ABSTRACTThis study analyzes the planning and zoning practices, case law, the State of Michigan's Mob...

1. Local Communities Versus the Mobile Home Park: The
Battle Continues in Michigan.
ABSTRACT
This study analyzes the planning and zoning practices, case law, the State of Michigan's Mobile
Home Commission (MHC), and taxation of mobile home parks to reveal the battle many Michigan
communities face in the local regulation of mobile home parks. The Michigan courts both have
affirmed and denied claims of exclusionary zoning against communities based on their land use
policies. In 1976, the MHC was established to regulate the mobile home industry and eliminate the
restrictive practices of communities, but many communities question the MHC's regulatory authority
compared to state enabling legislation. Communities continue to oppose mobile home parks because
of the regulations of the MHC, and taxes that owners pay are not comparable to other dwellings of
the same density. Development of well-examined land use policies can eliminate anxiety behind
exclusionary practices of many communities. Along with the reform of the MHC Act and Regulations,
the establishment of a taxation system similar to property taxes on comparable residential uses will
aid in the equal treatment of these residential land uses.
INTRODUCTION
There are few land uses that have caused as much widespread frustration for municipalities as
mobile home parks. The discriminatory attitude of municipalities and residents has led to a
seemingly limitless number of acrimonious public hearings, intracommunity rifts, legal battles,
referenda and recall votes, and community-debilitating sideshows. It is common for local officials to
be faced with a lawsuit when a mobile home park is denied.
The increasing popularity of mobile homes and mobile home parks, accompanied by oftentimes less
than fair local treatment of these dwellings and land uses, led to the establishment of the Mobile
Home Commission (MHC) in 1976. The MHC was established to respond to consumer demand for
orderly growth of manufactured housing in Michigan; to eliminate restrictive, discriminating
practices; and to institute programs to build consumer confidence. However, since the publication of
the MHC's rules and regulations, many municipalities have found themselves in a "catch-22"
situation. Their desires to provide opportunities for responsible mobile home park development, as
with any other legitimate land uses, are apparently being undermined by the requirements of the
MHC, which are intended to achieve the same goals.
With the increasing popularity of mobile home parks, municipalities face a continuing problem, i.e.,
balancing the positive aspects of affordable housing with negative aspects of overregulation by the
MHC, dilapidated parks, low tax revenue in proportion to services provided, and the tax on
infrastructure and services of high-density developments. When a mobile home is affixed to a
foundation on a tract of land that is not within a mobile home park, that home is treated just like a
site-built home and treated as any other improved real estate. The focus of this study, however, is
the planning and zoning practices, case law, the MHC, and taxation of mobile home parks involved
in the battle many communities encounter in regulating mobile home parks.
STATISTICAL TRENDS IN MANUFACTURED HOUSING

2. Manufactured housing or mobile homes, terms which will be used synonymously in this paper, make
up a $32 billion industry in the United States and account for one in three new single-family homes
sold nationwide. This is an increase from less than one in four in 1989 (Sherrid 1998). The United
States had 7.3 million mobile homes in 1990, 2.7 million more than in 1980. These homes
represented seven percent of all housing units in 1990, up from five percent a decade earlier. More
than half (52 percent) of mobile homes are in nonmetropolitan areas. Fifty-two percent of the
country's mobile homes are located in the South (U.S. Census 1994).
The number of mobile home parks in Michigan increased from 656 in 1968 to 1,097 in 1994
(Eidelson 1994). In 1990, Michigan had 246,243 units and was nationally ranked eighth in the
number of mobile homes. This was a 46.8 percent increase from 167,749 units in 1980 (U.S. Census
1990). The seven-county region of southeastern Michigan contained 22 percent of the mobile homes
in Michigan. Since 1990, the southeast Michigan region increased from 53,512 units to 62,160 units
in 1996, representing a change of 16.2 percent (SEMCOG 1996). Livingston and Washtenaw
Counties have increased units by approximately 30 percent or more since 1990--the highest
increases for the region.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING FOR MOBILE HOME PARKS
The creation of a master plan or comprehensive plan for the physical development of a community is
authorized by state statute, MCL 125.326 et seq. The development of a comprehensive plan is a very
involved and often lengthy process. This section briefly describes the merits of a comprehensive plan
with regard to mobile home land use designations and zoning. Adopted through mandated public
participation (MCL 125.329) and government action, a comprehensive plan establishes long-range
growth and redevelopment objectives as it strives to fulfill the needs of a community. It is the first
and most important step in planning community development and is the foundation for regulating
land uses through the adoption of a zoning ordinance. It is integral in defending the zoning
ordinance against court litigation. The plan must be periodically updated to meet the changing
community goals and objectives and should include designation of areas suitable for the
development of various land uses.
