Thursday, October 1, 2026
A series of action plans to preserve manufactured home communities and reduce the risk of displacement for hundreds of residents is on the table in Olympia.
Housing Program Department Senior Program Specialist Christa Lenssen presented an action plans recommendation to the Olympia Land Use & Environment Committee at meeting on Aug. 27.
The plans focus on resident education and outreach, monitoring funding sources and policy changes, strategic engagement with individual communities, and expanding affordable homeownership opportunities.
Resident education and outreach: The city proposes creating a dedicated section of its website with up-to-date information for manufactured home owners, including landlord-tenant rights, the state’s 5 percent annual lot-rent cap, and the opportunity for residents to compete to purchase their communities.
Lenssen said staff could also work with legal aid attorneys and community organizations to offer workshops on tenant rights, rent stabilization and other resources.
Monitor funding sources and policy changes: City staff would continue monitoring federal, state and local funding opportunities, including a Washington State Department of Commerce infrastructure grant program being developed for existing resident cooperatives. The city also plans to monitor rent stabilization litigation and preservation efforts in neighboring areas, including Lacey.
Strategic engagement: Staff proposes developing a prioritization matrix to identify manufactured home communities at greater risk of displacement and ones that could be strong candidates for resident cooperative ownership. The goal is to tailor city resources and interventions to the needs of individual communities.
Expand homeownership opportunities: The city is also looking at how land banking and broader affordable homeownership strategies could help manufactured home residents access alternatives, such as starter homes, townhomes and condominiums.
Lenssen said staff would continue tracking Black Home Initiative’s statewide starter home pilot and strengthening partnerships with affordable homeownership developers.
Olympia has about 12 known manufactured housing communities within city limits, with about 800 housing units.
Lenssen said manufactured housing is one of the few affordable homeownership options available to low- and fixed-income households and one of the city’s few sources of unsubsidized, naturally occurring affordable housing.
“Loss of manufactured housing communities not only represents a loss of affordable housing, but a loss of equity and investment for low-income homeowners," Lenssen said.
According to Lenssen, residents can face displacement when park owners raise lot rents, sell properties or pursue redevelopment.
Because most residents own their homes but rent the land, a community's closure can mean losing both housing and equity invested in a home.
Lenssen added that moving a manufactured home can also be difficult and expensive, and state relocation assistance may not cover the full cost. Park model owners are not eligible for state assistance.
Infrastructure is another concern. Some communities rely on septic systems or wells, and upgrades can be costly.
Lenssen said city staff is exploring whether local or regional funding, including a potential revolving loan fund, could help communities address infrastructure problems while maintaining long-term affordability.
The state of Washington has also taken steps to protect manufactured home residents. Senate Bill 5198, passed in 2023, gives residents notice of an impending sale and an opportunity to compete to purchase a park as a cooperative.
In 2025, House Bill 1217 capped annual lot-rent increases for manufactured home tenancies at 5 percent.
Committee members expressed support for the proposed strategies.
Member Paul Berendt emphasized the importance of educating residents and preparing intervention strategies before a crisis occurs.
“The most important things we can do for the consumer are this education and having a firm plan for intervention," said Berendt, who represents the Olympia City Council on the committee.
City council member and committee chair Robert Vanderpool also supported the proposed strategies, saying the city should focus on creating stability for residents while addressing rising rents, utility costs and infrastructure needs.
10 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
CommonSenseSenior
Thank you everyone! Now get these egregious WA law RCW 59.20.80 out of the Landlord/Tenant Act.
It is written in the Landlord Tenant Act 59.20.80 (for those who own the mobile home but rent the space) that if a change of use is permitted, either by a current owner or a new buyer---the homeowners will of course have to be evicted. The huge problem is that it says that rather than receiving fair market value for their homes, they only have to be compensated 50% of the prior years assessed value. A lot of people who live in stick-built homes do not realize that in the manufactured home parks everybody paid in cash with their life savings for the home. They have no mortgages. We're homeowners sitting in fully paid for homes.
