Property tax hits mobile homes

Many in state may face higher rents

For years, mobile homes in Massachusetts have been exempt from property taxes - one reason they have functioned as low-cost housing.

But Chelmsford officials have begun imposing property taxes on mobile homes. If the measure is tested in court, a finding for the town could apply statewide, possibly affecting tens of thousands of mobile-home residents.

Already, the new tax has caused worry among mobile-home residents in Chelmsford, who wonder whether they can afford increases in rent caused by the tax.

"I think there are some people in here that will be hurting pretty bad," said Josef F. Fitzgerald, a resident of Chelmsford Mobile Home Park and a tenant advocate. "You're looking at an increase of about $30 per month, and the rent in here is already so incredibly high."

Fitzgerald pays $521 a month in rent, as does his neighbor, Mildred Johnson, who called the new tax unfair.

But the town's chief assessor, Frank T. Reen, defended his decision to consider mobile homes like any other dwelling.

"We believe the law is on our side," Reen said. "We believe the properties [at the mobile-home park] have taken on enough of the characteristics to be considered a conventional home."

The tax comes as Chelmsford, like many communities, faces skyrocketing costs and stagnant revenues. A similar tax on mobile homes elsewhere across the state could be a boon to struggling municipalities by bolstering the local tax base. At the same time, the tax could fall heavily on the mobile-home residents.

Massachusetts had 320 communities with 24,117 mobile-home units housing 41,171 tenants, according to the 2000 US Census, the latest figures available. The state Department of Housing and Community Development is developing a new list, said spokesman Philip C. Hailer.

In Chelmsford, there are 255 mobile homes in the local mobile-home park. The tax, assessed on the park owner, has not yet been passed along to mobile-home tenants.

Gregg S. Haladyna, attorney for park owner Carl J. DeCotis, said he requested an abatement from the tax, which was de nied, and plans to file a lawsuit. Haladyna said he has not decided on the nature of the lawsuit.

"We're exploring all our remedies we might have," Haladyna said. "It seems there's no basis for what they're doing."

The town's three-member Board of Assessors unanimously denied the abatement on April 30, Reen said.

Chelmsford voters recently defeated a $2.8 million property tax increase that could have avoided service cutbacks and extra fees in the schools. But Reen said the new policy on mobile homes was not triggered by the vote.

"We really began to look at this some time ago," he said. "It's really independent of that."

Mobile-home residents in the region say they fear the tax might appear elsewhere.

"If [Chelmsford] can get away with it, everybody will do the same thing," said Frances J. Bergeron, president of the Sky View Senior Homeowners Association at Clark's Retirement Homes in Pepperell. "It's going to be a domino effect."

Mona R. Martin, president of United Homeowners of Suburban Village Inc., the tenants' association in another Pepperell mobile-home park, said she was "flabbergasted and worried" to learn of the Chelmsford tax.

Massachusetts law governing mobile homes considers them personal property "exempted from real property taxes," according to a fact sheet developed by the state attorney general's office.

However, some court decisions regarding taxes have turned on questions such as whether the traditional four-wheel trailer can be moved from place to place, and has no added improvements, said state Department of Revenue spokesman Robert Bliss. He said one such improvement could be placement of the trailer on a foundation with a basement, rendering it immobile.

"I think when you look at these cases, you see there's going to be room for argument," Bliss said.

Fitzgerald and Johnson said their mobile homes do not have basements.

The 32-year-old Fitzgerald, who was laid off recently from his job as a payroll specialist, said he and his wife chose to live in the park with their 3-year-old child because they could not afford to buy a home or condominium. He said he can afford the rent increase from the tax, but it would be a burden on some of the seniors.

For Johnson, 84, who lives on a fixed income from a pension and Social Security, higher rent would mean cutting back on critical household expenses.

Tethered to an oxygen tank with difficulty getting around because of a bad hip, Johnson said her finances "would be very tight."

Connie Paige can be reached at cpaige@globe.com.