>"Being forced to move from the Park will create a
>considerable hardship for the residents," the letter
>states.

The premise of mobile homes is that the owners can easily move, when they way—unlike people who invest in traditional homes. The claim that everyone of the people in this particular park would seem to belie the underlying claims of those promoting mobile homes.

> "Most residents will not be able to afford to
> live anywhere else in Palo Alto, one of the most
>expensive places in the country to live, without
>significant housing subsidies or other assistance."

This statement is very difficult to believe. In essence, it seems to be saying that no one living in this park is capable to making their own way in American society. These people are not employable, nor are they capable of contributing to the operational costs of the City in which they live in proportion to the public expenditures it takes to provide them access to public services.

Ultimately, we do have to ask—why should the law be crafted to ensure that these people don’t have to bear the same responsibilities of modern society like the rest of us?

We also need to ask ourselves--is this Mobile Home Park the sort of operation that might be characterized as creating blight in a city such as Palo Alto?

If the closure of the mobile home does not go through, can the current owner be forced to upgrade the decaying infrastructure? From what I understand, just the upgrading process would force many of the residents to leave so there is access to what needs to be replaced.

I would hope any lawsuit would also include plans for a way for the mobile home to continue with working utilities and safe mobile structures.