We have an acquaintance that owns a small 8 lot mobile home park that isn't too far from where I live now. She is familiar with us and our home. She called me yesterday and offered me a spot that she had no intention of developing. At the moment she has 6 tenants there with 2 more lots that can be developed. The last lot in the back of the park is quite a bit larger than the others and it will need to be upgraded in order to be habitable. She has to have an electric meter installed and a pad, all expenses that she did not need to undertake but is doing so because Hubby and I are challenged at the moment.. She offered it to us at the same price we pay here which is $25 less than she's getting for the smaller lots all ready in use. She allows pets, even dogs as long as they are controlled, despite her insurance companies demand that she be a pet free park. It would have gotten her a cheaper rate if she had complied.

She's a friend of my friend Jeannie, and I am familiar with her but actually wasn't sure that I liked her. She can be outspoken and meddlesome to the point of meanness when crossed. That appears to have softened with the ordeal she has recently experienced. Her husband had a lengthy battle with prostate cancer and finally died in May, not too long after my Dad. She's always been a very controlling type of person, and there was no controlling the outcome of his illness. In many ways it appears that her vulnerabilities are allowed to show now where before she would have covered them up with an attitude.

In some respects she actually didn't ask if we wanted the lot she informed me that we were moving there. Her whole conversation, which left little room for interuption, was a demand for Hubby to check the sewer connections on the big lot in the back. She needs to make sure it's connected to the septic system, once that's done she's got to put in an electric meter and would we mind waiting a bit for her guy to bring in the crushed stone for the pad? Steamroller Viv at her finest. She went on to tell me a little about some of the other tenants in the park, and how she came to have them there. One of these stories tells you what this controlling steamroller of a person is capable of far better than opinions ever will.

For Viv, how you care for your animals is a method for her to assess you as a person. She feels that if you care for your pet the right way you are a decent and caring person. I think her exact words were "Animal lovers are good people, you can't go wrong with animal lovers." It was this attitude that got her the first of her tenants that she truly trusts. He's a single guy with a big dog.

She was driving down the street while this gentleman was out walking his dog. She marked how attractive the dog was and how well behaved and being Viv, had to stop and say so. During their conversation he told her he'd just lost his job and would be turning the dog over to the Humane Society to find it a home. He was visibly heartbroken almost to the point of tears. In the midst of dealing with the doctors and hospitals and treatments her husband was enduring, she simply told this man "Oh no you will not". She gave him her phone number and told him to call her when he was ready to turn the dog in, she would keep the dog for as long as it took for him to get back on his feet, and then he could have the dog back. It took almost a year. When he finally got a job again that allowed him to support himself and the dog, he couldn't find an apartment that allowed dogs. She went and bought a mobile home, installed it in her park and moved him in to it.

She told me this as if this was not an event of any importance, no personal opinions, just the facts of the matter. It's as if she has no idea she gave this person something that money can't buy. She gave him the opportunity to hang on to something far more than his beloved pet. She allowed him to hang on to his self respect. He didn't fail and lose something precious to him, he just hit a bump in his road and he came through it with everything important to him intact.

She was very matter of fact about the whole situation. She used the same tone of voice while telling me what she needed to do and it wasn't an "I'm spending all this money I expect you to be grateful" attitude. It was a "Do you mind waiting a bit until we can take care of this" attitude. While talking she told me she wanted to buy a swingset for the children in the park to play on. She's aware that she can't because if they get hurt they could and probably would sue her. She's somewhat sad about it because as she said to me, she remembers when it was "All about the people" not about the rules and regulations and the insurance. I think I'm going to like it there. Now, I have a lot of work to do because we are moving, trailer and all, into her park.

Among the things that didn't make sense to me when researching for yesterdays post, was how families that have an income below the federal poverty level can own homes worth $85,000. A financial institution whether bank or credit union will only loan you a mortgage large enough to buy a home whose price is one and a half times your annual gross salary. A family whose income is $30,000 should be able to purchase a home whose selling price is $45,000, and that family must have a credit rating of between 620 and 850. If your credit rating is below 620, no bank or credit union will lend you money with which to purchase a home.

Within the past few decades there has been a shift from urban dwelling to suburban dwelling which contributed to the change in the inner city single family homes to multiple dwelling structures. In some cases these became run down and unlivable. In other cases what seemed like a good idea was harder to handle than they thought because taxes rose and tenants could not be found. Owners abandoned the properties to the tax rolls in the city and many homes were allowed to deteriorate further until the city tore them down.

Each home that disappeared was one less contributor to the tax rolls of the city and since it takes tax dollars to operate a municipality and it's school system another solution was found. Remediation programs that allow low income families to buy these homes from the city, make the designated upgrades within a certain timeframe and you have another property back on the tax rolls. You go to your local city clerks office, pick up the list of tax foreclosures. Find one you like and obtain a copy of the remediation agreement, take it to a subprime mortgage lender, get your money and apply to the city for the agreement. As long as your financing is in order and adequate enough to make the necessary upgrades the city gives you the keys and a 6 month agreement. At the end of that agreement you get a Quit Claim deed and you move in. This works fine if you don't pay too much for the property to the city, but when the city gets $30,000 and it takes another $20,000 to fix it up because you have to pay to have it done rather than do it yourself, it can get rather costly.

