• Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

In order to visit a beach community, one must wear ugly sunglasses, so I snatch my chrome Elvis reproduction shades that I purchased in Las Vegas last summer and hit the door. From the 8 West I take the 5 North and get off at Mission Bay Drive. Just off the ramp is one of San Diego’s great outdoor spaces: De Anza Cove. Lush lawns meet the bay’s beach. Full shade trees cast big shadows for the picnickers dragging baby carriages and barbecues. Down a little path that runs next to the water, joggers in bright shiny shirts and chunky shoes bounce along. Oh, it’s pretty. This treasured outdoor space also offers a scenic view of a dumpy trailer park and its dilapidated mobile homes.

Bill Killman has owned his De Anza Cove mobile home since 2000. It has a sunroom, 2 bedrooms, 
1 bath, and is air-conditioned. He pays about $800 per month for the use of the lot and utilities.

Bill Killman has owned his De Anza Cove mobile home since 2000. It has a sunroom, 2 bedrooms, 1 bath, and is air-conditioned. He pays about $800 per month for the use of the lot and utilities.

If you’re anything like me, you’ve looked across the water and wondered how in the hell a trailer park is still standing in the middle of a beach community, even more so, right on the bay. It’s 2011, and by now nearly every bit of prime real estate has been built up into a skyscraper condominium complex or a ritzy hotel with polished brass dolphin statues in the courtyard. (Why so many damn dolphin statues, San Diego?) Anytime I see a throwback to good taste like this mobile home park, my eyebrows make a V, my head cocks to the side, and my face registers a decidedly “What in the…?” expression, as if I’d just seen a man riding an ostrich. How could this thing escape redevelopment for so long?

De Anza Cove mobile homes purchased by the City are first posted with 
“No Trespassing” signs, awaiting their turns to be removed from the lot.

De Anza Cove mobile homes purchased by the City are first posted with “No Trespassing” signs, awaiting their turns to be removed from the lot.

Driving through the mobile home park, I see touches of a nice community intermingled with signs of complete decay. The bulletin board out front reads “Church Service Sunday 10:30 am Bay Club” and has posted “Lilies for sale” and “Come grow your own vegetables. Plots available.” Just beyond the bulletin board are trailers that appear to have only tattered blue tarps for major sections of roofing, and their foundations seem to be made up of shopping carts and bottles. The mobile home park looks like It’s a Wonderful Life before Clarence the angel shows up.

People in the 50s and 60s moved in, set up their homes, and settled down to a quiet life on the bay.

People in the 50s and 60s moved in, set up their homes, and settled down to a quiet life on the bay.

It probably won’t shock you to know that a trailer park in such a prime location has provoked the ire of its neighbors as well as the greedy eye of the City. I’d like to tell you that the City can’t touch it, that this ugly-ass trailer park, thumbing its nose at the superficial beauty and outlandish expense of Pacific Beach, is a permanent fixture, but that’s not true. There has been a fight for this plot of land for decades, and the City of San Diego has been scheming to develop it into a hotel since at least the 1980s. And the City can do it, too. The land belongs to the City. Sort of. It actually belongs to the State, but the State gave it to the City. But not to put mobile homes on. So the State wants it back, but the City… Hang on. Let’s start at the beginning.

In 2003, Hawkeye demolished laundry rooms, cut down trees, shut off electricity and water

In 2003, Hawkeye demolished laundry rooms, cut down trees, shut off electricity and water

Way back between 1939 and 1945, the State of California gave this marshy land to the City “to be held in trust for the use of all citizens of the state.” Isn’t that nice? Of course it is, and of course the City didn’t do that; it did the exact opposite. In 1953, the City leased the land to a developer (you know, like San Diego does) with the provision that the developer put in a tourist area and a trailer park. The original lease calls for “accompanying facilities, businesses and concessions with the written approval of the City Manager.” That sounds wonderful. You can imagine a wide-open park, a little ice cream stand, a boat rental, and Annette Funicello hopping from beach blanket to beach blanket. Yeah, that didn’t happen.

