04/23/1980 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Mr. Delay felt the condominium conversion was a ripoff by people outside. the city and even the state. Therefore, rent control would be needed with life tenancy. He asked why life tenancy was put in the California ordi- nances after two or three years. Mr. Croteau surmised that the cities were trying to do many things in order to control and protect the people. Mr. Delay questioned whether a limited life tenancy might not be a simple alternative to the package of provisions. Ms. Miller replied that it could be less protection; later, the problem would crop up and there would not be provisions. She said condominium conversion does not add value to the community. They are not new housing units. The problem of displacement of the elderly and handicapped where they are required to move in 30 days continues to be a problem. Finding comparable housinq units for people solves the problem. If there were no comparable units, the tenants, in a sense, would have life tenancy until the units were found. It is appro- priate that the developer pay. In summary, she said, the private qreed of people who add nothing to the community and add unfortunate effects can be mitigated but not prevented. Ms. Smith agreed with Ms. Miller in that she felt the reoulations were good. The requirement of comparable housing was effective. She could not support life tenancy because of administrative, leqal, and erosive home rule costs to the City. e Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to approve all the items on which the task force was in aoreement: 1) rental market protect ion ceil ing on units allowed to convert in a year; 2) man- datory housing code inspection and compliance prior to sale; 3) engineering certificate; 4) developer warranty on common elements in the condominium; 5) full disclosure upon resale to other persons that buy units; 6) information brochures provided by City on condominium ownership; 7) l80-day notice with no eviction without cause; 8) rental limitation tied to Portland CPI; 9) low-income, elderly, and handicapped to be offered assistance of housi ng fac il itator and to be offered "comparab le" hous inq--at least two comparable units. Mr. Delay said he would support the motion. Staff had worked very hard to develop a comprehensive package. He was glad to see council strongly sup- porting comparable housing. He would not base his judqments on a possible home rule battle. Ms. Smith and Mr. Delay agreed that the motion is to accept the recommendations in concept and stressed that the task force would continue to study and further define the specifics. Mr.. Lieuallen was concerned about comparable housing and if it would be determined before the approval of the sale. Mayor felt that potential convertors would do a market survey before buying a buildinq. Mr. Sercombe outlined a two-stage approval system for condominium conversions where proof of comparable housinq would have to be developed. Motion carried 6:1, with Mr. Haws voting no. e 4/23/80--7