In some cases low income families simply wanted to own the American Dream. The television advertising gave them hope they could, and they didn't understand what would happen. They applied to Countrywide, or H & R Block and moved in to homes they had no idea they would not be able to afford when the interest rates went up. Some of these rates are as high as 12%. One of my brothers has H&R Block do his taxes, they approached him to refinance his house for a cheaper rate when they found out he all ready owned one. He had a fixed rate bank mortgage on his home, and he refinanced because the savings was almost $200 a month. Now he's paying more than he would have if he'd stayed with the bank mortgage, a lot more. He's now working 2 jobs. He needed the second one to help with the increase.

Your mortgage is not fixed rate, the interest for the first year or two is low. Which is a come on to get you to apply. If the value of your house goes up, you build equity and when the interest rates increase, you can refinance for a lower interest rate mortgage from your lending institution. The problem occured when the value of the property went down. No way to build equity, and not enough income to pay the higher monthly payment with it's burgeoning interest rate. Last year in New York State alone, a full 50% of these mortgages went into default. It is estimated that this year that figure will increase by an additional 15% because the real estate market is still falling.

Subprime mortgage lending companies are going bankrupt and some have stopped loaning money because their sources have dried up. Where did this money come from? Wall Street and the stock market. Wall Street encouraged this behavior, too, by bundling the loans into securities that were sold to pension funds and other institutional investors seeking higher returns. Subprime mortgages totaled $600 billion last year, accounting for about one-fifth of the U.S. home loan market. An estimated $1.3 trillion in subprime mortgages are currently outstanding. That’s nearly as large as the entire state of California's economy. In some cases these lending companies financed too many people, in others they never verified that the family income was what the applicant claimed it to be.

From the year 2000 to 2005 property values were increasing. Figures that suggest a strong real estate market coupled with supposed job growth indicates a recovering economy. I'm no expert, but I would say the supposed recovery is based on a pretty flimsy foundation, and in my mind is no recovery at all. Since these subprime lending companies continue to go bankrupt, or stop lending money as they are all ready overextended, what happens to all those pension funds that were sold those securities? What is this type of scheme doing to the value of our American dollar? I think we need more than just tax reform in these United States of America.

I couldn't figure out why the Bush Administrations claims that the economy was strong wasn't being felt here in central New York. I couldn't figure out why the cost of goods and services have inflated to the degree they have in the past few years. Someone pointed out to me that the number of bankruptcies are down. That's not because the economy has improved, that's because Congress made it harder for people to file bankruptcy. If I can see this, where are the economic experts and their minds?

While the Federal Minimum Wage is $5.85 as of July 24, 2007, New York State has increased it's minimum wage to $7.15. On the surface this looks like a fairly decent wage. At least I thought so until I began to translate it into buying power. I'm sure anyone who shops for groceries understands how much things have increased. Rents, taxes, gasoline, food all have gone up. I had no idea how high rents were around here until I had to begin looking for a new place to live. That was a shock, believe me.

Someone working a minimum wage job for 40 hours per week in New York State will start with a paycheck of $268. Basic deductions on that amount will be: Social Security, Medicare, Federal Taxes, NYS Taxes and New York State Disability Insurance. Of course the more deductions you can claim every week the better off you are, but for the sake of this post, deductions amount to approximately $60. Leaving a net pay of $208 a week, or $832 per month.

The average rent here in a smaller town is $350 to $450 per month. The second figure would be for apartments that include the heat. For our purposes I'm including the heat in the rental amount. That figure is more than half of the monthly paycheck. The utility and telephone bills will run another $175 easily, and cable TV will be another $60 on top of that. You have now spent $685 on basic monthly expenses which according to any financial advisor should not equal more than half of your income. The remaining $147 per month is supposed to cover food, personal care items, household cleaning items and hopefully you will not need new clothes. If new clothing is a must, I guess you'll have to get a library card and read rather than watch television because you won't be able to afford to pay for cable. If you rent, that's all that will be available to you. No cable? No television.

It is estimated that 25% of New York State workers are employed in minimum wage jobs. I found it odd that the New York State Department of Labor website doesn't break down the number of employed persons by amount of wages. Mostly they just tell you that 4.1% of New Yorkers are unemployed. That translates to just under a million people based on the population of NYS. They are also vague as to the salaries of the "created" jobs that occured under the leadership of former Governor Pataki. Roughly 300,000 jobs were created during his time in office, I believe that most, if not all were in food service or retail. All minimum wage jobs I might add.

In the 1980's I made a whopping $3.35 an hour, and my buying power was 14% higher than it is at minimum wage now. I even managed to own a car for awhile during those years. Now on a minimum wage job your only option would be public transportation or shoeleather express. I don't understand why. I'm not an economist and I don't really understand why more money won't at least buy you as much as it used to. I do understand this much. If New York State followed the Federal Guideline, nearly one million people would not be making enough to support themselves at bare existance levels.

