On the proposed condo conversion ordinance, let’s stick to the facts

A commentary By Mayor Joseph A. Curtatone

The city‚Äôs proposed condo conversion ordinance has ignited strong feelings among tenants and property owners alike.  Tenant groups have been well represented at public meetings before the Board of Alderman; by contrast, opposition to the proposed ordinance has chiefly taken the form of an extensive email and direct mail campaign orchestrated by the Cambridge-based Small Property Owners Association (SPOA).

   The city‚Äôs proposal is designed to strike a better balance between the legitimate rights of both renters and landlords while paying special attention to the needs and concerns of the disadvantaged and vulnerable, including the elderly, the disabled and the poor.  Any attempt to strike that balance is bound to be controversial ‚Äì and that‚Äôs just as it should be. In fact, it‚Äôs both necessary and valuable to have a vigorous public debate about exactly which rules make the most sense, are the most workable and are the fairest to all parties.

   There is nothing wrong, for example, with raising questions about the most appropriate length for a pre-conversion notification period, or what constitutes a fair amount for relocation expenses, or how best to establish a right of first refusal.  We should all welcome a public debate over these and similar issues: it will help inform the deliberations of the Aldermen, provide a guide to assessing the merits of the current proposal and ultimately improve the final product.

    So far, however, that is not the way SPOA is seeking to frame the issue. Instead of calling for a detailed discussion of the specific provisions of the proposal now before the Aldermen, SPOA‚Äôs leadership has elected to distort and misrepresent the condo conversion proposal by calling it ‚Äúbackdoor rent control.‚Äù  Both the label and SPOA‚Äôs accompanying tactics are deeply misleading and do little to contribute to a constructive discussion.

   In the debate over the rules regulating condo conversion, let‚Äôs stick to the facts.

   Fact One: An important goal of the city‚Äôs proposal is to assure that landlords engaged in condo conversion can‚Äôt force out current tenants by jacking up rents to unreasonable levels (there is documented evidence that this tactic has been employed by some landlords, just as there are verified accounts of tenants thrown out of their apartments with little or no prior notice in order to clear the way for condo conversion).    Under the terms of the city‚Äôs proposal, landlords who are not engaged in condo conversion are not affected ‚Äì and landlords who have started the process of condo conversion are still able to keep rents at market rates by demonstrating that major increases are based on improvements to the properties, increased valuation, taxation, market demand or other factors.  Yet SPOA has erroneously suggested that the proposed ordinance would restrict all landlords from raising rents ‚Äúunreasonably,‚Äù and that this restriction would be set so low and applied so universally as to constitute a form of rent control.

    Fact Two: My administration has been, and remains, strongly opposed to rent control.  We believe that, on the whole, the condo conversion process has had a positive impact on Somerville‚Äôs housing market and tax base.  Our purpose in putting forward this proposed ordinance is not to end the process of conversion, and certainly not to impose rent control, but to establish a fair, predictable, streamlined process that affords added protection to renters whose homes undergo condo conversion, all while recovering the city’s costs for processing this increasingly common transaction.

    Fact Three:  We welcome comment on the proposed condo conversion ordinance (which can be viewed at the city‚Äôs website (www.ci.somerville.ma.us).  This is not a ‚Äústealth‚Äù proposal ‚Äì but we hope both supporters and opponents alike will base their comments on the actual proposal rather than the labels applied by either supporters or opponents.

    Fact Four:  As noted in a recent Boston Globe article, the tenant notification requirements in the proposed Somerville ordinance are comparable to those required by the City of Boston, and surely no one would argue that Boston has imposed ‚Äúbackdoor rent control.‚Äù

     We can have a vigorous and productive debate in which we air our concerns and disagreements without stirring passions through the use of false or distorted arguments.  I remain confident that, armed with the facts, Somerville‚Äôs landlords and renters can work together with our city‚Äôs elected officials to hammer out a model condo conversion ordinance that protects the rights of tenants while assuring that an orderly, predictable conversion process remains a viable option for our city‚Äôs property owners.