Search

Deciding Why you Want to Market

Do you want to promote because you have a new development? Or will it be to fill vacancies within an existing community, or to upgrade (and turn around) an older community? Each of these three stages of a community requires a different marketing plan, a different focus, different promotional strategies, and differing amounts of involvement.

Marketing has been the subject of many volumes of material, college courses, high school courses, and numerous articles in literally thousands of magazines. There are many facets of marketing for whatever business you try to promote. It depends on the type of market you are in, the general state of the economy at the time you decide to start a promotion and marketing program, whether you are creating a demand or meeting a need, and several other variables.

Who are your Partners in Marketing?

• Media Sources
• Social Media - Facebook etc
• Motif
• Residents
• Employees
• Retailers
• Curb Appeal
• Vendors
• Personal Development
• Professionalism
• Industry Knowledge
• Civic Involvement

The Mental Picture of Marketing

Every minute of every day in every dealing you have with each person, you are promoting yourself, the company you represent, your community, and the industry as a whole. Picture a diagram that consists of a huge wheel. There is a hub in the very center. It is a small circle. You are this hub. Radiating outward from this hub are eleven spokes that then connect with a huge wheel on the outside. Each of the eleven spokes is one of the areas of promotion we are going to discuss in this handbook. The huge wheel on the outside is your market: the general public, the planning and zoning officials.

In other words, this huge wheel is a never-ending stream of potential customers. This huge wheel also makes up the members of the general public at large. Everyone has an opinion. On this huge wheel, everyone has an opinion about manufactured housing and manufactured home communities. Part of a successful promotion and marketing program is to create more and more favorable opinions of the general public that is part of that huge wheel.

When the one of the eleven spokes joins the wheel, a direct line of vision, understanding and agreement is created between the hub (you) and the wheel (your market). Both ends of the spoke (you in the hub and the general public on the wheel) then see things the same way. The conduit that enables this "coming together" of opinion is the spoke that links you in your hub with your potential customer on the huge wheel. When this happens, you have successfully created a promotion (being noticed) that may result in effective marketing (a sale or lease). The other positive side effect is usually the creation of a more favorable image of the manufactured housing industry as a whole.

When the public that is represented by the wheel is comprised of elected officials, your promotional efforts may result in positive zoning decisions or approval of expansion plans for a new community. When that public represents your customer, you will have created a sale of a home or a lease of a homesite. We need all kinds of people from this public arena on our side.

This illustration gives you a visual image of the way a successful promotion can take you where you have never been before - or leave you spinning around in circles. You are in the center ring. Take charge of your promotional efforts. Create new markets. Realize new growth opportunities. Change the image of manufactured housing. It all starts with you!

A successful promotion and marketing program will affect your staff, your community, your residents, their friends, their co-workers and families, the surrounding business community, and the industry as a whole in a positive way. It will help change the perception of manufactured housing in the eyes of the uneducated public, the elected officials, and increase the number of homeowners. Your successful promotion and marketing program will generate a continued bottom-line growth for your community and your company while providing housing that is perceived as a true value by your customers.

And, by the same token, an unsuccessful promotion and marketing program - or the total lack of one - can keep your community frozen in time. It can perpetuate a negative image of the industry. It will hamper your efforts in expansion, fill or upgrade. It will prevent you from reaching the highest level of personal and professional excellence that is obtainable. To be more blunt, the lack of a promotion and marketing program that does good means you, your community, and the industry will suffer. It means that more people will neither believe nor share the positive messages the industry has to offer.

Key Concepts to a Successful Marketing Program

• A successful promotion is a successful perception of value
• Every day is Open House
• Curb appeal is your job
• Use white classifieds
• Use reverse classifieds
• Create a comparison grid for your community
• Look at your community honestly - through the eyes of a video
• Enforce your Guidelines for better curb appeal
• Remember that word-of-mouth is your best advertising
• Utilize business cards in new and creative ways
• Everyone forms an opinion and every opinion matters
• We are no better than others perceive us to be
• Help retailers understand the values of your community
• Allow them to use the amenities
• Invite them to activities
• Offer a special tour for new salespeople
• Allow them to install model homes
• Hang a lifestyle picture in their sales office
• Visit on a regular basis
• Use custom labels for bags of donuts or candy
• Color code a map with vacant sites and sizes of homes
• Send gift certificates to a salesman's spouse
• Call to thank them for sending prospects
• Consider using resident referrals
• Free rent
• Certificates for dinner
• Mention in the newsletter
• Create a win-win promotion
• Give a shed, plants, gift certificate from nursery, deck, patio furniture, lawn mower, lawn care for six months, snow removal for a season, sod for the lawn, reduced water bill for watering
• Take brochures to area businesses
• Join the chamber of commerce and volunteer on committees

