A former California housing official called as an expert witness in a trial that may determine whether a Thermal-area mobile home park stays open testified today that closing mobile home facilities, even ones with defects, is always ``a last resort.''
Jack Kerin, who worked for 30 years in the California Department of Housing & Community Development, testified that the state's 1961 Mobile Home Parks Act allows officials to use some discretion in determining what to do about non-permitted parks.
Kerin was called by attorneys for tenants at the Desert Mobile Home Park -- better known as ``Duroville'' -- which the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs is seeking to shut down over health and safety concerns.
A civil trial to resolve the government's claims against park owner Harvey Duro got under way last week.
The BIA alleges Duro has been running an illegal commercial operation because he never obtained a BIA-approved lease to rent out spaces at the location, where between 2,000 and 5,000 migrant workers and their families reside in some 300 largely dilapidated trailers.
Federal officials also allege Duro failed to abide by terms of a 2004 settlement agreement reached with the BIA to stave off further legal action against the park, which Duro was required to clean up, but didn't, according to court papers.
The 40-acre park is located on the Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indian Reservation, which is under federal jurisdiction.
During questioning by tenants' attorney Chandra Spencer, Kerin explained how the state handles mobile home facilities, like Duroville, that evolve into full-fledged parks, without going through the permitting process.
The witness recalled instances in Riverside County in which parks developed haphazardly, requiring action by state housing officials. Kerin testified that officials provided property owners with information and resources on how to get a facility licensed.
He said health and safety inspections were performed at the facilities, and any discrepancies were ordered corrected, with ``a reasonable timeline'' given to the property owner to implement the necessary changes.
``The intent of the Mobile Home Parks Act is to preserve and provide additional housing,'' Kerin said. ``Closure (of a park) is a last resort.''
Jim Fletcher, superintendent of the BIA's Southern California Region, testified last week that despite recent improvements at Duroville, the park remained rife with environmental hazards and needed to be closed in 90 days.
When asked why Duroville was the focus of so much attention -- and not three other mobile home facilities on the Indian reservation -- Fletcher said Duroville was in far worse shape.
However, the BIA appeared to have no definitive criteria in place to determine whether Duro's operation violated any specific health and safety codes or other regulations tied to running a mobile home park.
Mark Adams, attorney and head of the Duroville Renaissance Corp., a nonprofit set up specifically to address problems at the park, said earlier this week that the government's case seemed to flounder when questions arose regarding what laws govern mobile home park operations on the reservation.
The Torres-Martinez tribe did not enact an ordinance on mobile home park standards until last year, leaving open the question of what guidelines Duro was required to follow in the prior 10 years of the park's existence, according to Adams.
The court requested written clarification of the government's position, as well as the positions of the other parties -- all of which were due Wednesday.
U.S. Attorney's Office spokesman Thom Mrozek would not comment on recent developments in the trial, but reiterated the contention of federal prosecutors that the best way to solve Duroville's problems is to close the park.
``We want to see it closed because we want a safe and legal facility out there, and it appears that there's no other way to do it,'' Mrozek said on Monday.
Adams said he didn't feel U.S. District Judge Stephen G. Larson would ponder padlocking the facility, even if he ruled in favor of the BIA's claims.
Larson last April denied federal prosecutors' request for an injunction to halt operations at Duroville. He gave Duro four months to obtain engineering studies, establish a business plan and make modifications as part of an agreement to keep the facility open.
But two months later, in July 2008, Duro had failed to comply with most of the court's instructions, prompting Larson to appoint the DRC to take over management.
Both Duro and the tribe now want Duroville shut down. Duro's attorney, Scott Zundel, said outside court today that his client is looking at new uses for the property, which is Duro's primary source of income.
In December, the court removed Duro from an executive capacity at the park, denying him further access to his share of tenants' rental payments, which amounted to $7,000 a month.
FAIR USE NOTICE. This document may contain copyrighted material the use of which may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Tenants Together is making this article available on our website in an effort to advance the understanding of tenant rights issues in California. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.