Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yesþ Noo

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-acceleratednon- accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See the definitionsdefinition of “large accelerated filer”,filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

     Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yeso Noþ

     Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer’s classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date:

     Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc., a Maryland corporation, together with MHC Operating Limited Partnership (the “Operating Partnership”) and other consolidated subsidiaries (“Subsidiaries”), are referred to herein as the “Company,” “ELS,” “we,” “us,” and “our.” Capitalized terms used but not defined herein are as defined in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K (“2007 Form 10-K”) for the year ended December 31, 2007.

     These unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements have been prepared pursuant to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) rules and regulations and should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and notes thereto included in the 2007 Form 10-K. The following Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements highlight significant changes to the Notes included in the 2007 Form 10-K and present interim disclosures as required by the SEC. The accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements reflect, in the opinion of management, all adjustments necessary for a fair presentation of the interim financial statements. All such adjustments are of a normal and recurring nature. Revenues are subject to seasonal fluctuations and as such quarterly interim results may not be indicative of full year results.

     The Company consolidates its majority-owned subsidiaries in which it has the ability to control the operations of the subsidiaries and all variable interest entities with respect to which the Company is the primary beneficiary. The Company also consolidates entities in which it has a controlling direct or indirect voting interest. All inter-company transactions have been eliminated in consolidation. The Company’s acquisitions were all accounted for as purchases in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 141, “Business Combinations” (“SFAS No. 141”).

     The Company has applied the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Interpretation No. 46R, “Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities” (“FIN 46R”) – an interpretation of ARB 51. The objective of FIN 46R is to provide guidance on how to identify a variable interest entity (“VIE”) and determine when the assets, liabilities, non-controlling interests, and results of operations of a VIE need to be included in a company’s consolidated financial statements. A company that holds variable interests in an entity will need to consolidate such entity if the company absorbs a majority of the entity’s expected losses or receives a majority of the entity’s expected residual returns if they occur, or both (i.e., the primary beneficiary). The Company has also applied Emerging Issues Task Force 04-5 – Accounting for investments in limited partnerships when the investor is the sole general partner and the limited partners have certain rights (“EITF 04-5”) which determines whether a general partner or the general partners as a group controls a limited partnership or similar entity and therefore should consolidate the entity. The Company will apply FIN 46R and EITF 04-5 to all types of entity ownership (general and limited partnerships and corporate interests).

     The Company applies the equity method of accounting to entities in which the Company does not have a controlling direct or indirect voting interest or is not considered the primary beneficiary, but can exercise influence over the entity with respect to its operations and major decisions. The cost method is applied when (i) the investment is minimal (typically less than 5%) and (ii) the Company’s investment is passive.

     The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

     The Company manages all of its operations on a property-by-property basis. Since each Property has similar economic and operational characteristics, the Company has one reportable segment, which is the operation of land lease Properties. The distribution of the Properties throughout the United States reflects our belief that geographic diversification helps insulate the portfolio from regional economic influences. The Company intends to target new acquisitions in or near markets where the Properties are located and will also consider acquisitions of Properties outside such markets.

     Inventory consists of new and used Site Set homes and is stated, net of manufacturer rebates, at the lower of cost or market after consideration of the N.A.D.A. (National Automobile Dealers Association) Manufactured Housing Appraisal Guide and the current market value of each home included in the home inventory. Inventory sales revenues and resale revenues are recognized when the home sale is closed. The expense for the inventory reserve is included in the cost of home sales in our Consolidated Statements of Operations. (See Note 6 in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained in this Form 10-Q.)

     In accordance with SFAS No. 141, we allocate the purchase price of Properties we acquire to net tangible and identified intangible assets acquired based on their fair values. In making estimates of fair values for purposes of allocating purchase price, we utilize a number of sources, including independent appraisals that may be available in connection with the acquisition or financing of the respective Property and other market data. We also consider information obtained about each Property as a result of our due diligence, marketing and leasing activities in estimating the fair value of the tangible and intangible assets acquired.

     Real estate is recorded at cost less accumulated depreciation. Depreciation is computed on the straight-line basis over the estimated useful lives of the assets. We use a 30-year estimated life for buildings acquired and structural and land improvements, a ten-to-fifteen-year estimated life for building upgrades and a three-to-seven-year estimated life for furniture, fixtures and equipment. Used rental homes are depreciated using a 40-year estimated life with a minimum of 15 years and new rental homes are depreciated using a 20-year estimated life down to a salvage value of 40% of the original costs. The values of above- andabove-and below-market leases are amortized and recorded as either an increase (in the case of below-market leases) or a decrease (in the case of above-market leases) to rental income over the remaining term of the associated lease. The value associated with in-place leases is amortized over the expected term, which includes an estimated probability of lease renewal. Expenditures for ordinary maintenance and repairs are expensed to operations as incurred, and significant renovations and improvements that improve the asset and extend the useful life of the asset are capitalized and then expensed over the asset’s estimated useful life.

     The Company periodically evaluates its long-lived assets, including our investments in real estate, for impairment indicators. Judgments regarding the existence of impairment indicators are based on factors such as operational performance, market conditions and legal factors. Future events could occur which would cause us to conclude that impairment indicators exist and an impairment loss is warranted.