A New Jersey landlord recently agreed to pay $5,000 to settle allegations that he refused to rent to a prospect after she expressed her intention to pay her rent using federal Section 8 housing vouchers, according to an announcement by New Jersey Acting Attorney General Robert Lougy and the Division of Civil Rights.

The federal Section 8 housing voucher program provides financial assistance to eligible persons for the rental of privately owned housing. New Jersey fair housing law bans discrimination based on source of lawful income used for rental or mortgage payments, including Section 8 housing vouchers.

According to her complaint, the prospect saw an apartment rental advertised on Craigslist in February 2012, but when she called, a woman told her that the landlord didn't accept Section 8 housing vouchers. When she called back a few days later, the prospect said she spoke with the landlord, who allegedly said that he used to accept Section 8 vouchers, but no longer did.

When later questioned by investigators, the landlord said he didn't recall speaking with the woman, but he allegedly acknowledged that he didn't accept Section 8 vouchers because of difficulties with a prior resident who paid with them.

Under the settlement, the landlord and his company will be subject to monitoring by the Division for two years to ensure compliance with fair housing laws. Among other things, the settlement requires them to keep detailed records of all applicants, including contact information, the type of unit they sought, whether they were offered an opportunity to rent, and the reason for any applicant rejection. In addition, the landlord, who is an attorney, agreed to attend continuing legal education on the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, including a module on fair housing laws. Under the agreement, failure to comply with any aspect of the settlement will result in reinstatement of a $5,000 civil penalty that was suspended.

This settlement represents a fair resolution to a troubling matter

Answer:  The initial answer is that you are not “required” to open the park facilities that you have kept closed. You do have some discretion on when and how to open certain non-essential park facilities.

The park does have an obligation to provide essential services like restrooms and showers if those facilities are part of what the park regularly provides to tenants.  Presumably you have already been following the state guidelines for sanitation of those facilities.  Under the state guidelines, facilities such as restrooms and showers should be thoroughly cleaned at least twice daily and, to the extent possible, provided with things like soap, toilet paper and hand sanitizer throughout the day.

For both essential and non-essential services, it is important to follow the state guidelines published by the Oregon Health Authority.  You should go to their website for guidance on all COVID-19 issues at https://govstatus.egov.com/OR-OHA-COVID-19. The website provides general guidelines, as well as more specific guidelines for Phase 1 and Phase 2 reopening, including easy-to-print signs to post in your park regarding occupancy limits, social distancing, hand-washing, and COVID-19 symptom recognition.

With regard to reopening a swimming pool, there are very specific guidelines to follow, which include social distancing around the pool, sanitation requirements, occupancy limits, and clear signage for all of the above.  The specific Phase 2 guidelines can be found here:  https://sharedsystems.dhsoha.state.or.us/DHSForms/Served/le2351C.pdf.

In Phase 2, playgrounds should remain closed, and indoor rec centers should only be reopened if physical distancing can be ensured, occupancy is limited, and regular cleaning can take place, among other requirements:  https://sharedsystems.dhsoha.state.or.us/DHSForms/Served/le2351A.pdf.

Ultimately, you should use your best judgment on when to reopen park facilities based on the guidelines and the park’s ability to comply with the guidelines.  Your decision should also take into consideration the park’s obligation to provide park facilities to tenants under your rental agreement.  While the COVID-19 emergency provides a legal justification to temporarily suspend access to those facilities, to avoid pushback from tenants you should consider reopening the facilities when it is safe and feasible under the guidelines. 