Bertakis Development Co. v. Charter Township of Ypsilanti, Mich 97-4283-NZ (1998)(Washtenaw
County) clearly demonstrates the integral role the comprehensive plan has in land use regulation.
The plaintiff/developer was denied a request to rezone a large vacant single-family residential parcel
to mobile home park district. The circuit court stated:
It is clear ... that the comprehensive plan does not contemplate that the land use requested by the
developer would be appropriate. The developer's position, and the posture of the case, might be
different if the plaintiff sought a 'research/office' rezoning which was in accordance with the
Township Master Plan. On the contrary, the developer here suggested that because the property has
not yet been zoned in accordance with the comprehensive plan, they are entitled to have property
rezoned to any classification they desire. That position is totally without merit and would undermine
the purpose of a comprehensive plan.
Michigan courts have also shown that developed or urban communities are less likely to be involved
in mobile home park litigation than rural or undeveloped communities because cities often lack large
development parcels necessary for the location of a mobile home park. Many urban communities
have little to no vacant land and any mobile home park development would likely be relegated to an
infill development.
In the last few decades, mobile home parks in southeast Michigan are being built at the edge of

3. cities and lead to inefficient land use. Cheaper land costs, overregulation by cities, and community
demographics force these developments outside of urban service areas. Furthermore, these
developments sometimes promote premature investment in infrastructure by communities that are
ill prepared for such expenditures, but the communities are prevented from using certain taxation
techniques to pay for infrastructure improvements based on state legislation.
Eighty-five percent of manufactured housing parks accommodate at least 100 housing units, which
are built out rapidly once the park infrastructure is in place (MHI 1997). This rapid buildout, coupled
with the higher densities of these developments (10--12 units/acre) compared to subdivisions (2--4
units/acre), often results in local communities struggling to meet the demands of new residents who
require immediate community services. The increased services of the school district, police and fire
departments, and costly infrastructure investments are provided well in advance of any tax revenue
returning to the community.
One recent court case supports a community's comprehensive plan as a tool for regulating mobile
home parks. In Bell River Associates v. China Charter Township, 223 Mich. App. 124 (1997) (St.
Clair County), the court ruled in favor of China Township's refusal to rezone property for mobile
home park use. The court agreed it was reasonable to deny the rezoning because the mobile-home
development did not conform to the township's comprehensive plan and the site lacked proximity to
urban facilities, such as schools and hospitals as well as community services, including police and
fire services.
Under state enabling legislation (that is, state laws that enable local governments to regulate such
things as land use), local units of government must create a comprehensive plan to support zoning
regulations. The courts have been quite explicit in upholding the validity of this requirement, though
the exact nature and character of what constitutes a comprehensive plan, as defined by the courts,
has not always been clear. On a number of occasions, the courts have invalidated zoning ordinances
because a community fails to base them on a comprehensive plan. The most important aspect of a
comprehensive plan is the analysis and documentation of the reasons why a particular land is
designated for a certain use. Factual data and public input are necessary supporting evidence when
defending a community's land use regulations against a claim of exclusionary regulation. There is no
disagreement among planners that a comprehensive plan of some type should precede the adoption
of a zoning ordinance.
ZONING FOR MOBILE HOME PARKS
Zoning as defined by law is the land use regulation by districts--enforced by police power--of height,
bulk, and yard requirements, utilization of structure, and the density/intensity of land development.