     For Properties to be disposed of, an impairment loss is recognized when the fair value of the Property, less the estimated cost to sell, is less than the carrying amount of the Property measured at the time the Company has a commitment to sell the Property and/or is actively marketing the Property for sale. A Property to be disposed of is reported at the lower of its carrying amount or its estimated fair value, less costs to sell. Subsequent to the date that a Property is held for disposition, depreciation expense is not recorded. The Company accounts for its Properties held for disposition in accordance with the Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 144, “Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets” (“SFAS No. 144”). Accordingly, the results of operations for all assets sold or held for sale have been classified as discontinued operations in all periods presented.

     The Company considers all demand and money market accounts and certificates of deposit with maturity dates, when purchased, of three months or less to be cash equivalents.

     Notes receivable generally are stated at their outstanding unpaid principal balances net of any deferred fees or costs on originated loans, or unamortized discounts or premiums net of a valuation allowance. Interest income is accrued on the unpaid principal balance. Discounts or premiums are amortized to income using the interest method. In certain cases we finance the sales of homes to our customers (referred to as “Chattel Loans”) which loans are secured by the homes. The valuation allowance for the Chattel Loans is calculated based on a comparison of the outstanding principal balance of each note compared to the N.A.D.A. value and the current market value of the underlying manufactured home collateral.

     Investments in joint ventures in which the Company does not have a controlling direct or indirect voting interest, but can exercise significant influence over the entity with respect to its operations and major decisions, are accounted for using the equity method of accounting whereby the cost of an investment is adjusted for the Company’s share of the equity in net income or loss from the date of acquisition and reduced by distributions received. The income or loss of each entity is allocated in accordance with the provisions of the applicable operating agreements. The allocation provisions in these agreements may differ from the ownership interests held by each investor. Differences between the carrying amount of the Company’s investment in the respective entities and the Company’s share of the underlying equity of such unconsolidated entities are amortized over the respective lives of the underlying assets, as applicable.

     Income from other investments, net primarily includes revenue relating to the Company’s ground leases with Privileged Access L.P. (“Privileged Access”). The ground leases with Privileged Access for approximately 24,300 sites at 82 of the Company’s Properties are accounted for in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 13, Accounting for Leases. The Company recognized income related to these ground leases of approximately $6.4 million and $4.9$5.0 million for the quarters ended March 31,June 30, 2008 and 2007, respectively. Ground lease income for the six months ended June 30, 2008 and 2007 was $12.7 million and $9.9 million, respectively.

     The Properties are covered against fire, flood, property damage, earthquake, windstorm and business interruption by insurance policies containing various deductible requirements and coverage limits. Recoverable costs are classified in other assets as incurred. Insurance proceeds are applied against the asset when received. Recoverable costs relating to capital items are treated in accordance with the Company’s capitalization policy. The book value of the original capital item is written off once the value of the impaired asset has been determined. Insurance proceeds relating to the capital costs are recorded as income in the period they are received.

     Approximately 70 Florida Properties suffered damage from five hurricanes that struck the state during 2004 and 2005. As of April 22,June 30, 2008, the Company estimates its total claims to exceed $21.0 million. The Company has made claims for full recovery of these amounts, subject to deductibles. Through March 31,June 30, 2008, the Company has made total expenditures of approximately $18.0 million. Approximately $6.9 million of these expenditures have been capitalized per the Company’s capitalization policy through March 31,June 30, 2008.

     The Company has received proceeds from insurance carriers of approximately $8.4$8.8 million through March 31,June 30, 2008. The proceeds were accounted for in accordance with the Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No.5, “Accounting for Contingencies” (“SFAS No. 5”). During the quarter ended March 31,June 30, 2008, approximately $0.4$0.3 million has been recognized as a gain on insurance recovery, which is net of approximately $0.1 million of contingent legal fees and included in income from other investments, net.

     On June 22, 2007, the Company filed a lawsuit related to some of the unpaid claims against certain insurance carriers and its insurance broker. See Note 1213 in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained in this Form 10-Q for further discussion of this lawsuit.

     Deferred financing costs include fees and costs incurred to obtain long-term financing. The costs are being amortized over the terms of the respective loans on a level yield basis. Unamortized deferred financing fees are written-off when debt is retired before the maturity date. Upon amendment of the line of credit, unamortized deferred financing fees are accounted for in accordance with EITF No. 98-14, “Debtor’s Accounting for Changes in Line-of-Credit or Revolving-Debt Arrangements” (“EITF 98-14”). Accumulated amortization for such costs was $11.0$11.6 million and $10.3 million at March 31,June 30, 2008 and December 31, 2007, respectively.

     In March 2008, the FASB issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 161, “Disclosure about Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities” (“SFAS No. 161”), an amendment of SFAS No. 133. SFAS No. 161 is intended to enhance the disclosure framework in SFAS No. 133 by requiring objectives of using derivatives to be disclosed in terms of underlying risk and accounting designation. The statement requires a new tabular disclosure format as a way of providing a more complete picture of derivative positions and their effect during the reporting period. SFAS No. 161 is effective November 15, 2008 with early adoption recommended. The Company does not believe SFAS No. 161 will have an impact on the consolidated financial statements.

