Mapleton Mobile-izers

Welcome to the archive of Mapleton Hollow's community newsletter!

The Mapleton Mobile-izer is issued quarterly, following the MHA membership meetings. Special editions are issued as needed, for example before a quarterly meeting where MHA members will be voting for executives or making an important decision...


MHA BLOG Volume 6, Special Edition Newsletter of the Mapleton Home Association [MHA] Late July 2001

CONCEPT STUDY #1 PREFERRED BY MAPLETON RESIDENTS IN ROUND TWO OF PLANNING PROCESS
Many residents have questions, concerns and suggestions


Inside This Issue



Results of the Site Plan Selection
By Debbie Kranzler, Community Coordinator
back to top
From July 15 to July 22, Mapleton Residents expressed their preferences and opinions on the future look of Mapleton Park, choosing from three Site Plan options prepared by RRC Associates planner, Nancy Blackwood. The goal is to produce a vision of how residents would like the Park to evolve. However, each step of the plan is subject to review by the community at the time it might be implemented. Debbie Kranzler, Mapleton's Community Coordinator, reminded residents, "Once we select a plan, that does not mean that it absolutely will be implemented. We are expressing a collective vision/hope/idea for our future. Change will happen over a long period, probably many years! The community will have the opportunity, the obligation, to reassess each step along the way."
The process began Sunday July 15 at Dumpster Park. In a 'Goldilocks and the Three Bears' style presentation, Nancy outlined the Concept Studies. Study #1 depicted minimal change from our current community layout. Study #2 added a community park and play area in the center of the Mapleton. And Study #3 demonstrated more radical arrangements, including homes placed lengthwise along the streets. Nancy then took questions from the crowd of over seventy residents gathered to hear her presentation.
For the next week, canvassers, under the guidance of MHA Vice President Alex Wilson, #58, and Community Coordinator Debbie Kranzler, #14, went door to door explaining the benefits and disadvantages of each plan to residents. Over the course of the week, every resident in the Park was contacted and told about the Concept Studies. A Special Edition of the Mapleton Mobile-izer outlined the plans and carried inserts with maps of the three plans and notes concerning what they portrayed. During the week ballots came into the ballot boxes at the kiosk and wash house. Other ballots were collected by canvassers or the dropped off at MHA officers' homes.
Carefully considering their options, Mapleton Residents chose the Study that they felt was the best for the Park. By a two to one margin, residents preferred Study #1 over either of the others. Fifty residents voted for Study #1, twenty-four voted for #2 and 7 voted for #3 Almost every resident had suggestions to be used in creating the revised Study to be evaluated from August 5-18.
Now that residents have chosen a primary plan, the next step begins. Keeping residents' suggestions in mind, RRC Associates will fine-tune Study #1 for a presentation to residents at the MHA Quarterly Meeting, August 5, at Unity Church.
"The planning process is a long and, at times, a fretful one to residents," Mark Reeder, former President of the MHA and Business Committee chair, told the Mobile-izer. "But all residents should keep in mind that for the first time in a mobile home community, the residents are deciding what their park will look like. No despotic, profit-motivated owner is telling us what we have to have or how we will look."

