard in terms of size, physical condition and
appearance, and health and safety features. A few units in
the older parks were in fact modified house or travel-
trailers, altered to appear at first glance to be mobile
homes.
Quality Rating of Older Parks
One of the objectives of this study was to evaluate
the quality of older mobile home parks in the study area.
An exhaustive study would compare similar Lists of items for
each park and the lists would likely include more items than
those which were examined here. It was not the purpose in
this case to measure all aspects of park quality in a
statistical fashion. What has been done is a subjective
rating of park quality in terms of the physical environment.
Map 6 shows the distribution of older parks throughout the
study area, according to this subjective quality rating. 141
Table XXXII provides as an example a breakdown of this
rating by individual park for an individual municipality -
that of Maple Ridge. The criteria used to evaluate the
physical environment of the older parks are the following:
Quality Rating Criteria
(1) Location: access; surrounding land use.
(2) Physical layout: design; orientation of homes; park
traffic circulation; density, lot size; and parking
facilities.
(3) Unit and space appearance: physical condition of units
(including skirting and additions); definition of lots;
and lot maintenance.
(4) Landscaping and maintenance of park: presence of trees,
shrubs, grass, etc.; and amount of paved ground
surface.
(5) Noise sources: presence of noise from traffic;
railroad tracks; industry or commerce; commercial
parking; and major or secondary highways.
Summary
Analysis of the data and supporting information
from interviews have determined that problems exist insofar as older parks in particular are concerned. The study of a
number of specific parks has enabled an assessment of why certain problems are common, and this aspect is discussed in the following chapter. MAP 6 TABLE XXXII
EXAMPLE QUALITY RATING FOR OLDER MOBILE HOME PARKS IN MAPLE RIDGE
Location: Access and Unit and Surrounding Physical Space Landscaping Noise Overall Name of Park Land Use Layout Appearance Maintenance Sources Rating
Alouette 4 4 5 5 5 5
Centennial 1 1 1 1 1 1
Garibaldi 4 4 4 4 5 4
Jacobs 1 2 3 3 1 2
Maple Ridge 1 2 1 2 1 1
Val Maria 3 4 5 5 3 4
Scale Rating: 5 - Excellent 4 - Very Good 3 - Good 2 - Below Average 1 - Poor
Source: Estimated by author from field data. CHAPTER SIX
PROBLEMS RELATED TO OLDER PARKS AND
PARKS IN GENERAL
There is no question that the mobile home industry
has suffered its full share of growing pains over the past
decade. Many changes have occurred that have implications
for virtually all mobile home park operations. These
changes have been felt to some degree by all those connected
with parks and park living.
The empirical study of thirty older parks in the
lower mainland has indicated that a number of problems,
concerns and issues exist that pertain directly to a portion
of the older parks in question. These problems do not apply
to all older parks and, at the same time, do apply to some of the newer parks in this region. The issues are now
explained in detail as they relate directly to the older
study parks and to parks in general.
Problems - General
'Closed' Parks
As indicated from the preceding analysis of parks,
some dealers and park owners support the concept of 'closed parks', that is mobile home parks in which it is only
143 144 possible to rent a space if one agrees to buy a mobile home from a certain dealer, usually a company associated with the park operator. Many dealers believe that the potential purchaser's difficulties in locating an available space will impede sales. Accordingly, if a dealer owns his own park it is possible to obtain a competitive advantage by operating a closed park. The extract below illustrates a typical predicament.
Trying to place a mobile home in the Lower Mainland presents a certain number of problems, the least of which is finding a pad on which to put it. At present I live in Kamloops but recently was transferred to a new job in New Westminster. The problem is that while I will work in New Westminster I would like a choice of places in which to live. That isn't easy.
I have spoken to a number of dealers and pad owners but it seems that unless I buy a new trailer no one is interested in renting a pad to me. The problem is the monopoly mobile-home sellers have on the pads. Is there anything you can do? (A. Standal, Kamloops)
There are two possible solutions to the problem, in the short and long terms.
Housing Minister Hugh Curtis had his Lower Mainland office locate four mobile-home parks with vacancies within reasonable distance of New Westminster.
This was done through the mobile home registry, a new listing of pads available to mobile-home owners.
That's the short-term solution. But in the long term the only real solution is either to not allow dealers and pad operators to make agreements on pad rentals - or to provide more pads.
Source: The Province, April '78.
Eighty percent of the park operators interviewed rejected the notion that their park was closed under any 145 circumstances, and zero vacancy rates for units would seem to make such action unwarranted. However, in those parks where tie-in sales exist the operators stressed that sales of the mobile homes depend on the availability of spaces and that closed parks are therefore necessary to keep the mobile home industry viable. One park owner and developer argued that a closed park practice enhances the standard that can be maintained in the mobile home park and that it probably results in a better appearance of the park.
Another newspaper letter from a concerned mobile home owner in Courtenay serves to indicate the relationship among such problems as low vacancy rates, agreements between park owners and dealers, and the location of the few vacant spaces in the lower mainland.
My husband and I are owners of a two-year-old, three bedroom, mobile home and we want to move. Now that might seem a simple task to a house owner or an apartment dweller, but it isn't an easy matter for any mobile home owner. Because of my husband's job, we have to move to the Lower Mainland, where we cannot find a place. To get one you have to buy a brand new trailer. Dealers seem to have an easier chance of obtaining space than individual owners.
Some privately owned park owners have agreements with the trailer sales people and automatically turn over their vacancies to ensure monthly rentals. That might be fine for salesmen who have an edge in selling a new home, or for the park owner, but it isn't very practical for a mobile home owner like myself. Can you help? The closest space we could find was in Cultus Lake and that's too far away. (Gladys Kaartinen. Courtenay)
Source: The Province, June '78. 146
The lack of available mobile home space in this
region has some serious repercussions for those people
living elsewhere in the province and who still consider
their mobile homes just that - mobile. Perhaps the nature
of a job requires frequent moves, but if that move is to the
lower mainland, the closest one can reasonably expect to
obtain a rental space for a used mobile home is Chilliwack
or Kent.
The Relationship Between Park Operators and Tenants
The mobile home produces a very special form of
land use and landlord-tenant relationship. The arrangement
under discussion here is for the owner-tenant to rent the
pad (space) monthly, thereby creating either a periodic
tenancy or a tenancy at will. The rental agreement sets out
the power of the park operator to terminate the tenancy, the
obligations of the tenant, and the park regulations.
There are several differences between apartment
tenancies and park tenancies. Apartment dwellers purchase
the exclusive right to use a part of a building for a
specified period of time. Mobile home park tenants purchase
the exclusive right to use a parcel of land (that of the park operator) for a period of time, and the interest in the mobile home is completely separate from the interest in the
space it occupies. This basic aspect of park tenancy is
emphasized through the strong reluctance of virtually all 147
park managers interviewed to intrude into the personal and
private space (the mobile home) of park tenants.