What happened was the developer put in a “trailer park” as requested. But it wasn’t a “trailer park” like you could motor up in your Studebaker towing an Airstream trailer and camp here for a week. It was a “trailer park,” you know, like a mobile home park that contained around 680 units, and about 80 percent of those were made permanent residences. They took this public land and turned it over to developers to use as a private source of income on these mobile home rents, of which the developer would kick back a percentage to the City. It’s an interesting idea to use land as a mobile home park, especially this plot. All you have to do is suck out the marshy muck (birds and fish, right up the tube!), make a peninsula out of sand, pave it, add utility lines, and you’re done with “developing.” No major buildings to construct; just let people roll their houses in and start collecting rent. The City didn’t mind that this wasn’t exactly a “tourist” area anymore, that they had essentially done the exact opposite of what the State mandated for these parcels, because they were scraping a bit of the rent off the top — starting out at 5 percent of the rent that residents paid to the developer/management company. Money rolls in, and everybody keeps quiet that this isn’t “for the use of all citizens of the state.” (Sacramento’s not going to come down here!)

People moved in, set up their homes, and settled down to a quiet life on the bay. They bought and sold the trailers on the land just as anyone does with regular houses. Laundry rooms, a clubhouse, and a pool were put in, the little roads paved and repaved. The people went to work, paid their rent, and in the evenings sat down in front of large console televisions and sucked Hamm’s beer from cans.

And without much notice, in 1978 a bill was passed in California called the Mobile Home Residency Law. We’ll get to that in a minute. What’s far more interesting is just a little skip ahead two years to 1980.

Yeah! The Go-Go ’80s! The greed-is-good era saw Ronald Reagan hand over the economy to the banking industry and stockbrokers take off their nerdy glasses and those green visors and swap their hand-crank calculating machines for shoulder-padded white suits, hair gel, and cocaine. That’s when people started looking at De Anza Cove and going, “What in the hell are mobile homes doing here?”

In 1980, the State Lands Commission conducted a review of the plot and found that it really wasn’t a tourist area for public use. They were shocked to find a mobile home park on what was supposed to be public land and told the City of San Diego to clear it out and make it into the tourist area as the City was supposed to have done 30-some-odd years earlier.

Well, in the previous 30-some-odd years, the mobile homes had become decidedly less mobile. Permanent structures like sundecks and carports were attached to the exteriors of the trailers. Salt air had rusted the steel and oxidized the aluminum into fixed place. And another thing happened: the residents had gotten old. The occupants were now as elderly, creaky, and rusted into place as their trailers.

Recognizing this, in 1982 the state legislature passed a bill called AB 447, or the “Kapiloff Bill” — so named after its author, Assemblyman Larry Kapiloff. The Kapiloff Bill essentially says, “San Diego, you dumb bastards. We gave you this land to use as a tourist area and you made it into a trailer park with permanent residents. Now, get those mobile homes out of there. But (and this is a big but), we know there are elderly residents there, people who have been there since the damn ’50s, so you have until 2003 to save up the money and transition them to other places. If you don’t like it, we’ll take the park back from you and do it ourselves.” (Paraphrased.)

In light of the “take it or leave it” wording of the bill, San Diego envisioned all that rent money going to the State instead of staying here, so the City “took it.” But, they weren’t happy about it and they certainly weren’t going to do what the State told them to do. (Why would they start now?)

The City of San Diego, always acting like a drag queen who’s just had her wig yanked off, took the Kapiloff Bill to the residents of De Anza Cove and started blaming them for developing the land into a mobile home park, even though most if not all of the residents probably had no hand in building the park. Hell, they probably had no idea how the park even got there and what the State of California had originally intended the land to be used for. I imagine a City official hopping out of a Lincoln Continental with the Kapiloff Bill in hand and screaming, “How could you build a mobile home park here!” at a stunned resident in a robe about to pick up the morning paper.

Since San Diego could smell the money of development like sharks smell blood in the water, the City started eyeballing the spot for a swanky new hotel. This is the part where the City transforms from “bumbling and corrupt” to something akin to the villain in a Scooby-Doo episode. The day that the California State Assembly passed the Kapiloff Bill, San Diego laid out a plan to jack up the rent. Remember that 5 percent the City was scraping from the management company? The City renegotiated the terms to take 10 percent, 15 percent, and finally 20 percent of the gross revenue collected — effectively quadrupling the rent that the management company paid the City.

Skyrocketing the rent like this had two intended consequences. The first being obvious: the management company would then pass on the rent hikes to residents. And those who didn’t have the wherewithal to fight City Hall would give up and move out. The second consequence of skyrocketing the rent was, of course, to make money on more development. If everyone moved out, the City could build that brassy hotel they always wanted. This little plan of ratcheting old people’s rent and popping up a hotel was supposed to garner the City between $50 and $60 million over the 20-something years from the 1980s until 2003. (If the hotel didn’t get built, according to the plan, the City stood to make only about $42 million.)

