A Greener Way to Work?

  • Some researchers say telecommuting can be more energy efficient if it's done 5 days a week. (Photo courtesy of Penarc - Wikimedia Commons)

Telecommuting is becoming more popular in the U.S. There’s an assumption that working from home saves energy. But some experts say whether it actually saves energy depends on how you do it. Rebecca Williams has more:

Transcript

Telecommuting is becoming more popular in the U.S. There’s an assumption that working from home saves energy. But some experts say whether it actually saves energy depends on how you do it. Rebecca Williams has more:

Something like 33 million of us work from home or a coffee shop at least once a month. And the whole idea of telecommuting just sounds like it saves energy. I mean, you’re cutting out your commute. So it saves gas.
And it can save a lot of gas money.

Sun Microsystems has what it calls an Open Work program. It allows employees to work wherever they want… from home or from a coffee shop. The company studied its teleworkers’ habits in 2007. And they found the average employee working from home two days a week ended up saving 500 to 600 dollars a year in fuel costs.

But things are more complicated than that.

Arpad Horvath is a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California Berkeley. He studies teleworking.

“For example one might telecommute, but also maintain an office at the company as well as at home which of course now means we have to support with energy and other inputs two offices rather than one.”


So – if you have a company office AND a home office… and you’re using both… he says the energy savings might be kind of a wash because you’re using more energy at home. And if you’re not commuting… but you hop in the car to run a bunch of errands to get out of the house… you might not save that much gas.

Horvath says… for telecommuting to save the most energy, it can’t be just a couple days a week.

“The ideal situation is that somebody teleworks full time, gives up the company office and doesn’t increase anything else in one’s individual life, doesn’t travel more for pleasure, doesn’t substantially change the setup at home.”

But for a lot of people it just doesn’t work that way.

Surveys from the Telework Research Network show that less than two percent of Americans work from home all the time.
And experts say the main reason is: it can be a trust issue for the boss.
Rose Stanley is with World-at-Work. It’s a human resources organization.

“It’s a cultural shift within an organization to go to the next level of managing without being able to see their employees. That face time is still a stigma culturally speaking.”

Stanley says bosses just need to be trained on how to manage remote workers. She says her boss pops up on an instant message board throughout the day, just to check in.

Another obstacle to full-time telecommuting is… it’s just YOU. There’s nobody to talk to but the dog.
So some telecommuters are trying co-working. It’s a shared working space for people who would normally work from home.

(snd of espresso machine)

Mike Kessler is the co-owner of Workantile Exchange in Ann Arbor, Michigan. It’s a big, open space… with a coffee shop right up front. Kessler says the whole idea of co-working is… instead of having dozens of individual home offices… there’s one office that dozens of people share when they need to.

“The environmental benefits are everybody needs the same thing to get things done… you need your wifi, table, chair, good coffee, meeting rooms, a bathroom… not everybody needs those at the same time.”

He says also… the space is close to where people live, so they can walk or bike to work.

Some analysts think this kind of setup is where more of us are headed. But they say for most companies… telecommuting is not driven by energy savings… it’s a business decision. It’s more about retaining good employees and increasing productivity. If it saves employees some gas money, that’s just a bonus.

For the Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Safety Awards for Big Polluters

  • Some say that workplace safety awards promote complacency. (Photo courtesy of the NIEHS/DOE)

The companies associated with the two biggest accidents this year both recently got safety awards from the government. Lester Graham reports.

Transcript

The companies associated with the two biggest accidents this year both recently got safety awards from the government. Lester Graham reports.

The Mineral Management Service announced BP was a finalist for a safety award in May. Then, the Deepwater Horizon exploded, killed eleven men, and spilled –who knows how much– oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

The Mine Safety and Health Administration gave the coal company Massey Energy three safety awards last year. Then the Upper Big Branch Mine exploded. 29 miners died.

In an opinion piece in The Hill , The President of the Steelworkers union, Leo Gerard, argued those awards promote complacency– a sort of ‘see we’re already doing it.’

David Uhlmann is a law professor at the University of Michigan. He served for seven years as Chief of the Justice Department’s Environmental Crimes Section. He says awards can prod companies to do better… but…

“There’s always going to be some companies who cut corners, who put profits before safety, who put profits before their obligations to protect the environment.”