Consequently, the services required of the park
landlord differ from those of the apartment landlord. In
the latter case the landlord is responsible for such
services as water, heat, electricity, and health and safety
laws that affect unit habitability. On the other hand the
mobile home owner is completely responsible for the
operation of his home, except for those services generally
provided by the park.
Security of Tenure Issue
One of the most significant differences between
apartments and parks in tenancy arrangements concerns the
implications of tenant eviction. The process of eviction
can cause many problems and woes for tenants in general, but
for the tenant who owns a mobile home the consequences are
usually more serious. The mobile home owner must remove
himself and his home.
The extract below indicates the scale at which mobile home owner eviction is occurring and that the process
is often associated with park redevelopment.
Mobile home owners under pressure of eviction from city trailer parks are considering setting up a co• operative mobile home park.
Andrew Carlson, president of the Mobilehome Owners Association (MOA), says reduced rental is one goal but security of tenure is the major aim. 148
Three city parks involving nearly 200 mobile homes have issued closure notices and with land prices climbing out of sight, more park closures are likely.
Mr. Carlson lives at Terraced Heights Trailer Park, 45th Avenue and 104th Street, where tenants have until March 31 to leave.
The 132 tenants of Allendale Trailer Park, 5130 103A St., have been handed notices to be gone by Oct. 31, 1978.
And at least part of Grove Motel and Trailer Park, 2220 Calgary Trail, will be closed to facilitate widening of Highway 2.
Land at Terraced Heights park reportedly sold for $500,000 an acre. With pressure like that on park owners, the temptation to sell may be irresistible, says Mr. Carlson.
About 6 0 people have paid the $10 0 fee for the membership in the park development group. Funds are held in trust for development purposes.
Although the project was started through the MOA, a province-wide group with about 850 members, most of those signed up for the project are residents of threatened parks here.
Source: The Edmonton Journal, Oct. '77.
Officials in both Edmonton and Vancouver are receiving an
ever-increasing number of complaints from park tenants
concerned about the distinct possibility that they will have a home with nowhere to live. The options faced are to abandon the home, attempt to sell it, or to store it some• where. Obviously, the security of the home-owner's equity
in his unit is placed in jeopardy. Several stories heard during the research for this study confirm the difficulty of selling a mobile home in a park designated for redevelop• ment. Thousands of dollars have been lost by homeowners when a buyer, with a connection in another park, has taken
advantage of the situation; or when an unknowing buyer has
bought a home in such a park where the park owner has
discreetly avoided mentioning the future of the park.
The concept of 'security of tenure' is a most
complex aspect of the landlord/tenant relationship.
Unfortunately, the statutory guarantee that a mobile home
owner cannot be evicted from his rented premises without
due cause is not sufficient. The right of a park owner to
sell or redevelop his own property would seem due cause.
The problem is that if there are no alternative sites for
the mobile home, its owner has a worthless asset if tenancy
in a park is terminated. In a growing metropolitan area
this is more than a hypothetical possibility, particularly
when mobile home parks are considered by some to be merely
an interim land use.
It is not appropriate here to examine such concepts
as 'freedom of contract' and 'mutuality of termination
rights'; they could well be the subject of another thesis
dealing with tenancy problems in mobile home parks.
However, it should be noted that the Law Reform Commission
of British Columbia suggests that such concepts ignore modern realities of tenancies.11"0 These realities, as applied to parks, include the scarcity of available land and
spaces, lack of developer interest in creating new parks, and low or zero vacancy rates in existing parks. These 150
imply little prospect of finding suitable alternative
accommodation and hence social and economic hardship
resulting from eviction. We need to be reminded of
'irrational' attitudes and attachments to premises, rented
or owned. Such attitudes toward mobile home ownership
appear to be difficult for many regulatory officials to
comprehend. The notion of defending one's property to the
ultimate end is discussed by Nevitt in, The Nature of Rent
Controlling Legislation in the U.K.
In a modern society the trial of strength is conducted through the pricing mechanism and the rich bid away property from the poor. We have no reason to think that the defeated and dispossessed feel that his form of contest is any fairer than a shooting match.
Insecurity of tenure should be of concern to park
operators. Tenants in several of the study parks evidenced,
and spoke of having little incentive to improve or take
pride in their accommodation when they know that eviction
can be arbitrary and swift. In the face of this lack of
security, hostility and alienation toward a park operator
and society in general was observed in some parks.
Security of tenure is of concern at a time when
vacancy rates are so low, but it is necessary to realize
that the landlord-tenant relationship is a two-sided issue.
Benefits accrue to both parties when there is a continuing
harmonious relationship. It may be that, in theory,
reasonable behavior will provide security of tenure in the 151 absence of legislative sanctions, but in reality it takes formal sanction to regulate the quirks in human nature often exhibited in a tenancy relationship.
The Entrance Fee
The legislation which enacted many of the Law
Reform Commission's recommendations provided for a system of security of tenure linked to the rent control scheme. The situation in mobile home parks was changed to the extent that many park operators feel that government interference has been of little aid to them and has actually imposed new restraints on the operation of mobile home parks.
Part IV, Section 30, of the Residential Tenancy Act of
British Columbia states:
Where a tenancy agreement relates to residential premises that is land rented as space for and on which a tenant is entitled to bring a mobile home, the tenant may assign or sublet with the consent of the landlord, but the consent shall not be arbitrarily or unreasonably withheld.
This provision was mentioned by several of the operators of the study parks, who maintained that operators should have the deciding word on tenants and sub-lessees. They felt that the Act prevents operators from maintaining their own standards as far as park clientele are concerned. The problem is not widespread in the older parks, however, as the tenants are usually long-term and the vacancy rate is close to zero. 152
In some mobile home parks the operators demand a
fee for providing a space for a mobile home. Although now
illegal, these fees (key money extortion by another name)
can range up to $3,000. In effect the fee is a means
whereby a landlord mitigates the effect of provincially
regulated rent increases. These under-the-table deals have
been going on for years and in most, cases no service is
rendered for the money. In some instances it is alleged
that the money is used to defray costs of site preparation
or utility hook-up.
This exploitation is a function of the shortage of
mobile home sites and high demand. In some cases it appears
that park managements have manufactured pretexts to evict
one tenant precisely in order to collect 'the fee' from a
new tenant. The game of revolving tenants requires an
operator to make life sufficiently unpleasant for his
tenants to bring about a high turnover in the park.
Some park operators comment that new regulations making entrance fees illegal impose a strait-jacket on operators without improving the lot of the mobile home owner. It is very difficult to determine where the truth
lies, as the fee may still be paid to the park operator by a dealer who sells the mobile home to the owner and added by
the dealer to the sale price of the mobile home. In fact
the price of identical mobile homes in the study area varied 153
up to $5,000 on a $20,000 unit, depending on the dealer and
his ties.
