Bills to help mobile park residents protect homes advance but funding remains an obstacle for some
(Photo by Getty Images)
Building off of a law passed last year, the Maine Legislature has advanced a number of bills that aim to support mobile home park residents in purchasing their parks.
The Senate voted in favor of two of these bills on Thursday. Others have already passed both chambers but still need to be funded.
'As legislators, we consistently hear that one of the top issues on the minds of Maine people is access to safe, affordable housing,' Sen. Chip Curry (D-Belfast), co-chair of the Housing and Economic Development Committee, said during a press conference following Thursday's votes. 'That's why our committee has been focused on two deeply connected challenges: how to build more housing in Maine, and just as urgently, how to protect the affordable housing we still have. It has become very clear to us that a critical component of this mission is protecting the residents of mobile home parks.'
The upper chamber voted 25-7 on Thursday to pass LD 1145 — after much discussion and a motion to table the measure failed. This bill would give a group of mobile home owners or a mobile home owners' association the right of first refusal to purchase a mobile home park if the owner intends to sell.
'This bill is about giving Mainers a fighting chance, a chance to protect their homes, a chance to protect their communities,' Sen. Tim Nangle (D-Cumberland) said on the floor.
Nangle's father bought a mobile home park in Massachusetts and ran it as a community, with the philosophy 'pay what you can and communicate,' Nangle said.
Since his father died, he and his siblings have tried to keep that spirit alive, however they started getting calls from out-of-state private equity firms recently interested in purchasing. But Massachusetts has a right of first refusal law, so the park residents were afforded the time to purchase the park themselves.
Last session, lawmakers passed a law that requires mobile home park owners to notify residents of their intent to sell and give them at least 60 days to make an offer.
'But it really didn't go far enough,' Nangle said. 'Right now, even if residents organize, raise the money and match or even exceed the offer, they can still be turned away with no explanation. The bill says, if you can match the offer, you have the right to pay.'
The version passed by the Senate was amended to include an emergency preamble, which was the version also passed by the majority of the Housing and Economic Development Committee. If enacted as an emergency, which will require the support of two-thirds of the Legislature, the bill would take effect immediately.
Having the bill take effect sooner would be beneficial for the newly created Friendly Village Cooperative, said cooperative president Dawn Beaulieu, a 30-year resident of the park. Residents formed the cooperative after being notified in March that the park was for sale.
'[We] have since made a counteroffer to purchase the park,' Beaulieu said during the Thursday press conference. 'As of today, we are still waiting for a response to that offer. Our livelihoods should not be in the hands of an out-of-state conglomerate that sees us not as a community, but as an investment. The legislation being considered here in Augusta will help us put our fate in our own hands.'
Whether other related bills become law will likely be a matter of funding priorities.
Both chambers already backed LD 255, which would allocate $3 million in one-time funding to create the manufactured and mobile home park preservation and assistance program to help preserve parks as affordable housing and support residents in purchasing their parks.
However, it now sits on the appropriations table, where bills with fiscal notes that are backed by the full Legislature are placed to vie for remaining funds after the budget is set.
To save affordable housing, states promote resident-owned mobile home parks
Though, the bill could still be funded in the two-year budget addition, which lawmakers have yet to set with less than two weeks remaining until their expected end date.
That's also the case for LD 554, which aims to encourage resident-owned communities through tax deductions. Another bill, LD 1768, which would amend the real estate transfer tax in an effort to protect mobile home parks, has also been backed by both chambers. But it would result in a decrease to state revenue and need a one-time appropriation so it may also land on the table.
On Wednesday, the Senate also passed LD 1016, which would establish the assistance program fund but also a fee to help with ongoing funding. The fee would be paid by certain park buyers equal to $10,000 for each lot in the community.
'I want to be very clear, I have no intention to de-incentivize the purchase of these parks by everyone,' said Sen. Cameron Reny (D-Lincoln), the bill sponsor. 'There are exceptions to this fee to state and municipal housing authorities, for resident owner cooperatives and for smaller businesses and individuals with net worths of less than $50 million.'
However, Sen. Rick Bennett (R-Oxford), who supported the minority committee report recommending against the bill's passage, said he finds some of the carveouts troubling, specifically the one based on net worth.
