Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What happens when investment firms acquire trailer parks

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 166 posts

Re: What happens when investment firms acquire trailer parks

#71

Post by pram »

dtwest wrote: post #36

Having spent a decent amount of time in one of these myself, I much prefer the term "trailer park" to "mobile-home community". The article uses the term interchangeably, but they explain this important detail themselves: "The homes in the park are not as portable as its name implies; they’ve been placed on foundations, and their hitches have been removed." In my experience, in older parks especially, there is no way…

The term I always heard is “manufactured home” which makes more sense. I grew up in a double wide. Once it’s set up you quite obviously can’t move it again without wrecking everything lol

Re: What happens when investment firms acquire trailer parks

#72

Post by clairity »

FooHentai wrote: post #33
phkahler wrote: post #18

Housing can not be both affordable AND an investment. Interest rates need to rise, and soon.

I'm not sure you're entirely correct. A lot of people plan on downsizing their housing when they reach retirement age - Move somewhere smaller because you don't need to accommodate the kids any more, and further out of an urban center because you don't need to commute any more. This is a net positive - It frees up more valuable real estate in urban centers for working-age citizens to utilize, and extracts capital fro…

that's a false dichotomy. you can support freeing up urban real estate and retirees downsizing without assuming a house is an investment. for instance, if the economic system acted to stabilize home values neutrally rather than explicitly promoting increasing valuations (through interest rates, and other mechanisms), you could still have those positive dynamics without the negative externalities.

Re: What happens when investment firms acquire trailer parks

#73

Post by decebalus1 »

Afton wrote: post #39
CalRobert wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Building a basic house is pretty simple. Larry Haun put out a great book with Habitat for Humanity to do it for about $40,000, and irishvernacular.com/ outlines how to do it for €25,000. But we induce scarcity in the housing market because if everyone had a comfortable, decent home, they might not work so hard, would they? Imagine how much less value would be created for assetholders, how much less stuff we would mak…

Is this really how you view it? Like, you think that people are plotting how to induce scarcity in the market so that they will work harder? That doesn't seem like a useful framing of the problem.

> Like, you think that people are plotting how to induce scarcity in the market so that they will work harder?

Yes. Believe it or not, there are lot of people (especially people in positions of authority/power) that believe this type of scarcity drives labor, ambition, society, etc.. forward. I mean just look at the current discussion about minimum wage and/or stimulus checks.

But with real estate, I kind of agree with you, It can be a little far fetched to extend that mentality to housing scarcity. Housing scarcity is just because current owners want to have the value kept in real estate increasing. Hard to do when there's no scarcity. Only wannabe owners complain about housing prices.

Re: What happens when investment firms acquire trailer parks

#74

Post by milkytron »

pram wrote: post #71
dtwest wrote: post #36

Having spent a decent amount of time in one of these myself, I much prefer the term "trailer park" to "mobile-home community". The article uses the term interchangeably, but they explain this important detail themselves: "The homes in the park are not as portable as its name implies; they’ve been placed on foundations, and their hitches have been removed." In my experience, in older parks especially, there is no way…

The term I always heard is “manufactured home” which makes more sense. I grew up in a double wide. Once it’s set up you quite obviously can’t move it again without wrecking everything lol

I've heard that term as well, and I suppose it's useful to have a different term for that type of home vs one that is built on its foundation from the start.

But the term manufactured home seems odd to me, aren't nearly all new homes nowadays "manufactured"?

Re: What happens when investment firms acquire trailer parks

#75

Post by hinkley »

Afton wrote: post #39
CalRobert wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Building a basic house is pretty simple. Larry Haun put out a great book with Habitat for Humanity to do it for about $40,000, and irishvernacular.com/ outlines how to do it for €25,000. But we induce scarcity in the housing market because if everyone had a comfortable, decent home, they might not work so hard, would they? Imagine how much less value would be created for assetholders, how much less stuff we would mak…

Is this really how you view it? Like, you think that people are plotting how to induce scarcity in the market so that they will work harder? That doesn't seem like a useful framing of the problem.