One can readily see how difficult prosecution for
such alleged offences can be, particularly since evidence
from the complainant would likely prove detrimental to
himself. For example, a dealer who pays the fee will not
talk openly because the fee is often the only sure guarantee
that he can provide his customer with a pad and therefore make a sale; and an owner, who probably stands the cost of
the fee, will not talk if he is afraid to jeopardize his
position now that he has a space for his home.
With regard to the so-called restraints placed on
the operation of mobile home parks, several other problems
appeared repeatedly in discussions with park operators. At
the present time a park operator has little control (in theory) over the quality of units in his park, particularly
if it is an older park where the older units are usually to be found. Where formerly a tenant wishing to move was required to remove his unit from the park, a tenant may now
sell his home in the park. Operators say this makes a process of continuous upgrading impossible since older and substandard homes are thereby permitted to stay in the park.
Of course under present market circumstances, should a tenant be required to dispose of his home outside the park, the chances of being able to sell that home would be virtually non-existent. The marketability of used mobile 154 homes today is directly tied to the land on which they are situated. Existing legislation does not possess the flexibility to differentiate the factors affecting real estate values of mobile homes.
The fact that real estate agents, as opposed to park operators, may now handle the sale of a mobile home where it is situated in a private park produces a near violent reaction from some park operators. However, some operators continue to place restriction on the sale of mobile homes in their parks. Such restrictions may take several forms: outright prohibition of sales by requiring removal of the unit when a homeowner leaves the park, a clause in the tenancy agreement whereby the owner must sell through the park operator acting as agent (and in this case the operator often determines the listing and selling price), or a fee payable to the operator for accepting and investigating a new tenant (an exit fee).
A plausible argument was made justifying the fee on the basis that a park owner is entitled to a share of the profit that is made on the sale of the mobile home because the profit is partly due to the mobile home's location in the park. The other side of the coin is that the tenant should be entitled to a share of the profit if the park is sold for redevelopment.
Another problem which operators described is their inability to obtain compensation for alterations which a 155
tenant may make to the rented space where his mobile home
sits. Most operators like to see a high degree of
conformity to their own idea of proper landscaping for the
park, which does not include small vegetable gardens or
prolific shrubbery. Exceptions to this view exist, indeed
one older park visited resembled a garden estate, complete
with central park area and ornamental hedgerows. Again,
this problem appears to be more common with newer parks due,
in large part, to the greater number of homes involved in
each park, and the need to maintain control over maintenance
costs.
Rent Control
Rent control is a system of regulations which
restrict the amount of rent or rent increases a landlord may
charge for accommodation. The prime purpose is to make it
possible for tenants to find and keep decent rental
accommodation at reasonable rents. In British Columbia rent
control provides for a rent increase only once in a one year
period, and this is tied to the rental unit, and there is
provision for a fixed maximum percentage annual rent
increase. These provisions are laid down in Part IV of the
Landlord and Tenant Act, Sections 24-29 (h) . A separate
provision for owners of a mobile home park, Subsection
29(g)(4), provides that upon application of an owner of a mobile home park a rate of rent increase may be set which is 156 greater than that specified in section 27(2) in respect of that park upon such terms and conditions as may be specified by a Rent Review Commission.
The topic of rent control produced some heated discussion with park managers and a number of valid arguments against this system were put forth. In all instances where the subject was raised it was stressed that rent control has led to a shortage of mobile home pads. In comparing park rental rates, old and new, and from conversations with operators, it is apparent that many park operators were caught with low rents at the time controls were instituted and have been unable to receive an adequate return on their investment. These were generally the older, small-scale operations where the business today could only be considered as marginal.
Low return is thought by some operators to have contributed to a lower standard of park maintenance, since the money for repairs and improvements is not there, and to the fact that some park operators work at least part-time at another job. Rent controls were blamed as the cause of a decreasingly viable business operation, an inability to expand the park operation, and, in at least three cases, for getting out of the mobile home park business completely.
Not all of the park operators contacted in this study conveyed the message that they were discouraged with the current economic picture for parks. Most of the larger 157
parks appear to be doing quite well, although tie-in sales
play an important role in their business. Moreover,
several operators of small parks regard the business as a
low pressure, enjoyable way of making a living and the park
is seen as more of a neighbourhood than conventional tract
housing. Certainly the idea of closing down the park given
the existing rental situation was far from the minds of
these park owners.
Rent controls are seen as a cause of the shortage
of mobile home pads and, therefore, the cause of waiting
lists for admission to many parks. Waiting lists are
thought to be one cause of the willingness of some buyers to
accept inflated retail costs for new and used mobile homes
tied to a space. This aspect goes a long way in disproving
the commonly accepted theory that mobile homes depreciate at
a rate not much slower than automobile depreciation. For
example, in one park a nine year old unit was selling for
the same price as some brand new and near new units in the
park.
Maintaining waiting lists was questioned by one park owner who had never kept such a record of inquiries.
The lists were seen as just another ploy for generating
false hope among existing and potential mobile home owners.
Why, indeed, keep waiting lists when the vacancy rate in parks is so low that an applicant could remain on 'the list1 for a period of years? 158
It was indicated by some park operators that due to the decreasing return on investment, they have been inclined to withdraw their property from the rental market and convert it into either strata title residential developments or to sell the park for redevelopment to another land use.
This has caused alarm among some elderly tenants who indicated they feel unable to purchase a strata title pad, who are content with stable and familiar park management, and who are unable to find another park to move into. The situation is desperate for some of these tenants for a variety of personal circumstances, and is somewhat similar to conversion of rental apartments into individually owned suites. The problem for the mobile home owner, whether he be in the lower mainland or Vancouver Island, is that no suitable alternative is to be found in these areas without considerably more personal sacrifice, financial or other• wise, than that which faces the apartment dweller, as the fact remains that the mobile home park tenant is left with a home and nowhere to put it.
If one accepts the premise that rent control creates an artificial rental market, a case can be made for those park operators who are of the opinion that they are subsidizing their tenants. The comment was made: "why should the law require park operators to provide a subsidy for senior citizens, many of whom live in mobile home parks and who receive other forms of government shelter 159 allowance?" Judging by the comments of several score of park tentants contacted during the survey as to the financial position they enjoy, compared to living in conventional housing, and the indicated low vacancy rates, it is evident that park tenants who are living in a rent controlled tenancy are less willing to move. It is possible therefore that rent control has contributed to the reduced mobility of mobile home owners in the housing sector in general.
Finally, it is commonly held that rent control will generally tend to favour the established in situ tenant rather than newcomers. The following statement attributed to one park owner aptly describes the study parks:
"Controls tend to benefit the old rather than the young, and childless middle-aged people rather than young families, who move more often."
Problems in Older Parks
It will be apparent by now that there is no entity that could be considered a typical mobile home park.
