CONTACT US

Contact Form

    News Details

    Do Palisades mobile home residents have a right to return after fire? The tale of two sites
    • April 4, 2026

    Former residents of the fire-ravaged Tahitian Terrace mobile home park in Pacific Palisades are no longer waiting to see what happens to the land where their homes once stood.

    Instead, they’re organizing—reviving a residents’ association, working with a statewide advocacy group and exploring a plan to collectively buy the property, which was home to about 150 units before the fire, so they can rebuild and return.

    For some, the loss was immediate. Chris Russo, who had just closed escrow on a  670-square-foot home near the beach that she had saved up to buy and grow old in, said the fire destroyed the community the very next day.

    “This has been a devastating situation for me, not only financially, but the loss of a community that I was really, really excited to be a part of,” she said. “ I actually never got the keys.”

    • Aftermath of the Palisades Fire looking over the Tahitian Terrace...

      Aftermath of the Palisades Fire looking over the Tahitian Terrace Mobile Home Park in Pacific Palisades, CA, on Monday, February 10, 2025. (Photo by Jeff Gritchen, Orange County Register/SCNG)

    1 of 7
    Aftermath of the Palisades Fire looking over the Tahitian Terrace Mobile Home Park in Pacific Palisades, CA, on Monday, February 10, 2025. (Photo by Jeff Gritchen, Orange County Register/SCNG)

    Expand

    That sense of loss has helped fuel a growing push among residents to organize and reclaim the site.

    “We recently revived it ’cause we’re going to try to purchase the park as a community,” said Jenny Rogers, a former Tahitian Terrace resident, referring to the revival of a residents’ association as part of an effort to seek collective ownership. “That’s kind of a neat development.”

    The effort is being supported by the Golden State Manufactured–Home Owners League, a statewide advocacy organization that helps mobile home residents organize, navigate state law, and, in some cases, pursue resident-led ownership efforts.

    Residents say they hope to put together a formal offer within the next one or two months.

    “We would need to make sure that we can put together a strong bonafide offer in the ballpark of what we think that the property owner would want to see,” Rogers said, “And then I would say in the next month or two, we’re definitely hoping to be able to present that offer to the property owner, the McDonald family.”

    Their push reflects a broader question emerging in the aftermath of the Palisades fire: what rights, if any, displaced mobile home residents have to return, and who ultimately decides the future of the land.

    At the nearby Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates, former residents are mounting a similar effort, forming a nonprofit — the Palisades Bowl Community Group, to organize, explore a potential collective purchase and raise a legal argument that their leasehold rights to their lots may still exist even though their homes were destroyed.

    • Former resident of the fire-destroyed Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates,...

      Former resident of the fire-destroyed Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates, Beverly Narayan, stands above the community she once called home near the ocean in Pacific Palisades on Wednesday, March 25, 2026.(Photo by Hans Gutknecht, Los Angeles Daily News/SCNG)

    1 of 15
    Former resident of the fire-destroyed Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates, Beverly Narayan, stands above the community she once called home near the ocean in Pacific Palisades on Wednesday, March 25, 2026.(Photo by Hans Gutknecht, Los Angeles Daily News/SCNG)

    Expand

    Beverly Narayan, a former Palisades Bowl resident, said many remain in limbo — unable to rebuild because the future of the property is still uncertain.

    “What’s very critical for us right now is we are being told basically: ‘OK, you lost your home. That’s it. You’re gone. You’re done. You don’t have any rights. You don’t have anything. You have no property interest because you didn’t own the land.  You need to go find somewhere else to live,” Narayan said.

    She said that is the message residents have taken from the owners’ actions, even if it has not been stated directly.

    When reached by phone, co-owner Colby Biggs of the Palisades Bowl property, declined to comment. Biggs also did not respond to follow-up questions sent by email.

    The uncertainty is reinforced by how the site is being marketed.

    In listing materials, real estate company CBRE, which is marketing the site, describes the “formerly home to 173 mobile residences” — as “a blank canvas for redevelopment” and “ideally positioned for a transformative residential or mixed-use project.”

    The term “blank canvas” is often used in real estate marketing to suggest a property can be redeveloped with few existing physical constraints.

    “It’s anything but that,” said former Palisades Bowl resident Jon Brown. “We have 170 leases there that were found to be considered active leases actually.”

    Brown said residents dispute the idea that their tenancies were extinguished by the fire, pointing to legal analysis they say indicate their lease agreements remain in effect even though the homes were destroyed.

    “The park is just not complying with its obligation to provide us the services under the terms of our lease,” Brown added.

    Whether those leases remain valid is a question that legal experts say is complex, and still evolving.

    Brenda Martin, a staff attorney with the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, said in an emailed response that under California law, mobile home park tenancies are not automatically terminated after a disaster and are generally preserved unless formal steps are taken to end them.

