Manufactured Housing Cont…
June 4th, 2008 by Jared MorrisHere’s an e-mail relating to today’s guest by Joseph Fulgham, Communications Officer, DE House of Representatives
Jared,
I was listening to your show today between 10:30 a.m. and 11 a.m. As
someone who works for parties on both sides of the manufactured housing
issues, I need to point out that statements made by Delaware
Manufactured Home Owners Association (DEMHOA) PIO Fred Neil and blogger
Dana Garrett were inaccurate and do not further the debate on these
topics.
* On March 7th, negotiators with DEMHOA did agree to a compromise
on SB 122 (the bill to give manufactured housing community residents a
chance to collectively purchase the communities in which they live).
(See NJ article pasted at bottom of page.) This agreement included a
provision that dealt with the potential auction of these properties.
Specifically, the consensus on the auction provision was reached when
community owners agreed to give homeowners a “right of last refusal” -
an opportunity to win the auction by topping the highest bid by 1%.
* In regard to SB 122, unlike the Senate, House Rules prevent
committee heads from ignoring bills in their committee. The bill was
the subject of two days of hearings by the House Subcommittee on
Manufactured Housing on Jan. 9 and 10. At that time, the subcommittee
members agreed to give negotiators a chance to reach a
mutually-acceptable compromise on the issue. While those talks have
apparently reached an impasse, and the bill remains in the subcommittee,
it needs to be noted that any member of the subcommittee can make a
motion to have the bill released. Supporters of SB 122 have not done
this, likely because they feel they do not have enough support within
the subcommittee to secure a successful vote. Supporters of SB 122 may
lament this reality, but it is the outcome of a democratic process.
* Also, those supporting SB 122 have a second option available to
them by petitioning the bill out of committee. In this case, a majority
(21) of the 41 House members would have to agree to have the bill
brought to a floor for a vote. Two attempts to do this (in January and
May) failed for a lack of support. (NOTE: The number of votes need to
petition the bill out of committee is the same number that would be
needed to pass it.)
* Mr. Garrett’s allegation that Rep. Hocker was “mysteriously”
replaced on the House Manufactured Housing Subcommittee implied
something inappropriate had taken place. In fact, it was just the
opposite. Rep. Hocker, who did acquire two small manufactured housing
communities after taking office, removed himself from the committee to
avoid any potential conflict of interest. He has repeatedly disclosed
this conflict publicly and has also avoided voting on manufactured
housing legislation on the House floor for the same reason. Ironically,
Rep. Hocker purchased the properties primarily to preserve the
affordable housing. He feared another buyer might close the
communities, forcing the residents out.
* Mr. Garrett’s allegations regarding Rep. Short being
disrespectful to constituents are without merit. Dan Short was
repeatedly elected Mayor of Seaford, is a past president of the Seaford
Fire Company and runs a successful local insurance business. He has a
well-deserved reputation for being accessible and cordial - traits that
have led to the achievements I just mentioned.
There is a great deal of misinformation on manufactured housing issues
that is being actively peddled in an apparent attempt to obscure the
facts. I can only speculate as to the motivation of those responsible
for this but it is clear that it has little to do with helping the
residents of manufactured housing communities improve their situation.
Thanks,
Joseph Fulgham
Communications Officer
DE House of Representatives
June 4th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Nice spin job!
June 4th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Sir, I would like you to identify yourself and your position a little better before you speak with such authority. You job as communications officer for the House is a political appointment in effect is it not? You were hired by the Republicans because they have the majority in the House. I have not noticed a great deal of “both sides” in your statement and you for some “unknown reason” took the total side of one party while stating your professed representation of “both sides”. Joe, I don’t think you are doing a very fair “communication” job, I think you are a mouthpiece for Valihura and the Republican Party, and it shows.
June 4th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Mr. Joseph Fulgham was wrong when he said we had agreed to a compromise the newspaper article not withstanding. DMHOA always had prosposed language reviewed by our legal advisers.
Representative Valihura knew this and on March 29th, we told him by email we were at an impasse which included the auctions and other items. He told a report who dutifully reported that Valihura heard rumblings in Leg Hall of a problem. He heard the problem directly from DMHOA.
Mr. Heisler requested and received an opportunity to talk with our legal advisers and top experts in their field courtesy of a conference call from Attorney Chris White, CLASI.
Heisler called both of our advisers again on May 14th to convince them to change their advice to us. They didn’t and we didn’t. Copies of this emails have been sent to Jared Morris , of this station.
Mr. Fulgham myth of an agreement crashes in light of the email exchange between Representative Schwartzkopf, Representative Valihura, and Attorney Chris White shortly before Mr. Valihura’s “tough love” tirade on May 27th. Mr. White very clearly reported in that email, a copy of which is in the hands of Mr. Morris, there was NO agreement.
As for newspaper accuracy, reporters are human and make mistakes such as J.L. Miller of the News Journal did in quoting Richard Maly, who did not attend a meeting. He had talked with DHMOA’s John Walsh. Both are bald… but John is much better looking (Kidding, Rich).
June 4th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Please, everybody, leave Gerald Hocker out of the “list”. He is a fine upstanding citizen and representative and I am proud to have him as my rep. Gerald goes out of his way to help people out. In am glad he was able to buy the properties in order to allow the residents to maintain their homes.
June 8th, 2008 at 10:50 am
How are these folks going to pay the increased cost of food and gasoline and everything else in the world. How does everyone else that doesn’t create some put up association to fight their battles manage to pay the high cost of living in this area? Why don’t we form a group to make the banks lower my mortgage, and give me the right to decide what it is worth , while we are at it why stop at just manufactured housing parks, why don’t we extend the same things they are fighting for to all renters. Maybe we should seize all private property and let the government decide what is a fair rent , oh wait that is what this group is trying to do.
This is clearly a small group of people attempting to use government to steal property rights away from the lawful owners of the land, and if it is allowed to happen , do not be surprised when it happens to you. If we allow government this infringement on rights it will lead to others based on this precedent.
We all have to make hard choices and sacrifices in our lives, but the worste thing we can do is to give up our freedoms , or to expect others to give up theirs for our benefit.