Readers of my article will note that my focus was primarily on the federal laws. This was because during my research, I was directed by the Oregon Health Authority (here) to the federal HUD website. However, as John points out, '_Oregon fair housing law is "substantially equivalent" to federal fair housing law." So, generally speaking, on the issue of medical marijuana, as goes the federal law, so goes Oregon law. John directed me to the 2010 Oregon case of Emerald Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, which addressed many unanswered questions on the use of medical marijuana in this state. The answers contained in that case represent the most current state of medical marijuana law in Oregon both from an employment and housing perspective. John, as a board member of Fair Housing Council of Oregon ("FHCO"), also directed me to the following FHCO article [authored after the Emerald Steel Fabricators case], which serves as a good resource on the issue of medical marijuana use in Oregon. The FHCO article can be found here. Keep in mind that the law is still developing, so you should consult your own legal counsel on these issues. These MHCO articles should not be relied upon as legal advice. So, to incorporate these resources into my prior answer, here are some "take-away" points for park owners and managers on the issue of usage and cultivation of medical marijuana in Oregon manufactured housing communities: - If the resident insists that you make a reasonable accommodation for them because their use is due to a disability, you may say "N0." Note, however, park residents still have the right to ask for a reasonable accommodation. - Owners and managers may not deny an applicant housing availability simply because they have, or intend to obtain, a medical marijuana card [any more than management may deny tenancy to a person who says he or she has a disability]. - To reiterate what I said in last week's article, it is my opinion that park management should institute a medical marijuana policy in the rules, dealing both with the use and cultivation of the substance inside the community. It is not a fair housing violation to prohibit it in the rules. However, if legal use or cultivation [i.e. according to Oregon state law] occurs in a community, and there are no express prohibitions against doing so, it may be difficult to bring an eviction action for the activity, unless it violates some other rule or provision in the rental agreement.

Answer: There is no specific law regarding this issue. However, you clearly understand the ramifications i.e. if a service or amenity is withdrawn, the inference usually is that the landlord has received some financial benefit. In this case, the "benefit" is that the landlord is no longer responsible for maintenance, and the resident is. My position generally is that this type of arrangement should net out to zero in cost/benefit to both sides. That is, here, if the cost of maintenance is shifted from the landlord to the resident, then there must be some offsetting benefit to the resident. If you believe you can allocate the estimated cost that has been shifted to the resident, e.g. $5.00 per month [I am using the figure as an example - I have no idea what the actual figure might be. - PCQ] then there would be a commensurate $5.00/month reduction in rent. The more difficult issue is whether you may "require" this. I doubt it. The residents never signed on to ownership of a park amenity when they commenced their lease or rental. In fact, a cynic would say that you're only doing this because of the condition or age of the carports. I'm not, but I'm suspecting this as a response from some if you attempted to "require" that all residents assume ownership of them. There is also the issue of the condition of the carports. Are you going to warrant to each resident that they are in good condition? Or, is this going to be an AS-IS sale? If the latter you most certainly cannot require they agree to take over ownership of carports when you decline to stand behind their quality. If the idea is that once bought, a resident could "upgrade" them, you need to think the idea all the way through. For example, any such construction must first be approved by Management. Are you going to require that all work must be performed by bonded contractors who have liability insurance and are licensed with the Construction Contractors Board? You will need to post a Notice of Nonresponsibility for construction liens. [I have seen liens imposed on park owned property for a resident's construction project that was (foolishly) approved by Management.] Are you going to permit residents to do the construction work themselves? If so, you must make clear that the work must be performed in accordance with all applicable laws and ordinances, especially the applicable building codes. Who is going to then monitor construction to make sure what was approved is what was built? Is the manager qualified to do this, and does he/she have time? Are you going to require the residents undertaking construction [either themselves or through a contractor] first sign an agreement to assume all liability and release the park and Management from damages? If a third party does the work, besides licensing, you have to make sure they have workers comp insurance (i.e. SAIF). You cannot assume all contractors have this insurance. The smaller the contractor, e.g. solos, the greater the chance they may have neglected to obtain workers comp. If there were an accident resulting in personal injuries, e.g. falling off the roof of the new garage, without SAIF, the injured worker could look to you. Lastly, what are you going to do upon sale of the home? I assume the resident will be selling title to the garage. Since the garage is affixed to the land, would assume a regular "deed" be given, as opposed to a bill of sale [as is common for personal property, such as a manufactured home]. So how is this going to work? Certainly, you don't want residents delivering deeds to the garage, since they actually don't own the underlying land. Yet once affixed to the land, the garage becomes a part of the land. You will certainly have to cover this issue if/when you undertake this program. It's possible that you would just give a revocable "license" or "permit" to the resident, allowing the use and construction, but not pure ownership. And be careful of a resident claiming that you owe them for the value of the improvement, since upon resale of the home, you might increase the space rent because of the "enclosed garage." In light of all the issues, it seems that if you decide to plow ahead with this idea, it seems to me that it should be voluntary, with adequate disclosures and releases per above, so that the resident can never say they had no choice in the matter. There is little question in my mind, that if you made this program mandatory, a court of law would not enforce it, no matter how ironclad.