BP was to get its award in May. The safety awards ceremonies were postponed.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Birth Weights on the Decline

  • Researchers studied records of more than 36 million births and found the birth weight of the average full term single baby actually decreased over a 15 year period. (Photo courtesy of the Library of Congress)

American moms are giving birth
to smaller babies. Rebecca Williams
reports on a new study that suggests
this recent trend might be the
reversal of American babies getting
bigger and bigger of the past half-
century:

Transcript

American moms are giving birth
to smaller babies. Rebecca Williams
reports on a new study that suggests
this recent trend might be the
reversal of American babies getting
bigger and bigger of the past half-
century:

A few giant babies made the news last year. One was even 15 pounds.

“At guess at some point you can’t make bigger babies (laughs) so maybe we’ve maxed out.”

That’s Dr. Emily Oken with Harvard Medical School. She says babies are getting smaller. She studied records of more than 36 million births and found the birth weight of the average full term single baby actually decreased over a 15 year period.

But it was just a couple of ounces. Dr. Oken says that’s not a big deal for most healthy babies.

“But, is there an underlying reason why perhaps babies might be getting a little bit smaller and does that exposure have a short or longer term health implication for babies?”

She says she ruled out factors such as age, race, tobacco use, and birth complications. Dr. Oken says next, she wants to study mother’s diets, exercise, stress, and exposure to environmental toxins as possible causes.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

A Fight Over the Climate Change Bill

  • Groups are arguing over whether the climate change bill in the Senate will create jobs or kill them. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

America has a big decision coming up. We have
to decide whether we want to keep spending our
money on energy from fossil fuel sources such as
coal and oil. Or, do we want to invest more in
renewable energy such as solar, wind, and bio-fuels?
Lester Graham reports the next stage for the
national debate will be when the Senate considers
a climate change bill late this month:

Transcript

America has a big decision coming up. We have
to decide whether we want to keep spending our
money on energy from fossil fuel sources such as
coal and oil. Or, do we want to invest more in
renewable energy such as solar, wind, and bio-fuels?
Lester Graham reports the next stage for the
national debate will be when the Senate considers
a climate change bill late this month:

The U.S. House has already passed a version of the bill. It includes a carrot and stick plan to cap greenhouse gas emissions and put a price on them. It will mean fossil fuels will become a little more expensive to use. Revenue from the program will be invested in clean energy and energy efficiency projects.

President Obama’s Secretary of Commerce, Gary Locke, says using that money America can reinvent itself and, in the process, create jobs.

“The technological innovations needed to combat climate change, to reverse it, to mitigate it, can spawn one of the most promising areas of economic growth in the 21st century.”

Environmental groups believe that. And labor unions believe it. And some progressive businesses are counting on it. They’ve been joining forces in groups such as the Apollo Alliance, and then there’s the United Steel Workers Union and the Sierra Club’s Blue/Green Alliance.

Leo Gerard is the President of the United Steelworkers.

“We need a climate change bill that is focused on creating jobs and cleaning up the climate. With a lot of conservation, a lot of investments in the newest technologies, what we’ll end up doing is taking a huge amount of carbon out of the atmosphere and creating a lot of good jobs.”

Business groups say all carbon cap-and-trade will do is make coal, gas and oil more expensive.

“This legislation is a job killer.”

Keith McCoy is a Vice-President with the National Association of Manufacturers. He says the government should not penalize businesses that rely on cheaper fossil fuels.

“So, if you’re a company that’s reliant on natural gas or oil or even coal in the manufacturing process, these companies suffer the most.”

Business says drop cap-and-trade. And just use the carrot. The government should just offer incentives for energy efficiency and invest in technologies such as nuclear power and carbon capture and sequestration for coal-burning industries.

So the two sides are rallying the troops.

The unions and environmental groups are urging their members to push for cap-and-trade for the sake of the planet and for the promise of green jobs.

Business groups are launching TV ad campaigns against it. Oil companies are using a front group called Energy Citizens to hold public rallies oppsing cap-and-trade. They raise the spector of high gasoline prices and higher electricity bills and throw in the threat of losing as many as 2.4 million jobs.

Ed Montgomery is President Obama’s Director of Recovery for Auto Communities and Workers. He says a clean energy policy is not going to hurt the US, it’ll save it.