Now, let’s talk about that little thing that hardly anyone noticed in 1978. The Mobile Home Residency Law. Every resident in California has some sort of protection from being tossed out into the alley with the trash cans and stray cats. If you live in an apartment, the police can’t kick your door in and yank you out into the courtyard. If you own a house or condo and someone else (including the City or State) wants your house or condo, they have to pay you for it. Since mobiles don’t have land and since they’re not apartments or condos, here’s this thing for them: the Mobile Home Residency Law. Before the owner of a mobile home park can kick residents off the land and change the park into something different, there’s a long process of filing impact reports, assessing how much each mobile home is worth, acquiring permits for this and permits for that, and filing a cavalcade of paperwork. Oh, it’s a huge deal.

The Mobile Home Residency Law also says that if the owner of the park is a city, the city has to pay to move the people who live there. Now, if you’ll remember, the City of San Diego was poised to make between $42 and $60 million on rent from the De Anza Harbor Resort. Everyone knew the end of the lease was coming up; the original lease was for 50 years, and that was way back in the 1950s, and the new Kapiloff Bill stated that the residents could stay until 2003. So, you’d think, in light of the Mobile Home Residency Law, that the City would keep the $40 or $60 million in revenue and pay a small fraction of that to move the residents come 2003. You might even think that the City would follow the law and file the necessary paperwork. Oh, you’re so silly for thinking that. How silly you are. Because of failed business dealings, that swank hotel was never built. The City still collected its rent checks on the mobile home park, but it sure as hell didn’t want to use the money for relocating residents. If the City didn’t use it to relocate displaced mobile home residents, what did the City spend it on? Candy bars and ink pens, for all we know. The City of San Diego has a special talent for blowing money like an investment banker in a strip club. Either way, they say that money’s gone.

And the City still tried to swoop in every few years and take the mobile home park back. Like Huns on a hill, it would declare itself Supreme Ruler of Everything and that it operated under no law. Forgetting that the State originally mandated that this park be left alone until 2003, also conveniently ignoring the Mobile Home Residency Law, the City would charge down with writs and ordinances and mandates and, most of all, the pointy spear of contracts that waive the residents’ rights. Oh my, but the City was always trying to get these poor old people to sign a contract that waived their rights. All the while, if you looked the city manager in the eye you could see the gleam of a blinking “Hotel” sign. Can you imagine? Waiving your own citizens’ rights and handing public land to funnel money to a private business like a hotel? I’d love to take all the little red plastic hotels from a Monopoly game and scatter them in front of City Hall to watch the bureaucrats burst forth from inside and start fighting over the tiny game pieces like starving people fight over nachos. But, I’m digressing. Sorry. Back to the story.

Fast-forward to 2003, the 50-year lease on the mobile home park was up and the Kapiloff Bill was sun-setting and the City had to move those people, so under the provisions of the Mobile Home Residency Law, the City of San Diego gave the residents of the park all the assistance they required to move their homes, or if the homes were too dilapidated, the City paid the residents to have them razed and found them other suitable accommodations. Everything was wonderful, a real spirit of cooperation; bluebirds sang and tied ribbons into the residents’ hair. Of course, none of that is true.

The City came down on the residents of De Anza mobile home park like an ax murderer descending upon a sorority house. Instead of following the Mobile Home Residency Law and having impact reports drawn up and assessments on people’s homes done and all that, they marched armed policemen in and told the residents to sign legal documents waiving their rights to relocation assistance in exchange for $4000 to $8000.

The City fired the old park manager and brought in (I’m not making this up) a company known for its mobile-home-park busting. (Isn’t that an odd niche?) The company, Hawkeye Asset Management, had already busted up a mobile home park in Orange County and was in court for it. So San Diego gave the company a one-source contract (no competing bids) for $300,000 to “manage” the park in the manner that they had managed the Orange County park.

In 2003, Hawkeye, in what seems like a caricature of evil, demolished laundry rooms, cut down trees, shut off utilities like electricity and water to some trailers, erected barbed-wire fences, set up a guard shack, and hired a security company whose armed guards patrol the grounds. Residents who complained were brought into the management office and told that if they didn’t sign the waiver of their rights and take the four to eight grand pittance for their homes, that they weren’t going to get anything — or, worse, the residents would have to pay for the removal and relocation out of their own pockets.

