This part explains a lot:
Cities often don’t like older parks because unlike other housing they don’t generate property taxes for municipal services. Rundown parks can also be eyesores, depressing the worth of nearby properties even as the value of the land the mobile homes sit on has increased exponentially
In addition to the stories about billionaires buying these parks and evicting people, the press is also highlighting points that can be used to divide voters. In this case, maybe it’s the elderly being made homeless for something that benefits college students. Then I noticed who is depicted in the article:
Many park residents are Spanish-speaking immigrants earning minimum wage as landscapers or restaurant workers. There are also retirees living on Social Security
Too many reports don’t really clarify the difference between state and federal assistance policies or programs. News about housing, homelessness, or immigration are sometimes mixing apples and oranges. Now we’ve got folks claiming housing asylum seekers should be done after the housing crisis and homelessness are resolved, without noting local and state forces have delayed or defunded affordable housing projects for decades. Increases in local criminalization, fines, and fees are similarly overlooked. The federal government is unlikely to swoop in and fix that NIMBYism. They also usually ignore the profit motive that leads public and private institutions to impoverish people.