“Something’s gone wrong. Our manufacturing sector isn’t able, and hasn’t been able to compete and continue to create new and effective jobs. And what a clean energy policy opens up for us is a whole avenue forward. It’s a way to create both new jobs, to open up new avenues of competitiveness, the competitiveness that uses the strengths of our workers – who know how to make product.”

But first, the debate will devolve into shouting matches about whether global warming is real and, if it is, whether cap-and-trade will do anything to slow it. There will be distortions on both sides about the end of the economic good of the country, and the climatic end of the world as we know it.

And because of all the complexities, the arguments will leave a thoroughly confused public about whether we should use government policy to shift from reliance on carbon-emitting fossil fuels to banking more on renewable energy.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Job Killer or Job Creator?

  • Environmental groups and labor unions say the climate change bill will create green jobs. Some businesses disagree. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

The Senate sponsors of a climate change
bill say they need more time. Lester Graham
reports Senators Barbara Boxer and John
Kerry asked the Senate leadership to give
them until the end of the month before they
introduce the climate change bill:

Transcript

The Senate sponsors of a climate change
bill say they need more time. Lester Graham
reports Senators Barbara Boxer and John
Kerry asked the Senate leadership to give
them until the end of the month before they
introduce the climate change bill:

The details of the senate bill are still being worked out. The House version included a carbon cap-and-trade scheme to reduce greenhouse gases and raise revenue for clean energy projects.

Environmental groups and labor unions are in favor of cap-and-trade. Jeff Rickert heads up the AFL-CIO’s Center for Green Jobs.

“The climate change bill is a potential stream of revenue to really make the green jobs, the clen-tech industry a reality.”

Business groups say all carbon cap-and-trade will do is make energy more expensive.

“This legislation is a job killer.”

Keith McCoy is a Vice-President with the National Association of Manufacturers.

“So, if you’re a company that’s reliant on natural gas or oil or even coal in the manufacturing process, these companies suffer the most.”

Business suggests the government should just offer incentives for energy efficiency and invest in clean technologies.

The two sides are taking their arguments to the public this month.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Not Much Green From Eco Jobs

  • A manufacturing job in a wind or solar plant sometimes pays as little as $11 an hour - much lower than the national average for workers making other durable goods (Source: Man-ucommons at Wikimedia Commons)

One of the big plans for kick-starting the nation’s economy is to invest in green jobs: solar and wind energy projects, mass transit, and energy efficiency. But a new report finds some of those jobs might not pay as well as some people expect. Julie Grant has the story:

Transcript

One of the big plans for kick-starting the nation’s economy is
to invest in green jobs: solar and wind energy projects, mass
transit, and energy efficiency. But a new report finds some
those jobs might not be pay as well as some people expect.
Julie Grant has the story:

A manufacturing job in a wind or solar plant sometimes pays
as little as $11 an hour – much lower than the national
average for workers making other durable goods.

Kate Gordon is with the Apollo Alliance, a group that
advocates jobs in renewable energy. She helped to write
the report on green jobs.

“Just because something’s a green job does not necessarily
mean it’s a good job. There are a lot of jobs emerging in
renewable energy and energy efficiency companies where
the workers are being paid minimum wage or slightly more
or don’t have benefits.”

At the same time, the report finds that some U.S. wind and
solar companies are already outsourcing jobs to China and
Mexico.

But Gordon says the government can change this direction
with its investments – by requiring local job creation, labor
standards, and domestic content.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Making Products Close to Home

The price of everything from
shampoo to bottled iced tea could be
on the rise in the next few years –
unless companies find ways to produce
and distribute products more efficiently.
But if they do, it could be good news for
American workers. Julie Grant reports:

Transcript

The price of everything from
shampoo to bottled iced tea could be
on the rise in the next few years –
unless companies find ways to produce
and distribute products more efficiently.
But if they do, it could be good news for
American workers. Julie Grant reports:

Today, when a company makes, say a bottle of shampoo,
the plastic bottle is often made in China and shipped to the
U.S.

Daniel Mahler is with the global consulting firm AT Kearney.
His company finds the cost of labor in China is going up –
and cost of transporting bottles around the world is on the
rise.

Mahler says that means it’s smarter to start making the
bottles here in the U.S.

“Because the transportation costs will be much lower if I
have a supplier next door that ships to me my plastic or the
caps for my bottles.”

