|
Title:
|
Motion asking the Legislative Analyst to analyze how the process for conversion of rental units to ownership units will take place under the process that would be created under this legislation, and compare this to the process that currently is in place under Article 9 of the Subdivision code. In particular, analyze how the process for conversion of rental units to ownership units will take place under this initiative ordinance, and compare this to the process that currently is in place for conversions under Article 9 of the Subdivision code. Where the HOPE conversion process differs with the provisions of the Article 9 conversion process, please identify the function and purpose of the Article 9 section in question. In addition, please assess how this legislation changes timelines for processing applications for conversions, what affect such changes in timelines may have on the ability of City agencies in fulfilling their responsibilities under the initiative ordinance. Also, please analyze how efficiently and effectively this initiative ordinance would be in allocating among City departments the administration of the responsibilities and duties that it imposes. Please also answer the following questions:
1) Based on an analysis of other jurisdictions that have enacted similar measures, are the more likely beneficiaries of such a policy existing tenants living in the units to be subdivided, or prospective buyers who will move into the units after offering incentives for existing tenants to move out of their apartments; 2) How will the measure impact the availability in San Francisco of what many business leaders refer to as "workforce housing," or housing affordable to the middle class; 3) How might such a measure be phased in as a trial program over time, so that information on its impacts on the housing market may be assessed before it is expanded, and what types of information and processes to collection information would be necessary to assess such impacts; 4) Does this measure contain effective measures to discourage speculation, and what would such measures need to contain to effectively discourage speculation; 5) What would be the effect of allowing conversions on all buildings, regardless of size, and what are the demographic characteristics of tenant populations in different size buildings; 6) What effect would the measure have on the availability of affordable housing, especially affordable rental housing, in the City, and would it be possible to impose an affordable housing conversion fee that would adequately mitigate any potential negative impacts on this supply; 7) How does the measure deal with the question of whether tenants with lifetime leases continue to have access to and enjoyment of common areas in buildings that have been subdivided through the HOPE conversion process; 8) Does the measure contain any requirement for tenant participation beyond the simple signing of an intent to purchase, and how would the addition of provisions requiring further participation by tenants to make the subdivision effective (such as signed purchase agreements for units) affect the ability of the measure to realize its purported goals; 9) What are the potential financial benefits of this measure for owners of existing rental buildings; What would be the estimated affect of this measure on the number of rent controlled units in the City; 10) What is the possibility that any provisions of this measure will be struck down in court, and if certain provisions are struck down what would be the overall effect on the remainder of the measure; 11) What was the range of and average of the down payments of tenants who bought their units; 12) What was the range of and average of the purchase price for the units purchased by tenants; 13) What are the mortgage payments of the purchasing tenants now as opposed to their rent payments prior to purchase as well as opposed to the average rent payment by non-purchasing tenants; 14) What is the current equity increase of tenants who decided to buy in 1985; 15) How much have tenant purchased condo values jumped since conversion; 16) Were those tenants in a building that converted who did not purchase their units given "rent control" protection; Were they given protections against owner-move-in evictions or Ellis Act evictions; Were these protections ever challenged in court; what was the result.
Please analyze the experience of the City of Santa Monica with legislation referred to as TORCA, the Tenants' Ownership Rights Charter Amendment, which was in effect in that City from 1984 to 1996. In particular, please analyze the degree to which this legislation increased the number of tenants purchasing the rental units in which they resided prior to conversions of their units. In addition, to the extent possible, also analyze the effect of this legislation on the number and types of conversions of units from rental to ownership while the legislation was in effect and compare this to the same data before and after the legislation was in effect. Also analyze the effect of this legislation on the number of rental units protected by Santa Monica's version of rent control. Please include any data, analysis, or reports prepared by the City of Santa Monica and its departments related to their experience with this law.
|