Similarly, there is no such thing as a typical older mobile home park. A portion of the older study parks do, however, present problems, beyond those already discussed, that are not found in other older parks. 160
Motel-type Parks
It was indicated in Chapter Five that 2 0 percent of the study parks were combined motel and trailer court operations. Two of these developments are located in White
Rock and are resort-oriented on a year-round basis. Neither park could be described as offensive in terms of appearance, location, etc., and one actually resembles a smaller edition of those parks depicted in promotional brochures for mobile home living in the Arizona desert.
The remaining motel-type parks are, to put it mildly, poor examples of residential environments. The list of faults in these parks is long — the very antithesis of essential site planning. High density, minimal grounds and unit upkeep, pavement landscaping, and commercial location are among the readily observable deficiencies. Yet these parks are among the oldest existing in the lower mainland, and many tenants have resided in them for years.
As legal non-conforming uses under zoning regulations, changes in some aspects of the land use might threaten continuation of other non-conforming elements.
This is in part a legal and political problem, legal in terms of the technicalities of zoning and political at least with respect to the uncertainties of public hearings on rezoning and subsequent municipal council decisions. A second reason related to the first is that the management of these parks tends to be less than professional, and avoids effort and risk-taking that would be undertaken by a well- informed, profit-maximizing entrepreneur. These two reasons combine in an appearance of inertia which helps explain the poor environmental standards and no doubt implies very limited access to capital for improvements.
The third reason is the historical counterpart of the zoning and entrepreneurial aspects currently existing.
The mobile home units in motel and tourist courts were originally transients and as some became in fact permanent were traditionally not the primary orientation of the operation. This seems to remain in the thinking of the operators, even though these operators reported that mobile homes constitute the greater part of their revenues or at least pick up the slack during the off season for tourists.
A possible fourth reason for maintaining a combined tourist and mobile home park operation has to do with the rent control regulations. It may be that the exemption from rent controls accorded hotels and other transient accommodations would be attributed to the entire operation.
Poor Design and Maintenance
The most notable example of just how bad a park can be, particularly in an urban setting, is located in Surrey near the Patullo Bridge. The park is a visual blight in an already low quality strip commercial development at the northern end of the King George Highway. Overhead wiring seems to be everywhere in this park; there is no order in the placement of mobile units; some units are tilted, others still have their wheels and chassis visible, and many have poor skirting or none at all. The units in this park are not all old and substandard models, and in another park setting could appear quite respectable. In this park the problem is simply lack of good design and of adequate maintenance.
Economic Pressure
The reality of economic pressure for redevelopment poses another problem for operators of older parks. Aware that some older parks, because of their location along commercial corridors and near commercial centres, are increasingly becoming uneconomic land uses, park operators are placed in a precarious position. The more the value of commercial land rises, the less viable such a park becomes.
Financial pressure is placed on park owners and transferred to tenants, who can only afford so much.
Summary
The case study of park conditions and characteris• tics provided in Chapter Five and subsequent determination and discussion of problems related to these parks outlined in this chapter would indicate that some form of remedial action is required. Such action should begin by addressing the more pressing issues facing the park system in the lower 163 mainland. The preceding analysis identifies some of these issues as: the lack of available and affordable park space; the need for park upgrading in some instances; the need to expand existing parks, where feasible; the need to identify more suitable locations for parks; and the need to examine pitfalls in park tenancy arrangements. The basis of a policy framework to account for particular park requirements is presented next. CHAPTER SEVEN
CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND
SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY
Conclusions
Perhaps the most appropriate method for concluding a study such as this is to first comment on the impressions one is left with regarding the stereotyped older park, that much maligned corner of the housing market. The 'older' park has been the focus of this thesis and what is provided here is an interpretation based on rather extensive research and analysis.
Although many of these collections of box-shaped houses one passes along the road seem without character, pride or permanence, it has been a personal lesson that these are areas where ordinary people live. While they may be only a temporary home for some, they have been the preferred and permanent homes of many people for years.
Some live there by choice and some by need, but whatever the reason, the unalienable right to live there can never be ignored. To talk about eradication of mobile home parks is irresponsible and an infringement of a basic right to shelter.
164 165
It is apparent that one or two of the study parks resemble little more than mobile construction camps. There is a slum air about these parks but the term 'slum' is not really suitable for these areas because they vary so far from the norm in park design and purpose. Other parks are superlative examples of pleasant and well-planned residential environments. The decision as to park quality is, then, like so many qualitative judgments in life, a function of personal and societal values and biases. What is adequate and functional shelter to one person can be substandard and offensive to another.
If it is the continued existence of older parks that is of concern to some people, it may be that the readily apparent problems in older parks can be construed more as institutional in nature rather than as defects that can be corrected by camouflaging or by removing them.
Inherent defects in park design are an aspect of our residential surroundings that we may have to tolerate just as we do in the case of poorly designed row housing, public housing, and so on.
Are the older parks a problem? To answer this question one must inquire further by asking, "for whom are these parks a problem — the residents, the park owner or operator, the public, or local government?" It is apparent that the nature and extent of the problem, if and where it exists, differs in each case. The interpretation provided 166
here is that certain issues need to be resolved but that
very few older parks in the lower mainland could be
categorically described as a problem.
If it is physical design and standards that are a
problem, it remains for that concern to be strongly
vocalized by park residents. This seems to be an issue for
anybody but the actual residents. The residents are, by and
large, content with their style of living. Older mobile
home parks are not the same as housing subdivisions; this is
obvious, yet difficult for some to accept.
The older parks, with only a few exceptions, are
often a visual pleasure in the face of monotonous and
conventional uniformity in housing. They are a unique way
of living and because they represent diversity, or a
departure from the conventional, they are suspect. The
stares, the frowns, and the official frustrations are an
expression of bewilderment.
Mobile home parks, notably the smaller and older
ones, are victims of changing times. Just as the corner
grocery is suffering the ravages of economies of scale, so
the small park is often only clinging to continued operation by the sheer determination of owners and tenants.
Stubbornly resisting market forces such as escalating land
value, many parks in the lower mainland may have a pre•
determined destiny. 167
Of course there are degrees of upgrading and improvement that could and should occur in a portion of older mobile home parks; at least that is the perspective from this analysis. However, the decision that something should be done and the decisions of what to do and how to do it should be largely a function of the wishes of those most directly concerned.
Most parks remain for the residents a viable alternative to conventional housing. Certainly where rental accommodation is at a premium, along with affordable housing, parks are tolerated and sometimes defended for their capacity to absorb the demand for home ownership. In the lower mainland it may be that ultimately a point will be reached where the economic rent levels in parks exceed the capacity and/or willingness of individuals to pay for a space to park their mobile homes. In other words, the market may determine local government planning objectives with respect to mobile home parks. This will certainly be an evolutionary process, with parks of all forms and vintages remaining for many years to come.
Mobile home parks, old and new, represent a unique form of land and dwelling tenure. The problems arising from this arrangement are sufficient to justify close and judicious scrutiny of the landlord and tenant relationship.