In one incident with the security guard company, a 61-year-old attorney, Dion Dyer, came to the park to meet with his client. The guard interrogated Mr. Dyer as to the nature of his business and asked for his driver’s license. Mr. Dyer told the guard that neither of those things were any of his business and the guard refused to give Mr. Dyer a parking pass. Mr. Dyer, in clear violation of this security guard’s imaginary authority (!), then drove to his client’s mobile home, where he parked off the street in a carport next to the mobile. While inside, Mr. Dyer heard the rumble of a tow truck and went outside to see what was going on. Security guards were waving the tow truck in to hook up Mr. Dyer’s vehicle. Mr. Dyer protested, and the guard threw the 61-year-old attorney to the ground, facedown on the asphalt, and put a knee in his back. The security guard called the police, and when they arrived, they instructed the guard to let Mr. Dyer up. The police never arrested the guard for anything. The tow truck left without its daily catch. Mr. Dyer went back into the mobile to finish out his business meeting with scuffed palms, a crumpled filthy shirt, and bent glasses. While he was sitting there, he began to have chest pains. He thought he was having a heart attack so he went to the emergency room, where he was diagnosed with two broken ribs.

At least the police didn’t arrest Mr. Dyer! In a separate case, the police weren’t so evenhanded. As people checked into the mobile home park, personal information was demanded and recorded. The security company then handed that information over to the police as tips to catch criminals. One day, half a dozen sheriff’s deputies burst into a trailer. A woman and her three-year-old daughter sat shaking and terrified as the deputies told her that her husband was under arrest. When the husband got home, the deputies told him that he, David Wesley Rose, was under arrest, and he promptly told them that he was not David Wesley Rose but, rather, David William Rose. What happened next is murky, but I’m assuming the deputies gave out a big “Oops!” and popped off a quick wave as they got back into their squad cars. No one knows if they stopped at the guard shack to retrieve more personal information with which to abuse residents, but I dare say it’s not out of the question. After hearing this story, of course, the residents became leery of giving information to the security company. What other ways would they use that information?

The court documents concerning De Anza mobile home park also include one case of the guards calling the police because of “terrorist threats” involving a retiree standing in his driveway (“terrorism” cells have apparently infiltrated the slippers-and-Bermuda-shorts crowd) and one case of an armed guard shouting accusations of “plant vandalism” in which a woman was watering a rosebush. (What a charming environment to live in. Wouldn’t you love to have an armed guard yank a revolver on your grandfather while he fished around for a pension check in his mailbox?)

Finally, the residents started filing lawsuits. And in its supreme beneficence toward its own taxpaying citizens, the City realized its error and paid them a handsome sum immediately, accompanied by an apology. Nah, I’m joshing you, that’s not true at all. What really happened was the City hired well-heeled attorneys (at quite a pretty penny to you and me, thankyouverymuch) and kept up the psychological warfare of misinformation and strong-arming by the police and security guards. They jacked up the residents’ rent and utilities bill. When they’d coerced 115 residents to give up and leave with very little money to help them move, a representative of the City reported that it saw its campaign as “very successful” and “moving along as planned.” Which makes me imagine a City honcho yelling out from his plush corner office, “How are we doing with that ‘old people, mobile home’ nuisance thing?”

And a secretary answering back, “Oh, swimmingly,” overlooking a stack of papers. “We’ve demolished their laundry rooms, erected barbed-wire fences, cut the trees. We’ve smacked a couple around, called them ‘terrorists,’ shut off their electricity, and next week we’ll begin ‘Operation Pull the Tennis Balls Off Their Walkers.’”

Thankfully, that operation never got under way. The homeowners filed three lawsuits against the City. Last December, one of those lawsuits ended with a victory for the homeowners of De Anza mobile home park. The courts forced the City to recognize that they were out of line in dealing with the residents and ordered the City to pay them $3.6 million. That settlement is only for the mismanagement and harassment conducted while trying to get the occupants to leave. It has nothing to do with the Mobile Home Residency Law, in which the City should pay to move these people — that lawsuit is still tied up in the courts. And while it is, the residents can stay in their homes, “status quo.” That’s why if you drive down to the bay and look across the water at De Anza Cove, even though it was supposed to have been removed about eight years ago, you’ll still see a dumpy, butt-ugly trailer park.