Three Site Plans Follow-up
by the editors
back to top

Along with the ballots to select the preferred Concept Study came LOTS of great comments and suggestions, including some legitimate criticism of the site plans. Unfortunately, there were also a few misconceptions that need to be clarified.
First and foremost, THE most important aspect of the Mapleton community is housing affordable to the low- and moderate-income people who live here! This the hightest priority for the residents as shown on the recent MHA/Thistle survey. This is also true for MHA committee members who are low- and moderate-income residents just like everyone else in the Park. It is the mission of Thistle Community Housing; they exist for the sole purpose of creating and preserving affordable housing in Boulder. Affordability is therefore the primary concern of Nancy Blackwood, the planner hired by Thistle and the MHA Affordability is also the main concern of the City in our negotiations over purchasing the Park.
Next, it is important to remember that we are creating a picture of how we THINK the Park will look in 10 years. This is critical to deciding what is livable and what works for our community. However, it is not guaranteed nor set in stone. As the opportunity comes for each improvement or change, the residents will need to reconsider the plan and carefully consider how a step might be implemented.
Third, the Mapleton community is peaceful and beautiful, and the survey demonstrated that those aspects are important to residents. There are also some features of the Park that need improvement, such as the utilities infrastructure. (Those who have had major sewage, electrical or phone problems, or have a major pothole in front of their homes, can attest to that!) All three studies included re-doing the utilities infrastructure and then repaving the roads. Far and away the most expensive portion of any of the studies, this infrastructure work must be done to keep Mapleton livable as well as attractive to future residents. As pleasant as most of us find this Park, we have grown accustomed to certain features, such as the vast amount of pavement and concrete surrounding, our laundry room, that could be beautified without affecting monthly lot rents.
During the Goose Creek construction and the infrastructure upgrade is an opportune moment to make a few improvements to the appearance of the Park. There is no reason that affordability and a more beautiful Park cannot co-exist. Consider this: compared to $1.4-1.7 million for the infrastructure, landscaping will be trivial. Since we hope to get as much grant funding as possible to pay for the utilities work, we can do the same for a few new shrubs, some play equipment for kids, even a Community House.
Another misconception that was evident during the site plan selection process was that homes must be replaced and/or moved. NO ONE will be forced, coerced or otherwise pressured to replace a home EVER, with the exception of when a home becomes so old that it may fall over at any moment. However, if you WANT to bring in a new home, you should be able to do so. Right now, replacing your home with a new one entails major expense because the electrical system in the Park cannot support the new homes and the sewer and lines will likely need to be moved to fit the new home. You might never even consider replacing your home. That is fine! But should you WANT to, or the next owner of your home, or even two or three or six owners down the line, that should be possible. MHA will be leasing the land for 99 years so the Park must be viable for this year, next year and the next 97 after that. If homes cannot be replaced for a reasonable cost, then ')0 years from now, when our homes are at least 60 (that is ANCIENT for a mobile home) then no one will want to live here and the Park will no longer be able to offer permanently affordable housing.
Finally, refurbishing existing homes in the Park was not addressed in the Concept Studies because anyone can fix up their own home, and is invited to do so, at any time. Just be sure to get a building permit before you start. There is even some money available from City of Boulder specifically to help low-income mobile home residents to insulate or make improvements. A number of Mapleton residents have been helped through this program.