It is evident that many of these problems stem from the shortage of affordable park spaces in the lower mainland. 168
Indeed this aspect of mobile home parks is critical to the long-term viability of this type of residential development.
Finally, one can conclude that official attitudes toward mobile home parks are only slowly changing and the attitude displayed toward the older parks can generally be described as negative. They are perhaps tolerated as an interim measure in the process of achieving a stable residential community. It is essential that local governments become more responsive to the issues at hand if the pressures on the existing park system are to be relieved.
Recommendations
The recommendations suggested here reflect such priorities as the need to provide more mobile home spaces, to upgrade some existing older parks, to resolve the issue of tenant displacement and related tenancy problems in mobile home parks, and to attempt a more comprehensive approach by all sectors of the community concerned with the place of mobile home parks in Greater Vancouver. These suggestions are based on the assumption that mobile home parks are going to be a permanent part of the housing supply in the lower mainland. They are meant to be rational and to stimulate discussion and sound policy action that will enable mobile homes to effect a more viable integration with other types of housing.
In the first place land must be made available for the development of new mobile home parks and the expansion 169 of existing parks. The process will draw on municipal land assembly and provincial involvement via the use of Crown land.
It should be made easier to expand existing parks where expansion is possible, feasible and desired by park owners and tenants. Permission to expand could require reducing densities where appropriate. Any changes along this line will mean a study of the regulations and attitude biases encountered by park owners. Provincial and federal housing officials could promote seminars and workshops for local and regional government to help determine the role of older parks in a particular community's housing supply. A major thrust of this effort should be the discouragement of ideas relating to parks being an interim land use.
Audiovisual techniques could be employed that show exactly what the subject is, what it can be, and the variety of parks within municipalities in B.C.
Park upgrading involves an attempt to resolve some existing problems in older parks. This of course will be difficult and there is much controversy as to whether or not municipalities have the authority to require mobile home owners and park operators to upgrade parks and units on a retroactive basis. The problem requires the attention of both provincial and municipal authorities.
A recent report states, "In the final analysis, governments can best upgrade existing mobile home parks by 170 making land available for new developments under new 113 regulated standards." This comment evades the issue at hand. Amendments to the Municipal Act should be enacted to require municipalities to use stringent park inspection procedures. Modified occupancy and maintenance standards could be applied to older parks, keeping in mind that these areas were developed prior to existing model park by-laws.
In their own way the older parks can be compared to older conventional residential neighbourhoods displaying characteristics not found in modern subdivisions. Neverthe• less, because the parks were developed at another time and under different conditions does not preclude the need for renovation and improvement.
Action could be initiated by requiring units of a condition determined to be substandard to be phased out of parks in stages, and by preventing the sale of substandard units, those below minimum maintenance standards. The condition of some older mobile units in terms of poor plumbing, electrical and structural components, is such that they are really only marketable commodities when situated in a park.
Some of the costs of upgrading will have to be shared among the concerned parties. For example, the question of reducing park density means also reducing a park operator's income. To enforce compliance with regulations designed for new parks is not realistic but at the same time 171 changes must be made which should not be solely at the expense of a park owner. Residents whose homes are substandard should be compensated at a determined rate and assistance given to find alternative accommodation. Every effort must be made to allow residents to remain in a park if they wish. The possibility of access to good-quality pre-owned mobile homes should be investigated.
Another method of park upgrading, in terms of the condition of the mobile homes, could involve an adaptation of the federal Residential Rehabilitation Assistance
Program. The objective of this program is to assist in the repair and improvement of existing substandard housing and to promote its subsequent maintenance. Beyond improving poor housing conditions and the need to preserve older residential areas, both of which apply to some older parks, the program is a means to facilitate the conservation of our existing housing stock and the massive investment it represents. Assistance is provided in the form of loans up to $10,000 per unit, part of which is forgiveable depending upon level of family income.
Upgrading of some older parks is a complex issue and requires judicious consideration of the interests and rights of individuals involved. It is agreed by all of those concerned with this issue that varying degrees of upgrading are essential to an improved image for this segment of the mobile home park population, as these parks 172 are often the most visible to the most people. Government at all levels can play a leading and beneficial role in this process.
One of the most practical ways of enhancing originally unimaginative park design and easing the harsh• ness of mobile home lines is to use suitably scaled landscaping. Some of the older parks studied are well endowed with natural vegetation and landscaping and this feature makes a world of difference in the appearance of the park. Creative landscaping should be considered a necessity in any program of upgrading.
With regard to the location of mobile home parks it has been found that the major drawback is their location along major traffic arteries, with the potential for commercial and small-scale industrial development. This aspect supports the idea of parks as interim land use and contributes to poor physical maintenance, especially during the period prior to redevelopment. Therefore, it is recommended that local municipal by-laws incorporate regulations which locate future park development not on, but in proximity to major arteries and essential services. An off-artery location would promote a sense of permanency for parks.
The location should be within an urban framework, not a rural subdivision-type park removed from the services network and the residential focus of a community. If mobile 173 homes are to be recognized as an acceptable form of housing and residential development, they must be located, wherever possible, away from commercial and industrial areas and freeways. Although this action will not help parks now located in poor areas, it is a criteria to be considered should a major effort at redevelopment occur.
In locating mobile home parks the needs of future residents should be kept in mind. For example, the orientation of many parks toward senior citizens implies that such parks should be in proximity to the types of facilities required by this segment of the population. It is a common argument that the traffic generated by parks requires that they be located along high capacity roadways.
More often than not the older residents of parks are not as mobile as residents of conventional subdivisions, thereby resulting in less concentrated traffic. In fact many park residents are not even in the park for a portion of the year, due to a growing tendency to live in a similar environment in the southern United States. Operators contacted during the survey indicated that it. was not unusual for many residents to winter in Florida, Arizona or
California.
Parks should be located and designed in a fashion which improves the surrounding area. Clustering of parks should be avoided since mobile home park "strip development" produces negative reactions from present and potential 174 residents of adjacent areas. Parks are often found in groups due to local zoning regulations and historical development.
A final recommendation involves the relationship between park operators and residents. To begin with, this unique landlord/tenant arrangement should be carefully- examined in light of the special types of private property involved - the mobile home and the park.
Entrance fees which exist in some parks are a reflection of the scarcity of mobile home sites in the lower mainland. This is a difficult legal issue with which to deal and it would require lengthy investigation to substantiate the facts in court.
It would be possible for legislation to introduce mandatory lease arrangements in parks where entrance fees are charged and, in so doing, reduce or eliminate the threat of eviction. This action would avoid the central issue of the unreasonable costs borne by some mobile home owners upon entering a park. However, a reasonable alternative would be to permit such a fee as it pertains to only those specific costs of site preparation for the park operator.