Zoning is one tool available for implementing a community's goals and objectives of their
comprehensive plan. Zoning lawsuits often include allegations that a local zoning ordinance
effectively prevents or excludes a particular use.
Allegations of exclusionary zoning are particularly prevalent in mobile home park litigation, as is the
case in English v. Augusta Township (Docket No. 141480, March 7,1994) (Washtenaw County).
Augusta Township contained no existing mobile home parks. Ninety-six acres in the township were
designated for a mobile home park zoning district, eighty acres of which were owned by the
township supervisor whose family intended to continue farming the parcel indefinitely. The parcel
was undesirable for residential use because it was not served by public water or sewer, and it was
located immediately adjacent to a toxic waste dump and three-quarters of a mile from a federal
prison. Furthermore the former zoning official testified that he was pressured by the township board
to keep mobile home parks out of the township.

4. Based on this information, the trial court held that the Augusta Township ordinance was
exclusionary because the township relegated mobile home park development to a location that was,
in effect, undevelopable as a mobile home park. The trial court ordered another parcel proposed for
a mobile home park by Mr. English, in town, rezoned to MHP (Mobile Home Park). The Court of
Appeals upheld the decision of exclusionary zoning. It noted that the Township Rural Zoning Act
prohibits the exclusion of lawful land uses where it can be shown that there is a demonstrated need
for such a land use and an appropriate location. In the English case, the court also noted the first
proposed location for the mobile home park in town was appropriate considering the availability of
public water and sewer and that local roads were adequate to support the park. The Court of
Appeals, however, did not agree with the trial court s remedy of rezoning this parcel to MHP. The
appeals court ordered the township to enter into an injuncti on that they would not interfere with
Mr. English's development of the mobile home park to the density of the existing zoning of AR
(Agricultural Residential) (1 dwelling unit per acre) at the location he had originally proposed. This
decision effectively terminated the park development, since the court can't rezone property.
English v. Augusta Township relies on a number of factors that are important in determining
whether a zoning ordinance is at risk of being successfully challenged for unlawfully excluding
mobile homes. There are many conflicting court decisions about mobile home parks. Most of reasons
are based on factual information and its appropriateness as presented to the court.
Framework for Mobile Home Pork Zoning
Scales and Brown (1994), Attorneys at Law, created a framework consisting of several questions for
analyzing zoning ordinances based on a survey of Michigan decisions concerning exclusionary
zoning of mobile home parks.
1. Does the zoning ordinance permit mobile home parks?
If mobile home parks are simply not permitted within a community, a developer may have little
difficulty proving exclusionary zoning, and therefore a mobile home park district should be
permitted. The burden would then shift to the municipality to justify its failure to provide for mobile
home parks. A municipality that has large, undeveloped areas may have great difficulty justifying
this exclusion compared to a community which is already highly developed and burdened with traffic
problems, and in which utility and other public services are already at capacity.
If the land use plan provides for mobile home parks, the municipality may prevail even if no land is
currently zoned for that purpose. In Kirk v. Tyrone Township, 398 Mich 429 (1976) (Livingston
County), a claim of exclusionary zoning failed, in part because the plan set aside 600-800 acres for
mobile home parks although no property was currently zoned to permit mobile home parks. No one
had ever petitioned to rezone any of the land designated as such.
2. How many mobile home parks are located within the jurisdiction?
If a court finds that the municipality already has its fair share of mobile home parks, the court is less
likely to find exclusionary zoning. In Cohen v. Canton Township, 38 Mich App 680 (1972) (Wayne
County), evidence that there were already five mobile home parks containing over 1,500 sites in the
township weighed heavily against a finding of exclusionary zoning. Likewise in Guy v. Brandon
Township, 181 Mich App 775 (1989) (Oakland County), a zoning ordinance was not found to exclude
mobile homes in a case in which the defendant township already had 917 mobile home sites,
comprising approximately 20 percent of the residential housing within the township. Also in Bertakis
Development Co. v. Charter Township of Ypsilanti, Bertakis Development argued that Ypsilanti

5. Township denied their rezoning request to further exclude mobile home parks from the township.
The township has 10 of 33 parks in Washtenaw County and designated a 20-acre parcel for the
expansion of an existing park.
