A “pilgrimage” is what some Lowry Grove residents called their four-mile march on August 26 from their mobile home park in St. Anthony to the Hennepin County Government Center downtown. Signs of religious faith were prominent as nearly 50 residents and supporters walked to district court to attend a hearing that could decide the fate of their homes.
Many of the adults and children in the procession held two-foot high white crosses. Organizer Antonia Alvarez led the fast-paced march wearing a white shawl on her head, a long rosary around her neck, and no shoes. She cradled a tall wooden cross for much of the route. “My gift for God,” she said about her bare feet. “We are hoping for a miracle today.”
Lowry Grove residents, members of the rights group Asamblea de Derechos Civiles and other supporters made their way down Lowry and Central avenues, then across the Third Avenue bridge into downtown. Behind them, a bus transported others who were unable to walk. The group was flanked by police escorts, first in vehicles, then officers on bikes once they arrived downtown.
Some of their signs read, “Just because we live in mobile homes doesn’t mean we want to move,” and “Mobile home residents deserve dignity and respect.” Some posters were in Spanish, some English, some both.
All along the way they chanted “What do we want? Our Homes! When do we want them? Now! and “Si, se puede” (“Yes, it can be done,” often translated as “Yes we can!”)
At the Hennepin County Government Center the residents gathered with representatives of Aeon, an affordable housing nonprofit that in June teamed with Lowry Grove residents to match a $6 million offer to purchase their mobile home park, only to have the owner, Lowry Grove LLC, close on a pending deal with one business day later with Continental Properties Group’s entity, The Village LLC.
“The state wasn’t kidding when they said that mobile home residents had the right to purchase their property,” said Alan Arthur, Aeon’s president and CEO. Aeon and residents are suing the buyer and seller. Arthur was referring to the state statute at the heart of the lawsuit, a statute that gives residents in a mobile home park the right of first refusal when a developer offers to purchase and close the park.
Once inside the government center, Asamblea organizers and Alvarez made brief statements for press: “It is immoral that many families will end up homeless. With low incomes they will not be able to pay rent or find housing with children. This is happening all over the country.” “Si, se puede,” the group yelled louder and louder as their words pounded back in the atrium. Pastor Rachael Keefe from the Living Table United Church of Christ in South Minneapolis led a prayer.
When they reached the courtroom, already more than half full with observers connected to the case, a few adults and children were seated, but many were left in the hallway during the hour-and-a-half proceedings as there would be no standing in the back. The bailiff acknowledged the children. “Parents, if the little ones get restless, you will need to take them out.”
Only when Hennepin District Court Judge Joseph R. Klein makes his rulings on the Lowry Grove matter will it be known which of the arguments were most important. Klein apparently had some ideas on how to organize the presentations to help him make his decision, which he went over with the attorneys in his chambers.
He rattled off a list of the order of the motions, asking the defendants, The Village, Inc. and Lowry Grove Partnership, to talk first and then the plaintiffs, Lowry Grove Residents and Aeon.
All through their attorneys, of course: Eric Magnuson for The Village, with full support expressed by Peter John Diessner for the seller, Lowry Grove Partnership; and John (Jack) Cann for the Lowry Grove Residents Association and Maria Antonia Alvarez Baez with Rachel Osdoba standing by for Aeon.
The simple outcome the residents and Aeon are seeking: To substitute their purchase agreement for the one the seller accepted and closed, re-opening the matter so that they could buy the park and keep it as their home, with Aeon updating the infrastructure. Cann said the residents had been denied due process of the right of first refusal.
Magnuson asked Klein to dismiss Cann’s arguments, saying they were “based on a [non-
existent] continuing right to buy. If there is a claim for damages, we’ll deal with that later,” a theme returned to many times during the 90-minute proceedings. He claimed that the fact that a sale took place ended the right of first refusal.
Judge Klein asked Magnuson to clarify his argument: “The remedy is [would have been] to stop the sale…to get an injunction? They didn’t say hold off on the closing, so they have no due process claim?”
Magnuson agreed, they discussed some precedent-setting cases and language in the statute. Attorney Magnuson mentioned Lori Swanson’s friend-of-the-court brief supporting the residents. “The volumes given by the Attorney General on the social value of a trailer park are irrelevant.”
Cann said, “Counsel is arguing as if the residents expected Lowry Grove Partnership to reject their offer. Lowry Grove Residents thought they had complied and that Lowry Grove Partnership would sell to them.”
The judge pressed Cann on this argument and Cann agreed, there was nothing stopping them from seeking an injunction, it was a decision made. “It wasn’t clear what we would have sued about. I don’t think that’s a serious argument,” Cann said.
Klein asked each attorney, at different junctures, to discuss the intent behind the right-of-first-refusal statute. Magnuson’s case revolved around legislative intent being to give rights where there had not been rights before, but to limit them so that owners can get on with a sale. Cann said it was to give due process to the owners of mobile homes so they have reasonable opportunity to buy their homes.
There was discussion about validity of signatures on the residents’ petition needed to show that a majority of the mobile home owners were “in” on the offer, though it was more about the process of submitting and verifying them, not individual challenges.
Magnuson made one last point, challenging the validity of the claim that Aeon’s president Alan Arthur would continue to operate a mobile home park on the land. “We have an affidavit that the infrastructure is so rotten that he can’t. Other people have looked at it and they can’t. What if we show you can’t do it? There are three fact questions to be resolved, and in a [damages suit] we can discuss this.”
The structure of the original purchase agreement was discussed, at one point the judge asking Magnuson, “Wouldn’t they (Aeon and the residents) be shooting themselves in the foot — by seeking an injunction they wouldn’t be able to match the terms?”
The purchase agreement between Lowry Grove Partnership and The Village LLC set out a formula of dates, the last of which was a 45-day due diligence period. Cann argued had Lowry Grove Partnership accepted the residents’ offer, it would have re-set the due diligence period and been within the terms.
Klein called on Cann for “the last word,” a closing argument. Cann said “They’re the ones who decided to define the closing date with a formula. If they had put June 13 in we’d have another argument, about the delay from January 25 to April 26 to provide the residents with notice about the park closing,” referring to the fact that a “letter agreement” between Lowry Grove Partnership and Continental outlining the conditions of the sale was executed in January, three months before residents were told there was a pending sale.
While the judge has 90 days to make a ruling, he said he would act as soon as possible —that has been interpreted by Alvarez as one to three weeks.
Lowry Grove residents and others supporting their quest to save the mobile home park walked from Lowry and Stinson to the Hennepin County Government Center by way of Central Avenue. (Photo by Karen Kraco)