An Act to repeal 101.935 (2) (e); to amend 101.935 (2) (a) and 101.935 (2m) (a) (intro.); to create 71.05 (6) (b) 57., 71.26 (2) (a) 13., 71.45 (2) (a) 25., 101.935 (2n), 710.15 (1) (ah), 710.15 (1) (cm), 710.15 (2n), 710.15 (7), 710.15 (8), 710.15 (9) and 710.15 (10) of the statutes; Relating to: residentsâ right to purchase and regulations regarding a mobile or manufactured home community, low-interest loans and tax incentives for owners of mobile or manufactured home communities, and providing a penalty. (FE)
AB1049 would substantially expand state regulation of mobile and manufactured home communities. The bill gives residents a statutory right of first opportunity to purchase a community when the owner plans to sell, close, convert the property to another use, or is facing foreclosure. It requires advance written notice, creates 90-day periods for residents to organize financing and make an offer, requires good-faith negotiation by the owner, and allows residents to assign that purchase right to a government entity, housing authority, or nonprofit housing organization. The bill also conditions certain sales on the owner having paid community-related assessments and complied with licensing standards, and it requires an on-site emergency shelter before sale unless the property will no longer be used as a community.
The bill also adds new rent and fee controls for these communities. It generally caps annual increases in rent, fees, service charges, and assessments to the change in the U.S. consumer price index, with minimum and maximum limits of 2 percent and 4 percent, unless the owner can justify a larger increase based on extraordinary operating expenses. If a larger increase is proposed, the owner must provide a detailed financial summary, meet with resident representatives on request, and prove the increase is necessary in any complaint or court challenge. Residents may challenge increases through the Department of Safety and Professional Services or in circuit court, and refusal to participate in mediation can make the increase void and unenforceable.
In addition, AB1049 strengthens state oversight of manufactured home communities. It removes the ability of DSPS to authorize local governments to issue permits and regulate these communities, requires annual inspections, and lets residents file complaints with DSPS about any issue involving community operations. Every lease would have to include DSPS contact information. The bill also creates a new tax subtraction for income from sales of a community to resident-controlled entities or certain nonprofit buyers when more than 51 percent of residents approve the sale, and it creates a forfeiture penalty of up to $1,000 for violations, while preserving residents’ ability to bring civil actions and recover attorney fees.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is protective of residents and supportive of preserving manufactured home communities as affordable housing. The bill appears designed to prevent displacement, improve transparency, and give residents more leverage when ownership changes or rent increases occur. At the same time, the bill was not enacted and ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1, indicating it did not clear the legislative process.
The main points of contention are likely to be the breadth of the resident purchase right, the rent-increase limitations, and the added compliance burdens on community owners. Owners may view the notice periods, mandatory financial disclosures, DSPS complaint process, annual inspections, and emergency shelter requirement as costly and restrictive, while resident advocates and affordable housing supporters would likely favor those provisions as necessary protections. The tax incentive for sales to resident or nonprofit buyers may also be debated as a subsidy mechanism tied to a specific ownership transition model.
AB1049 would create a new chapter of statutory protections and obligations for mobile and manufactured home communities, primarily in ch. 710 and related tax provisions in chs. 71 and 101. It would establish a resident right to purchase, regulate rent and fee increases, require evacuation planning, expand DSPS complaint and inspection authority, eliminate local permitting/regulatory delegation for manufactured home communities, and create a tax subtraction for qualifying community sales to resident-controlled or nonprofit entities. It would also expose violators to forfeitures and civil liability, affecting community owners, operators, residents, DSPS, and local governments.
The bill’s overall tone is strongly pro-resident and pro-affordable-housing preservation. Its provisions suggest support for tenant organizing, community ownership transitions, and tighter oversight of manufactured home community operators. Because no committee transcript or vote record is provided, the available legislative history shows only that the bill failed to pass, not how individual lawmakers debated it; however, the structure of the bill indicates it was likely viewed favorably by housing advocates and more skeptically by property owners and operators.
Likely contention centers on whether the state should impose a resident right of first purchase, cap annual rent and fee increases, and require detailed financial disclosures and annual inspections. Community owners may object to limits on pricing flexibility, the burden of proving extraordinary operating expenses, the mandatory emergency shelter condition, and the loss of local regulatory delegation. Residents and housing advocates would likely support these provisions as necessary to prevent displacement, preserve affordable housing, and improve safety and transparency. The tax subtraction for sales to resident-controlled or nonprofit buyers may also be controversial as a targeted tax preference.