In New York State a single mother with one child making $7.15 per hour would be entitled to help from Social Services in the form of food stamps, healthcare, HEAP and childcare costs. There is also a cap on the amount of time she can receive this assistance thanks to Congress and Welfare reform. The state at that point reduces HER benefits to what the State deems is adequate for the child only. For the most part, her minimum wage job will never pay her more than minimum wage, her only chance at increased income will be when the state raises the minimum wage again.

The Federal Government didn't want to increase the minimum wage because it would supposedly drive up the cost of goods and services. Companies would have to lay off people to compensate, thereby increasing the unemployment figures. I'd buy in to that except for one small detail. In NY the minimum wage has barely doubled in the last 25 years, yet the cost of goods and services has at least tripled if not quadrupled. Which means that if minimum wage were adjusted for inflation, I'd say it would be running right around $20 per hour. It would have to be at least $15 per hour in order for your basic monthly expenses to not cost more than half your paycheck. At the rate we're going the only way to reduce your monthly expenses is to quit eating.

I find myself wondering how much of this problem could be corrected if the government regulated the amount businesses paid in salaries and perks to it's CEO's. I understand that "big" businesses don't usually pay minimum wages to their employees. They do pay less in taxes than they should. States have "Empire Zones" that give businesses tax breaks and energy cost breaks which supposedly keep the businesses in their states. I have seen too many businesses close locally and move south or overseas where they can increase their profits by paying less to their employees. Empire zones aren't working, raising minimum wages isn't working. The states are passing their loss of taxbase onto the rest of us in increased taxes. I wonder at what point we collapse under the burden, and then what happens?

There was a write up in the local paper last night about the closing of the park and the fact that the park owner stands ready to assist us in any way he can. It contained an aerial photograph of the park and the information about how many residents were actually left here. There are 42 homes left here and this park is a 20 acre facility. It also sheds new light on the situation as it is, and what will happen to the land after we have all moved out. I don't like the man, but in the interest of fairness I should give both sides of this issue.

This park was built in the late 50's. Underground water and sewer lines were installed then, and since it's underground, nobody thinks about it unless it fails. Originally it was built with a residents swimming pool, but that was closed and removed when NY state decided that the owner needed to pay a life guard to manage the behavior of his tenants. All of the structure, pool, piping and drains are still there, just filled in with dirt and rocks. There's a water leak there that they can't get to. Power poles and wiring also installed back then are now the property of the park and all upgrades and replacements are the responsibility of the park owner.

At the time the pads were installed the largest mobile home was either 12'by 65 or 70'. Installing wider mobile homes, the 14' by 56' or 70' didn't pose a problem, but the newer homes which now run 16 to 18' wide by 90' long are too big for the existing lots. This he found out when he rented to the 2 residents that own homes of that size. Water hookups, sewer connections and electrical inlets all have to be replaced, plus the front parking space for each lot needs to be utilized as the lots are 90' long exactly. Once the upgrades are made, he'd not be able to recoup his investment because he would need 100 percent of the lots rented and that wouldn't be possible. The longer homes would have to be staggered so that only every other lot was used on any road. That might not even work because the electric meters are installed so that all meters for 4 lots are in one place.

Behind my home for instance there is a Verizon telephone tower which contains the phone service for 4 lots, plus there is a board with 4 meters mounted on it that also services 4 lots. He could rent to people with newer smaller homes, but most of those are all ready established elsewhere, and if they aren't it's usually because of evictions for noncompliance or failure to pay rent. Renting to that sort of person is a bit like shooting yourself in the foot. Had he left the tenants with pets alone, he wouldn't have been in this predicament but who am I to say so?

He took over the park in the Fall of 2002 when his Dad died and at that time he had 93 tenants. He now has 42. I wonder what part of lost income didn't occur to him when he started losing 9 tenants a year and had no way to replace them? Even I can see that isn't a good thing.

My soon to be former home will be the site of a state of the art Department of Public works. Apparently there are back taxes to the tune of over a million dollars owed on the 20 acres. We are still examining our options, and looking into various thing including moving our home. My problem is that the "friend" that owns the park where I could put it is rather controlling and intrusive. I'm not sure I want to go that route, but it is an option and one we will be looking at. According to the newspaper, he stands ready to help any and all tenants relocate. Odd, that bit of information was not in our letter from him. Must be the truth because I read it in our local newspaper.

I will not ask for any assistance from him, not in anger, but because I have no desire to have him involved in my life for any longer than is necessary. He has 2 other trailer parks and he will relocate any of his tenants to either of them that is in good standing here, and has a home new enough to be moved. He's also willing to help them find apartments if that is the route they want to take. I don't need it, because my sister in law has an apartment I could rent if I wanted to. I'd rather not, her downstairs tenant is someone I'd rather not have to deal with. She's too nosy. Sometimes the best way to keep family relationships on a happy level for all involved is to not do any business with them.

This has been my home for 17 years and it's weighing on my mind once in awhile. Once we get past the feeling of loss we'll be able to look at our options more clearly, but until that happens, I'm going to move slowly for a bit and really try to make choices that will benefit us, not hurt us. I want to move and have something that I can be happy with, and that may involve finding a new home. We'll see.