59.20.080 (iv) reads: The landlord provides relocation assistance of at least $15,000 for a multisection home or at least $10,000 for a single section home, establishes a simple, straightforward, and timely process for compensating the tenants for the loss of their homes, at the greater of 50% of their assessed market value in the tax year prior to the notice of closure being issued, or $5,000 at any point during the closure notice period and prior to a change of use or sale of the property.
Even though each of us paid our life savings in CASH for these homes, and even though we have spent years upgrading them to look good for the City of Tumwater, and even though because of that our investments have had excellent market value increases----we will be compensated in the forced eviction by only 50% of the 'assessed value of the prior year' when evicted. Not the fair market value. A $250,000 assessed manufactured park home would get $125,000 or less and forced to move out. Where do you think we can move to for that? We will all be homeless, and right now 52% of this particular park are low income seniors living on social security checks. Where does that put the City of Tumwater protecting low income housing? Even stick-built homes under eminant domain eviction receive fair market value. This incredible loss of our money should be illegal. All our appreciation and savings spent is whisked away in a paragraph. We should be no different than stick-built homes. The 'assessed value' is a bad joke, some of the homes where individuals have been here for a very long time have barely risen in assessed value and that figure isn't even close to what their market value is right now. Those that have turned over a number of times are closer. We should all be concerned about this.
This RCW 59.20.080 section affects every single manuf/mobile home park in the state. It needs to be changed.
Would you in your stick-built home, be okay with someone telling you you're being lawfully evicted but will be paid only 50% or your prior years assessment for your home, not market value?
What it actually does is put a change of use on the backs in a hardship eviction of low income individuals.
Tuesday, September 8 Report this
DarHitchens
I hope the city of Tumwater also takes this into consideration also.
Wednesday, September 9 Report this
MrCommonSense
Was there any mention in this presentation about contacting the owners of the parks? Reaching out to them directly to gauge their plans, needs, and how the City, residents and the owner can move forward together to ensure longevity, infrastructure improvements if/when necessary? Everyone seems to be focused on the plight of tenants when working co-operatively with all the parties can produce good results. Engagement could also produce a coordinated plan if the owner does intend changing the use in the future. And if conditions warrant, maybe there are some parks that shouldn't be saved; but where cooperation of the City, owner and tenants can make a change work for both.
The City and all jurisdictions need to balance the needs of the tenants, the community and the owner.
Wednesday, September 9 Report this
Patriot
Did the City of Olympia consider it's zoning? Of course not. They city is it's own worst enemy. They have capped the number of mobile home parks by zoning them out of Olympia. They have driven housing costs to unaffordable through regulations, impact fees, endless reviews and costs. They have opened the city up to endless bums moving in from other cities that actually enforce the law. This will be a never ending problem if we continue down this road.
Wednesday, September 9 Report this
36098501
There is an important clarification to the discussion of RCW 59.20.080 that I think readers should fully understand.
The statute does provide a pathway for a park owner pursuing a qualifying change of use to accelerate the closure process by providing compensation equal to the greater of 50% of the home's prior-year assessed market value or $5,000, plus at least $15,000 in relocation assistance for a multisection home ($10,000 for a single-section home).
The mobile home owner still retains the mobile home, but it does have to be relocated.
But describing this as though a homeowner with a $250,000 manufactured home simply “gets $125,000” and loses the other $125,000 is entirely inaccurate.
The homeowner does not sell or surrender the manufactured home to the developer. The homeowner continues to own the home and is being compensated while being required to relocate it. The 50% payment is not the purchase price of the house. The separate relocation payment is intended to assist with moving it - not take it.
If the home's prior-year assessed market value were $250,000, the 50% component would be $125,000, and a qualifying multisection homeowner would also receive at least $15,000 in relocation assistance while retaining the full ownership of the manufactured home.
Let's debate the actual law rather than create the impression that the state has authorized developers to take a $250,000 home and give its owner $125,000 for it.