MY RESPONSE TO THE SITE PLAN SURVEY
by Neera Hunton, #21
back to top
With regard to this site plan survey that we are voting on, I have some concerns that I would like to share which are both personal and related to the whole community.
Firstly, while the intention of these plans is obviously good, it seems to me to miss a basic concept upon which the community is founded, and that is the idea of providing housing that is affordable. In fact, the recent survey commissioned by Thistle Community Housing concluded that the most important value for the residents was affordability of housing. I'm not against change and improvement for the park but I do feel we need to make sure that in doing so we do not sacrifice our most important interest. This community is for people who cannot afford the inflated rents in Boulder. Even removing one home in the site plan is going against this need.
Secondly, I feel that these site plans are moving towards a value which is one of "bigger is better", (i.e. double-wide, double-story homes). Is this really the direction we want to take? Speaking for myself, I would say that part of the beauty of this community is its simplicity and the absence of a consumerism that is so prevalent elsewhere.
Thirdly, I feel too much emphasis on all three of these plans is placed on landscaping which is "cosmetic" rather than "important". While of course we would all like to make the park more beautiful, we need to also be realistic and balance this desire against the expense. The results of such landscaping projects may increase the cost of living here for the residents, going against our basic premise. Who will pay for these plants? Who will take care of these plants? Who will pay for the water to irrigate these plants? What will be planted that the deer won't eat? Are we prepared to put in the time and labor to look after these plants? There's nothing more unsightly than a flower bed that has gone to weed.
What it all comes down to is that we may upgrade the park but at what expense? The whole purpose of this letter is to make sure that any improvements we consider are in alignment with our overall values of affordability, peace and quiet and nature - the things we hold most dear, and the things that we most want to secure for our future.
From a personal standpoint, I have very strong objections to any plans that include the removal of any home, even after the present occupant decides to leave. In Plan 2 and 3, my home, 921, would be removed when I vacate the premises. I do not want to see this happen. For the first time during my 5 years living .here, I feel anxious and insecure about my future. I feel that the harmony and well-being of this community is being threatened when any plan includes removing a home. I don't want to be living in my home with the gnawing feeling that my next door neighbors are just waiting for me to leave in order for them to make extensive improvements on their homes. Or that the community is vying for my lot space so that a plan to landscape may be implemented.
Even though I am aware that I am not being forced out of my home before I should decide to leave, it feels very uncomfortable to know that if plan 2 or 3 gets voted for then the future of my home is at stake. Others in the community are in the same position. It feels terrible, I object strongly to this because this is the first home that I have ever owned and it is my pride and joy. I love living in this home and in this community. I do not want to live here with this insecurity that my home is threatened. It feels awful and no one in the park should have to experience this. Surely the priority in living here is to enhance well-being and a sense of peace and not one of insecurity.
For the past five years I have poured a tremendous amount of money, creativity, time and energy into this home and garden and will continue to do so as long as I live here. I want to be able to have the right like other people in the community to sell or give my home to whomever I I wish. if I had children I am quite sure I would want to pass it on to them. When I decide to leave I want to have the night to get full market value for my home and to have a choice who buys it (or I give it to). Having put so much into my home and garden it is absolutely not okay for this to all be destroyed. I want someone else to enjoy this home, with all that has been put into it, as much as I do, if I should ever decide to leave.
I invite our architect, Nancy, or anyone from the MHA or Thistle or this community, to visit my home so that they can see why I feel so strongly about protecting the future. And even if I had not done all this work, I feel we should not put anyone in our community in this position, especially for the sake of landscaping.
I would like a site plan that takes care of the infrastructure first and foremost and leaves cosmetics aside until that is taken care of.
It's very important that we maintain a harmonious community feeling as well as each of us having individual property rights so that we can continue to preserve and nourish what is for so many of us such a beautiful place to live. I am so grateful to be here. (Correction. The MHA and Thistle created the survey jointly. The survey was written by Larisa Labrant of Thistle and Debbie Kranzler, MHA Community Coordinator Eds, note)

A Response to Concerns About the Site Plan Creation Process
By Debbie Kranzler, Community Coordinator and Mark Reeder, Business Plan Committee
back to top
Thank you Neera, for putting in considerable time and energy talking and thinking about the Concept Studies and then writing this thoughtful and thoughtprovoking letter. You raise issues that others in the Park have mentioned, so we want to address those.
Your first point is that affordability is a basic premise of our community. That is absolutely true, and is the first consideration, before aesthetics, before home size, before traffic concerns, etc. However, along with affordability is the concept of "livability". If affordability were our only concern we could maximize the number of units by cramming in as many mobile homes as possible, including multi-family units (there are duplex and four-plex mobile homes available) or even replacing some or all mobile homes with condominiums.
However, Mapleton has to be a pleasant place to live, both in order for residents to want to stay, and for future residents to want to purchase a home here. Even if you are planning to stay until the end of your life, your heirs may want to sell your home. In addition, if any of your neighbors have a change in circumstances, such as winning the lottery, landing a job in another state, or getting married, they need to be able to sell their homes in order to move on, so it is important to be able to attract buyers. Without sacrificing affordability, we want to improve the livability of the Park. (See the related article, "Site Plan Selection Follow-up.")
As for "bigger is better," it is not that anyone does or does not advocate larger homes. The fact is, new mobile homes are larger than most of the homes currently in Mapleton. There are a few used homes for sale, which might be a good option for the near future. The majority of homes currently in production that are less than 16 feet wide are not designed for full-time occupancy (they are meant for vacation or other temporary living) and state regulations prohibit installing them as a primary residence. You may never want a larger home and that is fine. But if you or anyone else in the Park wants a brand new home, you/they should be able to fit the new home into our community without negatively impacting the neighbors.
Your point about moving homes just for landscaping is well taken. Given the reactions of numerous residents, the MHA Business Committee has now adopted a guideline that says, "Do not move or remove homes simply for aesthetics." As for other landscaping, if the plants are selected carefully, they will not need much water or care. Witness the large number of trees and shrubs that currently grace our Park without any human intervention. Several community lawn areas do get care regularly, which could be extended to include new landscaping if necessary.
You have a fight to be proud of the home and garden that you have created. We, your neighbors, all benefit from your efforts, because you make our neighborhood more beautiful. On behalf of the MHA and Thistle, I extend our apologies for any anxiety the site plans and the selection process has caused. The group doing the planning did not foresee that response, even though looking back, it is a very reasonable reaction As I mentioned earlier, we have decided that we will delete from the plans any home removal that is only for landscaping. However, if I wanted a larger home but my neighbor is never leaving; I could opt for an open homesite that would accommodate a larger home.
Finally, it is important to know that all of the Concept Studies include taking care of the utilities infrastructure first. (See related article, "Site Plan Selection Follow-up.") Until that is funded, preferably by grants, no other improvements can or will be done. All other work will happen gradually, over time. However, if we don't plan ahead, it will be difficult to make any changes in the future.
"This Study is meant to be a foundation for Mapletons next -10-50 years. Thistle's Board is very concerned about purchasing the Park knowing that it will be a viable and attractive place to live for at least 99 years (the term of the lease that MHA will have for the land. Lenders give better interest rates on mortgages when they feel comfortable. that a property will be viable long-term; since the interest rate affects the monthly payment, it directly affects affordability. And the Business Committee made a commitment to look at the long-term viability of this community so that our children, grandchildren and the Boulder community can have a thriving Mapleton far into the future.