     In December 2007, the FASB issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 160, “Non-controlling Interests in Consolidated Financial Statements” (“SFAS No. 160”), an amendment of Accounting Research Bulletin No. 51. SFAS No. 160 seeks to improve uniformity and transparency in reporting of the net income attributable to non-controlling interests in the consolidated financial statements of the reporting entity. The statement requires, among other provisions, the disclosure, clear labeling and presentation of non-controlling interests in the Consolidated Balance Sheet and Consolidated Income Statement. SFAS No. 160 is effective January 1, 2009 with early adoption prohibited. The Company has not yet determined the impact, if any, that SFAS No. 160 will have on its consolidated financial statements.

     In December 2007, the FASB issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 141R, “Business Combinations,” (“SFAS No. 141R”). SFAS No. 141R replaces FASB Statement No. 141 but retains the fundamental requirements set forth in SFAS No. 141 that the acquisition method of accounting (also known as the purchase method) be used for all business combinations and for an acquirer to be identified for each business combination. SFAS No. 141R replaces, with limited exceptions as specified in the statement, the cost allocation process in SFAS No. 141 with a fair value based allocation process. SFAS No. 141R applies prospectively to business combinations for which the acquisition date is on or after the beginning of the first annual reporting period beginning on or after December 15, 2008. Early application is not permitted. The Company has not yet determined the impact, if any, that SFAS No. 141R will have on its consolidated financial statements.

     Earnings per common share are based on the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during each year. Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 128, “Earnings Per Share” (“SFAS No. 128”) defines the calculation of basic and fully diluted earnings per share. Basic and fully diluted earnings per share are based on the weighted average shares outstanding during each period and basic earnings per share exclude any dilutive effects of options, warrants and convertible securities. The conversion of OP Units has been excluded from the basic earnings per share calculation. The conversion of an OP Unit to a share of Common Stock has no material effect on earnings per common share.

     The following table sets forth the computation of basic and diluted earnings per common share for the quarters and six months ended March 31,June 30, 2008 and 2007 (amounts in thousands):

     Investment in real estate is comprised of (amounts in thousands):

     As of March 31,June 30, 2008, the Company had two Properties designated as held for disposition pursuant to SFAS No. 144. The Company determined that these Properties no longer met its investment criteria. As such, the results from operations of these two Properties are classified as income from discontinued operations. The Company expects to sell these Properties for proceeds greater than their net book value. The Properties classified as held for disposition as of March 31,June 30, 2008 are listed in the table below.

     On February 15, 2008, the Company acquired an additional 25% interest in Voyager RV Resort for approximately $5.5$5.7 million, increasing the Company’s ownership interest to 50%. The additional investment was determined on a total purchase price of $50.5 million and mortgage debt of $22.5 million.

     The following table sets forth Inventory as of March 31,June 30, 2008 and December 31, 2007 (amounts in thousands):

     The Company accounts for its stock-based compensation in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R), “Share Based Payment” (“SFAS 123(R)”), which was adopted on July 1, 2005.

     Stock-based compensation expense was approximately $1.6$1.2 million and $1.0$1.1 million for the quarters ended March 31,June 30, 2008 and 2007, respectively. For the six months ended June 30, 2008 and 2007, stock-based compensation expense was approximately $2.8 million and $2.1 million, respectively.

     Pursuant to the Stock Option Plan as discussed in Note 13 to the 2007 Form 10-K, certain officers, directors, employees and consultants have been offered the opportunity to acquire shares of common stock of the Company through stock options (“Options”). During the quartersix months ended March 31,June 30, 2008, Options for 121,167144,167 shares of common stock were exercised for gross proceeds of approximately $2.0$2.4 million.

     On January 4, 2008, the Company awarded restricted stock grants for 30,000 shares of common stock at a fair market value of approximately $1.3 million to Mr. Joe McAdams. One-third of the restricted common stock vested immediately upon issuance, with one-third will vest on each of December 31, 2008 and December 31, 2009.

     On January 31, 2008, the Company awarded restricted stock grants for 8,000 shares of common stock at a fair market value of approximately $349,000, and awarded Options to purchase 115,000 shares of common stock with an exercise price of $43.67 per share to certain members of the Board of Directors for services rendered in 2007. One-third of the Options to purchase common stock and the shares of restricted common stock covered by these awards vests on each of December 31, 2008, December 31, 2009, and December 31, 2010.

     On May 15, 2007, the Company’s Board of Directors approved a Long-Term Cash Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) to provide a long-term cash bonus opportunity to certain members of the Company’s management and executive officers. The total cumulative payment for all participant’sparticipants (the Eligible Payment) is based upon certain performance conditions being met. Such performance conditions include the Company’s CompoundCompounded Annual Funds From Operations Per Share Growth Rate over the three-year period ending December 31, 2009, which is further adjusted upward or downward based on the Company’s Total Return compared to a selected peer group. The Company accounts for the Plan in accordance with SFAS 123(R). As of March 31,June 30, 2008, the Company had accrued compensation expense of approximately $1.0$1.2 million related to the Plan, including approximately $0.3$0.6 million in the quartersix months ended March 31,June 30, 2008.