Fair housing law bans not only sexual harassment, but also harassment based on race or color, and other protected characteristics. As a general rule, community owners may be liable for illegal harassment by managers or employees, when they knew or should have known about it but failed to do enough to stop it. Moreover, the FHA makes it unlawful to intimidate, threaten, or interfere with anyone exercising his fair housing rights.

Take all necessary steps to prevent—and address—discrimination or harassment at the community. You don’t have only your employees or staff members to worry about—you could face liability for tenant-on-tenant harassment under certain circumstances. Under HUD regulations, communities may be liable under the FHA for failing to take prompt action to correct and end a discriminatory housing practice by a third party, where the community knew or should have known of the discriminatory conduct and had the power to correct it. The power to take prompt action to correct and end a discriminatory housing practice by a third party depends upon the extent of your control or any other legal responsibility you may have with respect to the third party’s conduct.

Example: In November 2019, HUD announced that it reached a $80,000 settlement to resolve allegations that the owners and manager of a Georgia community ignored complaints by African-American residents of repeated racial harassment by white neighbors.

Three African-American residents filed the HUD complaint, alleging that the community refused to investigate and address their claims that their white neighbors subjected them to racial harassment and verbal and physical assaults, including attacks by dogs. The community denied the allegations but agreed to the settlement requiring payment of $20,000 to each of the three residents and to create a $20,000 fund to compensate other residents who may have been subjected to racial harassment.

“No one should ever have to face threats or be subjected to physical violence in the place they call home because of their race,” Anna María Farías, HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, said in a statement. “The agreement we’re announcing today is a reminder to housing providers everywhere that HUD is committed to ensuring that they meet their obligation to comply with the nation’s fair housing laws.”

UPDATE:

Tenant-on-Tenant Harassment

In the January 2020 lesson, Fair Housing Coach highlighted an appeals court ruling that a New York community could face liability under the FHA for failure to stop an alleged campaign of racial harassment against an African-American resident by his neighbor. In recent action, the appeals court agreed to a rehearing in the case; oral arguments are scheduled for September 2020.

In his complaint, the resident alleged that his next-door neighbor engaged in a months-long campaign of racial harassment, abuse, and threats against him. According to the resident, he contacted police and notified management about the neighbor’s abuse at least three times, but management failed to intervene. Ultimately, the neighbor was arrested and pleaded guilty to aggravated harassment.

The resident sued, accusing the community of violating fair housing law by failing to take action to address a racially hostile housing environment created by his neighbor. A district court ruled against the resident and dismissed the case.

After a series of proceedings, a panel of the appeals court reversed, ruling that the resident could pursue his claims against the community for intentional discrimination under the FHA by failing to do anything to stop the neighbor from subjecting him to a racially hostile housing environment [Francis v. Kings Park Manor, Inc., New York, December 2019].

Solution: There are five steps you can take to minimize discrimination risks when dealing with undocumented aliens: 

1. Don’t make U.S. citizenship or immigration status a qualifying criterion for renting unless you have a legitimate, nondiscriminatory, and documented business justification for doing so—for example, because state or municipal law requires it;
2. Be consistent in applying whatever screening policy you do adopt;
3. Ask for the right form of verification of citizenship and/or immigration status (discussed below);
4. Apply your normal screening standards to immigrants; and
5. Don’t use an applicant or tenant’s immigration status as a bargaining chip.