With regard to the practice of closed parks it has been found that most of the older parks have managed to continue operation without this type of restriction on the entrance of mobile homes into the park. Nevertheless, the problem does exist in some instances and is common among 175 newer parks. To deal with this problem effectively it could be made an offence to operate a closed park, and thereby break dealer control of park spaces. The Municipality of
Langley now requires that any future park development in the area must be subject to a municipal park policy preventing closed parks from being established. This action might have the effect of discouraging any private park development interests due to the lack of private control over operation.
A more rational approach would be to require park operators to set aside a fixed percentage of park space for home owners who purchased their mobile unit somewhere else.
The Residential Tenancy Act should be examined to discern how much authority a park operator should have in preventing the sale of substandard units within a park.
Some operators contacted during the study reported no control over the possibility of upgrading their parks when residents were allowed to sell at will a mobile home in any condition. Moreover it could be argued that a park operator is entitled to a share of the profit made through the sale of a home which may be advantageously situated in his park.
r Finally, the system of rental rates for mobile home parks should be studied to determine when those parks providing a high standard of service are not being permitted to charge a realistic rate or one which permits an adequate return on the investment. 176
Any legislation put forward to deal with the unique problems of mobile home parks, both old and new, must keep in mind that the majority of parks function in a fair and efficient manner. Legislation designed to protect tenants may have the result of making this form of accommodation less available than it is now. The remedies designed for the tenants or the park operators must meet the specific needs peculiar to mobile home parks.
This investigation has discussed the forces at work in a representative collection of mobile home parks. The research process and the results obtained have been productive, and it is thought that the problems identified will help to conceptualize what is a much more complex issue than first meets the eye. If implemented, the recommenda• tions suggested could do much to redirect efforts to alleviate the problems surrounding this curious entity — the older mobile home park.
Suggestions for Further Study
The possibilities for research into related aspects of the mobile home park issue are extensive indeed. The need for this research has been alluded to previously in various sections of this study.
There is a need to examine in detail the relation• ship between landlord and tenant in mobile home parks. Such a study could elaborate on the legal and practical realities of the current situation and it could also place the 177 historical development of this relationship in perspective.
Given that some parks exist where physical upgrading is required, it will be prerequisite to explore the ways in which such action should and could be taken. On what basis can a decision to require compliance with this type of regulation be made? To what standard must these parks be improved? Who is responsible for assisting in the relocation of displaced park tenants? Moreover, what are the projected implications in social and financial terms of park upgrading?
What does the future hold for the mobile home industry and park development? Trends need to be researched in order to establish a sound basis for making planning and policy decisions around park development and redevelopment.
The hypothesis one could begin with might concern the long and short range validity of interim land use for mobile home parks.
What are the economic implications of mobile home ownership and park living, and does an economic threshold exist beyond which this type of housing becomes unfeasible?
Regional differences in method, degree, and success of financing could be investigated.
Finally, it would be interesting to study the nature of the rural and small town oriented mobile home park. Do similar problems exist and is it simply a matter 178 of scale, or are there other processes at work in these parks? What is the impact of mobile home park living on rural or small-scale urban housing markets? FOOTNOTES
"'"L. A. Mayer, "Mobile Homes Move Into the Breach," Fortune Magazine, March 1970, p. 127. 2 The Vancouver Sun, November 15, 1977. 3 R. L. Knight, "Planners and Mobile Home Research," Socio- Eoonomio Planning, June 1971, p. 213. Loo. cit. 5 M. Audain, Mobile Homes - Problems and Prospects, Victoria, 1975, p. 45. ^Nova Scotia, Department of Consumer Affairs, The Mobile Home And The Way It Can Be, Halifax, 1977, p. 86. 7 E. Kendall, "The Invisible Suburb," Horrzon, 1971, p. 18 6. g H. Davidson, Housing Demand: Mobile, Modular, or Conventional? Van Nostrand, 1973, p. 27. 9 Ibid., p. 28 . "^Canadian Standards Association, Mobile Home Parks - C.S.A. Standard Z240.7.1-1972, C.S.A. , 1972, p. 5.
"'""'"Joint Study Team On Mobile Homes, Mobile Homes - Recommendations For Alternate Federal Government Actions, Ottawa, 1977, p. 2. 12 Nova Scotia, Department of Consumer Affairs, op. cit., p. 236.
13r hoc. cvt. 14 Nova Scotia, op. c%t.,^.. 244. 15 New Brunswick, Community Planning Act N.B. Regulation 73-44, Fredericton, 1973, p. 1. ^^Corporation of the District of Surrey, Surrey Zoning By-law No. 2265, Surrey, 1964 . 17 C.S.A., op. cut., p. 7.
179 180 18 Corporation of the Township of Langley, Mobile Park Regulation and Control By-law No. 1505, Langley, 1975, p. 1.
^Ibid., p. 2. 20 Audain, op. cit., p. 12. ^Ibid. , p . 13 . 22 R. Sykes, "Mobile Homes in Calgary," Lifestyle For Tomorrow, CMHTTA, 1974, p. 5. 23 Mike Moose, ed., The Immobile Home Syndrome, Arkansas University, Department of Architecture, 1973, p. 18. 24 Ibid. , p . 22 . 25 Ibid. , p . 27 . 2 6 E. Bartley and F. Bair, Mobile Home Parks and Comprehensive Community Planning, University of Florida, 19 60, p. 15. 27 Moose, op. art., p. 30. 28 American Society of Planning Officials, Regulation of Modular Housing, With Special Emphasis on Mobile Homes, ASPO Planning Advisory Service, 1971, p. 30. 29
Davidson, op. cit., p. 32.
Moose, op. cit., p. 38. 31 M. Drury, Mobile Homes: The Unrecognized Revolution in American Housing, Praeger, 1972, p. 14. 32 Kendall, op. ext., p. 187. 33 Davidson, op. ext., p. 38. 34 American Society of Planning Officials, op. cit., p. 34. 35 Davidson, op. cit., p. 40. 3 6 Fianik Young, "The Stick-Built Syndrome: Fighting the Prejudice," Housing: Policies and Programs, P. Homemuck, ed., York University, 1974, p. 68. 37 Ibid., p. 70. 3 8 Drury, op. cit., p. 20. 181 o q Nova Scotia, Department of Consumer Affairs, op. cit., p. 21. ^Davidson, op. cit. , p. 20.
41Ibid., p. 22.
42Joint Study Team, op', cit., p. 3.
4 3r ., hoc. cit.
44Center For Auto Safety, Mobile Homes, The Low-Cost Housing Hoax, Grossman, 1975, p. 1. 4 5 Joint Study Team, op. cit. , p. 25. 46Audain, op. cit. , p. 8.
4 7r Loc. c%t.
48r Loc. cit. 4 9 . Joint Study Team, op. cit., p. 27. ^°Center For Auto Safety, op. cit., p. 15. 51 1 Audain, op. cit., p. 8. 5 2 Nova Scotia, Department of Consumer Affairs, op. cit., p. 6. 53 Bartley and Bair, op. cit., p. 12. 54 Drury, op. cit., p. 59. Roda Contractor, "Attitudes of Mobile Home Owners Toward Mobile Home Parks," Master's Thesis, University of British Columbia, 1972, p. 40.