     Mr. McAdams, the Company’s President effective January 1, 2008, owns 100 percent of Privileged Access. The Company has entered into an employment agreement effective as of January 1, 2008 (the “Agreement”) with Mr. McAdams which provides for an initial term of three years, but such Agreement can be terminated at any time. The Agreement provides for a minimum annual base salary of $300,000, with the option to receive an annual bonus in an amount up to three times his base salary. Mr. McAdams is also subject to a non-compete clause and to mitigate potential conflicts of interest shall have no authority, on behalf of the Company and its affiliates, to enter into any agreement with any entity controlling, controlled by or affiliated with Privileged Access. Prior to forming Privileged Access, Mr. McAdams was a member of our Board of Directors from January 2004 to October 2005. Simultaneous with his appointment as president of Equity Lifestyle Properties, Inc., Mr. McAdams resigned as Privileged Access’s Chairman, President and CEO. However, he will remain on the board of PATT Holding Company, LLC (“PATT”), Thousand Trails’ parent entity and a subsidiary of Privileged Access and retains 100 percent ownership of Privileged Access.

     Mr. Heneghan, the Company’s CEO, is a member of the board of PATT, pursuant to the Company’s rights under its resort Property leases with Privileged Access to represent the Company’s interests. Mr. Heneghan does not receive compensation in his capacity as a member of such board.

     As part of the Company’s effort to realize the value of its Properties subject to rent control, the Company has initiated lawsuits against several municipalities in California. The Company’s goal is to achieve a level of regulatory fairness in California’s rent control jurisdictions, and in particular those jurisdictions that prohibit increasing rents to market upon turnover. Regulations in California allow tenants to sell their homes for a premium representing the value of the future discounted rent-controlled rents. In the Company’s view, such regulation results in a transfer of the value of the Company’s stockholders’ land, which would otherwise be reflected in market rents, to tenants upon the sales of their homes in the form of an inflated purchase price that cannot be attributed to the value of the home being sold. As a result, in the Company’s view, the Company loses the value of its asset and the selling tenant leaves the Property with a windfall premium. The Company has discovered through the litigation process that certain municipalities considered condemning the Company’s Properties at values well below the value of the underlying land. In the Company’s view, a failure to articulate market rents for sites governed by restrictive rent control would put the Company 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. The Company is cognizant of the need for affordable housing in the jurisdictions, but asserts that restrictive rent regulation does not promote this purpose because the benefits of such regulation are fully capitalized into the prices of the homes sold. The Company estimates that the annual rent subsidy to tenants in these jurisdictions may be in excess of $15 million. In a more well balanced regulatory environment, the Company would receive market rents that would eliminate the subsidy and homes would trade at or near their intrinsic value.

     In connection with such efforts, the Company announced it has entered into a settlement agreement with the City of Santa Cruz, California and that, pursuant to the settlement agreement, the City amended its rent control ordinance to exempt the Company’s Property from rent control as long as the Company offers a long term lease which gives the Company the ability to increase rents to market upon turnover and bases annual rent increases on the CPI. The settlement agreement benefits the Company’s stockholders by allowing them to receive the value of their investment in this Property through vacancy decontrol while preserving annual CPI based rent increases in this age-restricted Property.

     The Company has filed two lawsuits in federal court against the City of San Rafael, challenging its rent control ordinance on constitutional grounds. The Company believes that one of those lawsuits was settled by the City agreeing to amend the ordinance to permit adjustments to market rent upon turnover. The City subsequently rejected the settlement agreement. The Court initially found the settlement agreement was binding on the City, but then reconsidered and determined to submit the claim of breach of the settlement agreement to a jury. In October 2002, the first case against the City went to trial, based on both breach of the settlement agreement and the constitutional claims. A jury found no breach of the settlement agreement; the Company then filed motions asking the Court to rule in its favor on that claim, notwithstanding the jury verdict. The Court postponed decision on those motions and on the constitutional claims, pending a ruling on certain property rights issues by the United States Supreme Court.

August 2, 2007. In August 2007, the Company and the City filed the further briefs requested by the Court. On January 29, 2008, the Court issued its Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law and Order Thereon (the “Order”). The Company filed the Order on Form 8-K on January 31, 2008. On March 14, 2008, the Company filed a petition for attorneys’ fees incurred in the amount of approximately $6,800,000 plus costs of approximately $1,274,000. The City also filed a petition for attorneys’ fees incurred in the amount of approximately $763,000 plus costs of approximately $58,000 in connection with the jury verdict that found no breach of the settlement agreement (as described above). While the City alleges it is the prevailing party on the settlement agreement issue, the Company asserts that the outcome of the entirety of the case finding the ordinance unconstitutional means that the Company is the prevailing party in the case. The parties have submitted briefs with respect to the petitions for attorneys’ fees and costs, which remain pending before the court and there can be no assurances as to the outcome of these petitions.