Mahler’s study says companies that don’t change could see
earnings drop by 30% in the next five years – and that would
mean higher prices for products.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Migrant Workers: Still Harvest of Shame?

  • Most migrant labor camps provide housing only for single men, but the Zellers farm in Hartville, OH allows entire families to migrate and, for those of age, to work together in the fields. (Photo by Gary Harwood )

It might sound obvious, but America needs to grow and harvest food. The problem is
that many Americans don’t want to work on farms anymore. That’s why some farm
owners recruit workers from Mexico and other places. During the growing season,
nearly 300 workers and their children live in migrant camps around the K. W. Zellers
family farm in rural northeast Ohio. Julie Grant spent some time at the Zellers’ farm this
fall and has this story:

Transcript

It might sound obvious, but America needs to grow and harvest food. The problem is
that many Americans don’t want to work on farms anymore. That’s why some farm
owners recruit workers from Mexico and other places. During the growing season,
nearly 300 workers and their children live in migrant camps around the K. W. Zellers
family farm in rural northeast Ohio. Julie Grant spent some time at the Zellers’ farm this
fall and has this story:


For many Americans, just tending a small garden can be too much labor. But the
Mexican workers on the Zellers Farm in Hartville, Ohio are moving quickly down rows
of lettuce hundreds of yards long.


One man crouches down and cuts four heads of romaine. He’s leaning over the plants all
day long. It’s backbreaking work, but he moves spryly to the next row, and the next, and
the next. He’ll only make about 3 cents per head, so he wants to cut as many heads as
quickly as possible. Another worker follows him, loading the lettuce into boxes, then
lifting the 30 to 40 pound boxes and throwing them on to a flatbed truck, one after
another.


Farm owner Jeff Zellers says most people who live around here don’t want to do this:


“No. We can probably hire ten people and one of them will last more than a week, who
will stay here work, and work through it.”


Out in another field, a different crew is working in the harshest heat of the day. They get
a little protection from straw hats and some are wearing rubber pants. They need to protect
their legs from the hot, black, mucky soil. The temperature of the dirt can get up to 110
degrees.


Two generations of the Soto family of Mexico work together thinning lettuce. They
work down the long rows using a hoe, or crouching down and pulling out weeds by hand.
25-year-old Ivan Soto has become an expert, after thinning lettuce at the Zellers farm for
the past nine years:


“We don’t do other jobs, only one job.”


Ivan Soto pretty much taught himself English. He’s gone through the process to become
a US citizen. Now his wife has joined him and his family on the lettuce-thinning crew.
Other crews specialize in growing cilantro, parsley, and radishes. Zellers says the farm
depends on this expertise:


“We have to deliver
product on a daily basis that is as good or better then our competitors. And if we do not
have a trained labor force to do that, we’re not going to long term be in business.”


The Zellers farm pays less then some others because it has set up temporary homes
around the perimeter of the farm. Most of the homes look like small trailers. But they
come furnished and the farm pays most of the workers’ living expenses. Most migrant
farm workers make 11 to 14 thousand dollars a year. Ivan Soto says it’s hard, boring
work, but they make a good enough living that when they return to Mexico they can
afford to rest for awhile.


That’s a big reason their family, including his wife and young son, his parents, four
siblings, an aunt and uncle, have traveled from their home outside Mexico City to this
small northeast Ohio town for going on a decade now:


“When we are here, we say, well, we are now in our second home, because over there is our first home this is our home because here in Ohio is our second home for us.”


While most farms provide migrant housing only for single men,
Jeff Zellers allows entire families to migrate and work together in the fields. He hopes
his own children understand all the labor it takes to provide a meal:


“When we return thanks before we eat dinner, we pray for the people that prepared and produced the food. If my childen do nothing else but understand that their food did not show up in the grocery store because that’s where it was, it just came off an assembly line, I would want them to do that.”


For the Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

How Long Do You Keep a Polluting Heap?