'It is treating people unfairly based on an arbitrary amount of money that that person or entity owns,' Bennett said. 'I believe this is unconstitutional for that reason, although it's very well intentioned.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Johnson brushes off Musk campaign spending threats: ‘It doesn't concern me'
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) in an interview Friday brushed off Elon Musk's campaign spending threats in light of the tech billionaire's public fallout with President Trump, suggesting he isn't worried. The spat between Trump and Musk began with the latter's criticism of the president's legislative agenda making its way through Congress. Johnson said he built a closer relationship with the then-special government employee and that the tech mogul has been led astray regarding the 'big beautiful' spending package. 'Look, it doesn't concern me. We're going to win either way because we're going to win on our policies we're delivering for hardworking Americans and fulfilling those promises,' Johnson told Fox News's 'Jesse Watters Primetime.' 'But look, I like Elon and respect him. I mean, we became friends in all this process,' he continued. 'I've been texting with him even this week … in trying to make sure that he has accurate information about the bill. I think he has been misled about it.' Musk, who contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to assist in Trump's win in the 2024 presidential election, was the biggest donor during the White House race. Amid his recent spat with Trump, which broke out in public as the two traded insults and threats, Musk argued that without his political expenditures, Trump would have lost to former Vice President Harris, Republicans would lose the majority in the House and the GOP would have failed to flip the majority in the Senate. Trump then threatened to have all federal contracts associated with the billionaire's companies to be cut off. As the fight between the two intensified, the tech executive floated the idea of forming a third party and accused the president of being named in the late Jeffrey Epstein's files. Trump has denied close ties to the disgraced financier. Musk's opposition to the GOP megabill — which he called a 'disgusting abomination' — is largely tied to deficit spending. The billionaire argued the legislation would balloon the national debt and fails to slash enough spending. The package faces an uphill battle in the Senate. While Musk, who recently left his position as the top adviser to Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), seemed open to repairing ties on Friday, the president appeared to be OK with moving on. Johnson in the interview Friday defended the spending bill and commended Trump for his handling of the squabble. 'We're going to make good on this… I like the president's attitude. You know, he is moving on. He has to,' he told the host. 'He's laser-focused on delivering for the people. And House and Senate Republicans are as well. So, we've got our hand at the wheel.' 'We're going to get this done just like we told the people,' the Speaker continued. 'And if you are a hardworking American that is struggling to take care of your family, you are going to love this legislation.' The Louisiana Republican added, 'I'm telling you, all boats are going to rise and everybody's going to be in a much better mood before we go into that midterm election in 2026.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Trump is trying to defang the Endangered Species Act
More than 50 years after the bipartisan U.S. Endangered Species Act was passed unanimously in the Senate and by a vote of 355 to 4 in the House of Representatives, the federal government is proposing to remove the legislation's teeth. A proposed rule by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service would remove the regulatory definition of the term 'harm' and strip away the law's regulated habitat protections, which have been proven enormously effective at preventing species extinctions. Currently, including the definition of the term 'harm' in the regulations is critical, as it specifies that habitat destruction — and not just direct killing of animals — contributes to wildlife population declines. For that reason, the proposed changes represent not a minor technicality but a fundamental weakening of species protections. At a time when the majority of the world's scientists agree that the planet is facing an unprecedented extinction crisis, the proposed reduction of protection against species extinction in the United States is both unfathomable and unacceptable. The Endangered Species Act has helped safeguard more than 1,700 species and their habitats. According to a 2019 paper published by the Center for Biological Diversity, the law has also been extraordinarily successful, preventing 99 percent of species listed from going extinct. Without regulations that protect critical habitat, we will see an increased chance of species becoming endangered and a lower chance of recovery once a species is listed as endangered or threatened, resulting in a higher rate of extinctions. Decades of scientific research, including by our own organization, consistently demonstrates that habitat is the most critical component of a species' survival and successful population recovery. For example, our long-term monitoring of an endangered secretive marsh bird in the San Francisco Estuary — the California Ridgway's Rail — has demonstrated the species' high sensitivity to changes in habitat quality and extent. With an estimated population as small as 2,000 individuals, California Ridgway's Rails remain at elevated risk of extinction if existing habitat protections are reduced. Similarly, long-term monitoring of Northern Spotted Owls in Marin County, Calif., has demonstrated that continued protection of habitat is essential to support a stable population. Another example: Research into the California Current ecosystem has consistently shown that whales, including endangered blue, fin and humpback whales, rely on specific oceanic habitats for foraging and migration. It has identified key ocean habitat 'hotspots' where critical food sources for whales, such as krill and anchovies, are concentrated. Habitat degradation from increased vessel traffic, underwater noise, pollution and warming waters has been linked to whales being displaced from their feeding areas, as well as heightened risk of deadly collisions with ships and entanglements in fishing gear. Our research demonstrates that habitat quality and protection are essential to prevent harm to endangered whale species and to support their recovery under the Endangered Species Act. Weakening habitat-based protections, as proposed, would undermine decades of scientific progress and regulatory advances aimed at conserving these iconic species. In a country where a wide range of issues have become increasingly polarized by political views, the issue of protecting wildlife remains strongly bipartisan. According to a 2024 poll commissioned by the Indianapolis Zoological Society, nine in 10 Americans think the federal government should do more to strengthen the Endangered Species Act, including 93 percent of Democratic and 83 percent of Republican respondents. The proposed regulatory change therefore contradicts public opinion in addition to decades of scientific evidence. If enacted, the proposed regulatory change would counteract the significant progress for endangered species that has been made to this point. At a minimum, we strongly urge the federal government to maintain the current regulations. The research summarized in 1995 by the National Research Council (U.S.) Committee on Scientific Issues in the Endangered Species Act still rings true today: 'there is no disagreement in the ecological literature about one fundamental relationship: sufficient loss of habitat will lead to species extinction.' The science is clear that habitat is essential for the survival of wildlife populations. Without explicit habitat protections in place, endangered species will be at much greater risk of extinction, and species not yet listed as endangered will be at greater risk of population declines and listing. For these reasons, we strongly oppose removing explicit habitat protections from Endangered Species Act regulations. Rose Snyder is director of community engagement and Liz Chamberlin is director of innovation at the California-based nonprofit Point Blue Conservation Science.

Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
Veteran analyst says stock market rally not ‘real' until this happens
Investors are feeling good about the stock market's rally from April lows created after the bottom fell out when tariff plans were first announced. Yet as investor emotions show a little more positivity, they are also more vulnerable to the idea that the rebound is nothing more than a bear-market rally, a brief bounce that could go away when the headlines change. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index – which entered the year just under 5,900 -- set a record close at 6,144.15 on February 19 as it reacted to the release of minutes from the Federal Reserve Board's late-January meeting. Related: Veteran strategist unveils updated gold price forecast The index-the most common proxy for "the stock market"-had fallen from that level by the time President Trump announced his tariff plans on April 2. This sent the index reeling toward bear-market territory, nearly down 20% from its peak. As tariff plans changed and morphed and were delayed, the market rebounded, recapturing its loss on the year by the middle of May. Since then, however, the stock market has failed to break through to new record levels, and a long-time technical analyst, Willie Delwiche, says stocks will stay stuck in a volatile range-and potentially re-test lows-unless we see a crucial signal that the rally will be lasting. Image source: Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images Willie Delwiche runs Hi Mount Research. He is a business professor at Wisconsin Lutheran College and spent more than two decades as an investment strategist at Baird. He has seen rapid rebounds before, and he says they are meaningless without follow-through. In a market with limited bandwidth, investors are caught in the middle of their range of emotions. Related: Jobs report shifts Fed interest rate forecasts The latest AAII Sentiment Survey, released June 4, showed that neutral sentiment – an expectation that stock prices will remain largely unchanged over the next six months – was up this week, to nearly 26%. While bearish sentiment leads the way with more than 40% of investors, the negative and flat sentiment shows investors don't trust the rally wholeheartedly. "We have seen instances in the past where we've had big drawdowns, then huge rallies that failed just shy of new highs, that then cascade lower months later," Delwiche said in an interview on "Money Life with Chuck Jaffe." "So, breaking out to new highs would be the best sign of strength in the market. "New highs are the most bullish thing that stocks can do," he added. "And if we see that, it confirms that we are still in a bull market, not just some sort of very protracted, very exaggerated bear-market bounce." Delwiche says that the market is currently stuck in a wide and volatile range, below the previous peak of nearly 6,200 on the S&P 500, but above its 200-day (long-term) moving average of roughly 5,800. He warned that a breakout to the downside could quickly send the market back to the April lows, particularly if the market takes it as a sign that the rally is over. One positive sign Delwiche points to is the strength of international markets, which hints that the current rally is broader and not entirely based on the Magnificent Seven stocks, the largest of the U.S. giants. Delwiche pointed to data showing that 55% of global markets finished May at new highs, but the United States was not among them. He said that more international markets are making new highs than there are single industry groups of domestic companies trading at peak levels. "While we talk a lot about what the US is doing, we're also seeing international leadership, international strength, which is something that most investors -- if you look back over the past 10 years -- haven't seen much of at all," Delwiche said. "That's encouraging on two fronts. We see global leadership, and then we also see broad participation within the U.S." Delwiche has plenty of positives to point to based on both technical and fundamental analysis. He noted that the picture is hyper-dependent right now on the risks of the daily news cycle. "The market is hostage to headlines right now, unlike any point I can remember in my career," said Delwiche, whose interview aired on the June 6 edition of Money Life. More Experts Fed official sends strong message about interest-rate cutsBillionaire fund manager sends surprising message on trade deficitHedge-fund manager sees U.S. becoming Greece "Not that the rest of the world is all unicorns and roses or whatever, but everyone is crowded into the U.S.," Delwiche said. "If something has changed in the US from a political perspective or from a news perspective, I think at the margin that makes investors a little less complacent to stick around in the U.S.," making the market more volatile and sensitive to news. One possible play with the market in a trading range would be gold, which is up nearly 30% in 2025. Delwiche said that, unlike commodities, which have not performed well, gold has not yet exhausted its upside potential. "If there was a time that you would be interested in gold, this would be the time to have gold in your portfolio. is an absolute uptrend and it is trending higher relative to US stocks. Commodities overall are not holding up well. Gold specifically is and There are periods where you want to have gold and there are periods where you don't want to have gold," Delwiche said. "If ever there was a time when you should be interested in gold, this would be it." Related: Veteran fund manager who predicted April rally updates S&P 500 forecast The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.