And the eminent-domain comparison also needs some care. A private park owner's decision to change the use of its property is not the same legal circumstance as the government condemning someone's property.
There is plenty to debate about whether Washington has struck the right balance between the property rights of park owners and the substantial equity invested by manufactured-home owners. But if we're going to argue for changing RCW 59.20.080, the argument should start with an accurate description of what the statute actually does say.
The law allows an owner to accelerate the displacement of homeowners by paying a statutory amount that may be substantially less than the home's actual economic loss associated with losing its location. That's a serious policy issue.
Wednesday, September 9 Report this
CommonSenseSenior
RCW 59.20.080 says " In the event that a home remains in mobile home park or manufactured housing community after tenant vacates, the landlord shall be responsible for demolition or disposal. "
My reading of that is that the landlord can sell it in the event the homeowner has no way to relocate it out of the park because of having insufficient money to move it, and no land to put it on. So no, they don't end up still owning a home.
Wednesday, September 9 Report this
CommonSenseSenior
The other huge problem is that people who buy a manufactured home in a park that charges space rent are just completely unaware that there is a section of Landlord/Tenant Act that was designed for them. The majority have never owned a manufactured home before. There is currently no law that requires landlords to PROVIDE A NEW HOMEOWNER a copy of the Landlord/Tenant Act RCW 59.20. So you're going to say 'why don't they just read it online?' Most of these elderly have no computers anymore. It would be wonderful if Lacey, Olympia and Tumwater required landlords for mobile/manufactured home parks to provide them a copy of RCW 59.20 to read before they sign final papers to buy the home. The laws within it affect so many aspects of their living in the park, like who owns the garage, who has to pay for an underground water leak, can you evict me for no reason, can my grandkids come for the summer, do I have to repair or replace the fence in the back yard, etc. I think most folks realize apt dwellers have a landlord/tenant act but it just isn't known that a homeowner in a manufactured park also has a separate landlord/tenant act which supersedes anything in a lease provided by the landlord. Anything in a landlord lease that is not in compliance with the RCW 59.20 is NOT ENFORCEABLE.
Wednesday, September 9 Report this
TheVirtualOne
Another perspective that seems absent from the discussion is that mobile home communities are built by investors who have risked millions in purchasing the land, developing the infrastructure (sewer, electrical, roads, etc.), loans, and other costs. They deserve a reasonable return on investment for the risks they have taken. Many of the increases in rent are simply due to the increased costs imposed by government, such as taxes, garbage collection, increased utility costs approved by the WUTC, Climate Commitment Act costs being passed on to them, etc. As pointed out above by another observant commenter, government zoning and regulations have a great deal to do with the nature of increasing costs. While they’re saying they want to make housing more affordable, government officials are increasingly imposing additional costs on landlords, such as the new requirement to register their property with the city, conduct additional inspections, etc. These are additional costs they will pass on to their tenants. By any other definition, that’s shooting themselves in the foot.
Wednesday, September 9 Report this
TheVirtualOne
By any other definition, that’s *government* shooting themselves in the foot.
Wednesday, September 9 Report this
CommonSenseSenior
Please notice wording where it says 'transfer title to park owner'. This is from RCW 59.21 and has to do with the issue of homeowners being evicted due to change of use by current or new owner:
"A tenant is eligible for relocation assistance under this chapter only after an application is submitted by that tenant or an organization acting on the tenant's account under RCW 59.21.021(5) on a form approved by the director. The application shall include: (a) A copy of the notice from the park-owner, or other adequate proof, that the tenancy is terminated due to closure of the park or its conversion to another use; (b) a copy of the rental agreement then in force, or other proof that the applicant was a tenant at the time of notice of closure; (c) proof of ownership of the home at the time of notice of closure; (d) a statement, on a form approved by the department, of whether the tenant will transfer title of the home to the park-owner or relocate the home within 90 days of receiving relocation assistance; and (e) other information as may be required by the department to process the application.
Thursday, September 10 Report this