     The Company’s efforts to achieve a balanced regulatory environment incentivize tenant groups to file lawsuits against the Company seeking large damage awards. The homeowners association at Contempo Marin (“CMHOA”), a 396 site Property in San Rafael, California, sued the Company in December 2000 over a prior settlement agreement on a capital expenditure pass-through after the Company sued the City of San Rafael in October 2000 alleging its rent control ordinance is unconstitutional. In the Contempo Marin case, the CMHOA prevailed on a motion for summary judgment on an issue that permits the Company to collect only $3.72 out of a monthly pass-through amount of $7.50 that the Company believed had been agreed to by the CMHOA in a settlement agreement. The CMHOA continued to seek damages from the Company in this matter. The Company reached a settlement with the CMHOA in this matter which allows the Company to recover $3.72 of the requested monthly pass-through and does not provide for the payment of any damages to the CMHOA. Both the CMHOA and the Company brought motions to recover their respective attorneys’ fees in the matter, which motions were heard by the Court in January 2007. On January 12, 2007, the Court granted CMHOA’s motion for attorneys’ fees in the amount of $347,000 and denied the Company’s motion for attorneys’ fees. These fees have been fully accrued by the Company as of December 31, 2006. The Company has appealed both decisions. The Company believes that such lawsuits will be a consequence of the Company’s efforts to change rent control since tenant groups actively desire to preserve the premium value of their homes in addition to the discounted rents provided by rent control. The Company has determined that its efforts to rebalance the regulatory environment despite the risk of litigation from tenant groups are necessary not only because of the $15 million annual subsidy to tenants, but also because of the condemnation risk.

     In June 2003, the Company won a judgment against the City of Santee in California Superior Court (case no. 777094). The effect of the judgment was to invalidate, on state law grounds, two (2) rent control ordinances the City of Santee had enforced against the Company and other property owners. However, the Court allowed the City to continue to enforce a rent control ordinance that predated the two invalid ordinances (the “prior ordinance”). As a result of the judgment the Company was entitled to collect a one-time rent increase based upon the difference in annual adjustments between the invalid ordinance(s) and the prior ordinance and to adjust its base rents to reflect what the Company could have charged had the prior ordinance been continually in effect. The City of Santee appealed the judgment. The Court of Appeal and California Supreme Court refused to stay enforcement of these rent adjustments pending appeal. After the City was unable to obtain a stay, the City and the tenant association each sued the Company

resolved on the merits and that the court had not determined that the ordinances afforded the Company a fair rate of return outside the remand period. As a result of this decision, the Company accrued $600,000 for rent control initiatives in the quarter ended March 31, 2008 for estimated rent refunds based upon a motion for restitution filed by the City in Case No. GIE 020524. The Company plans to appeal.filed a notice of appeal on July 2, 2008.

     In addition, the Company has sued the City of Santee in federal court alleging all three of the ordinances are unconstitutional under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Thus, it is the Company’s position that the ordinances are subject to invalidation as a matter of law in the federal court action. Separately, the Federal District Court granted the City’s Motion for Summary Judgment in the Company’s federal court lawsuit. This decision was based not on the merits, but on procedural grounds, including that the Company’s claims were moot given its success in the state court case. The Company appealed the decision, and on May 3, 2007 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision on procedural grounds. The Company intends to continue to pursue an adjudication of its rights on the merits in Federal Court through claims that are not subject to such procedural defenses.

     In October 2004, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari inState of Hawaii vs. Chevron USA, Inc., a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case that upheld the standard that a regulation must substantially advance a legitimate state purpose in order to be constitutionally viable under the Fifth Amendment. On May 24, 2005 the United States Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in an opinion that clarified the standard of review for regulatory takings brought under the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the heightened scrutiny applied by the Ninth Circuit is not the applicable standard in a regulatory takings analysis, but is an appropriate factor for determining if a due process violation has occurred. The Court further clarified that regulatory takings would be determined in significant part by an analysis of the economic impact of the regulation. The Company believes that the severity of the economic impact on its Properties caused by rent control will enable it to continue to challenge the rent regulations under the Fifth Amendment and the due process clause.

     As a result of the Company’s efforts to achieve a level of regulatory fairness in California, a commercial lending company, 21^st Mortgage Corporation, a Delaware corporation, sued MHC Financing Limited Partnership. Such lawsuit asserts that certain rent increases implemented by the partnership pursuant to the rights afforded to the property owners under the City of San Jose’s rent control ordinance were invalid or unlawful. 21^st Mortgage has asserted that it should benefit from the vacancy control provisions of the City’s ordinance as if 21^st Mortgage were a “homeowner” and contrary to the ordinance’s provision that rents may be increased without restriction upon termination of the homeowners’ tenancy. In each of the disputed cases, the Company believes it had terminated the tenancy of the homeowner (21^st Mortgage’s borrower) through the legal process. The Court, in granting 21^st Mortgage’s motion for summary judgment, has indicated that 21^st Mortgage may be a “homeowner” within the meaning of the ordinance. The Company does not believe that 21^st Mortgage can show that it has ever applied for tenancy, entered into a rental agreement or been accepted as a homeowner in the communities. A bench trial in this matter concluded in January 2008 with the trial court determining that the Company had validly exercised its rights under the rent control ordinance, that the Company had not violated the ordinance and that 21^st Mortgage was not entitled to the benefit of rent control protection in the circumstances presented. In April 2008, the Company filed a petition for attorneys’ fees incurred in

filed an amended complaint, which the Company has also moved to dismiss. Before any ruling on the Company’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint, the plaintiff asked for and received leave to file a second amended complaint, which the plaintiff filed on April 11, 2008. On May 1, 2008, the Company filed an answer and a motion for summary judgment, which is pending. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

