Pages
Stay In Touch
More
© 2021 The Somerville Times. All rights reserved.
The ordinance vote goes before the full council on Thursday, March 28, at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall.
By Denise Keniston
On Thursday, March 21, the Somerville Legislative Matters Committee passed a revised Condominium/Cooperative Conversion Ordinance. A condo conversion ordinance – enacted back in 1985 – is already on the books, but the committee approved revisions that substantively increase and update tenant’s rights.Ward 5 Councilor Mark Niedergang, who chairs the committee, says, “The current ordinance doesn’t protect tenants very effectively and we, the city, needed to take steps to protect tenants, particularly those tenants who are vulnerable, elderly, disabled, low-income.”
Revisions include regulations regarding, notice periods for conversion, tenant’s rights in public hearings and third-party purchase, vacancy and increased relocation payments from landlords.
Among other specifics, the revised ordinance requires a 5-year landlord notification to vulnerable tenants – defined as elderly, disabled, and low-income – and one year for all other tenants.
Ellen Shachter, the Director of the Office of Housing Stability for the City of Somerville, explains that landlords are currently getting around the ordinance by emptying their buildings – by whatever means possible – before applying for a condo conversion permit. “The new ordinance will take away the incentive for landlords to deliver a building vacant and get around the ordinance,” she says. “This ordinance puts into place a 12-month waiting period to prevent landlords from emptying their buildings before applying.”
On February 4, Somerville residents had the opportunity to voice their opinions at a public hearing. Many were in favor of the ordinance, some against.
Patrick Keefe is against the ordinance and, as a small landlord, believes it puts him at a disadvantage compared to larger ones.
Patrick Keefe used to live in Somerville and now resides in Medford. He owns and rents out a two-family house in Winter Hill, and was present to oppose the changes to the ordinance, especially the inclusion of 2-4 unit properties. “I fundamentally disagree with most of the provisions in this revised ordinance, no matter how large the property, but to include four units or less in this ordinance is really a problem for hard-working people who took a risk and invested in the city of Somerville as small landlords,” he said. “If they’re anything like me, they saved up a down payment and bought it as an owner-occupant so that they could live within their means while building equity and now it’s appreciated to become a significant part of their net worth.” He goes on to say, “I think there will be a bunch of unintended consequences, but ultimately the small landlord gets hurt most. The big sophisticated groups will figure out a way around this ordinance, and the tenants will now have more power over small landlords. It’s just another example of responsible middle-class citizens getting squeezed.”
Most speakers were in favor of the revisions, including Alex Peary, who lives on St. James Avenue and agrees with the ordinance. “Who are we developing the city for? Is it for the benefit of the very few, many of whom are not Somerville residents who profit from development, the developers, their lawyers, contractors, and insurance providers, ” he says. “If not we need to pull ourselves up short and establish strong rules as we should have a long time ago and it seems possible with the current council.
Also in favor is Alan Bingham, who lives on Day Street. “You can take it from me who lives next door to a place where months ago, some 24 long-term residents were evicted from their building so that the landlord could modernize it and triple the rents, which he has successfully done,” he said. “All those people have now moved, except for two, out of Somerville, which is quite distressing. I urge the city to think about this very carefully, especially in trying to sustain Somerville for what it is, the city that we all love.”
Katie Gradowski, who moved out of Somerville because she could no longer afford it, favors the revised ordinance. “This legislation is critical. One of the things that are really powerful about it is that it values renters at what they’re actually worth, as families, as voters, and as members of this community,” she said. “To folks who have spoken about their need to retain their second home for retirement or as a college fund for their kids, I would ask, would you be able to move your kids right now if you have $300 of moving expenses? To those who have concerns about the waiting period, I would ask if you’ve ever been given 30 days to move your family. It’s a traumatizing experience.”
The ordinance goes before the full Somerville City Council for a vote on Thursday, March 28 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall.
The ordinance includes up to $10,000 for relocation and prevents developers from flipping for 12- months.
If you found this article of interest, please consider sharing it.
Wow. You’re expected to make a decision 5 years prior to a conversion? And 1 year when the unit is already vacant? Totally outrageous. The city has made it clear over and over again that they don’t want long-time residents here. They want transient millenials who will vote for whatever crackpot scheme the city puts before them. Where are our property rights? Why does a property owner need to pay relocation costs of $10,000? When you buy property you are taking a risk. When you rent property you are taking a risk. Nothing is forever and nothing is guaranteed. I hope someone takes this to court.
I can understand the reasoning behind many of the proposed rules though i don’t agree with them all. What I don’t understand is the rule to require 12 months of “notice” on a vacant unit. Why would we want units to be unoccupied any longer than necessary?
Well if nothing is guaranteed what you are grousing about
This ordinance does not stand a chance of seeing the light of day. I guarantee this ordinance will be challenged in court within the week. Who do these Councilors think they are with all these endless property rights extortion attempts?!!? Wake up people and vote these clowns out of office.
What has this ORS beholden group accomplished other than changing their name from Alderman to Councilor since being elected? Nothing.
