This is a really good question to ask and I love the conversation that came of it. Some of these responses covered my thoughts on the matter but to put it simply, low income folks need a place to live.
The moral part I believe doesn’t come from the park itself. Its how the owner goes about treating the residents.
Sure you can legally raise the rents to maximum the market supports and pocket all the difference (while putting none of it back into the park). That would be the extreme on the non moral side.
You can raise rents to market and put most our all of that money into the park to improve the quality of life for the residents. (Would this be considered a gray area?)
You can raise rents just a little . (Just in order to support the debt service and the necessary expenses). But then you have a park that just breaks even and people wouldn’t want to buy parks in that case. The park may not be able to sustain itself in the long run.
Also, while the mobile home is a depreciating assets, the sheer savings on the costs of the home compared to stick built housing is the balance that makes up for it. What someone doesn’t get in appreciation, they get in pure savings which equals money in their pocket.
Just my .02.
Thanks for the topic.