How to Verify Immigration/Citizenship Status. Acceptable proof depends on whether you’re seeking to verify an applicant’s status as a citizen, immigrant, or nonimmigrant:

• Citizenship: Acceptable proof of U.S. citizenship includes a valid current U.S. passport, birth certificate, or certificate of naturalization;
• Legal immigrant: Proof of legal immigrant status, i.e., noncitizens who have the right to permanently remain in the U.S., include a Permanent Resident Card (a.k.a., “Green Card”) and an official Social Security number;
• Legal nonimmigrants: Legal nonimmigrants are persons allowed to be in the U.S. on a temporary basis for specific reasons. Such applicants should have a non-U.S. passport from their native country along with a Form I-94, a.k.a., Arrival Departure Record or Entry Permit listing when they entered the U.S. and how long they have a right to stay. They also need a visa, such as an F-1 visa for students, unless they’re from one of the countries that has signed a visa waiver agreement with the U.S.

You Make the Call

Which of the following would be a legitimate reason to reject applicants who aren’t U.S. citizens?

a.         Being a U.S. citizen is required for leasing property under HUD program rules and/or state or local law 

b.         A non-U.S. citizen is generally less likely to pay rent on time each month

c.          Non-U.S. citizens are totally judgment proof

Answer:

a. The fact that HUD program rules and/or state or local laws require landlords to verify that applicants are U.S. citizens before accepting them is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory justification.

Wrong answers explained:

b.         The assumption that noncitizens are less likely to pay rent is just that—an assumption, and one based on stereotypes. Consequently, it’s not justification for requiring applicants to be U.S. citizens.

c.          The reason c. is wrong is that it’s overstated. While evicting or suing a noncitizen for lease violations poses challenges, it’s not accurate to characterize immigrants as “judgment-proof.” In fact, persons in the U.S. illegally are likely to be far more amenable to threats of litigation.

Answer:  Unfortunately, Oregon’s “3-strikes rule” only applies to mobile home park tenants who own their homes.  It allows parks to issue a non-curable, 30-day eviction notice to mobile home tenants if they accumulate three or more 10-day nonpayment notices within a 12-month period.  The rule does not apply to RV tenants or to tenants in park-owned homes.

There is a “modified” 3-strikes rule that might work, but it requires the park to enter into fixed-term rental agreements with RV tenants instead of the typical month-to-month agreements.  Under ORS 90.427 (7), a fixed term tenancy can be terminated and does not become a month-to-month tenancy at the end of the term if the tenant commits three or more violations within the preceding 12 months (i.e., receives three or more 10-day notices).  However, this option requires the landlord to issue written warnings with specific statutory language each time the tenant commits a violation.  It also requires a 90-day termination notice correlating with the end of the fixed term.  Since this “modified” 3-strikes rule requires fixed-term tenancies, considerable paperwork, and special forms, it is not the ideal option.

A better option is to use month-to-month rental agreements and never allow any RV tenant to stay in the park for more than 12 months.  Since RV tenants can be evicted with a 30-day,

no-cause termination notice during their first year of occupancy, this gives you the option of giving a 30-day notice if the tenant starts falling behind on rent.  Conversely, it also requires you to issue 30-day notices to anyone approaching 12 months living in the park.  This might be contrary to your park’s business model if you rely on keeping long-term residential RV tenants rather than short-term tenants.

(CAVEAT: The cities of Portland, Eugene, and Milwaukie require 90-day notices within the first year of occupancy, not 30-day notices.  Portland and Eugene also impose “relocation assistance” payments to tenants.  Consult an attorney before issuing no-cause notices in these cities.)

For RV tenants who have lived in the park for more than one year, the park’s options are limited.  The best you can do is regularly issue 10-day nonpayment notices every month to keep tenants paying rent on time.  If they don’t pay by the 10-day deadline, file in court and try to get them to agree on a stipulated court move-out agreement at the 1st court appearance hearing.  If that doesn’t work, keep issuing 10-day nonpayment notices every month.  Also keep up the pressure by issuing 30-day notices every month for nonpayment of late fees and utilities (MHCO Form 205).