The Guy case also suggests that the presence of mobile home parks in the vicinity, but outside the
jurisdiction, may help defeat the claim of exclusionary zoning. Such a result would likely be based on
a finding that there is no need for mobile home parks because they are already available nearby, but
not necessarily because they have not been unlawfully excluded from the jurisdiction. Conversely, an
existing park at maximum capacity with restrictions on expansion may not be sufficient to defeat a
claim of exclusionary zoning.
The court found exclusionary zoning in Dequindre Development Co. v. Charter Township of Warren,
359 Mich 634 (1960) (Macomb County), where an existing mobile home park was at capacity (636).
In Nickola v. Grand Blanc Township, 394 Mich 589 (1975) (Genesse County), the presence of an
existing 23-acre mobile home park was not deemed sufficient to defeat a claim of exclusionary
zoning. This was a result of the township not zoning any additional land for such use even though
the master plan had a large amount of land designated for mobile home parks. This decision is
comparable to Kirk v. Tyrone Township and Bertakis Development Co. v. Charter Township of
Ypsilanti (Ypsilanti Township contains 10 of the 33 mobile home parks in the Washtenaw County).
3. How much undeveloped land in the community is zoned to permit mobile home parks?
The amount of undeveloped land is important in determining whether a zoning ordinance is
exclusionary. If a municipality is largely undeveloped, a court may find that a greater proportion of
this land should be zoned to permit mobile home parks than would be required for a smaller, more
developed community. For example in Clark v. Lyon Township Clerk, 384 Mich 173 (1957) (Oakland
County), the court affirmed a finding of exclusionary zoning where the township permitted mobile
home parks on only two strips of land along a highway, notwithstanding the township was largely
undeveloped.
Conversely, in Wilkins v. Village of Birch Run, 48 Mich App 57 (1973) (Saginaw County), there was
no exclusionary zoning, although only 65 acres within the village was zoned to permit mobile home
parks and the 65 acres was not completely developed. In the case of Drettman v. Macomb Township,
53 Mich App 35 (1974) (Macomb County), the zoning ordinance was upheld where the township
already had one mobile home park, as well as another 200 acres zoned to permit mobile home parks.
4. Can land zoned for mobile home parks be reasonably developed for that use?
Even if the zoning ordinance or comprehensive plan provides for mobile home parks, a court will
examine whether the land that is available can be reasonably developed as a mobile home park. If
not, the court is likely to find the zoning ordinance effectively excludes mobile home parks. English
v. Augusta Township is a good example of a case where the court was persuaded that it was not
feasible to develop property zoned so as to permit mobile home parks. The availability of water and
sewer service, which can be critical to densely populated mobile home parks, and the desirability of
the area for residences are important factors in this analysis. The unavailability of utilities to
property zoned for a mobile home park was one of the factors relied upon by the court in striking
down the zoning ordinance in Nickola v. Grand Blanc Township.
5. Does the municipality have a history of denying permission for mobile home parks?
If the zoning ordinance or comprehensive plan makes provisions for mobile home parks, but

6. rezoning or other approval is routinely denied, a developer may be able to convince a court that the
municipality is actively excluding mobile home parks. For example, in Knibbe v. City of Warren, 363
Mich 283 (1961) (Macomb County), the zoning ordinance text material provided a district for mobile
home parks but no land had ever been placed in that district on the zoning map. The city's consistent
refusal to rezone lands to the mobile home district weighed in favor of a finding of exclusionary
zoning. Conversely, in Kirk v. Tyrone Township, evidence that no one had ever asked for rezoning in
the area that was designated for mobile home parks in the comprehensive plan helped defeat a claim
of exclusionary zoning.
Even if the property can reasonably be used for developments other than mobile home parks under
existing zoning, the plaintiff/developer will prevail if the court finds the ordinance unlawfully
excludes mobile homes. The successful plaintiff will then be allowed to build a mobile home park on
the property if the court determines that the proposed use is reasonable. This type of analysis tends
to concentrate more on whether the mobile home park would create a nuisance in the area rather
than whether a mobile home park at that location is consistent with the community's comprehensive
plan. A successful claim of exclusionary zoning can, therefore, seriously disrupt the goals and
objectives of a community's comprehensive plan for future land use.
