My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN081892
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
CCMIN081892
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:02 AM
Creation date
10/28/1999 11:57:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
191 <br /> <br /> They were aware that a number of grievances were accumulating <br />at Pleasanton Mobile Home Park and knew that most residents felt <br />intimidated. Mr. Heckathorn made them aware of the serious <br />economic difficulties of the older residents in Pleasanton Mobile <br />Home Park, therefore they attempted to provide the maximum <br />protection possible. Mr. Richards announced that it was most <br />appropriate that they withdraw from any further proceedings <br />regarding Pleasanton Mobile Home Park and they were in strong <br />disagreement with the reckless and debasing statement which have <br />been made by both Mr. Burton and the GSMOL regarding their efforts <br />on behalf of all of the residents in the mobile home parks. He <br />then reiterated some of the comments quoted from the newsletters. <br />He concluded that Mr. Dick McDonnell who had represented Fairview, <br />Vineyard Villa and Hacienda Park owners, as well as he and Mr. <br />,Dove, who had represent the tenants, withdraw from any further <br />negotiations on behalf of the Pleasanton. Mobile Park. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked if Mr. Roush had considered the information <br />that Mr. Wagner presented prior to making his recommendation. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush stated yes. He explained that he received that <br />information approximately ten days prior-to this meeting. He <br />believed that if this information were the only information used, <br />there would be the possibility of an accusation of bias because the <br />report was prepared by the person retained by the property owner. <br />Therefore, he felt that an independent or separate study would be <br />most appropriate. ' <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked if this study would evaluate not only this one <br />park but the circumstances throughout the City. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush answered yes. In order to create a fair ordinance, <br />comparable rents throughout the City with respect to mobile homes <br />balanced with a reasonable return on investments for the park <br />owners, would have to be considered. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler stated that he supported the request for the study. <br />He asked what the qualifications were of this independent person <br />who would conduct the study. <br /> <br /> Mar. Roush explained that Mr. Shores had done similar studies <br />throughout Northern California. Mr. Startton was also aware of Mr. <br />Shores and his studies. Mr. Roush was satisfied that this person <br />was qualified to conduct the study. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler stated his abhorrence towards rent control <br />ordinances had never been a secret, but he did want this matter <br />resolved. <br /> <br />8/ 8/92 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.