Mark L. Busch, P.C., Attorney at Law, Cornell West, Suite 200, 1500 NW Bethany Blvd., Beaverton, Oregon 97006; Phone: 503-597-1309; Web:  www.marklbusch.com

Notice to Office of Manufactured Dwelling Park Community Relations. In addition to providing the notice as required by ORS 90.842[1] (Notice of sale of manufactured dwelling park), HB 2008 provides that upon sale of a manufactured dwelling park, or upon any sale, transfer, exchange or other conveyance of a manufactured dwelling park described in ORS 90.848 (Exceptions to requirements for sale or transfer of manufactured dwelling park), the owner must give notice of the conveyance to the Office of Manufactured Dwelling Park Community Relations stating:

• The number of vacant spaces and homes in the manufactured dwelling park;
• If applicable, the final sale price of the manufactured dwelling park (emphasis mine);
• The date the conveyance became final; and
• The name, address and telephone number of the new owner.

Comment: There are several transfers under ORS 90.848 to which disclosure of the "final sale price may not be applicable. For example: A gift; a transfer by a corporation to an affiliate; the liquidation of a partnership to its partners or limited liability company to its members; the conveyance of a trust deed to a lender as security for a loan; a conveyance resulting from the foreclosure of a mortgage or deed of trust; a transfer between joint tenants or tenants in common owning a park.

Manufactured Dwelling Cooperatives. HB 2008 also amends ORS 62.809 (Requirements for membership in cooperative), a statute I have little familiarity with.

A person may become a member of a manufactured dwelling park nonprofit cooperative if the person: (a) Is a natural person; (b) Owns a manufactured dwelling that is, or is to be, located in a manufactured dwelling park of the cooperative and occupied by the person; (c) Pays the membership fee required by the cooperative; and (d) Meets any additional membership qualifications established in the articles of incorporation or bylaws of the cooperative.

Membership in a manufactured dwelling park nonprofit cooperative entitles the member to rent space for a dwelling in the park and to occupy the manufactured dwelling. The total number of memberships available for issuance by the cooperative may not exceed the number of dwelling spaces in the park. Cooperatives issue one membership for each manufactured dwelling that is, or is to be, located in the park of the cooperative and occupied by an owner. A person may not own more than one membership in the same cooperative. Members may sell or redeem their membership in the cooperative, so long as it is for the price the member paid for the membership.

This legislation proves that if title to a manufactured dwelling located in the park of a cooperative is transferred to a lienholder, and a buyer of the dwelling from the lienholder or a person that acquired title from the lienholder does not become a member of the cooperative within 12 months after title is transferred to the lienholder, the owner of the manufactured dwelling must remove it from the park.

Under HB 2008, an owner of a manufactured dwelling is not required to remove the manufactured dwelling described above if the cooperative agrees with the owner in writing to: (a) Waive or extend the deadline by which the buyer or subsequent buyer must remove the manufactured dwelling; or (b) Store the manufactured dwelling on the space for a specified period of time.

The existing park-cooperative law allows for lienholders and a cooperative to enter into storage agreements for up to 12 months, under similar provisions as found in the current park abandonment law. (See, ORS 90.675(20)) HB 2008 now provides that the lienholder and cooperative may agree in writing to extend the term of the agreement beyond 12 months.

Effective Date. The Effective Date of HB 2008 is June 6, 2017. As for the increase in payments for manufactured homes, the new law will apply to park closures for which notice was given on or after the Effective Date. The amendments to the park-cooperative laws will apply to transfers of title and termination of memberships that occur on or after the Effective Date.

[1] Currently, the notice must include the following information: (a) That the owner is considering selling the park; (b) That the tenants, through a tenants committee, have an opportunity to compete to purchase the park; (c) That in order to compete to purchase the park, within 10 days after delivery of the notice, the tenants must form or identify a single tenants committee for the purpose of purchasing the park and notify the owner in writing of: (i) The tenants' interest in competing to purchase the park; and (ii) The name and contact information of the representative of the tenants committee with whom the owner may communicate about the purchase.