^^Joint Study Team, op. cit., p. 101.
57r ., Loc. cit.
CO Nova Scotia, Department of Consumer Affairs, op. cit., p. 26. 59
Joint Study Team, op. cit., p. 31.
60Ibid., p. 40.
61Ibid., p. 34.
6 ^Ibid., p. 3 5. 182
^Ibid., p. 36. 64 Audain, op. c%t. , p. 40. ^Nova Scotia, Department of Consumer Affairs, op. eit., p . 23. 6 6 M. Wehrly, Mob-Lie Home Parks: Part 2, Urban Land Institute, 1972, p. 11. 6 7 Bartley and' Bair, op. ait., p. 14. 6 8 Audain, op. cit., p. 43. 69 R. Newcomb, Mobile Home Parks: Part 1, Washington, Urban Land Institute, 1971, p. 38. ~^®Ibid.,P - 39.
^^Ibid., P- 40.
^^Ibid., P- 40. 7 3
Bartley and Bair, op: cit., p. 47.
^^Newcomb, op. cit., p. 44.
Bartley and Bair, op. cit., p. 38.
16Ibid., p. 40.
11 Ibid., p. 38.
78r hoc. c%t., 19Ibid., p. 46. O Q Audain, op. cit., p. 39. P i Center For Auto Safety, op. cit., p. 56. 8 2 Drury, op. cit., p. 121. 8 3 Joint Study Team, op. cit., p. 12. p A Center For Auto Safety, op. cit., p. 54. 8^Ibid., p. 57. 8 6 Davidson, op. cit., p. 143. 183 87 Bartley and Bair, op. cit.', p. 75. 8 8 Drury, op. cit., p. 135.
8 9r .. Loc. cit. , 90 Bartley and Bair, op. ext., p. 77. ^^Ibid. , p . 78 . 92 Drury, op. cit., p. 111. 93 Davidson, op. ext., p. 143. 94 Bartley and Bair, op. ext., p. 82. 95Ibid. , p. 89. 96 Ibid. , p . 91. 97 British Columbia, Municipal Act, Queen's Printer, 1977, p. 109. 98 Joint Study Team, op. ext., p. 80. 99
Audain, op. ext., p. 21.
100Joint Study Team, op. cit., p. 81. 10''"National Research Council of Canada, National Building Code of Canada 1970, Ottawa, 197 0. 102 Canadian Standards Association, op. ext., p. 18. ^^Ibid., p. 23. 104r ., Loc. ext. 105 Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Sxte Plannxng For Mobile Homes, CMHC, 1972, p. 6.
106T, _ Ibxd., p. 7 . 107 R. Slater, "Mobile Home Park Development," Lifestyle For Tomorrow, CMHTTA, 1974, p. 9. 108 Burnaby, Mobile Home Study, Burnaby Planning Department, 1969, p. 1. 109 British Columbia, Municipal Act, Queen's Printer, 1977, p. 123. 184
Law Reform Commission of B.C., Residential Tenancies, Vancouver, 1975.
J. Nevitt, The Nature of Rent Controlling Legislation in the U.K., Harper, 1974.
British Columbia, Residential Tenancy Act, Queen's Printer, 1977, p. 19.
Nova Scotia, op. cit., p. 220. LITERATURE CITED
Alberta Department of Municipal Affairs, Provincial Planning Branch. Mobile Homes in Alberta. Edmonton, 1973.
American Society of Planning Officials. The Changing Function of Trailer Parks. Chicago: ASPO Planning Advisory Service Information Report No. 84, 1956.
American Society of Planning Officials. Regulation of Modular Housing, with Special Emphasis on Mobile Homes. Chicago: ASPO Planning Advisory Service, July-August, 1971.
Audain, Michael J. Mobile Homes - Problems and Prospects. Victoria: Queen's Printer. November 1975.
Bartley, E. R. and Bain, F. H. Jr. Mobile Home Parks and Comprehensive Community Planning. Gainesville, Florida, University of Florida, 1960.
Behrend, Herbert. "Mobile Homes and New Communities," Journal of the Urban Planning and Development Division. November 1974, pp. 181-189.
Bestor, George C. "The Challenge of Residential Land Planning, " Journal of the Urban Planning and Development Division. (ASCE) . June 1967, pp. 27-92.
British Columbia, Department of Health. Health Act. B.C. Regulation 239/67, Order-in-Couneil 770.3130, Victoria, October 1967.
British Columbia, Department of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce. Mobile Homes in British Columbia - A Socio-Economic Study. Victoria, March 1971.
British Columbia, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Mobile Home Act. Queen's Printer, Victoria, 1977.
. Model Mobile Home Park Bylaw. Victoria, July 1977.
British Columbia. Municipal Act. Victoria, Queen's Printer, 1977.
Burnaby, British Columbia. Mobile Home Study. Burnaby Planning Department, 1969.
185 186
Canada Department of Industry, Trade, and Commerce. The Mobile Rome in Canada. Information Canada, Ottawa, 197 0.
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Site Planning For Mobile Homes. Ottawa, CMHC, 1972.
Canadian Mobile Home and Travel Trailer Association. Brief to the Federal Task Force on Housing and Urban Development.
. Proceedings of the Lifestyle for Tomorrow Workshop. Home and Roadshow 1974. Toronto, CMHTTA, 1974.
Canadian Mobile Home Association. The Mobile Home in Canada. Toronto, Canadian Mobile Home Association, 1975.
Canadian Standards Association. Mobile Home Parks - C.S.A. Standard Z240.7.1-1972. Rexdale, Ontario, Canadian Standards Association, 1972.
Centre for Auto Safety. Mobile Homes, the Low Cost Housing Hoax. Grossman, New York, 1975.
City of Calgary. Mobile Home Parks - Their Present Inadequacies and Recommended Solutions. Calgary, Planning Department, 1971.
City of Edmonton. Mobile Home Parks in the Urban Environment. Edmonton, Planning Department, 1968.
Contractor, Roda. "Attitudes of Mobile Home Owners Toward Mobile Home Parks." Master's Thesis, Vancouver, University of British Columbia, School of Community and Regional Planning, 1972.
Corporation of the District of Coquitlam. Mobile Home By-Law. Coquitlam Planning Department, 1976.
Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge. Mobile Homes Park By-Law, No. 2315. Maple Ridge, 1975.
Corporation of the District of Matsqui. Mobile Home Park By- Law, No. 849. Matsqui, 1968 .
Corporation of the District of Surrey. Compact/Multiple Housing Study.- Surrey Planning Department, January 1978.
. Surrey Zoning By-Law, No. 2265. Surrey, 1964 .