Resident Concept Study Evaluation: Incentive for Giving Input
 by the editors
back to top
The next step in the Mapleton Mobile Home Park planning process is to evaluate one concept study that was created using all the input from the previous Plans Selection. This is the last step for residents for this summer. This concept study will serve as a guideline to the future of the Park. It gives us a vision for moving forward; however, at each step residents will have more opportunities for discussion and input, and for each step grant funds will be sought so that lot rents will continue to be affordable. (Please note that lot rents will rise slowly over time due to inflation, as low as it is right now, and to cover the expenses of managing the Park. Still, affordability is the 91 priority!) Thank you to all residents for your attention and participation during the past two months. There has been a lot of information given and much input offered. Once this next step is completed, we can rest for awhile.
Nancy Blackwood, the planner from RRC Associates who was hired by Thistle and MHA to create the three plans that we evaluated, has now synthesized all the preferences and comments into one plan. There were many different opinions, so no one plan completely satisfy every resident. Almost half of the residents participating selected plan 1, but a substantial number also liked plan 2. Therefore this amalgamated plan looks the most like plan I but includes some features from plan 2. (Please read the related article in this Mobile-lzer, "Three Site Plans Follow-up" for information on the priorities and how possible improvements might be funded. Also in this issue you'll find an insert illustrating the new Concept Study to be presented August 5 at the MHA Quarterly Meeting.)
Now residents have the opportunity to evaluate this plan. As an incentive to participate, every Evaluation form that is returned will go into a drawing for one of four $25 grocery coupons or a pair of Rockies tickets. The enclosed form asks you to evaluate the plan on a-scale of I to 5, with one being, "I dislike it a lot," and five being, "I like it a lot!" Or, there is a box to check if you do not want to evaluate the plans but do want to be entered into the drawing. PLEASE turn in your form whether or not you have an opinion. We want to be sure that all residents have had the opportunity to give input and were not, somehow, missed when the forms were distributed.
The form also asks you to list your three favorite and three least favorite features of the concept study, plus add any other comments. The resulting study will be a gulde for making decisions in the future. For example, when planning the layout of the utilities 'infrastructure, homesite locations and community gardens will be included (which does not add to the overall cost of the project, just needs to be included in the engineering) so that if residents later decide to proceed with those features, the sewer, water, electric, etc. will be in place to support them.
MHA Executive Board 2000-2001 President : Ben Jensen #178 545-2672 Vice President: Alex Wilson #58 447-8508 Secretary Mari Haas #161 442-7544 Treasurer Silvia Gentile #142 447-2246
Management Committee Members Doug Bethurum #40 442-6349 Anne Crone #82 545-5470 Alex Wilson #58 447-8508 Ben Jensen #178 345-2672 Mari Haas #161 442-7544

More info

The Mapleton Mobile-izer is published quarterly by the Mapleton Home Association and is distributed free to all residents of Mapleton Mobile Home Park.