Pedder Bay Trial - Claim of Proprietary Estoppel

Although our legal circumstances are different than yours we have followed your case with keen interest, as we believe the outcome will have a significant effect on laws governing manufactured homes in BC, and eventually trickle down to those of us living on First Nations' lands as well.

Many of our arguments for changes to the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act are similar to yours; however, there are additional arguments when it comes to First Nations' lands, more specifically Westbank First Nation, who operate under a unique self-government structure.

Parks are not owned as with fee simple land, rather they are held by locatees, members of the local band under long term leases, usually 99 years. Although their is no covenant on the lease stating that the land must remain a manufactured home park, the mere fact that it is a 99 year lease gives the impression of some permanence. New parks are being developed under this same structure, including those with more permanent foundations and homes which could never be called “mobile” in any sense other than delivery from the factory. Banks flock to lend money on these homes and prices mirror those for traditional “stick-built” homes. Unlike older manufactured home parks, no one suggests these parks could be redeveloped or owners given 12 month's notice, even though they operate under the very same laws. 

Over the last several decades owners of manufactured homes on First Nation's lands have been encouraged to make substantial renovations, often adding on permanent fixed additions to the original structure, rendering them completely unmoveable. Prices have escalated partly because of the improvements, but mostly because manufactured homes represent the only affordable housing left in BC. To buy these homes purchasers have required bank financing, for which the owners of the parks must sign a “site access agreement”. This basically gives the park owner the right to make the mortgage payments if there are arrears, so as not to prejudice their legal rights to collect the rents. All but one park owner has willingly signed these agreements, knowing the amounts of money that are involved. They have also approved building permits for substantial renovations, thereby encouraging owners to invest in their homes. 

Two specific facts fly in the face of the argument that we are only tenants of the land, with no legal rights beyond those specified in the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act, or in the case of First Nations, the residential tenancy laws, which are based on the Act.
 
First, we pay property taxes to WFN. It annoys us to no end when people compare renting our pads to renting apartments. We are not aware of anyone who rents an apartment and pays property tax. Secondly, this propety tax is based on an assessment done by BC Assessment, on which values have steadily increased over the years. If “mobile” homes are, in fact, a depreciating asset, as classifed by the banks, then why do the assessed values continue to escalate? The band has happily collected millions of dollars in taxes over the decades based on increasing values of our homes, yet out of the other side of their mouths they suggest we have no rights and can simply be evicted. I highly doubt that those people owning stick-built homes and paying thousands of dollars in property taxes for that right would accept being kicked out on a whim, with no compensation. 

Manufactured homes have always been a way of life in BC. The people who own them are hard-working people who have contributed thousands of dollars to the economy in renovation materials and labour, property taxes, and the taxes they pay as members of the community. To suggest they have done something wrong by investing in their homes, wrong enough to be wiped out by a greedy landlord or developer, is truly dispicable. Many of these home owners should be enjoying the fruits of their labours for all those years, enjoying a quiet and peaceful retirement in the communities they have helped to build. Instead they are being treated worse than common criminals, in danger of losing everything they have worked so hard for all their lives. 

We can only hope that common sense prevails with your judgement and that the so-far deaf provincial government listens and makes the urgent changes required to the laws. In our case we hope that First Nation's government accepts that they are still part of Canada and follows suit by amending their grossly inadequate laws as well.
 
The solution is not to suggest we can somehow stand in the way of progress. Many of the parks on First Nations are located on highly desirable and valuable land on the beach, and we respect the rights of the land “owners” to profit from the staggering increases in the value of their land.

The solution involves all stakeholders getting together to first offer home owners fair market value for their homes; develop new parks on Crown land in a public/private partnership using Land Trusts; classify manufactured homes correctly as permanent housing, which then affords owners traditional mortgage financing; relocate any existing homes that can be moved, with assisted financing to bring them up to current building codes, and offer tax incentives to those on fixed incomes to assist them with higher rental costs. This is an equitable way to treat people with the respect they deserve; continue to provide affordable housing, and meet the needs of a growing population, while still sending a positive message to developers who wish to meet the needs of the higher end market. 

To do nothing, destroying the lives of the owners of the estimated 84,000 manufactured homes in BC is truly criminal. 

Good luck in your fight for justice!   

Gary Jones
OMHOA 

The number comes from the Manufactured Homes Registry's website - “Detailed ownership and location information on approximately 84,000 registered manufactured homes is maintained in the registry”. The site is www.fin.gov.bc.ca/registries/mhrpg/default.htm.

The interesting aspect of our proposed solution was that we had made contact with a large developer in Edmonton who was interested in pursuing the public/private partnership, but our submission to the provincial government fell on deaf ears. It was a win/win for everyone involved, but there was no political will to even discuss it. Land Trusts are an effective and cost-effective solution that are being used in many other jurisdictions outside of BC.

Cheers!