Corporation of the Township of Langley. Mobile Park Regulation and Control By-Law, No. 1505. Langley, 1975. 187
Council of Planning Librarians. Mobile Homes in Canada: An Introductory Bibliography. Exchange Bibliography No. 1074, 1976 .
Davidson, Harold A. Housing Demand; Mobile, Modular, or Conventional? New York, Van Nostrand, 1973.
Donnelly, Sharon M. Mobile Homes in Calgary. Calgary, Mount Royal College, 1973.
Drury, Margaret J. Mobile Homes: The Unrecognized Revolution in American Housing. New York, Praeger, 1972.
Duke, R. D. "Mobility - A New Aspect of Community Life." Urban Land. July - August 1953.
Edmonton Regional Planning Commission. Mobile Home Court Study. Edmonton, September 1968.
Edwards, Carl M. "Mobile Homes in the Future of Housing." In Mobile Homes: Legal and Business Problems. Goldrich, ed. New York, Practising Law Institute, 1969.
Engstrom, R. E. "Mobile Homes in Transition." Urban Land. May 1972, pp. 3-7.
Fogarty, Frank. "Trailer Parks; The Wheeled Suburbs." Architectural Forum. July 1959, pp. 127-131.
French, R. M. "Mobile Homes: Instant Suburbia or Portable Slums." Social Problems. Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 218-226.
French, R. M. and Hadden, J. K. "Analysis of the Distribution and Characteristics of Mobile Homes in America." Land Economics. May 1965.
Gibson, Constance B. Policy Alternatives for Mobile Homes. New Jersey, Rutgers University, Centre for Urban Policy Research, 1972.
Hodes, Barnet and Roberson, Gale G. The Law of Mobile Homes. New York, Commerce Clearing House, 1964.
Johnson, Sheila K. Idle Haven - Community Building Among the Working Class Retired. Los Angeles, University of California Press, 1971.
Joint Study Team on Mobile Homes. Mobile Homes - Recommendations For Alternate Federal Government Actions. A Report to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Ottawa, September, 19 77. 188
Kendall, Elaine. "The Invisible Suburb." Horizon. 19 71.
Knight, Robert L. "Planners and Mobile Home Research." Socio-Economic Planning. June 1971, pp. 213-220.
Lakehead Planning Board. Mobile Home Park Study. Thunder Bay, November 1972.
Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board. Draft Report on Mobile Home Developments. New Westminster, June 1968 .
Lynch, Kevin. Site Planning. Cambridge, Mass., M.I.T. Press, 1971.
Manitoba, Department of Urban Development and Municipal Affairs. Guidelines for Locating and Designing Mobile Homes Parks. Winnipeg, Municipal Planning Branch, March 1970.
Martini, Eugene. "Mobile Homes - Immobile Landscape." Landscape Architecture. Fall 1960, pp. 14-18.
Mayer, L. A. "Mobile Homes Move Into the Breach." Fortune. March 1970, p. 126.
Mays, Arnold H. "Zoning For Mobile Homes - A Legal Analysis." Journal of the American Institute of Planners. Vol. 27, No. 3, August 1967, pp. 204-211.
McAusland, P., ed. Mobile Homes and Park Development. Ottawa, CPAC, Saskatchewan Division, 1975.
Mitchell, Harris. "Don't laugh: your next home may be mobile." Canadian Homes, January 1971.
Mobile Home Manufacturers Association. "Study of a Proposed Mobile Home Park." The Appraisal Journal. Vol. 39, No. 1, January 1971, pp. 52-56.
"Mobile Homes Are Here to Stay." Building Official. January 1969, pp. 6-8.
Moore, D. G. Life Styles in Mobile Suburbia. Ithaca, New York, Cornell University Press, 1964.
Morris, E. W. and Wood's, M. Housing Crisis and Response: The Place of Mobile Homes in American Life. Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1971.
Moose, Mike, ed. The Immobile Home Syndrome. Little Rock, Arkansas University, Department of Architecture, 1973. 189
National Research Council of Canada. National Building Code of Canada 1970. Ottawa, 1970.
New Brunswick, Community Planning Act. N.B. Reg. 73-44 . Fredericton, 1973.
Newcomb, Robinson. Mobile Home Parks: Part 1 - An Analysis of Characteristics. Washington, D.C, Urban Land Institute, 1971.
Nova Scotia, Department of Consumer Affairs. The Mobile Home And The Way It Can Be. Halifax, 1977 .
Nova Scotia Housing Commission. Mobile Home Parks - Trends and Standards. Halifax, Nova Scotia Housing Commission, 1970.
Par shall, S. A. and Preiser, W. E., eds. Proceedings of the Mobile Home Seminar. Urbana, Department of Architecture, Urbana - Champaign, 1976.
Peace River Regional Planning Commission. Mobile Homes and Their Place in the Urban Community. Grande Prairie, Alberta, January 196 9.
Red Deer Regional Planning Commission. Mobile Home Parks - Recommended Standards, August 1970.
Regional District of Fraser-Fort George. The Motionless Mobile Home. Prince George, August 1970.
Roberts, J. and Gray, George. Mobile Homes and Mobile Home Parks in Dane County, Wisconsin. A Report of Responses From Mobile Home Residents and Local Government Officials. February 1974.
Schorr, A. R. "Families On Wheels." Harper's. January 1958.
Starr, K. O. "Guidelines for Mobile Home Park Development." The Appraisal Journal. Vol. 39, No. 1, January 1971, pp. 41-51.
Sussna, Stephen. "Mobile Home Parks and American Municipalities." Journal of the Urban Planning and Development Division. December 1971, pp. 139-148.
Sykes, R. "Mobile Homes in Canada." Housing and People. Vol. 6, Nos. 3 and 4, Fall 1975, pp. 10-12.
Symonds, Diana. Standards for Mobile Home Developments in the Urban Area. Master's Thesis, University of Toronto, School of Urban and Regional Planning, 1970. 190
United Community Services of the Greater Vancouver Area. Mobile Home Living in the Lower Mainland. Vancouver, Social Policy and Research Department, January 1971.
Vance, M. Mobile Home Parks. Monticello, Illinois: Council of Planning Librarians, 1961.
Wehrly, M. S. "The Evolution of the House Trailer." Urban Land. No. 3, March 1967, pp. 1-12.
. Mobile Home Parks: Part 2 - An Analysis of Communities. Washington, D.C. Urban Land Institute, 1972.
Wright, Roy. "Occupancy and Maintenance Standards for Mobile Home Parks in British Columbia." Unpublished Report, Victoria: Department of Housing, British Columbia, 1974.
. "Design and Location Criteria for Mobile Home Parks in British Columbia." Unpublished Report, Victoria: Department of Housing, British Columbia, 1974.
Young, Fianik. "The Stick-Built Syndrome: Fighting the Prejudice." Housing: Policies and Programs, Peter Homemuck, ed. Downsview, Ontario, York University, 1974, pp. 66-71.