A Los Angeles Superior Court Judge’s recent ruling will provide more time for some mobile home residents in Carson who are facing eviction to relocate, after they were first notified more than three years ago the park would be redeveloped, leaving some without a place to go.
The issue comes as the land where Imperial Avalon Mobile Estates is located was purchased by a real estate developer four years ago for a mixed-use development project.
The residents had until Nov. 1 to vacate, but after a ruling by Judge James Chalfant Oct. 31, they now have until Nov. 21 to meet with what’s known as a relocation specialist—provided by the developer—to help them find interim housing.
Under state law, whoever is responsible for changing the land use of a mobile home park—in this case the developer and property owner—is required to offer “relocation assistance” to displaced residents, such as a lump sum payment or rental subsidies, among other options.
The developer, West Hollywood-based Faring Capital, plans to construct more than 800 apartments—ranging from studios to two bedrooms—and 380 townhomes in place of the park, according to an environmental impact report from last year.
Approved by the Carson City Council in 2020, Faring Capital offered three packages for residents of the park to leave, including relocating to another mobile home park; a lump sum covering the cost of moving and their mobile home; or rental subsidies for the housing being built—or nearby units owned by the developer—plus a 30 percent payment for the cost of their mobile home.
However, displaced residents, say they met with the relocation specialists but failed to find eligible rental options, according to an Oct. 23 temporary restraining order request filed by their attorneys.
“These relocation specialists have provided listings of purportedly available rental units, but nearly all of the rentals listed require proof of monthly income of 2.5 - 4 times the monthly rent,” attorneys wrote. They said a lack of rentals in Carson and such income requirements have made it impossible for their clients to find adequate housing.
“Most Park residents who remain at the Park do not have regular income (aside from Social Security benefits or disability income), and even those who do cannot meet this income qualification threshold,” they wrote.
They argued residents had met with representatives for “virtually all of the rental listings provided,” as well as additional ones found on their own, but were denied even after some showed proof of savings or incoming rental subsidies.
In their response to the request for a temporary restraining order, attorneys for Faring Capital argued they informed the residents they were closing the park in 2019, received approval from the city in July 2020, which included relocation benefits the park’s homeowner’s association had requested, and that no one had challenged the city’s approval at the time.
In their response, they accused the tenants who have refused to leave of intentionally stalling the process.
“The alleged irreparable injury of inability to find replacement housing is an HOA-staged ‘crisis,’ self-inflicted by [the remaining tenants],” reads an Oct. 30 response by Fairing Capital’s attorneys to the restraining order request.
They alleged that the homeowner’s association had instructed the remaining residents to not engage with the developer’s relocation specialists, despite 75 percent of the park’s tenants successfully finding housing, and that none of the remaining tenants began looking for housing until August or September.
Faring Capital estimates they will potentially lose nearly $600,000 because of the now delayed park closure, citing a required $300,000 loan extension fee and $285,000 in park operating costs they will have to pay. To date they said they’ve already spent $15.85 million in relocation benefits, including another $400,000 for lower income residents.
