Poor vs. property rights

J. Craig Anderson

Tuesday, Jan. 24, 2006 | 7:42 a.m.

The dwindling supply of affordable housing in the Las Vegas Valley has the Clark County Commission on the verge of restricting property rights of mobile home park owners.

The commission is considering placing an 18-month moratorium on the conversion of mobile home parks to high-rise condos or other uses.

Critics say the ordinance -- intended to protect poor, disabled and elderly mobile home park residents from homelessness -- would single out park owners with restrictions that don't apply to anyone else.

"When you have a set of rules, and then government says they don't apply to you -- they only apply when we want them to -- that's a concern," American Civil Liberties Union attorney Allen Lichtenstein said.

The ordinance, scheduled to come before the commission Feb. 8, would ban redevelopment of all mobile home parks, including projects that are consistent with existing county codes and zoning. Other property owners face opposition only if their projects don't meet codes or require a zoning change or special-use permit.

More than a dozen recent mobile home park closures have forced many poor or fixed-income residents from their homes. But property rights advocates argue that such tragedies don't justify limiting the rights of the owners of the parks.

Steven Miller, Nevada Policy Research Institute policy director, said the proposal appears to be an attempt by the commission to "duck political heat" for its track record of favoring upscale development over affordable homes.

"They're creating problems with authoritarian government, and they want to solve those problems with authoritarian government," Miller said.

County Commission Chairman Rory Reid said Miller and others have a legitimate concern, but he said part of government's role is to determine whether it serves the greater good to limit property rights

"So I don't see this as extraordinary," he said.

The county is working on three affordable housing projects that could provide displaced mobile home residents with other places to live. Another alternative might be to force park owners to pay for their relocation.

"It's something we need to look at," Reid said. "I'm not sure if we have the authority to do that."

Gary Peck, ACLU executive director, said he applauds the county's desire to reduce homelessness, but he doesn't think targeting mobile home park owners is the right way to do it.

"It's really a 'Band-Aid' approach to a serious problem," Peck said.

Commissioner Bruce Woodbury said he hasn't decided whether to vote for the ordinance. But he said that the closure of mobile home parks is a serious problem that may require "strong medicine."

"If a park is shut down, it's almost like (residents) lose their homes without recouping their investment," he said.

But Lichtenstein criticized county officials for letting the affordable housing crisis advance to the point where such drastic measures are being considered.

"The problem has become exacerbated because the county has been asleep at the switch," he said.

Lichtenstein said he isn't familiar with case law dealing with bans on redevelopment, but he has serious concerns about government imposing rules that only affect one group of people.

"It's kind of a variation on the eminent domain theme," he said.

Still, County Zoning Administrator Chuck Pulsipher said given the current real estate market, a temporary ban would not be a serious detriment to park owners.

"If history is any indication, it will just mean that their property will be worth that much more after 18 months," Pulsipher said.

J. Craig Anderson can be reached at 259-2320 or at craig@lasvegassun.com.