Using the public participation-based approach to the planning process, local planning agencies
should take the initiative to ensure that a "reasonable" amount of developable land is zoned for
mobile home parks. The comprehensive plan should designate areas where mobile home parks
would fit best with the community's comprehensive plan goals and objectives. Encouraging mobile
home park developers to use the Planned Unit Development procedure can also allow a community
to work closely with developers to ensure mobile home parks are compatible with land uses in the
surrounding area. By allowing a reasonable opportunity for mobile home park development, a
community may be able to avoid a court decision to allow a mobile home park to be constructed
where it could have been prohibited if a reasonable provision for mobile home parks had been made
in other areas.
THE REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF THE MOBILE HOME COMMISSION
As mobile homes grew in popularity in the 1970s, concerns began to surface regarding safety,
regulation, and affordability. In the early 1970s, Governor William G. Miliken established a task
force to investigate these concerns. Subsequently, as a result of the investigation, the Mobile Home
Commission (MHC) Act, PA 419 of 1976, was adopted by the Michigan legislature. The Act
authorized the MHC to promulgate administrative rules to address technical issues and required, for
the first time, that local regulatory activities, as applied to mobile home parks, be consistent with the
MHC Act and Rules. For a municipality to establish regulations more stringent than the Act, their
regulations must first be reviewed and approved by the MHC.
The extent to which the MHC has the express authority to reject the validity of local zoning
regulations is both a critical and an unclear issue. Under Section 7(1), the Act (MCL 125.1125) gives
the MHC Ordinance Review Committee the authority to review and approve any proposed local
standards unless the standard is unreasonable, arbitrary, or not in the public interest. In one case, a
Washtenaw County community submitted its mobile home park zoning regulations to the Ordinance
Review Committee for formal review and approval. The formal review proceedings uncovered a
substantial list of deficiencies. The MHC only approved the regulations that did not conflict with its
standards and regulations. In Eidelson's (1995) Case Study, approximately one-half of the sections of
the zoning regulations addressing mobile home parks were denied by the MHC.
It appears the MHC routinely exceeds its authority in review and application of common zoning

7. procedures towards mobile home parks. The state zoning enabling acts specifically provide express
authority to municipalities to adopt zoning regulations for regulating land development. The zoning
enabling acts provide specific provisions that vest authority in municipalities to adopt zoning
regulations to permit the appropriate body to approve a land use upon stipulation that certain
conditions are met. These conditions must be based on adopted standards in the ordinance and must
meet the requirements of the applicable state enabling act.
However, the MHC frequently rejects zoning regulations that permit the placement of conditions
upon approval of a mobile home park even though the same provisions can be equally applied to
many other land uses regulated by the same ordinance. Similarly, the state zoning enabling acts
provide specific provisions that vest authority with municipalities to require a "deposit of
performance guarantee." The purpose of the guarantee is to protect natural resources or health,
safety, and welfare of residents of a municipality by requiring that adequate funds are available to
assure project compliance with local zoning regulations. However, the MHC rejects zoning
regulations that authorize such performance guarantees for mobile home parks even though the
same provisions are applied to all other land uses regulated by the same ordinance. Requiring a
"deposit for performance guarantee" was one of the reasons the MHC Ordinance Review Committee
denied part of one Washtenaw County community's proposed ordinance to regula te mobile home
parks.
The state zoning enabling acts provide specific provisions that vest authority with municipalities to
include provisions in their zoning ordinances that mandate approval of a site plan prior to approval
of a land use request, provided such provisions identify, in part, the procedures and requirements
for submission and approval of the site plan. However, the MHC rejects zoning ordinances requiring
mobile home parks to undergo site plan review procedures that apply to most other land uses
regulated by the same ordinance.
