They could be nice (you might be surprised) or they might be the stereotype you might expect (those exist but there aren't as many as you might think).
But the one thing they all have in common is that if they are not owned by the residents in association, then some powerful financial interest, of some kind, somewhere, is coming for them.
Novato mobile home residents fight for promised ownership as bonds near payoff | KTVU FOX 2 https://share.google/3KePGsFQIEhTOxSvq
I was struck by the statement-- "It couldn't be in writing at the time."
Why not?
Wouldn't you get it in writing if you were essentially taking out a $30 million loan?
This makes no sense.
I guess they should consider bringing litigation against the municipality since it isn't willing to state its position.
My guess, if I had to guess, is that the residents of this mobile home park have a better than even chance if being evicted sooner or later.
It couldn't be in writing at the time? That's such a strange thing to say. Also, if it's not on paper, the alleged agreement, how would the courts honor it?
A verbal contact concerning a $30 million agreement isn't something that seems credible.
My limited although recent experience of the legal system is that it's what's in writing that matters. Nothing else matters. It might seem like a narrow point but with human nature being what it is- "Nothing else" means, in effect, to be blunt, people would commit theft (there's no better word for it) if they weren't constrained by paperwork.
The courts are process oriented by nature.
Maybe the residents will be victorious. It doesn't seem to me that putting resources into social media to pressure the municipality to reply to their concern when the municipality is intentionally doing the opposite is much of a strategy.
I read these stories every time they appear in my feed. I've read a lot of them. I think I have a good idea of the various possible outcomes in this kind of case but this case is a mystery to me.
