02/18/1987 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e Answering a question from Ms. Wooten, Mr. Bennett said the issue has never been that there are not special category tenants who need special protections. The issue is, "Who should take the financial responsibility and the administrative responsibility for providing protections to special category tenants?" He added that a developer will pass as many costs of a condominium conversion as possible to the purchasers of the units. Therefore, the existing ordinance results in social costs that should be borne by the whole community being paid by the purchasers of condominium units who may have moderate incomes. Ms. Schue said the market for condominium units may improve and a developer will be able to make money by converting buildings to condominiums. She said the public cost of the effects of conversions on people living in a building should be a business expense of the conversion and a developer should calculate those costs when deciding about the conversion. Mr. Holmer said the real issue is, "Who should pay for the protection of speci a 1 category tenants?" He said the Condomi n i um Convers ion Ordi nance provides benefits for people living in specific buildings. He said the council should address the needs of everyone in the community and decide who should pay for benefits for special category tenants who live in places such as duplexes and mobile home parks. He said people in those places suffer as much trauma when they are displaced as people who live in high-rise buildings. He suggested the council approve Option #4 and remand the issue to the Planning Commission for a decision about who should pay for the protection of special category tenants. Ms. Wooten said she supports Option #4. Answering her question, Mr. Holmer reiterated his suggestion. Ms. Wooten said single-family houses and duplexes are not like large buildings that are converted to condominiums although displacement from mobile home parks may be an issue. She said the cost of protections for special category tenants should be calculated in the cost of converting buildings to condominiums and the costs should be paid by the developer. She said the protections in the existing ordinance should be retained. Ms. Ehrman said she also supports Option #4. She said developers did not testify that the existing ordinance has limited conversions to condominiums. She said she does not object to the Planning Commission considering displacement from mobile home parks but she does not think the commission should consider displacement from all residences. She said Option #1 might create bad feelings among tenants. She said 70 years of age is too high for people automatically to be included in the special tenant category. She suggested 65 years of age. Mr. Bennett said the existing ordinance "grandfathers" the tenant protections because tenants who move in after the Notice of Conversion do not receive the benefits. He said developers can make money converting buildings to condominiums under certain circumstances but from 1981 to 1983 there were many forclosures and reductions in rents. He said profits in housing are cyclical. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 18, 1987 Page 9