Supreme Court Asked to Outlaw Adults-Only Mobile Home Parks

In a key test of state anti-discrimination laws, the California Supreme Court was told Tuesday that “adults-only” mobile home parks are an impermissible barrier to adequate housing for families with children and should be struck down as unconstitutional.

“The last vestige of affordable housing in California is the mobile home, but the traditional family is being locked out of the mobile home market,” said James R. Provenza, a lawyer for the Legal Aid Foundation of Santa Barbara County, representing a young family barred from a park in that area.

However, Provenza, appearing in oral argument before the court in Los Angeles, encountered stiff questioning as he contended that such restrictions violated both civil rights statutes and the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.

Justice Marcus M. Kaufman, one of Gov. George Deukmejian’s recent appointees to the court, ridiculed the lawyer’s suggestion that if park operators feared children would be too noisy they should limit noise, not bar children.

“What are they supposed to do, make a rule in the mobile home park saying no one can cry?” asked Kaufman. “How about, no crying after 10 o’clock at night?”

Provenza admitted such a rule would be “impractical,” but stood by his assertion that the concerns of adult park residents should not override the constitutional rights of families with children.

“But don’t others in a complex have rights to equal protection too?” Kaufman persisted.

“Yes, but they aren’t permitted to say who should live next door,” replied the lawyer, likening the exclusion of children to long-invalidated housing discrimination against racial minorities.

The justices’ decision in the case, expected later this year, is likely to have far-reaching effect. State officials estimate that there are 400,000 mobile homes in California, representing nearly 5% of the housing stock in the state. A recent study showed that 56% of the 5,000 mobile home parks in California limited admission to adults or senior citizens--and that over 75% of the total park spaces available were subject to age restrictions.

The ruling also could provide a strong indication of how the new court, now led by Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas and dominated by Deukmejian appointees, will approach the sensitive and often complex issues of age and housing discrimination.

Under former Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird, the court issued landmark rulings that barred adults-only policies in apartment and condominium housing, leaving only a limited exception for retirement homes or other facilities set aside for senior citizens.

The rulings were hailed by civil rights groups, but also drew criticism as being unfair to older persons and property owners.

Kaufman, writing an opinion in a separate case last year while on the state Court of Appeal, referred to the decisions as “legally and practically inane.”

The case now before the court arose in 1983 when two sisters, Teri and Toni Schmidt, sought to purchase a mobile home at Ranch Club Mobile Estates in Buellton and live there with Toni Schmidt’s 9-year old daughter and their 18-year-old sister.

The park refused to admit the Schmidts, citing its requirement that all new residents be at least 25 years old. Originally, there had been no age restrictions at the facility, but the policy was changed after complaints by residents of noise by young people and reduced demand for mobile home spaces.

The sisters brought suit against the park. A Santa Barbara Superior Court judge refused to overturn the 25-or-over rule, but a state Court of Appeal in Ventura held in favor of the Schmidts.

The appellate court said that the exclusionary policy at issue violated provisions of the Unruh Civil Rights Act barring housing and age discrimination.

The panel found that a separate 1975 statute allowing park operators to require compliance with “any rule or regulation limiting residence to adults only” must be interpreted to permit such limits only for parks set aside for “senior citizens.”

In Tuesday’s hourlong hearing, Dale E. Hanst of Santa Barbara, attorney for the mobile home park owners, argued that the Legislature legitimately intended to allow such parks to enforce age restrictions. There is no merit to the contention that an adults-only policy violates equal-protection guarantees of families with children, he said.

Hanst said that thousands of park operators and mobile home owners would be “irreparably harmed and damaged” if the justices bar age restrictions in mobile home parks.