A further example of the commission exceeding its regulatory authority is again contained in the
state enabling acts. The acts require that zoning provisions shall be uniform for each class of land
throughout each district. However, the rules promulgated by the MHC clearly provide special
treatment for mobile homes parks and their developers. Frequently, developers use the MHC rules
to their benefit rather than establishing a strong working relationship with the community.
On February 3, 1999, House Bill No. 4148 was introduced by District 54 Representative Ruth Ann
Jamnick and was referred to the Committee on Regulatory Reform. The bill proposes to amend the
Mobile Home Commission Act and Rules Section 3 (MCL 125.2303) to change the number of
representatives in the commission from 11 to 13. The bill also proposes to include representatives
from an environmental advocacy organization, a representative of an organization whose
membership consists of township officials, and a representative of an organization whose
membership consists of municipal officials. The bill proposes the addition of Section 7 to the same
rules that a community's zoning ordinance is not out of compliance with this act under Section 7(3)
unless the noncompliance has been determined by the court. The addition of this section proposes to
change the regulatory control of the MHC over local zoning regulations.
TAXATION STRUCTURE OF MOBILE HOME PARKS
The MHC remains invulnerable to challenge because of its political power. Communities are
struggling to reform the current tax structure of these mobile home parks. Local officials are
advocating tax reforms that would make park residents pay more for school and government
services (Hollander 1998). Mobile home parks and their residents pay a variety of taxes and fees to
governmental units. Some claim the current tax structure for such parks and homes within parks

8. adequately compensates local government for the services it provides. Still others believe
manufactured housing parks do not pay their fair share of property taxes when compared to other
types of housing developments (SEMCOG 1997). In 1997, according to the Manufactured Housing
Institute, 74 percent of manufactured homes shipped to Michigan were multisection homes.
According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, the average cost of a multisectioned home in 1996
was $47,300 with an average of 1,600 square feet. Clearly the current tax structure for ma
nufactured housing has not evolved with the industry. Taxes generated by manufactured housing
parks and homes within them include:
* Property Tax
Manufactured housing park owners pay property tax on the improved property of the park--based on
the park's taxable value. Since the manufactured homes within a park are usually owned by the
individual residents and not by the park owners, the taxable value of a manufactured housing park is
(more or less) based on the value of the vacant property and any improvements made, such as roads,
utilities, and amenities. The manufactured homes are not taxed as real property and owners,
therefore, do not pay property tax.
* Single Business Tax
Park owners pay a single business tax on the rental fees paid by the park residents, minus the
deducted expenses of running the park as a business. This usually equates to $33 a lot on an average
lot rent of $275.
* Sales Tax
In Michigan, the owners of manufactured homes pay six percent Michigan sales tax each time a
home is purchased. However, this tax does not generate a steady stream of revenue to pay for
ongoing local government services.
* Vehicle Registration Fee
In lieu of property or personal tax on their homes, manufactured home owners are charged a $3.00
per month vehicle registration fee. As established by Act 243, PA, 1959, the $3.00 per month fee is
allocated, in parts, to the county ($.50), city or township ($.50), and the state school aid fund
($2.00). The school aid fund is distributed in the form of guaranteed foundation grants provided to
the school district based on student enrollment.
Often, the cost of required services is beyond the taxes paid by mobile home parks. A report
released in September 1997 by the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) found
that mobile home parks generated less tax revenue than apartment units. Using three Monroe
County communities as an example, the report found that, on average, a manufactured home within
a park generated $242 in taxes compared with $1,928 from a single-family home and $453 from an
apartment (SEMCOG 1997).
Since 1994, public school districts receive a guaranteed annual foundation fund from the State of
Michigan. This foundation funding, established by the passage of Proposal A, is based on student
enrollment. As enrollment increases, the amount of the school district's foundation revenue also
increases. Mobile home parks, densely populated and often a significant factor determining the
number of school age children in a community, have the potential to increase the amount of state
revenue received by local school districts. Since foundation funding can only be used for operating

9. expenses, however, its limitations create important implications for school district infrastructure.
Unfortunately, an influx of dollars does not automatically provide increased capacity within a school
system, particularly in terms of capacity of buildings and infrastructure. If a school system is
operating at or near capacity, the addition of new housing development may result in overcrowding
at the school district for several years until the capacity can be increased.