     On December 1, 2006, a group of tenants at the Company’s Colony Park Property in Ceres, California filed a complaint in the California Superior Court for Stanislaus County alleging that the Company has failed to properly maintain the Property and has improperly reduced the services provided to the tenants, among other allegations. On March 2, 2007, the Company filed a demurrer to the complaint, along with a motion to strike portions of the complaint (“motion to strike”) and a motion to compel arbitration and stay action (“motion to compel”). After a hearing on March 28, 2007, the Court issued a ruling on April 5, 2007, which overruled the demurrer, took the motion to compel under submission, and granted the motion to strike in part and denied it in part. The Court subsequently issued a ruling on April 6, 2007, denying the motion to compel. The Company has filed an interlocutory appeal, which is pending, ofanswered the denial of the motion to compel. On April 11, 2007, the plaintiff tenant group filed their first amended complaint in the case. On September 19, 2007, the Company filed an answerby denying all material allegations of the first amended complaint and filed a counterclaim for declaratory relief and damages. The case will proceed in Superior Court because the Company’s motion to compel arbitration was denied and the denial was upheld on appeal. Discovery has commenced. The Court has set a trial date for October 21, 2008. The Company believes that the allegations in the first amended complaint are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit.

     California’s Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) issued a Notice of Violation dated August 21, 2006 regarding the sewer system at Colony Park. The notice ordered the Company to replace the Property’s sewer system or show justification from a third party explaining why the sewer system does not need to be replaced. The Company has provided such third party report to HCD and believes that the sewer system does not need to be replaced. Based upon information provided by the Company to HCD to date, HCD has indicated that it agrees that the entire system does not need to be replaced.

     On June 22, 2007 the Company filed suit, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (Case No. 07CH16548), against its insurance carriers, Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Essex Insurance Company, Lexington Insurance Company, and Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company, regarding a coverage dispute arising from losses suffered by the Company as a result of hurricanes that occurred in Florida in 2004 and 2005. The Company also brought claims against Aon Risk Services, Inc. of Illinois, the Company’s insurance broker, regarding the procurement of appropriate insurance coverage for the Company. The Company is seeking declaratory relief establishing the coverage obligations of its carriers, as well as a judgment for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unfair settlement practices and, as to Aon, for failure to provide ordinary care in the selling and procuring of insurance. The claims involved in this action exceed $11 million.

     The Company has learned that the Law Enforcement Division of the New York Department of Environmental Compliance (“DEC”) has investigated certain allegations relating to the operation of the onsite wastewater treatment plant and the use of adjacent wetlands at Brennan Beach, which is located in Pulaski, New York. The allegations included assertions of unlawful point source discharges, permit discharge exceedances, and placing material in a wetland buffer area without a permit. Representatives of the Company attended meetings with the DEC in November 2007, April 2008, May 2008 and AprilJune 2008, at which certainthe alleged violations were discussed, and the Company has cooperated with the DEC investigation. No formal notices have been issued to the Company asserting specific violations, but the DEC has indicated that it believes the Company is responsible for certain of the alleged violations and has proposed thatviolations. As a result of discussions with the DEC, the Company agreehas agreed to enter into a resolution involving formal acknowledgment of responsibility and the payment of penalties,civil consent order pursuant to which the Company will pay a penalty of $50,000 and undertake an environmental benefit project at a cost of $150,000 in connection with the alleged violations. The consent order is considering. Whilebeing prepared by the outcome is still uncertain,DEC pursuant to that agreement and the amount of any penalties is notamounts expected to be material.paid under the consent order were accrued as property operating expenses during the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

     The Company has learned that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has undertaken an investigation of potential lead contamination at Appalachian RV, which is located in Shartlesville, Pennsylvania, reportedly stemming from observations of remnants of old auto battery parts at the Property. In late November and early December 2007, the EPA conducted an assessment by taking samples of surface soil, sediment, surface water, and well water at the Property. The Company is cooperating with the EPA.

     In March 2008, the EPA issued a report regarding the findings of the sampling (“EPA Report”). The EPA Report found no elevated concentrations of lead in either the sediment samples, surface water samples, or well water samples. However, out of the more than 800 soil samples the EPA took, which were collected from locations throughout the Property, the EPA Report identified elevated levels of lead in 61 samples.

     Following issuance of the EPA Report, the EPA sent the Company a Notice of Potential Liability for a cleanup of the elevated lead levels at the Property, and a proposed administrative consent order seeking the Company’s agreement to conduct such a cleanup. On April 9, 2008,the Company submitted a response suggesting that the Company conduct additional soil testing, which the EPA has approved, to determine what type of cleanup might be appropriate. The additional soil testing commenced on July 21, 2008 and is still in process.

     The EPA also advised the Company that, because elevated arsenic levels were detected at six locations at the Property during the EPA’s testing for lead, at the suggestion of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), the EPA is further analyzinganalyzed for potentially elevated arsenic levels the samples it previously collected. As a result of that analysis, the Company engaged a laboratory to analyze those samples for elevated arsenic levels. In light of these results, the additional soil testing the Company is conducting will test for arsenic as well as lead.

