Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Hurricane Irma Based on our assessment and available information as of the quarter ended September 30, 2017, we recognized expense of $3.7 million during the quarter and nine months ended September 30, 2017 related to property damage and restoration work that had been reasonably estimated and/or completed to date at our Florida properties as a result of Hurricane Irma. Based on our evaluation of these costs and our review of the potential insurance claim and our estimate of the related deductible, we recorded a revenue accrual of $3.5 million during the quarter and nine months ended September 30, 2017. As of September 30, 2017, while we expect additional amounts to be identified in the future, we cannot estimate the total expenses or recoveries related to Hurricane Irma. California Rent Control Litigation As part of our effort to realize the value of our Properties subject to rent control, we previously initiated lawsuits against certain localities in California with the goal of achieving a level of regulatory fairness in California's rent control jurisdictions, and in particular those jurisdictions that prohibit increasing rents to market upon turnover. Such regulations allow tenants to sell their homes for a price that includes a premium above the intrinsic value of the homes. The premium represents the value of the future discounted rent-controlled rents, which is fully capitalized into the prices of the homes sold. In our view, such regulations result in a transfer to the tenants of the value of our land, which would otherwise be reflected in market rents. We have discovered through the litigation process that certain municipalities considered condemning our Properties at values well below the value of the underlying land. In our view, a failure to articulate market rents for Sites governed by restrictive rent control would put us at risk for condemnation or eminent domain proceedings based on artificially reduced rents. Such a physical taking, should it occur, could represent substantial lost value to stockholders. We are cognizant of the need for affordable housing in the jurisdictions, but assert that restrictive rent regulation does not promote this purpose because tenants pay to their sellers as part of the purchase price of the home all the future rent savings that are expected to result from the rent control regulations, eliminating any supposed improvement in the affordability of housing. In a more well-balanced regulatory environment, we would receive market rents that would eliminate the price premium for homes, which would trade at or near their intrinsic value. Such efforts have included the following matters: We sued the City of San Rafael on October 13, 2000 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, challenging its rent control ordinance on constitutional grounds. While the District Court found the rent control ordinance unconstitutional, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court and ruled that the ordinance had not unconstitutionally taken our property. On September 3, 2013, we filed a petition for review by the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied. On January 31, 2012, we sued the City of Santee in the United States District for the Southern District of California challenging its rent control ordinance on constitutional grounds. On September 26, 2013, we entered a settlement agreement with the City pursuant to which we are able to increase Site rents at the Meadowbrook community through January 1, 2034 as follows: (a) a one-time 2.5% rent increase on all Sites in January 2014; plus (b) annual rent increases of 100% of the consumer price index (CPI) beginning in 2014; and (c) a 10% increase in the rent on a site upon turnover of that site. Absent the settlement, the rent control ordinance limited us to annual rent increases of at most 70% of CPI with no increases on turnover of a site. Settlement of California Lawsuits On January 18, 2017, we entered into agreements pursuant to which we agreed to settle three California lawsuits related to our California Hawaiian property in San Jose, our Monte del Lago property in Castroville and our Santiago Estates property in Sylmar. Each of the three plaintiff groups was represented by the same law firm and alleged that the Company failed to properly maintain the respective properties. The settlement agreements provided for $9.9 million to be paid to settle the California Hawaiian matter, $1.5 million to be paid to settle the Monte del Lago matter and $1.9 million to be paid to settle the Santiago Estates matter. As a result, a litigation settlement payable was recorded in Accrued expenses and accounts payable as of December 31, 2016. In addition, an insurance receivable was recorded in escrow deposits, goodwill and other assets, net as of December 31, 2016, resulting in a net settlement of approximately $2.4 million reflected as a component of property rights initiatives and other, net on the consolidated statement of income for the year ended December 31, 2016. During the quarter ended March 31, 2017, the settlements were finalized, the settlement payments were made and the insurance payments were received. These settlements resolved all pending matters brought by plaintiffs’ counsel against us or any of our affiliates. Pursuant to the settlement agreements, all plaintiffs provided full releases to each of the defendants and their affiliates including with respect to the claims alleged in the lawsuits, and each of the lawsuits and related appeals were dismissed with prejudice. The settlements do not constitute an admission of liability by us or any of our affiliates and were made to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation. Civil Investigation by Certain California District Attorneys In November 2014, we received a civil investigative subpoena from the office of the District Attorney for Monterey County, California ("MCDA"), seeking information relating to, among other items, statewide compliance with asbestos and hazardous waste regulations dating back to 2005 primarily in connection with demolition and renovation projects performed by third-party contractors at our California Properties. We responded by providing the information required by the subpoena. On October 20, 2015, we attended a meeting with representatives of the MCDA and certain other District Attorneys' offices at which the MCDA reviewed the preliminary results of their investigation including, among other things, (i) alleged violations of asbestos and related regulations associated with approximately 200 historical demolition and renovation projects in California; (ii) potential exposure to civil penalties and unpaid fees; and (iii) next steps with respect to a negotiated resolution of the alleged violations. No legal proceedings have been instituted to date and we are involved in settlement discussions with the District Attorneys' offices. We continue to assess the allegations and the underlying facts, and at this time we are unable to predict the outcome of the investigation or reasonably estimate any possible loss. Other In addition to legal matters discussed above, we are involved in various other legal and regulatory proceedings ("Other Proceedings") arising in the ordinary course of business. The Other Proceedings include, but are not limited to, notices, consent decrees, information requests, and additional permit requirements and other similar enforcement actions by governmental agencies relating to our utility infrastructure, including water and wastewater treatment plants and other waste treatment facilities and electrical systems. Additionally, in the ordinary course of business, our operations are subject to audit by various taxing authorities. Management believes these Other Proceedings taken together do not represent a material liability. In addition, to the extent any such proceedings or audits relate to newly acquired Properties, we consider any potential indemnification obligations of sellers in our favor.