  • Motor oil dripping from cars can add up and end up contaminating waterways and sediments. (Photo by Brandon Blinkenberg)

Industries and companies get labeled as
“polluters.” But what do you do when you find out you’re a pretty big polluter yourself… and you find out it’s going to cost you a lot of money to fix the
problem? As part of the series, “Your Choice; Your
Planet,” the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rebecca
Williams finds herself in that dilemma:

Transcript

Industries and companies get labeled as “polluters.” But what do you do when you find out you’re a pretty big polluter yourself… and you find out it’s going to cost you a lot of money to fix the problem? As part of the series, “Your Choice; Your Planet,” the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rebecca Williams finds herself in that dilemma:


(sound of car starting)


This is my ‘89 Toyota Camry. It has 188,000 miles on it. Pieces of
plastic trim fly off on the highway, and I have to climb in from the
backseat when my door gets frozen in the winter. But I got it for free, I get good gas mileage, and my insurance is cheap. But now, it’s leaking oil – lots of oil. I knew it was bad when I started
pouring in a quart of oil every other week.


I thought I’d better take it in to the shop.


(sound of car shop)


My mechanic, Walt Hayes, didn’t exactly have good news for me.


“You know, you’re probably leaking about 80% of that, just from experience, I’d say
you’re burning 20% and leaking 80%.”


Walt says the rear main seal is leaking, and the oil’s just dripping
straight to the ground. Walt tells me the seal costs 25 dollars, but he’d
have to take the transmission out to get to the seal. That means I’d be
paying him 650 dollars.


650 bucks to fix an oil leak, when no one would steal my car’s radio. There’s no way. Obviously, it’s cheaper to spend two dollars on each quart of oil, than to fix the seal.


“Right – what else is going to break, you know? You might fix the rear main
seal, and your transmission might go out next week or something. Your car,
because of its age, is on the edge all the time. So to invest in a 25 dollar seal, spending a lot of money for labor, almost doesn’t make sense on an
older car.”


That’s my mechanic telling me not to fix my car. In fact, he says he’s seen
plenty of people driving even older Toyotas, and he says my engine will
probably hold out a while longer. But now I can’t stop thinking about the
quarts of oil I’m slowly dripping all over town.


I need someone to tell me: is my one leaky car really all that bad? Ralph
Reznick works with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. He
spends his time trying to get polluters to change their behavior.


“That’s a lot for an old car. If you were the only car in the parking lot,
that wouldn’t be very much. But the fact is, there’s a lot of cars just
like yours that are doing the same thing.”


Reznick says the oil and antifreeze and other things that leak from and fall
off cars like mine add up.


“The accumulative impact of your car and other cars, by hitting the
pavement, and washing off the pavement into the waterways, is a very large
impact. It’s one of the largest sources of pollution we’re dealing with
today.”


Reznick says even just a quart of oil can pollute thousands of gallons of
water. And he says toxins in oil can build up in sediment at the bottom of
rivers and lakes. That can be bad news for aquatic animals and plants.
There’s no question – he wants me to fix the leak.


But I am NOT pouring 650 bucks into this car when the only thing it has going
for it is that it’s saving me money. So I can either keep driving it, and
feel pretty guilty, or I can scrap it and get a new car.


But it does take a lot of steel and plastic and aluminum to make a new car.
Maybe I’m doing something right for the environment by driving a car that’s
already got that stuff invested in it.


I went to the Center for Sustainable Systems at the University of Michigan
and talked to Greg Keoleian. He’s done studies on how many years it makes
sense to keep a car. He says if you look at personal costs, and the energy
that goes into a making a midsize car, it makes sense to hang onto it for a
long time… like 16 years.


No problem there – I finally did something right!


Well, sort of.


“In your case, from an emissions point of view, you should definitely
replace your vehicle. It turns out that a small fraction of vehicles are
really contributing to a lot of the local air pollution. Older vehicles
tend to be more polluting, and you would definitely benefit the environment
by retiring your vehicle.”


Keoleian says if I get a newer car, it won’t be leaking oil, and it won’t
putting out nearly as much nitrogen oxide and other chemicals that lead to
smog. Oh yeah, he also says I really need to start looking today.