All their big brain ideas are nothing more than smoke screen Home Rule petitions that go to Beacon Hill to die a slow death.
For all the Affordable Housing talk this board does, they’ve done nothing to improve the stock or increase affordability since getting elected. They all talk a good game with their populist message, but their actions tell the real story since their policy does nothing concrete to solve the systemic problem. All the current affordable housing policy the city has put forward was accomplished by the previous BOA (20% inclusionary, linkage fees, 100 homes program). This current board has down nothing but politicize the issue for their own personal gain. JT Scott, Ben Ewen Campen, Jessie Clingan, Matt McLaughlin, Lance “Corporate Lawyer” Davis and Will Mbah are toxic and dishonest.
Boy, am I glad I own my own single-family home, which was purchased back in 1990 when you could still pay a reasonable price for a home, and actually find a single-family home. We even were able to pay off the mortgage after a year. Try doing any of this today, at least in this city.
It’s telling when I’m constantly getting mailings from real estate people trying to get me to sell my home. NO WAY. I’ll only leave if I can no longer afford to pay property taxes, or I die. And if I ever have to sell, you can best believe whoever buys it will turn it into condos, unless I can find a way to legally prevent that somehow if I have to sell. I doubt it’s possible, though.
Somerville claims it wants families here, but they do nothing to try and encourage building single-family homes here, or preserve the ones that still remain. We are an endangered species without any form of protection.
Many people wouldn’t need to worry about being evicted if they could find their own home. Rents these days are about as high as paying mortgage and property taxes, so it wouldn’t be impossible for someone to own their own home if there were homes available.
Many folks here gripe when others like me complain, saying “It’s progress.” Progress means things get BETTER. This is not progress. This is gentrification, plain and simple. Somerville wants to compete with the big cities, instead of try and become a haven for those who want to get away from those cities, all in the name of money. They don’t care if lower-income people leave, because that means someone with more money will come in. It’s in the city’s best interest for that to happen, but not its residents.
I wonder how many children in this city will be able to say later on they have fond memories of the home they grew up in, because they either lived in an apartment, or because they moved around frequently due to their parents being unable to either afford the rent or find a single-family home to raise their family in.
But, as some might tell me, “That’s progress.”
As a renter, I think this is awesome!!
I’ve seen too many hard working tenants kicked out on their a$$ w/o any recourse by greedy landlords. Also, the compensation for tenants who are forced to move is great. Many people can’t come up with first/last/security to move in addition to the moving expenses which can easily get up to 2k, even for a local move. The compensation allows people to move w/o going deep into debt.
Somerville is a city of renters, renters vote and when people get pushed too hard by the landlord class, they push back.
The hand-wringing about how you can’t possibly raise a child in a *gasp* condo would be hilarious, if that didn’t reflect the political inclinations of a large fraction of our population. I’d imagine the possibility of a child in an apartment is even more horrific.
People like Linda are way more concerned about the structure of the neighborhood (single-family homes) than about who actually lives here.
Like most things, renting has positives and negatives. Just like owning does. It seems like renters want all the benefits of renting (flexibility to move, no maintenance costs etc), but now want none of the drawbacks as well. Owning a home is itself a risk – if the area goes down the plughole. Then there are maintenance costs.I own a condo in Somerville and the maintenance costs in the last 5 years are quite substantial – new oil tank $3500, new water heater $1500, painting the exterior $14,000 (shared 50%), new step masonry work, $2000, new back door to basement $1000. That’s $15,000 in 5 years. Renters already had a lot of protections. I think these rules are way over the top. The notice period for vacant units makes no sense. Also, the right to buy is illusory – if they could afford to buy they wouldn’t be renting!
I worked hard to own my 2 family house, I do not need anyone telling me what I can or cannot do with my property. Which is why I have not rented since I bought it. There are quite a few more here in Somerville not renting so they don’t have to deal with this. It is my property and my choice what to do. Not the city.
I agree with Old Taxpayer. I currently rent to my parents. When they are gone the apartment will never be rented again. May not solve any problems for these clowns who only want to give rights to renters and take them from landlords, but it will solve a problem for me. They seem to be under the illusion that landlords are all rich, fat, and greedy. Well, like many other working class landlords in the city I have always rented at well below market rate. In our current situation I am not charging rent so it will not matter at all to keep the apartment vacant. Unintended consequences.
Congratulations. The Board has just guaranteed that fewer rental units will come on the market.
This is just the first steps towards brining back rent control. Watch as it’s only whispers now, but they can’t help themselves with the over reaching.
I also own a 2 family and have not rented out the 1 bedroom on going on 4 years. And …. now never will (I don’t need the money), so one less unit for “renters” here. If my kids can’t utilize it then I ain’t renting it out and having the city get their grubby hands on controlling it. I will never condo it, so this policy makes no difference to me.
Linda,
Since when does anyone need a single family house to raise a family here? That has never been the norm, it’s why they call the “multi-FAMILY homes”. More single family homes would just bring more gentrification.
The good side of not renting out is that after 7 years you can sell your multifamily as a single and avoid those high capital gains taxes. So that alone makes it worthwhile for many of us.