Gary

You raise an interesting point on the numbers. As far as I know all manufactured homes must be “registered” in BC, although I suspect they may be some older ones that are not certified or might be “out back” on private land that I doubt are included, so there are no doubt more. There may also be other ones such as those placed around a work area by a company to house its workers, and these may not need to be registered. Bottom line - there's a whole lot of us. lol

As for the proposal I submitted to the government, well, there was a whole lot I did on this one, from suggesting the Colorado model, where “mobiles” are classified as such only while they are in transit from the factory, then they are installed and inspected by a local government official, then removed from the mobile classification and treated as permanent dwellings, just like stick-built homes. They are assessed the same, even if they are on leased land, and pay property and school taxes the same way as well. This removes much of the stigma where traditional home owners get upset that “mobiles” owners don't pay their fair share of taxes. It also allows the home owners to take advantage of conventional mortgage lending, saving them thousands of dollars in interest costs. It also means lower insurance premiums. If the owner elects to carry out renovations or build additions, they apply for a building permit just like anyone else, so consistent quality is assured. It's a great system and makes so much more sense than how we treat it in BC.

With my own home I completely gutted it and rebuilt it to current standards. Before I bought the dilapidated 1968 “mobile” I was told by my Realtor, my Insurance Agent and my park manager that I could apply to have the registration updated as soon as all the work passed inspection. In fact when I started an application to do this to the Manufactured Homes Registry, it threw everyone for a loop, as there was no system in place to do this. They referred me to people like CSA, who told me clearly they have nothing to do with recertifying homes in the field. Everyone just pointed fingers at everyone else and no one solved it. It's a really pathetic system. I did actually get the ear of an official in the housing Ministry who said he had consulted with all the various departments involved, who had all agreed with the Colorado model, but none of whom were willing to take on the challenge of getting the legislation changed. 

On the Land Trust suggestion I put all the pieces together, from how the provincial government could transfer existing Crown land into a Land Trust, which means the land use is forever protected from any changes, similar to how wildlife trusts are established. My developer then commited to servicing the lands with water and sewer and so on, on the provision that they would be afforded every tax break possible, which is fine because it's not costing the government a cent.

The developer would then carry out a detailed feasability study on moving existing homes from a particular park to the new park. For those that could be moved the existing park owner would pay the cost of the move. This would also be the point where the home needed to be brought up to the standards of the new community, involving things such as recladding to change the pea green vinyl siding to new ranchwall, for example. Through CMHC financing the home owner would be given either a forgivable grant, for example, it they were seniors on fixed incomes, or low interest loans to upgrade the homes. 

For those homes that were determined could not be moved without destroying them, or those that were simply too old to justify the costs of moving them, the park owner would pay “fair market value” as determined by an independent appraisal. This FMV could then either be applied to the purchase cost of a new manufactured home in the new development, or the owner could elect to take a cash payment, or accept comparable equity in the new development slated for their existing park. Although there were some logistics to be worked out as to where people would live until the new project was completed, one park owner thought this was an excellent idea, particularly for seniors who may prefer a condominium unit in the new building as opposed to relocating to a new manufactured home park, one that no doubt would not be as conveniently located for them. 

The “pad rent”, although not truly rent, would then acrrue to the benefit of the developer until such time as they had been reimbursed for their servicing costs, which was anticipated in my model to be four to five years, and included a fixed rate of return on their money. They left happy in the end, knowing they had certainly done their part for affordable housing. The developer I was dealing with had actually had some image challenges in our area, and felt, quite rightly, that being very visible on my project would help their image. 

Once the servicing costs had been recovered by the developer the “rent” would now acrrue to the benefit of the home owners in the development, to offset ongoing maintenance and management costs, and fund improvements to the park for items such as public garden areas and parks for the kids and so on. In a very short time the non profit organization “owning” the park would be completely self-sufficient and financially healthy. “Rent” increases per say, for other than increased costs, would be a non issue, as residents would not support increasing their own costs.

With the upgrading of the homes moved; the new homes brought into the development; the fact that the design provided for much larger individual lot areas; the idea that the land was protected from any other development in perpetuity, and the “ownership” aspect of the Land Trust, no doubt the properties would increase in value substantially, certainly well beyond the “tear-down” value they had in the old park. Of immense intangible financial benefit is that people who had invested their lives in their homes would now be so much better off than wiped out under the “no plan” scenario.

It was truly a win/win for everyone. Even the original park owner and the planned developer were so much better off. They had a fixed cost for vacant possession of the park as well as a firm timetable for when they could start construction. They avoided all the public backlash about being so callous as to simply throw these people out on the street, and also avoided protracted litigation from home owners who dug their heels in and refused to go without a fight. 

It only took the will and the leadership of someone like the provincial government to step up and bring people together, with little or no cost to government coffers or the taxpayers. Despite my pleas to Premier Campbell, Carole Taylor and Rich Coleman, I never got anywhere. Minister Coleman actually replied stating that he didn't want to do anything that would prejudice new manufactured home parks presently planned in BC. I asked only that he tell me exactly what parks he was talking about, as I certainly was not aware of any ones planned. He never answered me, obviously. 

Maybe when your judgement is rendered and the world of manufactured homes changes, somebody will finally listen to me and be willing to discuss the proposal? Yeah, in my dreams!