BigDaddy 2 said "urge caution and awareness on a house in brandon that you can get for $150,000.00......even IF you do own the land afterwards! Most of these homes are found either down by the tracks or downtown. So while yes you own the land, not a lot of people want that area especially with the amount of arson, drugs and crime in that area. I know, cause I looked and talked to a lot of people and went away from the need to own a house and land for that $130,000 - $150,000.00. Yes, this can and does happen in other areas of higher priced homes, but no matter how you slice it, it is lower (or hidden better). A lot of these homes will not pass an inspection, even if we went back 20yrs in time, they'd still fail. A lot of what I found in that price had renters in them, so that adds more stress to the purchaser, which needs to be factored into the mortgage (as you'll probably have a lot of damage to repair).
So while I don't own my land, my trailer will still be worth what it is. With the ridiculous prices people think their homes are worth (and what people are willing to pay) in Brandon, trailers are a great way to get into the housing market and not lose your shirt or over extend yourself. There are some parks I would stray away from, but the bigger ones are pretty safe bet. I may not make big money when I sell, but for the little mortgage I have and the little price of renos I am doing, I have no fear of it selling. People just have to drop the stigma of "owning property" & "trailer park boys". I have many little rules that hinder me from putting a rusted out trans am on cinder blocks in my front yard, and tarps and tires on my roof instead of shingles. My park was cleared WAY faster than any streets in Brandon and I get to write my lot rent off come tax time. If I didn't want a little bigger yard, I would actually never move out of my trailer cause it gives me everything I need. "
I agree in essence with what you say. Caution and awareness is necessary when purchasing a home for $130K or $400K, both can have pitfalls that can and will impact both the value of your home, resale, security and financial health. It would be extremely hard for the OP to buy something for under $200K, and even then that would be dicey, or perhaps a semi-detached or condo.
The point I'm trying to make is that while we tend to intellectually try to equate the two (owning a stick-build house on owned land vs. a mobile on a rented lot), the *legal* reality is that they're not equivalent. While they are both places to live, one is real estate, and the other is not - mobile is chattle and therefore is "personal property" along the same lines as a car or boat. That's why you can't get a conventional mortgage on a mobile on rented land, but you get a chattle mortgage instead. They legally different with different rules and ownership definitions.
Both are good options, and depending on your income and lifestyle buying a mobile might be the better choice. But I would never go into a mobile thinking it will appreciate - chattle simply doesn't normally do that, and if it does it's because it's the exception not the rule. My point is that the fact that mobiles are *not* depreciating in Brandon is symtomatic of the larger issue of affordable housing, and not whether or not mobiles are good or bad.
I didn't intend to offend anyone (and if I did, I apologize), but was trying to educate as to the differences. To me, the distinction makes a huge difference about the kind of risk and financial liability I'm willing to take. If I were in the OP's position and seriously considering buying a mobile, I either wouldn't finance it at all (pay cash), or buy what I could pay off in 5 years or less. We all need to live somewhere, and that would be a preferable option, at least to me, over paying perpetual rent. Even if the trailer depreciates in the time I live in it, the depreciated value could be less than what I would shell out in rent.