     As a result of these circumstances, the Company decided not to open the Property until these issues can be resolved. In addition, although the potential costs and most appropriate method of addressing the environmental issues at the Property are uncertain, based upon information to date, a liability of approximately $0.3$0.6 million for future estimated costs has been accrued for as of June 30, 2008 and included in property operating expenses. Based on the information currently available to the Company, the Company expects to be able to re-open the Property in time for the 2009 season.

     In 2004, the Company acquired ownership of various property owning entities, including an entity owning a property called Gulf View, in Punta Gorda, Florida. Gulf View continues to be held in a special purpose entity. At the time of acquisition of the entity owning Gulf View, it was accrued in the first quarter of 2008.financed with a secured loan that was cross-collateralized and cross-defaulted with a loan on another property whose ownership entity was not acquired (the “crossed loan”). At

     The Company received notice from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) that as a result of a compliance inspection it is alleging violations of Florida law relating to the operation of onsite water plants and wastewater treatment plants at seven properties in Florida. The alleged violations relate to record keeping and reporting requirements, physical and operating deficiencies and permit compliance. The Company has investigated each of the alleged violations, including a review of a third party operator hired to oversee such operations. The Company met with the DEP in November 2007 to respond to the alleged violations and as a follow-up to such meeting provided a written response to the DEP in December 2007. In light of the Company’s written response, in late January 2008 the DEP conducted a follow-up compliance inspection at each of the seven properties. In early March 2008, the DEP provided the Company comments in connection with the follow-up inspection, which made various recommendations and raised certain additional alleged violations similar in character to those alleged after the initial inspection. The Company has investigated and responded to the additional alleged violations. While the outcome of this investigation remains uncertain, the Company expects to resolve the issues raised by the DEP by entering into a consent decree in which the Company will agree to make certain improvements in its facilities and operations to resolve the issues and pay certain costs and penalties associated with the violations. While the outcome is still uncertain, the amount of the costs and penalties to be paid to the DEP is not expected to be material. The Company has also replaced its third party operator hired to oversee onsite water and wastewater operations at each of the seven properties. The Company is evaluating the costs of any improvements to its facilities, which would be capital expenditures depreciated over the estimated useful life of the improvement. During the course of this investigation, one permit for operation of a WWTPwastewater treatment plant expired. The Company applied for renewal of the permit and expects the DEP to grant the application.

     The Company is involved in various other legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. Such proceedings include, but are not limited to, notices, consent decrees, additional permit requirements and other similar enforcement actions by governmental agencies relating to the Company’s water and wastewater treatment plants and other waste treatment facilities. Additionally, in the ordinary course of business, the Company’s operations are subject to audit by various taxing authorities. Management believes that all proceedings herein described or referred to, taken together, are not expected to have a material adverse impact on the Company. In addition, to the extent any such proceedings or audits relate to newly acquired Properties, the Company considers any potential indemnification obligations of sellers in favor of the Company.

     The Company is a self-administered, self-managed, real estate investment trust (“REIT”) with headquarters in Chicago, Illinois. The Company is a fully integrated owner and operator of lifestyle-oriented properties (“Properties”). The Company leases individual developed areas (“sites”) with access to utilities for placement of factory built homes, cottages, cabins or recreational vehicles (“RVs”). The Company was formed to continue the property operations, business objectives and acquisition strategies of an entity that had owned and operated Properties since 1969. As of March 31,June 30, 2008, wethe Company owned or had an ownership interest in a portfolio of 313309 Properties located throughout the United States and Canada containing 112,865112,002 residential sites. These Properties are located in 28 states and British Columbia (with the number of Properties in each state or province shown parenthetically) –parenthetically, as follows): Florida (87)(86), California (48), Arizona (35), Texas (15), Washington (14), Pennsylvania (13), Washington (14), Colorado (10), Oregon (9), North Carolina (8), Virginia (8), Delaware (7), MaineNevada (6), NevadaVirginia (6), Wisconsin (6), New York (6), Indiana (5), Illinois (4)Maine (5), MassachusettsIllinois (4), New Jersey (4), Massachusetts (4), Michigan (3), South Carolina (3), New Hampshire (2), Ohio (2), Tennessee (2), Utah (2), Alabama (1), Kentucky (1), Montana (1), and British Columbia (1).

     This report includes certain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. When used, words such as “anticipate,” “expect,” “believe,” “project,” “intend,” “may be” and “will be” and similar words or phrases, or the negative thereof, unless the context requires otherwise, are intended to identify forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are subject to numerous assumptions, risks and uncertainties, including, but not limited to:

These forward-looking statements are based on management’s present expectations and beliefs about future events. As with any projection or forecast, these statements are inherently susceptible to uncertainty and changes in circumstances. The Company is under no obligation to, and expressly disclaims any obligation to, update or alter its forward-looking statements whether as a result of such changes, new information, subsequent events or otherwise.

     The following chart lists the Properties acquired, invested in, or sold since January 1, 2007.

Since December 31, 2006, the gross investment in real estate has increased from $2,337 million to $2,404$2,443 million as of March 31,June 30, 2008.

     Occupancy in our Properties as well as our ability to increase rental rates directly affects revenues. Our revenue streams are predominantly derived from customers renting our sites on a long-term basis. Revenues are subject to seasonal fluctuations and as such quarterly interim results may not be indicative of full fiscal year results.