As increasing numbers of Michigan residents choose housing in mobile home parks, local officials
are pushing tax reforms that would make park residents pay more for school and government
services (Hollander 1998). In A Summary of SEMCOG's Involvement in Manufactured Housing Parks
(1998), ten states were researched that had a large number of mobile home parks. Five states taxed
mobile homes on leased property as personal property, three states taxed mobile homes on leased
land as real property, and two states, including Michigan, charged an annual fee. In 1998,
Representative Lynn Owen introduced House Bill No. 5470, which was referred to the Committee on
Tax Policy. This bill would amend the general property tax to assess mobile homes as real property.
SUMMARY
Many local officials cringe when they hear the words "mobile home park." This reaction comes with
the continued increase in the number of mobile home park units in Michigan. With many Michigan
communities experiencing rapid growth due to low interest rates and a flourishing economy, it
becomes even more important for governments to closely watch the ability of their infrastructure,
schools, and emergency services to accommodate changes caused by new residential development.
Proper land use planning, accomplished through public participation, becomes increasingly
necessary when considering the speed at which a mobile home park can be built compared to a site-
built subdivision.
Exclusionary tactics described in English v. Augusta Towns hip and Nickola v. Grand Blanc
Township do not demonstrate sound planning methods and techniques used in land use policy
decision making. Based on past case law, a community must develop a comprehensive plan for land
use. The availability of utilities, the future need for manufactured housing, and developable
capability will be deciding factors whether a mobile home park should be included in the
comprehensive plan of a community.
Zoning, one of the tools used for implementing such a plan, is just as important. In Knibbe v. Tyrone
Township, even though the township provided a district for mobile home parks in the zoning
ordinance, the consistent refusal to rezone lands to the township's mobile home park district
weighed in favor of a finding of exclusionary zoning. Unlike other types of residential developments,
communities have little influence on mobile home parks. When developing any regulation or
ordinance pertaining to mobile homes, a local community must have the ordinance reviewed by the
MHC Ordinance Review Committee. The approval of proposed regulations is subject to the degree of
conformance to the MHC Act and Rules. Those ordinances that exceed the rules must be defended.
In most cases, the MHC will not accept them.
The power of the MHC, given to the Commission by the MHC Act and Rules, can be seen in almost
every aspect of mobile home park regulation, development, maintenance, and taxation. The Act and
Rules were influenced by Michigan's largest lobbyist group and supported financially by the mobile
home industry. Due to this influence, the MHC Act and Rules are as valid as the provisions of the
zoning enabling acts. The zoning enabling acts provide local governments with the authority to
regulate land development while the MHC Act and Rules severely limit a local government's ability
to regulate mobile home park development beyond their location. The MHC does not accept the
same conditions that a municipality may apply to all land uses. In essence, there is an inherent

10. conflict between the zoning enabling acts and the MHC Act and Rules. Since 1976, communities
have been in a no-win situation with respect to mobile home park development. State law does not
permit locals to exclude mobile home parks from their jurisdict ions; to set standards for roads,
utilities, open space, and recreational facilities within mobile home parks; or to tax them the same as
other residential uses. The state law has created a bull market for mobile home park developers.
The continuing debate between local communities and the MHC regarding regulatory authority,
taxation, and ordinance review does not appear to be ending soon. In the meantime, is a community
required to provide for mobile home parks in their documented land use policies? There are
advocates on both sides of this issue. If a community is largely undeveloped, with infrastructure to
support such residential density on a large parcel, then the community should plan for a mobile
home park. If a community can support valid reasons not to plan for such a use, then a developer's
claim for exclusionary zoning should fail.