I hope it stays there forever. I’ll repeat that. It would be my sincerest wish to keep this place a trailer park forever. If by some miracle a law were enacted to leave these poor old farts alone, maybe they would stop letting their trailers deteriorate so. Maybe they’d pull down that tarp and replace it with actual roofing. Maybe they’d spruce up the place, kill the termites, drag the trash out from under their porches, and rebuild the sun-battered and tumbledown decks. If they knew they could stay for a while, and we removed the Sword of Damocles from over their heads, maybe they’d paint their mobiles and replant some bushes.

The State wants to tear this mobile home park out and replace it with a tourist area. The City always has its hairy eyeball on the spot for a spiffy hotel that will prop up the dolphin-statue sector of the local economy for a brief moment during its construction. Neither one of them understands what they have here. If they left this place alone or, heaven forfend, if the City cleaned the place up, replaced broken windows, and replanted the trees they cut down, they could use this park as a publicity piece. They could parade it around in front of us, use it as an example of their benevolence. They could put it in reelection ads and point to it and say, “See! We’re not completely evil!”

Then, when someone asks you where you are from, you could say, “San Diego! Sure, our City is arguably the most corrupt in the country and it’s forever squabbling over money with the State of California, which is itself often assholish, but look! Look at what we do with some of our prime real estate! We leave this big plot of land undeveloped. It’s low-income housing and mostly occupied by senior citizens. We painted it up and put flowers in. Isn’t that neat?” And I think that’s worth a lot more than a new hotel.

  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it


randiego2 Sept. 14, 2011 @ 12:47 p.m.

I say leave the park there. This city has a long history of giveaways to developers... NTC being the most recent example.

Let them stay!


SUNGAWD Sept. 14, 2011 @ 4:37 p.m.

This is just another example of how inept San Diego Government really is. Over and over we see how totally bad all aspects of this city administration are. This property should be sending millions to the general fund but instead we get ZIP!. The residents of this CITY PROPERTY were well aware of the fact they would have to vacate [I think it was 2004] and that there would be no NEW RESIDENTS ALLOWED. Illegal sublets are the norm and as usual the city sits on their collective hands and says: OH NO! What are we going to do? Drive around this place and see PERMANENT "MOBILE" homes and dilapidated dumps. I wonder if the City of San Diego can EVER DO ANYTHING RIGHT!. I am waiting a copy of the new book "PARADISE PLUNDERED" to learn who is really responsible for the decline of all aspects of the San Diego Government. Its time for a few "HEADS TO ROLL" and many indictments to be drawn up and the perpetrators finally brought to light and justice. De Anza is only one of a very long list of malfeasance in San Diego. Does anyone care?


Oxenfree Sept. 14, 2011 @ 8:03 p.m.

"The residents of this CITY PROPERTY were well aware of the fact they would have to vacate ..."

Whether they knew it or not, there are laws that must be followed to shut down a mobile home park.

"[I think it was 2004] ..."

It was 2003, which I mentioned in the article like 7 times.

"... and that there would be no NEW RESIDENTS ALLOWED. Illegal sublets are the norm and as usual the city sits on their collective hands and says: OH NO! What are we going to do? Drive around this place and see PERMANENT 'MOBILE' homes and dilapidated dumps."

I'm not sure what you're goin' on about here. Thanks for ranting. Be well.


Twister Sept. 14, 2011 @ 10:13 p.m.

Ollie = "All ye"

Oxenfree = "Outs in free."

Is this an ironic coincidence, or WHAT?

Would you keep your property up if you lived in fear of losing it?


PS: "The goddamed human race!" --Mark Twain


Oxenfree Sept. 15, 2011 @ 6:43 a.m.

I would not because of the fear. Fear is the key to how San Diego city has run much of its public programs.


historymatters Sept. 15, 2011 @ 2:11 a.m.

nice story!!!! I was very curious about that project. Very interesting.

But here is the part everyone keeps missing, yes SD is the most corrupt city in the country and the reason we cannot elect these people out of office is because of who is running our elections!!! This is the root of all the evil. San Diegans are smart and they know their City is corrupt and everytime they try and take it back the registrar keeps it in the hands of the crooks.

Do you honestly believe EVERY SINGLE County Supervisor has been re-elected for at least their 4th time or 16th year? No way, but the registrar reports to the County Board of Sups as her bosses which is why they got Deborah Seiler of Diebold and Michael Vu who was implicated in the Ohio presidential election fraud to run our elections. We need much more discussion about this.


historymatters Sept. 15, 2011 @ 2:14 a.m.

I have written about the election fraud here many times but I see very little media coverage of this topic and it is at the root of everything. Please look at this list of facts and developments on the topic of election fraud so we can solve this egregious abuse of power you detail in this story.