Of I don’t look down while I’m walking, am I guiltless for what I step on?

Re: What happens when investment firms acquire trailer parks

#76

Post by ctdonath »

Table Mound Mobile Home Park https://goo.gl/maps/8h7fxu7WjWsYzTSj9

The Park is about 90 acres. Article claims about 400 homes on site. Much laments the living conditions and abusive corporate ownership.

Why do the concerned not facilitate affordable ownership, instead leaving it up to investment firms to provide the service (badly)?

Under 2 miles away is a >150 acre parcel available for $6,000,000. Divided by 600, that’s $10,000 per quarter-acre; paid $100/mo, rent-to-own style, it’s bought outright in 10 years (or earlier as cash flow allows).

Seems a very solvable problem for a budding social-minded entrepreneur.

Re: What happens when investment firms acquire trailer parks

#77

Post by dfsegoat »

dhbradshaw wrote: post #48

After a cold snap recently I went out to visit an older couple in a trailer who had had their plumbing burst due to freezing. The trailer was in really rough shape. They were huddling under blankets because heating and insulation were inadequate. And now they had no water. Two things make me angry about the trailer park situation. 1. people living there who only get poorer from it. They own the portion of the home th…

And then when you have a natural disaster strike, you aren't necessarily guaranteed access to your home, even after disaster declarations are lifted:

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/fire-survivors-fr...

Re: What happens when investment firms acquire trailer parks

#78

Post by evancox100 »

dtwest wrote: post #36

Having spent a decent amount of time in one of these myself, I much prefer the term "trailer park" to "mobile-home community". The article uses the term interchangeably, but they explain this important detail themselves: "The homes in the park are not as portable as its name implies; they’ve been placed on foundations, and their hitches have been removed." In my experience, in older parks especially, there is no way…

Fascinating. In searching on the difference between an RV and a mobile home, I came across this gem from Frank Rolfe, who's profiled in the New Yorker article:

"If it has to be pulled by an actual truck (which is what costs the $3,000 or so in the move) then it’s a mobile home. But also remember that there is a component that can only be pulled by a truck in most RV parks, which is called the “park model”. These are like mobile homes, but do not have wheels or axles on them – they arrive on a flatbed truck – and also cost $2,000 or so to move. Since we don’t want our customers to ever leave, we only consider the type of mobile home or park model that requires expensive transport to be worthy of our investment dollars. RVs can be moved for next to nothing, so there’s no barrier and that’s too risky for us."

http://forum.mobilehomeuniversity.com/t/official-difference-...

And a long article on Rolfe from the NYT in 2014:

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/magazine/the-cold-hard-le...

Re: What happens when investment firms acquire trailer parks

#79

Post by bityard »

milkytron wrote: post #74
pram wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The term I always heard is “manufactured home” which makes more sense. I grew up in a double wide. Once it’s set up you quite obviously can’t move it again without wrecking everything lol

I've heard that term as well, and I suppose it's useful to have a different term for that type of home vs one that is built on its foundation from the start. But the term manufactured home seems odd to me, aren't nearly all new homes nowadays "manufactured"?

"Manufactured" means built in a factory and can be transported on a semi. As opposed to most buildings (in the U.S. at least) which are built on-site by a contractor.

Re: What happens when investment firms acquire trailer parks

#80

Post by goda90 »

mike_d wrote: post #50
knowaveragejoe wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Localities can fight back by reforming zoning laws & applying land value taxes instead of property taxes. In many areas of the country it is illegal to build anything but a single-family home. To people familiar with supply & demand this should be an obvious problem.

In almost every part of the US anything except a single family home should be illegal to build. Land is in extreme abundance and multi-tenant properties are almost always built and owned by corporations.

Third alternative. Multi-family homes owned by co-ops of all the residents.
Post reply on HN