During meetings with the Hart County planning advisory committee, substantial concern was raised about the vast increases in the number of mobile homes over the past two decades. Some consensus was reached to include, in the plan, some type of growth management technique to regulate the placement mobile homes and manufactured homes being installed in the county. The Georgia Mountains RDC staff agreed to look into this issue further.

A central question, however, to be resolved, is whether any type of "per se" restrictions on mobile homes would be legally justifiable. While a "full blown" legal justification for adopting a "per se" restriction or limit on mobile homes is beyond the scope of this plan, some basic reasoning can be employed here as to why Hart County should implement a growth management technique relative to mobile homes.

First, it is commonly assumed that mobile homes, because they are mostly taxed as personal property rather than real property, do not generate significant tax revenues and are a drain on the local economy because they create demand for local services for which they do not pay. For instance, in education services alone, Hart County expended an average cost per child in the 1990-91 school year of $3,589.93 (see Georgia County Guide, 1993).

It should be safe to assume that many households residing in mobile homes have public school students generating some costs to the county, and that school costs alone exceed the personal property tax revenues received from the household. Even if the mobile home is permanent and taxed as real property, it is highly doubtful that a mobile home "pays its own way". Therefore, there is a basic economic reason for Hart County to consider some type of regulations on mobile homes and manufactured homes. This brief rationale is probably not sufficient to justify adoption of a permit cap on mobile homes, and further justification and legal support would be advisable prior to adoption of any mobile home growth management strategy.

Given some economic justification, the local directive, and with the above mentioned disclaimer regarding the legal issue, one can now proceed with construction of a reasonable growth management scenario relative to mobile homes in Hart County.

What would Hart County's housing stock be like if existing trends of the 1980s continue? Answers are found in Table B-1 and B-2. Based on percentage growth trends of the 1980s in unincorporated Hart County, site built detached dwellings are increasing in number at a rate of 4.6% for a five year period, while mobile homes are increasing at a rate of 62.7% for the same period. If this percentage growth rate continued throughout the planning horizon, unincorporated Hart County would have 21,746 mobile homes, or nearly four for each stick built home, by the year 2015 (Table B-1). It is highly unlikely that this scenario would hold true, because the high percentage increase of mobile homes would surely not be able to sustain itself over time. An arithmetic (numeric increase) trend is much more likely, as indicated in Table B-2.

TABLE B-1: PROJECTED NUMBER OF MOBILE HOMES AND DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES IF 1980 PERCENTAGE GROWTH TRENDS CONTINUE 1995-2015 UNINCORPORATED HART COUNTY (geometric method)

*based on % change, 1980-1990
Source:1990 figure from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. 1990 Census of Population and Housing. Summary Population and Housing Characteristics, Georgia. Projections by Georgia Mountains RDC.

TABLE B-2: PROJECTED NUMBER OF MOBILE HOMES AND DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES IF 1980 NUMERICAL INCREASES CONTINUE 1995-2015 (arithmetic method) *based on actual numeric change, 1980-1990

Source:1990 figure from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. 1990 Census of Population and Housing. Summary Population and Housing Characteristics, Georgia. Projections by Georgia Mountains RDC.

Such a scenario is of clear concern to the local planning advisory committee. Discussion had centered on actually increasing the ratio of site, or stick-built homes to mobile homes (2.44 to 1 in 1990). If the county officials simply wanted to maintain this existing ratio, given the 1980s rate of site built housing starts, then an annual permit cap of 16 mobile homes would need to be instituted as indicated in Table B-3.

TABLE B-3: PROJECTED NUMBER OF MOBILE HOMES AND DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES IF 1980 NUMERICAL INCREASES IN DETACHED DWELLINGS CONTINUE AND IF A PERMIT CAP IS INSTITUTEDTO MAINTAIN THE 1990 RATIO OF 2.44 DETACHED DWELLINGS TO EACH MOBILE HOME 1995-2015UNINCORPORATED HART CO

On the other hand, the proposal limits are believed to be adequate to absorb the ongoing needs of local residents and their families.