    The primary state law governing park closure or conversion allows mobile home park owners to close or convert a park to another use if they follow state and local requirements, Martin said. However, recent amendments clarified that parks are not automatically considered closed if destroyed by a disaster, and that additional steps are required to terminate tenancy rights.

    “By default, tenancies are preserved, and tenants are guaranteed the right to return at the same rental rate once the unit is safe and habitable,” Martin said.

    But in practice, that return depends in part on whether park owners rebuild the infrastructure needed to make the site habitable, she added. While the law requires owners to remediate damaged properties, it does not require them to rebuild structures or infrastructure destroyed by a disaster.

    Adam Cowing, who co-directs the Community and Economic Development Clinic at the UC Irvine School of Law, which has assisted the Palisades Bowl residents in forming the Palisades Bowl Community Group, said that state law requires park management to offer renewed tenancies if a park is rebuilt, and fire is not among the listed grounds for terminating tenancy.

    “Under the Mobilehome Residency Law, tenancies may only be terminated for reasons specified in the law and fire (or other natural disaster) is not one of them,” he said. “Of course, the rights of residents in any given situation will also depend on their specific facts and jurisdiction.”

    But Thomas Casparian, a lawyer who represents mobile home park owners, said that while residents may have a right to return if a park is reconstructed, there is no legal obligation for owners to rebuild—meaning tenancies can effectively end if a park is not restored.

    “California’s Mobilehome Residency Law contains specific requirements regarding offering renewed tenancy to former residents after a community is destroyed if management elects to rebuild,” he said, “but it clearly does not require rebuilding.”

    Casparian added that rebuilding may be financially difficult in rent-controlled jurisdictions like Los Angeles, where space rents are tightly regulated.

    “A land owner could never recover the cost to build a park with the strictly controlled rents allowed by Los Angeles on mobile home spaces,” he said. “I don’t think most people understand how low the rent was at Palisades Bowl. Even though many of those homes were weekend beach homes, the space rents were strictly controlled by the city.”

    Local officials say they are working to support displaced residents, even as the future of the sites remain uncertain.

    In a March 13 letter to the Palisades Bowl property owner, L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, whose district includes Pacific Palisades, urged greater transparency and encouraged exploring pathways toward resident ownership or partnership.

    She said in a separate statement to this publication, “After surviving one of the most devastating wildfires in our nation’s history, residents of Palisades Bowl should not be facing new uncertainty about their homes.”

    Horvath added that both local and state laws are intended to protect mobile home parks and their residents, and that officials should use their authority accordingly.

    “I am committed to fighting for these residents, standing with them in whatever path they choose, including resident ownership, and using every tool available to protect their homes,” she said.

    L.A. City Councilmember Traci Park, who represents the area, has also expressed strong support for displaced residents returning.

    Pete Brown, a spokesperson for Park’s office, pointed to a recent newsletter in which Park criticized how the site has been marketed for redevelopment and said her “sole focus is on restoring this as a mobile home park for the people who were there and remain displaced.”

    “The residents have been ignored and disregarded throughout the process, so I want to make it absolutely clear: I am 100% behind you,” Park wrote.

    Lawmakers are also considering legislation aimed at addressing some of these questions.

    State Sen. Ben Allen, D-Santa Monica, introduced two bills in February that would expand protections for mobile home park residents after disasters and give them a greater role in determining the future of their communities.

    One proposal, SB 1092, would give resident groups a stronger opportunity to purchase their parks by requiring owners to notify them of potential sales and negotiate in good faith if residents submit a competing offer. Another, SB 1093, would require park owners to provide regular updates to residents after a disaster and to evaluate options for rebuilding before pursuing a closure or change of use.

    The measures are still in the early stages of the legislative process, and it is unclear whether they will pass or take effect in time to shape the outcome at Palisades Bowl and Tahitian Terrace. Even if approved, such legislation would likely take time to implement, meaning it may not affect decisions already under way.

    For now, the future of the sites is governed by existing land use rules.

    The properties are currently zoned for mobile home use, though any change would require a formal zoning amendment—a process that could take time and face community scrutiny.

    For residents, however, the uncertainty is not just legal, it’s deeply personal.

    “We’re not asking for somebody to come in and be our white knight,” Narayan said. “We’re willing to do whatever we need to do to try and get back home.”

    Freelancer Michelle Edgar contributed to this story

    ​ Orange County Register 

    News
    CONTACT INFO
    3621 W. MacArthur Blvd
    Suite 107
    Santa Ana, CA 92704
    QUICK LINKS
    SERVICES
    CURRENT NEWS

    © 2024 Telepeer Cloud Business Communications. All Rights Reserved.

    Crafted with Love: DigiCorns