Condo ordinance could come back

By George P. Hassett

A proposal that caused hundreds of homeowners to pack City Hall in protest two years ago is coming back.

The condominium conversion ordinance proposed by Mayor Joseph A. Curtatone was sent packing to a working group headed by Ward Six Alderman Rebekah Gewirtz after it was roundly criticized by residents and the real estate community as “de-facto rent control.”

In its original form, the proposal would have increased the notification times -- to up to four years -- that landlords would be required to provide before converting their multifamily buildings into condos and selling off the units. Somerville's current rules for conversion require landlords to give tenants one year's notice of a conversion. The elderly, handicapped, and low income residents have two years.

Under current law, landlords pay $300 in relocation reimbursement to low-income tenants. The original proposal would have required paying $2,000 or one month's rent to tenants, and $4,000 or two months rent to the elderly, handicapped, and those with low incomes.

Critics of the ordinance called those measures excessive. And at a crowded hearing on the initiative in June 2006, homeowners packed City Hall to complain loudly. 

Now, two years later it is back. But Richard DiGirolamo, a local property owners advocate and attorney who opposed the original ordinance, said the new version is a markedly different product.

“In my mind it is a lot better than what they came out with [two years ago],” he said. “I think the real estate community will be satisfied.”

Gewirtz said the group - which consisted of tenant advocates, the CEO of the Greater Boston Real Estate Board and city residents - met once a month for two years. She would not disclose specifics of the agreement reached by the group until she met with Curtatone.

Between July 2004 and June 2005, 578 condominium units were created in the city, a 70 percent increase over the prior fiscal year. Condo conversions have been a needed boost to Somerville's economy, which relies mainly on residents to fund municipal services because of the lack of a significant commercial tax base. But critics say conversions force out long time residents, and have taken away from the city's unique character.

Comments

[cabbie]

Let me stun Imux by saying:

1 - Massachusetts is far too tenant friendly. You rent. You don't own. The current rules give the tenant enough. The proposed rules are ridiculous and unnecessary.

II- Why does the city want to grind condo development to halt when every piece of property that goes condo generates greater property tax revenue for the city?

C - When the original proposal came up wasn't it pointed out that the proposal couldn't be held as binding on 2 and 3 unit properties. Is that still the case?

Fore - Why does anyone think it's a good idea to stir up market condition with the possibility of a negative impact in this real estate market? Somerville has held on pretty well. Why screw with it now?

[Socialism]

This is yet another (scary) step toward socialism. Why refuse to allow a homeowner to convert to condo without lengthy notice? Why not refuse to let a homeowner sell the property outright without lengthy notice? Property rights are important, and we cannot go down the road toward 'community ownership'. Unfortunately, people get hurt when apartments are turned into condos, but people also get hurt when two-family homes are sold. In a democracy you simply can't protect everyone all of the time, we're getting more and more of a 'nanny state' where we will take care of everyone and make everyone better, but unfortunately it can't be done.

[Kate]

As a renter in a 3-unit property, I feel that it is the right of the owners to do what they want; it's their property.

[JPM]

Frankly, if I own a property I should be able to turn it into condos as long as I give reasonable notice to the tenants. Giving them one to two years notice is already excessive. I rent. I would like to be given 60 days notice to quit. I would be fine with that.

I have always opposed giving renters these inflated rights. You do not own and that means that on the downside you can be told to leave. On the other hand, if the neighborhood goes south or you just feel like a change you can give your 30 days and leave. That is the deal renters have struck. It seems like renters want all the benefits of renting, i.e. flexibility, but none of the costs.

Then you have owners. You are not truly invested in the community until you own. When you buy somewhere it can go up like Somerville, or down the pan. Somerville owners have done very well, but it could easily have gone the other way. If an area goes south and you own, you are in big trouble, negative equity, sell at a loss etc....

The RE market is in enough trouble without this madness.

[Jeff]

"But critics say conversions force out long time residents, and have taken away from the city's unique character."

Too bad. Those long time residents should have saved their pennies and bought something when they had the chance.

[nobody3]

Condos are more affordable than single families houses, if you ask me they do not force out long time residents. Residents who are truly deadbeats, who have awful credit, refuse to save for a downpayment, yeah they could be potentially "forced" out, forced out by their own personal choices.

Regardless, owners shouldn't owe anything to renters beyond what the lease says.

[Timmy]

Owning(in this day in age) is overrated. There is no more bargain. For those thinking of doing it- unless your wealthy, Don't do it.

As a hard working professional, I've always rented and never had any worries.

Then I bought, owned for awhile- had to deal with these previously mentioned issues and difficult tenants. Finally sold(very happily)!

Now back to renting- saving money and living comfortably(knock on wood)

Don't buy into this propaganda, "You're not a real citizen unless you own."

Times have changed. It's a rip-off for regular people or young people starting their careers. Everyone involved has their hand out and just takes- lawyers, realtors, banks, lenders, tax collectors, inspectors, appraisers etc. Oh, don't forget the utilities if you're a landlord. How's that water bill folks? This non-citizen isn't worried about it.

I can afford to own, But I won't !! Don't feel like wasting my $$$. Don't feel like giving it away.

[just a thought]

Every rental unit that is converted to a condo should have to be brought up to the current building and fire codes. This would make for a better investment for the buyer as well as a safer city for all of us.

[Really?]

Well, I suppose you're right. Then I hope someone looks at the condo conversions being done without permits, and so many electrical violations they're fire traps! Maybe you should discuss it with the 'flippers' lawyer.....Mr. DiGirolamo. The city needs to go out and take a close look at some of these flips being made in this city.

[Imux]

It's just silly to say a tenant should be given 4 years. You're asking for tenant/landlord issues if that happens. I have good tenants, but if I can't flip my properties in a reasonable timeframe (it should be 90 days) then I may be tempted to do what I need to make their lifes miserable. Not only to force them out, but because I'd be pissed at this socialist crap.

Question: if you apply now to convert units - does the law grandfather in? If you convert your units now, can you just ignore the new rules since you went in under the old ones?