Commitments and Contingencies

Hurricane Irma

Based on our assessment and available information as of the quarter ended September 30, 2017, we recognized expense of $3.7 million during the quarter and nine months ended September 30, 2017 related to property damage and restoration work that had been reasonably estimated and/or completed to date at our Florida properties as a result of Hurricane Irma. Based on our evaluation of these costs and our review of the potential insurance claim and our estimate of the related deductible, we recorded a revenue accrual of $3.5 million during the quarter and nine months ended September 30, 2017. As of September 30, 2017, while we expect additional amounts to be identified in the future, we cannot estimate the total expenses or recoveries related to Hurricane Irma.

California Rent Control Litigation

As part of our effort to realize the value of our Properties subject to rent control, we previously initiated lawsuits against certain localities in California with the goal of achieving a level of regulatory fairness in California's rent control jurisdictions, and in particular those jurisdictions that prohibit increasing rents to market upon turnover. Such regulations allow tenants to sell their homes for a price that includes a premium above the intrinsic value of the homes. The premium represents the value of the future discounted rent-controlled rents, which is fully capitalized into the prices of the homes sold. In our view, such regulations result in a transfer to the tenants of the value of our land, which would otherwise be reflected in market rents. We have discovered through the litigation process that certain municipalities considered condemning our Properties at values well below the value of the underlying land. In our view, a failure to articulate market rents for Sites governed by restrictive rent control would put us at risk for condemnation or eminent domain proceedings based on artificially reduced rents. Such a physical taking, should it occur, could represent substantial lost value to stockholders. We are cognizant of the need for affordable housing in the jurisdictions, but assert that restrictive rent regulation does not promote this purpose because tenants pay to their sellers as part of the purchase price of the home all the future rent savings that are expected to result from the rent control regulations, eliminating any supposed improvement in the affordability of housing. In a more well-balanced regulatory environment, we would receive market rents that would eliminate the price premium for homes, which would trade at or near their intrinsic value. Such efforts have included the following matters:

We sued the City of San Rafael on October 13, 2000 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, challenging its rent control ordinance on constitutional grounds. While the District Court found the rent control ordinance unconstitutional, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court and ruled that the ordinance had not unconstitutionally taken our property. On September 3, 2013, we filed a petition for review by the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied.