Along with reform of the MHC Act and Rules, the taxation structure of mobile home parks should be
reviewed as well. The once primitive trailer coach that averaged little more than 400 square feet has
evolved into a 2,000-squarefoot manufactured luxury home, but since 1959 the $36 per month tax
has not changed (MTA 1991). Mobile home parks generate as much community costs, in terms of
increased demand on roads, water and sewer systems, police, fire, and schools, as any other
residential development. Due to density and relatively short development periods, cost impacts of
mobile home parks could be particularly overwhelming for these community systems. It is clear that
the MHC Act and Rules and the taxation structure should be amended. Support of HB 4148 and HB
5470 by the legislature is necessary in the reform of the MHC and taxation procedures.
For many communities, mobile home parks are becoming a more significant part of the housing
stock and can have significant impacts on a community. Only those communities that have planned
for accommodating this housing opportunity will be able to mitigate the potential negative impacts.
Although the MHC plays a significant role in regulation of mobile home parks, communities can
achieve the goals of their comprehensive plan and maintain community character through thorough
analysis and planning. These procedures are most important in the decision-making process
involving mobile home parks within any community.
REFERENCES
Bell River Associates v. China Charter Township, 223 Mich App 124 (1997)
Bertakis Development Co. v. Charter Township of Ypsilanti, Mich 97-4283-NZ (1998)
Clark v. Lyon Township Clerk, 384 Mich 173 (1957)
Cohen v. Canton Township, 38 Mich App 680 (1972)
Dequindre Development Co. v. Charter Township of Warren, 359 Mich 634 (1960)
Drettman v. Macomb Township, 53 Mich App 35 (1974)
EIDELSON, MARK. 1994. Case Summaries--Exclusionary Zoning. Planning & Zoning News (June): 2.
_____. 1995. Regulating Mobile Home Parks. Planning & Zoning News (March): 5-14.
English v. Augusta Township (Docket No. 141480, March 7, 1994)

11. Eves v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of Lower Gwynedd Township , 401 Pa 211, 164 A.2d 7 (PA 1960)
Guy v. Brandon Township, 181 Mich App 775 (1989)
House Bill 4148. 1999. Introduced by Rep. Ruth Ann Jamnick.
House Bill 5470. 1998. Sponsored by Rep. Lynn Owen.
HOLLANDER, SARAH. 1998. Are they paying their fair share? Ypsilanti Press Edition of the Ann
Arbor News. 15 June, 1.
Kirk v. Tyrone Township, 398 Mich 429 (1976)
Knibbe v. City of Warren, 363 Mich 283 (1961)
MANUFACTURED HOUSING INSTITUTE, http://mfdhousing.com/gfa/statdata.html
MICHIGAN MANUFACTURED HOUSING COMMISSION ACT AND RULES. MCL 125.1125 and MCL
125.2303, http://www.michhome.org/commiss.htm
MICHIGAN TOWNSHIPS ASSOCIATION. 1991. Michigan's Double-Wide Property Tax Loophole.
Nickola v. Grand Blanc Township, 394 Mich 589 (1975)
SCALES, JAMES F., and J. R. BROWN. 1994. Mobile Home Parks and Exclusionary Zoning: A
Framework for Analyzing Zoning Ordinances. Planning & Zoning News (June): 18-19.
SHERRID, PAMELA. 1998. An oxymoron: trailer trash (new look and popularity of mobile homes).
U.S. News & World Report, March 16, v.124 n.10: 46.
SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS. 1996. A summary of SEMCOG'S
involvement in manufactured housing parks. Detroit, MI SEMCOG.
_____. 1997. Manufactured housing parks taxation study. An Addendum to Land Use Tools and
Techniques: A Handbook for Local Communities. Detroit, MI SEMCOG (September): 3-10.
_____. 1997. The siting of manufactured housing parks. An Addendum to Land Use Tools and
Techniques: A Handbook for Local Communities. Detroit, MI SEMCOG. (September): 5.
_____. 1998. Mobile Home Park Task Force: Final Report. Detroit, MI SEMCOG. (December): 10.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1994. Mobile Homes. Bureau of the Census Statistical Brief. Washington,
D.C. U.S. Department of Commerce, (5)94.
Wilkins v. Village of Birch Run, 48 Mich App 57 (1973)
COPYRIGHT 2000 Michigan Academy of Science Arts & Letters
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the
copyright holder.

12. Copyright 2000 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.