And so doing the right thing for the environment is going to cost me money.
There’s no way around that. The more I think about my rusty old car, the
more I notice all the OTHER old heaps on the road. Maybe all of you are a
bit like me, hoping to make it through just one more winter without car
payments.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

The Debate Over Mobile Home Parks

  • Because mobile homes can be transported they're not taxed the way permanent homes are. They're taxed like vehicles (when they're bought and sold). Mobile home owners pay a small tax for the small plot of land they sit on. (Photo by Chris McCarus)

People who live in mobile homes might be seeing their property taxes going up. Some government officials say it’s an attempt to tax for the services used and to discourage mobile home parks from sprawling across former farm fields. But others wonder if higher taxes aren’t a form of discrimination against this kind of affordable housing. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chris McCarus reports:

Transcript

People who live in mobile homes might be seeing their property taxes going up. Some government officials say it’s an attempt to tax for the services used and to discourage mobile home parks from sprawling across former farm fields. But others wonder if higher taxes aren’t a form of discrimination against this kind of affordable housing. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chris McCarus reports:


(sound of expressway traffic)


The Capital Crossings mobile home park sits on rolling farmland near an Interstate highway. The residents of the 15 homes have moved here either to retire or to make the 30 minute daily commute to nearby Lansing, Michigan. And more mobile homes are being pulled in.


(sound of construction)


Workers are building porches and attaching the skirting between the ground and the house. It’s supposed to show permanence, like a foundation. But mobile homes are not permanent. And mobile homes are not taxed the same way as other houses. They’re taxed like vehicles. Taxed when they’re purchased. Taxed when they’re sold. Still there are no property taxes on the homes. Only on the tiny lots on which they sit.


Some government officials say the $3 a month that these park residents have been paying for property taxes don’t cover the costs of police and fire protection or other government services. They want a tax hike to give local governments more money. Dave Morris is a farmer and the local township supervisor.


“We all have to pay our fair share for services such as sheriff, ambulance, fire department as well as schools. Schools is a big issue of course. And they aren’t paying their share. That’s all.”


But advocates for affordable housing say hiking taxes on mobile home residents is more likely just an attempt to discourage that kind of housing. They say zoning mobile homes out of existence has been tried, but taxing them out is a new idea. Higher taxes will likely lead to mobile home parks closing.”


John McIlwain is with the Urban Land Institute. He says as mobile home parks become more expensive to operate, their owners will sell off to subdivision or big box store developers.


“The numbers are going to be so attractive that the people who own mobile home parks are going to be much more interested in selling the land to a housing developer than in continuing to run the mobile home park. So in time the parks are probably going to disappear on their own anyway and trying to raise the taxes on them specifically is simply going to make that day come earlier.”


In Michigan there is a proposal to raise the taxes on mobile home sites four times higher. State Senator Valde Garcia says the $3 a month that mobile home park owners pay for each home site is not nearly enough.


“What we are trying to do is really change the tax structure so it’s fair to everyone. The system hasn’t changed in 45 years. It’s time we do so but we need to do it in a gradual manner.”


Senator Garcia’s colleagues in the state house have voted to raise the tax to $12 a month. He’d like to raise it to at least $40 a month. The mobile home park industry has hired a public relations firm to produce a video criticizing the tax increase.


“Site built homes pay sales tax only the materials used in their homes and don’t pay tax on resale. Manufactured home owners pay sales tax on materials, labor, transportation profit of a home and they pay sales tax every time a home is resold. ”


The two sides don’t agree on the math. Tim Dewitt of the Michigan Manufactured Housing Association says $3 a month sounds low because it doesn’t show hidden costs. The biggest cost comes when park owners have to pay the higher commercial property tax instead of the lower homestead tax. Dewitt says the park owners then pass the tax to the home owners whose average family income is only about $28,000 a year.


“That’s our worst fear. It could put people who could least afford any type of tax increase into a tough position.”


15 million people live in mobile home parks around the country. And different local governments have tried to find ways to increase taxes on mobile home parks. But Michigan is one of the first states to propose hiking taxes this much. State Senator Garcia says he is not trying to hurt the mobile home industry or make life harder for mobile home park residents. He dismisses the idea that he’s being pressured by wealthier constituents who don’t like to see the mobile home parks being developed.


John McIlwain of the Urban Land Institute says a bias against mobile home parks is part of the mentality that leads to sprawl. When people from the city and the suburbs move a little further into rural areas they want the look and feel of suburbia.


“The mobile home parks are no longer things that they want to see. And so they find ways to discourage those mobile home parks. The ones that are there try to see if they can be purchased, turned into stick built housing or otherwise discourage them and encourage them to move on elsewhere.”


But often the people who move in also want the shopping centers, restaurants and conveniences they once had instead of the mobile home parks.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Chris McCarus.

Related Links