 |
| Riding at Grover Beach |
This is a legitimate area of disagreement. However, the survey has been taken and it showed that a lot of owners are interested in buying their land. It's time to move on and help each owner answer the questions about what makes sense in their own specific situations.
The lingering doubt I have is not about the survey but about the "agendas" of the people who were involved in this paper flurry. The lengthy letters are linked on the Documents page in case you want to read them all. My main question is why did the Homeowners Association Board hire William Constantine?
It is my understanding that the Board had a limited cash fund (in the neighborhood of $5,000) and paid Constantine a retainer of $2,000. I have a lot of questions about this:
- What was their purpose in hiring a lawyer?
- Why did they hire this specific lawyer who has a track record of fighting conversions?
- How much do they intend to pay him?
- Will they request future contributions from residents to continue to pay him?
- How much input did the residents have about this decision to hire him in the first place?
Why this lawyer? Conversion is a complex financial process so hiring a lawyer to review documents and give general advice about possible pitfalls in this process seemed like a good idea. Hiring this particular lawyer this early in the process of conversion doesn't make sense to me ... unless the Board is trying to stop the conversion.
Which brings me to the question of why the Board would want to stop the conversion? So far, we don't have enough information (such as the price of the land) to make an informed decision. I've spent a lot of time and effort researching the conversion process and the environment around this particular conversion. So far, I only see one small area where people might be worse off than before the conversion. (see Rent Control below)
What are the potential problems? Knowing that there are huge gaps in my understanding of the conversion process, I've asked the Board President (twice) to help me understand what potential problems they see. She has not responded.
Rent Control: The only potential problem I have identified comes in the area of rent control. There are two possibilities if a resident currently under rent control decides not to purchase his/her land and stays on as a renter.
Lower income - rent control. If they fall into the lower income category, they will be under state rent control so their rent will remain the same with future increases in rent limited to the annual CPI (Consumer Price Index). So, if someone is under rent control right now and is paying $300 per month, the rent would continue at that rate with annual increases limited to CPI.
NOT Lower Income - rent control. For those residents who are currently under rent control but who are not lower income, their rents will be raised to market rates over a 5-year period. In this case, someone who is paying $300 a month now would be gradually increased to the market rate which, at this point, is $800 a month.
How many residents might be involved? It came as a surprise to me but only about 40 residents are currently under rent control. In an interview with Joanne Mancarella, she said a good portion of those residents would probably qualify as lower income and, therefore, would not be affected.
Query: Surely the Board is not trying to stop a conversion that a lot of owners seem to be quite excited about because of a situation that might only affect a couple of dozen residents? I would hate to think that some members of the Board are thinking more about their own interests than the interests of the residents in general.
Wouldn't it be better if we put all the energy (and expense) going into this legal wrangling into creative negotiation?
We are a community and I don't want to see anyone hurt by this conversion … especially the elderly or disabled. What if we negotiated a deal with the owner that said that anyone currently under rent control who is over 85 or disabled would not have their rent increased (except for the annual CPI)?
By hiring an antagonistic lawyer, the Board has put the residents in opposition to the owner. Wouldn't it be better to work together to find ways to make this the best possible conversion that's ever been done in California … for the owners and the residents?
(Declaration: I am not a member of the Homeowners' Association. I've lived in the park for over a year but never received an information package about membership. At the meeting called by the HOA to discuss conversion, I mentioned this and put my name on a list as someone wanting to become a member. I have still never received the information.
I would be happy to join the HOA … but not while it is represented by William Constantine.
Now that I've been identified with this blog, my guess is that I will never be invited.)
Comments are welcome ... just click on comments below.
Anonymous or impolite comments will be removed.
