Biden's new energy standards for mobile homes may only cost pocket change compared to renting a space for a mobile home anyway. Might as well not fret about that.

Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) is asking the Biden administration to delay new energy standards for mobile homes set to go into effect at the end of next month.

I say, "why bother fretting about this?" It seems like the $750, added purchase cost for a singlewide mobile home to make it more energy efficient, is just pocket change compared to monthly rent for a space at mobile home parks in this (western Washington State) area, at least. I've heard that rent can be around $800 per month just to be in a mobile home park; if one is lucky enough to find a space. That's not counting utilities. One month covers that entire cost difference for the better insulated homes to save lots of money, over time, on heating and cooling.

I assume the cost is only for new mobile homes as existing ones would be grandfathered in, for a while, anyway.

This may be one difference between "blue state" and "red state" thinking as maybe, in South Carolina where Senator Scott is from, rents and property prices are lower. In Bellingham area, rents and property values are high as our blue state economy tends to be booming. That prosperous situation does bring other challenges, however; like rents so high, in our "hoity toity" communities, that they dwarf the cost of things like better insulated windows.

I've never been to South Carolina, but I hear that rents may be more affordable, but that's just a stereotype?

Maybe it's expensive in the Charlston area. I do have a college degree in geography. I hear that, in North Carolina, Ashville rents and property values are through the roof.

Mobile home park is road to affordable home ownership

Some friends of mine live in a mobile home park that is owned by the resident owners as a co-op. This could be a solution to affordable home ownership since even condominiums in the Bellingham area are usually well over $100,000. Buying a share in their mobile home park only costs $17,500. That's almost like owning the land under your home, but not quite. It's a share in the cooperatively owned park which allows one a space for their home, access to the central clubhouse and other benefits.

Each month members pay dues as well, but the dues are around $160 per month. That's quite reasonable compared to rent in most mobile home parks, let alone renting an apartment. The dues cover ongoing expenses such as water and sewer as well each resident's share of the property taxes that the park pays on all the land.

One also buys their mobile home unit which can be as low as $15,000. Most of the mobile homes are more than $15,000, but $25,000 - $60,000 is a likely range.

When one thinks about it, this is an affordable way to have home ownership, if ownership is desired. For instance, a mobile home for around $20,000 plus the park "buy in" share for $17,500 means buying a house for $37,500. For Bellingham, that's not bad.

Another affordable housing option in the Bellingham area is an organization called Kulshan Community Land Trust. They have some partial ownership schemes also, but I've noticed that the cheapest condominium, currently in their listing, is around $116,000!

$116,000!

That's Bellingham for you. They also work with owners who are buying houses, but these are usually even more expensive, tho I saw a house listed in their office window for $104,000.

Looks like mobile homes are less expensive, but Kulshan doesn't deal with those kind of properties. Mostly, I hear, because financing institutions basically overlook the mobile home option.

With lack of affordable housing such a big problem, I think mobile homes need to be taken more seriously. Problem is, urban zoning doesn't usually allow them. The park that my friends live in is near the city limits. It's still on the bus line tho. Mobile home parks aren't as dense as condominiums and density is good for environmental reasons, but they do tend to be denser than single family zones.

Pictured: One of my friend's neighbors has raised beds for gardening.

The park that my friends live in is quite nice with a small lake in the center, quite a bit of space between the units and a nice clubhouse.

Speaking of clubhouse, that brings up the topic of "community." People I know, that live in mobile home parks, seem to have lots of community. Talking to folks around the mailboxes, going to "Meet your neighbor" meals at the clubhouse and so forth.

My friends, who live in that park, think about it in terms of "intentional communities." They have interest in things like home gardening and sustainable communities. Mobile homes might be a good way to bring this about that is not super expensive.

Below posted December, 2005.

But they are a good form of housing for mobile American society. Average American moves every 5 1/2 years? (maybe even more). We're nomadic. Maybe our houses need to move with us; like American Indian teepees. It's better than commuting, for instance if one owns a house in Everett, works for Boeing in Everett and then gets transferred down to the Renton Boeing facility.

Also mobile homes might do well for answering the question, "should New Orleans be rebuilt?" Make it mobile. Let it move around with the shifting wetlands. Put it where the changing river and coastline wants it, rather than locking it into one spot. Flexibility.

Mobiles might adapt better to floating also. A while back, I heard, on the Clark Howard Show (a radio financial affairs counsellor), a suggestion of making New Orleans homes float. This might solve much of the flooding problems. Radio said they do this in much of Holland. When the 50 year flood comes, the houses just float. Minimizes the damage.

When someone owns a mobile home, but rents the space in the mobile home lot, are they considered home owners?

People keep talking about how great it is to be a homeowner. For instance President Bush speaks about the "ownership society." Yet increasingly, home ownership is not available to folks of modest means.

Mobile homes are usually a lot cheaper.

So, when one rents the space in a mobile home park, is that "renting" or "owning?"

Unless the place is cheap, getting into a home usually requires one to earn lots of money.

"Push those products through your store and out to the customers and landfills."

I keep saying, in 1965, the store manager could pay a mortgage by selling roughly 85 televisions. If TVs cost around $300 and houses cost around $25,000.

These days, TVs cost less, but houses cost a lot more. One must push 1,000 TVs, or comparable products and services, through the pipeline to pay for their keep, or at least buy their house.

If it was a mobile home, it would be less expensive, thus creating less of a need for pushing products through the pipeline in order to earn one's keep.

No wonder everyone seems to be scratching their heads trying to figure out how to keep the American consumer going, but what about the environment or people's peace of mind?

Some folks thought they could join the homeowner ranks by purchasing houses with sub prime mortgages. That's the illusion of "affordable home ownership," at least until regular pricing kicks in. Then it's foreclosure time.

Also, the average American moves every few years anyway.

Mobile homes make more sense. The home can travel with you. Travel to the new job, the city you are transfered to or the new marriage.

It is kind of ironic that we are such a mobile society, yet there is so much interest in what is called "home and hearth."

Renting needs more respect also. If we are trying to lower our carbon footprint, living in dense urban settings with a lot of rentals is a good way to go.

For homeowners, clustered condominiums are better than sprawl, but why are condominiums so expensive?

If we were to price housing in terms of "carbon footprint," apartments and condominiums should be cheapest. Unfortunately they are not.

This leaves mobile homes for lower income, lower "carbon footprint" living.

That is, if the mobile home is in a park rather than sitting on one or more acres out in the middle of nowhere.

Since mobiles are often not allowed in the city, people move out into the county and set up on some acre. Unfortunately, that's what many folks do to find affordable housing.

"Buy a remote acre, set up a mobile and then drive everywhere."

"Drive, drive, drive." Ever heard the phrase "drive till you qualify?"

That's not good.

That's sprawl, but a mobile home park on the bus line can be considered infilling, rather than sprawl. It can even promote car free living.

One shouldn't have to be wealthy to live in clustered environments.

If you own a mobile home and rent in the court, are you a coveted owner, like Bush wants to see more of, or a renter?

Are mobile homes the reasonable person's gateway into an ownership society?

Are they good for the environment when clustered?

Most people don't talk about them in this way. Even low income housing advocates seem to ignore them, for the most part.