Oxenfree Sept. 15, 2011 @ 6:41 a.m.

These are incredibly interesting. I'd like to talk to you about it, History. Thanks, Ollie.


bohemianopus Sept. 15, 2011 @ 7:49 a.m.

GREAT article! I actually know someone who lives in this park. I applaud your accurate account of what has and is still happening in this community.

It isn't the fault of the residents that the park was not in compliance with the law. People invested their money in this housing just as anyone else would invest in conventional property.

How many people check the history, laws or politics involved with a dwelling they are about to purchase? Not many. They put their trust in the title and real estate companies or the property owners.

I think (we) seniors (especially those of us who are of little means) need to rally like other disenfranchised segments of society do. We've paid into the "system" in one way or another for 40, 50, 60 years; and now are scrambling to find safe, affordable housing that will enable us to conduct our business without having to take our lives into our hands to go to the grocery store.


jelula Sept. 1, 2013 @ 4:21 p.m.

This is a somewhat belated comment (2 years later) but you need to know that every owner of mobile home in the park (most of whom have bought since 1990) has been informed since 1981 (legally required real estate disclosure) that the residential us would end in November 2003. However, per someone who lived there in the 1990s told me that new buyers were informed at purchase but then reassured that it wouldn't really happen.

Additionally, due to the city's failure to establish a process to ensure that owners would vacate in 2003 and a state law regarding conversion of mobilehome parks to another use (despite the illegality of continued residential use of this dedicated parkland), we're still struggling to reclaim our parkland and will have to pay these people a lot of money to move off of our parkland. This despite residents' enjoyment of our waterfront property for decades now and at substantially lower rents than anyone would pay at any other property adjacent to Mission Bay Park or the ocean.

Oh, and the city allowed resale of the mobile home units well into 2003! Forget about the sublets that no one monitored.


Zayaz Sept. 15, 2011 @ 8:49 a.m.

This man is a national treasure, clearly his generation's Mark Twain, Ambrose Bierce or Hunter S Thompson. He is already widely read in places as far away as Pittsburgh PA. Until the next article Mr. Oxenfree, be well!


richroble Sept. 15, 2011 @ 11:34 a.m.

Having lived in San Diego since 1962, this is one of the best and most honest stories about the underpinnings of San Diego politics since Don Bauder and the Jerry Dominelli caper.


nan shartel Sept. 15, 2011 @ 11:45 a.m.


i love each and every word written here...i savor them...i swallow them whole!!!

i remember when that park sprang up...in the 60's it was beautiful and i longed to live there...it was a lovely thorn among the roses of all the other very high priced and well heeled property around the bay...i considered those mobiles as landlocked houseboats and i dearly wanted one

this is the best story i've read here at the READER so far...put a flag on it and run it up the flagpole if they haven't cut it down yet


may all the residents live long and begin to prosper there forever

and may the Humane Society give them all free pit bulls to protect their property ;-D


nan shartel Sept. 20, 2011 @ 12:34 p.m.


power to the mobile owners!!!


Twister Sept. 15, 2011 @ 6:42 p.m.

Very similar to the Glorietta Bay anchoring rights case years ago. The people, and their boats, were crushed. The Port Police Gestapo held a public "meeting" under armed guard, and refused to allow the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. Kangaroos would have been treated better. May that chief rot in hell!


Facebook Sept. 16, 2011 @ 11:07 a.m.

Marilyn S.: well done...its like a gestapo state in there..i had to stop visiting an elderly friend years ago ...so sad


nan shartel Sept. 16, 2011 @ 1:33 p.m.

heartbreaking Facebook....just so heartless...don't we have enough public parkland without it

a pricey high rise hotel is not my version of public parkland


jelula Sept. 16, 2011 @ 12:30 p.m.