     We have approximately 64,900 annual sites, approximately 8,800 seasonal sites, which are leased to customers generally for three to six months, and approximately 8,800 transient sites, occupied by customers who lease sites on a short-term basis. We expect to service over 100,000 customers with these transient sites. However, we consider this revenue stream to be our most volatile. It is subject to weather conditions, gas prices, and other factors affecting the marginal RV customer’s vacation and travel preferences. Finally, we have approximately 24,300 membership sites for which we currently receive annual ground rent of approximately $25.5 million annually.million. This rent is classified in Income from other investments, net in the Consolidated Statements of Operations. We also have interests in Properties containing approximately 6,0005,200 sites for which revenue is classified as Equity in income from unconsolidated joint ventures in the Consolidated Statements of Operations.

     Privileged Access has been the owner of Thousand Trails (“TT”) since April 14, 2006. TT’s primary business consists of entering into agreements with individuals to use its properties (the “Agreements”) and has been engaged in such business for almost 40 years. The properties are primarily campgrounds withgenerally contain designated sites for the placement of recreational vehicles to service its membershipcustomer base of over 100,000 families. The campgroundsproperties are owned by the Company and leased to Privileged Access. Privileged Access is headquartered in Frisco, Texas, and has more than 2,000 employees and is 100 percent owned by Mr. McAdams, the Company’s President effectiveas of January 1, 2008.

     As of March 31,June 30, 2008, we are leasing approximately 24,300 sites at 82 resort Properties to Privileged Access or its subsidiaries so that Privileged Access may meet its obligations under the Agreements. For the quarterssix months ended March 31,June 30, 2008 and 2007, we recognized approximately $6.4$12.7 million and $4.9$9.9 million, respectively, in rent from these leasing arrangements. The lease income is included in Income from other investments, net in the Company’s Consolidated Statement of Operations.

     Effective January 1, 2008, the leases for these Properties were amended and restated and provide for the following significant terms: a) annual fixed rent of approximately $25.5 million, b) annual rent increases at the higher of CPI or a renegotiated amount based upon the fair market value of the Properties, c) expiration date of January 15, 2020, and d) two 5-year extension terms at the option of Privileged Access. The January 1, 2008 lease for 59 of the Properties known as the “TT Portfolio” also included provisions where the Company paid Privileged Access $1 million for entering into the amended lease. The $1 million payment will be amortized on a pro-rata basis over the remaining term of the lease as an offset to the annual lease payments. Additionally, the Company also agreed to reimburse Privileged Access up to $5 million for the cost of any improvements made to the TT Portfolio if (i) the improvement has been pre-approved, (ii) is a depreciable fixed asset and (iii) supporting documentation is provided. The assets purchased with the capital improvement fund will be the assets of the Company and will be amortized in accordance with the Company’s depreciation policies. During the six months ended June 30, 2008, approximately $2.3 million of fixed assets have been purchased from Privileged Access including approximately $2.1 million with the $5 million capital improvements fund.

     The Company has subordinated its lease payment for the TT Portfolio to a bank that has loaned Privileged Access $5 million as of March 31,June 30, 2008. Privileged Access is obligated to pay back $2.5 million of the loan in 2009 and the final $2.5 million in 2010. The Company believes that the possibility that Privileged Access would not make its lease payment on the TT Portfolio as a result of the subordination is remote.

     Since June 12, 2006, Privileged Access has leased 130 cottage sites at Tropical Palms, a resort Property located near Orlando, Florida from the Company. For the quarterssix months ended March 31,June 30, 2008 and 2007 we earned approximately $0.3$0.8 million and $0.4$0.9 million, respectively, in rent from this leasing arrangement. The lease income is included in the Resort base rental income in the Company’s Consolidated Statement of Operations. Operations.The Tropical Palms lease currently providesexpired on July 15, 2008, and the entire property was leased to a new independent operator for 12 years.

     The Company announced on July 14, 2008 that it has commenced negotiations for the following significant terms: a) annual fixed rent of approximately $1.4 million,

     We provide the following disclosures with respect to certain assets:

     Refer to the 2007 Form 10-K for a discussion of our critical accounting policies, which includes impairment of real estate assets and investments, investments in unconsolidated joint ventures, and accounting for stock compensation. During the quartersix months ended March 31,June 30, 2008, there were no changes to these policies.

     The results of operations for the two Properties designated as held for disposition as of March 31,June 30, 2008 and three Properties sold in 2007, pursuant to SFAS No. 144, consisting of one Property sold in January of 2007, and one Property sold in July of 2007, have been classified as income from discontinued operations. See Note 4 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements contained in this Form 10-Q for summarized information for these Properties.

     The following table summarizes certain financial and statistical data for the Property Operations for all Properties owned throughoutand operated for the same period in both periodsyears (“Core Portfolio”) and the Total Portfolio for the quarters ended March 31,June 30, 2008 and 2007 (amounts in thousands). The Core Portfolio may change from time-to-time depending on acquisitions, dispositions and significant transactions or unique situations. The Core Portfolio in this Form 10-Q includes all Properties acquired prior to December 31, 2006 and which were owned and operated during the six months ended June 30, 2008. However, the Core Portfolio excludes Tropical Palms due to the new long-term ground lease for the Property commencing on July 15, 2008.