Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/22/2001 09:11 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 6(L&C)
"An Act relating to required notice of eviction to mobile home park
dwellers and tenants before redevelopment of the park."
DENNIS MCMILLEN, United Way, testified via teleconference,
indicated that about a year ago they became aware that there were
developers asking for re-zoning on property that was currently
occupied by manufactured homes. He noted that while many people
living in those neighborhoods had the capacity to move, the United
Way was concerned that some of them were marginal and might not be
able to move their mobile homes. The intent was that if nothing
was done they might be creating a new class of homeless families in
their communities and indeed when they did the research that is
what they found. He pointed out that they pulled all the groups
working with housing, many non-profit organizations, municipalities
of the state and most importantly residents of the communities to
discuss the issue. He added that they also pulled in developers
and looked at what was going on and the possible impact and what
other state's have done. He explained that what they found was
that current laws were not adequate to protect these people and
they put together what was called "the manufactured home report."
He noted that listed in the report were many different options for
the municipalities of the state to look at, which would help build
a structure to keep people from being so much at risk. He
explained that the key was to give people a longer period from when
they understood that their property was going to be redeveloped.
He concluded that he was very pleased to see that it was going to
be looked at by a task force and the legislature.
ANGELA LISTEN, Director, Department of Justice, Archdiocese of
Anchorage, testified via teleconference, indicated that she worked
on the task force. She said that they thought that a one-year
notice was reasonable, on the other hand, time was of the essence
for the developer and they only needed six months on this
legislation. She expressed their support for SB 6 and said that
they believed it was a balance between the right of the landowner
and the right of the tenant.
STEPHANIE WHEELER, Program Director, Catholic Social Services,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage, echoed the concerns of
Mr. McMillen and Ms. Listen and reported that Catholic Social
Services were currently working with some residents who had been
recently impacted by the rezoning and they were assisting with the
re-location plan. She noted that SB 6 addressed their two major
concerns, which were adequate notice and financial compensation.
She urged the Committee to support SB 6.
MACKENNA JOHNS, Director, AMHRAC (tenant advocacy group) testified
via teleconference from Anchorage, indicated that they support the
bill and urged the Committee to pass SB 6.
Amendment #1:
Page 4, line 2: following "provided in a valid lease."
INSERT:
If the change in land use requires relocating 10 or more mobile
homes, the mobile home park owner or operator may contribute to a
pooled relocation fund $5,000 for each mobile home being relocated,
and the relocation fund shall pay the actual disconnection,
relocation, and reestablishment costs of each mobile home; however,
the relocation fund may not be required to pay more than the total
received from the owner or operator.
Senator Leman moved to adopt the amendment.
Co-Chair Kelly asked if there were any objections, there being none
Amendment #1 was adopted.
Senator Green wondered if any of the developers had testified.
Senator Ellis indicated that one of the developers might be on-line
to testify, but did send in a letter of support.
Senator Green wondered since this was an additional obligation to
the developer whether they would cross over into the issue of
"taking."
Senator Green clarified that she was talking about signing an
obligation to a landowner in order to use their land and she
wondered if they have then imposed the equivalent of a reduction in
value to that person, because of what they have to go through to
vacate the property or change the use of the property. She
inquired as to whether that would be seen as a "taking" that the
state is imposing on the landowner.
Senator Ellis did not believe that it would be imposing some
unjustified "taking." He noted that there was no effective date on
the bill.
Co-Chair Kelly indicated that a "taking" would be an extreme
explanation and said that it is more of a procedural matter and did
not see that it would drop the value of the property.
Ms. Listen commented that she found, originally, a similar statute
in Oregon and at that time it had not been challenged.
Senator Green indicated that she was not sure in Alaska if "taking"
would be challenged, since they do not have a "taking" provision,
but clarified that what she was saying was if a landowner has
another bar that he has to meet in order to use his/her land when
it has been legally rezoned than the state is imposing a penalty
until they can do what they want with their land. She said that
she did not see it as something she could support. She believed
that if a person owned the land and got the rezoning provision and
was able to move forward with the change in purpose then they would
have that right.
Senator Ellis explained that the research shows that Arizona,
Florida, Pennsylvania, California and Oregon all have, in their
landlord/tenant laws, a notice and compensation requirement. He
noted that it was really not adequate compensation, but it would
cover some people and it was a compromise and an effort. He
believed that it was a measured and balanced approach.
Senator Green commented that she would be really reluctant to use
Oregon as an example of land use.
Senator Hoffman indicated that he is a mobile home park owner. He
asserted that if the mobile home owner had been using that land for
income and then wanted to change that income source there would be
some obligation to those people who have provided him with his
livelihood. He expressed support for SB 6.
Senator Green wondered if there was any other provision in state
law that would present a penalty or buy out to whoever was
currently renting or using that income producing property.
Co-Chair Kelly explained that anytime the terms of a lease are
interrupted there is not a penalty, but there would certainly be
compensation to the leaseholder. He believed that SB 6 was sort of
an extrapolation on that concept.
AT EASE 9:44 AM/ 9:45 AM
Senator Leman moved to report CS SB 6 (L&C), 22-LS0216\P, as
amended from Committee with individual recommendations and
accompanying fiscal note.
Co-Chair Kelly asked if there were any objections, there being none
CS SB 6 (L&C) was reported from Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|