Is it greedy to take back OUR PUBLIC PARKLAND from a use that should never have been allowed to occur? The true story is that De Anza is on OUR PUBLIC PARKLAND and was illegal from the get-go. Private residential use of parkland is illegal under State law and the City Charter of San Diego. Do you really think it okay that someone can claim a right to live in a public park in perpetuity? How would you feel if this was in Balboa Park? Yosemite? The Kapiloff Bill (1981) was not to force the residents out but to enable them to remain until November, 2003, when the master lease with the City expired. Residents were sub-lessees to the Master Lessee, De Anza Corporation; each resident owned the mobile home and paid rent to the Master Lessee for the parcel their home was on. The City had no obligation to pay for moving when the lease, and the provisions of the Kapiloff Bill, expired. Since when has a landlord (in this case, TAXPAYERS) been obligated to pay moving expenses of a tenant whose lease expires? The Court's decision was not that the City must pay residents' costs to move but that the City must do an "impact study" for the residents regarding conversion of De Anza back to its legal use as public parkland. The Court also required the City to pay damages for the City's bad choice of security/management company once the lease expired with De Anza Corporation. The residents of 1981 and all subsequent owners of these "mobile homes" were clearly informed of the 2003 expiration date, after which their continued residential use would be unlawful under State law and City Charter. In later years, some owners lived elsewhere and sublet their mobile home, in effect profiting from renting our public parkland to a third party. By the 1990s, a large majority of the owners and renters were newcomers but all were informed, through required disclosures when signing a lease with De Anza Corporation, of the 2003 expiration date and told they could not remain after that date. Nonetheless, some owners decided that they have a right to remain on our public parkland as long as they wish or that we, the taxpayers, are obligated to pay their costs of moving if they do not remain. Now does this make sense? The writer does, however, have it absolutely right that the City has handled this situation badly from the very beginning. You & I get to pay for the City's failure to handle things in a reasonable and business-like manner, and we still have not regained our public parkland, over 50 years after the City originally leased the property for development of an RV camping facility.


froggie Sept. 23, 2011 @ 9:19 p.m.

In response to jelula , who questioned that the City has some obligation to the tenants regarding the impact of their being forced to move…

CA State Code Section 65863.7 (i)This section is applicable when the … change of use is the result of a decision by a local governmental entity … In this case, the local governmental agency is the person proposing the change in use … and is required to take steps to mitigate the adverse impact of the change as may be required in subdivision (e).

And, jelula, you also might be interested to know that the tenant impact report required by CA State Code Section 65863.7 (a) (“Prior to the conversion of a mobilehome park to another use, … the person or entity proposing the change in use shall file a report on the impact of the conversion, closure, or cessation of use upon the displaced residents of the mobilehome park to be converted or closed.”) has still not been completed – even after the Judge ruled back in 2008 that the City must prepare one. We have been waiting three years for them to bother to get around to doing it. One might ask why? They are so determined to get rid of us, yet the City fails to do the one thing that keeps us from getting the suit settled and our moving on. Could it be because the hotel deal the City had planned fell through when the economy went south so now they want the income from our rent?

And I might add, that if you think that you will ever get OUR PUBLIC PARKLAND back, don’t fool yourself. It will be public only insofar as you might be allowed to walk on the grounds of the hotel, eat at their expensive restaurant or play golf on their luxury golf course.


Wickstawatcher April 2, 2015 @ 7:37 p.m.

Private residential use exists in virtually all very large parks in San Diego County, County Parks, State Parks and Federal Parks included. I lived in one. The little-noticed houses are designed to blend in with the foliage and other structures. The State property only belongs to the City if if follows the conditions of the transfer, similar to violating a lease.


Sarablu87 Sept. 16, 2011 @ 1:25 p.m.

I happen to live in De Anza cove and I will tell you that yes everyone is afraid to fix things because they don't have ay clue when their HOME will be snatched out from under them... could you imagine? Would you fix up your car knowing it might get re-possessed at anytime? Would you do that to your grandparents, maybe your sibling and their children? I have to tell you that this is the first time in any neighborhood (and I have lived in various places in SoCal and Texas) I have ever lived in, that I feel a sense of community. I know everyone that lives on my street, we have a "snack shack", on Saturday nights during the summer we play free childrens movies. We do have a camping area in the middle of the park, and it is VERY family oriented. All of my neighbors look out for one another, we have zero crime there (but the city tries to blame crime that happens in MB park on De Anza Cove). Does San Diego REALLY need ANOTHER hotel? Why is no one complaining about the "RV city" that has sprung up Mission Bay? They pay no rent, no taxes, no sewage (I believe they are dumping it somewhere as a smell has developed). My husband and I both work, our kids go to school, we plant flowers, have a monthly pest control service, and pay our rent on time. How would you like it if I knocked on your door and told you "I understand that you were 'allowed' to build your house here in the past, but we've changed our mind, your time is now up. We need this area to put up another dolphin statue."


nan shartel Sept. 16, 2011 @ 1:36 p.m.

spruce it up city...improve it...and charge reasonable(for the area)space rent for the property these HOMEOWNERS sit on

hoping 4 better treatment 4 u in the future Sarablu87


Walter Mencken Sept. 16, 2011 @ 8:20 p.m.