On January 31, 2012, we sued the City of Santee in the United States District for the Southern District of California challenging its rent control ordinance on constitutional grounds. On September 26, 2013, we entered a settlement agreement with the City pursuant to which we are able to increase Site rents at the Meadowbrook community through January 1, 2034 as follows: (a) a one-time 2.5% rent increase on all Sites in January 2014; plus (b) annual rent increases of 100% of the consumer price index (CPI) beginning in 2014; and (c) a 10% increase in the rent on a site upon turnover of that site. Absent the settlement, the rent control ordinance limited us to annual rent increases of at most 70% of CPI with no increases on turnover of a site.

Settlement of California Lawsuits

On January 18, 2017, we entered into agreements pursuant to which we agreed to settle three California lawsuits related to our California Hawaiian property in San Jose, our Monte del Lago property in Castroville and our Santiago Estates property in Sylmar. Each of the three plaintiff groups was represented by the same law firm and alleged that the Company failed to properly maintain the respective properties. The settlement agreements provided for $9.9 million to be paid to settle the California Hawaiian matter, $1.5 million to be paid to settle the Monte del Lago matter and $1.9 million to be paid to settle the Santiago Estates matter. As a result, a litigation settlement payable was recorded in Accrued expenses and accounts payable as of December 31, 2016. In addition, an insurance receivable was recorded in escrow deposits, goodwill and other assets, net as of December 31, 2016, resulting in a net settlement of approximately $2.4 million reflected as a component of property rights initiatives and other, net on the consolidated statement of income for the year ended December 31, 2016. During the quarter ended March 31, 2017, the settlements were finalized, the settlement payments were made and the insurance payments were received. These settlements resolved all pending matters brought by plaintiffs’ counsel against us or any of our affiliates. Pursuant to the settlement agreements, all plaintiffs provided full releases to each of the defendants and their affiliates including with respect to the claims alleged in the lawsuits, and each of the lawsuits and related appeals were dismissed with prejudice. The settlements do not constitute an admission of liability by us or any of our affiliates and were made to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation.

Civil Investigation by Certain California District Attorneys

In November 2014, we received a civil investigative subpoena from the office of the District Attorney for Monterey County, California ("MCDA"), seeking information relating to, among other items, statewide compliance with asbestos and hazardous waste regulations dating back to 2005 primarily in connection with demolition and renovation projects performed by third-party contractors at our California Properties. We responded by providing the information required by the subpoena.

On October 20, 2015, we attended a meeting with representatives of the MCDA and certain other District Attorneys' offices at which the MCDA reviewed the preliminary results of their investigation including, among other things, (i) alleged violations of asbestos and related regulations associated with approximately 200 historical demolition and renovation projects in California; (ii) potential exposure to civil penalties and unpaid fees; and (iii) next steps with respect to a negotiated resolution of the alleged violations. No legal proceedings have been instituted to date and we are involved in settlement discussions with the District Attorneys' offices. We continue to assess the allegations and the underlying facts, and at this time we are unable to predict the outcome of the investigation or reasonably estimate any possible loss.

Other

In addition to legal matters discussed above, we are involved in various other legal and regulatory proceedings ("Other Proceedings") arising in the ordinary course of business. The Other Proceedings include, but are not limited to, notices, consent decrees, information requests, and additional permit requirements and other similar enforcement actions by governmental agencies relating to our utility infrastructure, including water and wastewater treatment plants and other waste treatment facilities and electrical systems. Additionally, in the ordinary course of business, our operations are subject to audit by various taxing authorities. Management believes these Other Proceedings taken together do not represent a material liability. In addition, to the extent any such proceedings or audits relate to newly acquired Properties, we consider any potential indemnification obligations of sellers in our favor.