Such a pleasure to have Ollie in these pages again.


juryrig131 Sept. 17, 2011 @ 9:14 a.m.

It is great to see someone talking about the Mobile Home issue even if it does not make it sound like Parks can look good and the fact that it allows people that are not rich to enjoy water access. When I moved here a Mobile Home is all I could afford. I moved into Terrace View Mobile Homes Estates and after reading your article about the underhanded handling of the Park in the article I now understand what is going on in my Park. Since being here my rent has gone from $543 to $1244 this year, the rent you quoted in the article was even this high. I have tried everything to get someone interested in seeing what the park is trying to do to us and no one seems interested, this includes our elected officials, have all answered they can charge what they want. I wish Ollie would take a look at this and give it the coverage like the Water Mobile Home Park because I am sure that these people are pulling the same type of underhanded tactic that is being done in the other Park.


mridolf Sept. 18, 2011 @ 3:55 a.m.

As well as this is written, I still come away with some very simple questions, that I'm sure most other readers have as well. And the answers should have been a part of the data supplied by the writer. First, what is the rent paid by the residents? Second, if there are no new residents allowed, why are there families with children living there?


marshaag Sept. 18, 2011 @ 1:43 p.m.

I have lived in PB, Crown Point, and about to do so again. I must say I feel sad for anyone who struggles financially. But there is no excuse for lack of cleanliness and lack of pride in your property and home. It is a disgusting area and I personally hope something can be done about cleaning it up. Ollie's article accurate or not, is hilarious. He reminds so much of Dave Barry. Also reminds me of John Stewart's way of delivering the news - very clever and funny.


Jill Ballard Sept. 19, 2011 @ 1:06 p.m.

We should stop electing city government officials who have a track record of greed.


thai4267 Sept. 20, 2011 @ 4:35 p.m.

well i used to visit my grandparent and uncle at de anza when they lived there they had a nice spot across the street from the playground when first pulling through the area i mean the very first space right smack there and it was such a treat to b there i had such great memories the 4th of july was beutiful i ended up attending mission bay high for a minuite and it was neat becouse during p.e. we had to run from the high school all the way to the hilton n back and wouldnt you know it if the chosen path we ran went right next to my grandmas haha i lost some time and place in line for a manditory ice cream grab i scuba dived for the first time there i saw jelly fish and stingray and fished and had a crush on a girl and wow it goes on and on so just wanted to say deanza is a good part of my memories that im blessed to have and always smile for the good times she gave me


ekleber Nov. 15, 2011 @ 12:12 a.m.

I wonder if the City will have learned any lessons by the time the lease for the Fairbanks Ranch Country Club comes up? Will it ever become a public golf course? Don't bet on it.


indigo Jan. 11, 2012 @ 7:31 a.m.

Why is the city always in the "build and develop every square inch" mode? Of course the article answers that question repeatedly. But with our periodic water crises and water rationing, I have to ask; when is enough - enough? Too many people = not enough water.


zwilliams1231 May 7, 2014 @ 11:48 a.m.

WOW UNBELIVABLE! To some this might be an ugly ass trailer park. But to a lot of us We call it home. I agree there are a lot of Ron down trailer. However there ate alloy of nice trailers. I sure tGreene there would be more nice trailers if they weren't threatening pot us out on the street. Honestly who wants to pay to fix somthing up when they are unsure when they will be displaced. Ipeople like this guy who wrote this article & the ones who are trying to Get rid of us honestly blows me away . You have no regaurd for anyone but your selves. I mean everyone i have ever talked to. Who dorsnt live here would kill to live here. Not to mention if you put a hotel here that would destroy the scenory way worse then our ugly ass trailer park. The worldalready has enough hotels. How many more dumb tourist do you want to bring to this town. That nice little bike path by the creek you were hyping up. Is full of homelesssmells like sewer. You my friend cant see behind those dumb ass elvis glasses you discribed earlier. The only people who ware those these days are people who think they still got it or alcohols who dont relize how stupid they look you my friend must be both. I love my home. This is where i got married, had a baby & where me and my wife started our face painting & party rental business. This place has a beauty of its own that cant be seen by elvis loser wannabes .


dwbat April 2, 2015 @ 8:24 p.m.

That has to be the worst spelling I've ever seen.


Sign in to comment