Slog - Comments on Condo Conversion Bill

Comment by Gitai

Gitai — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:33:53 -0800

Question: Are condos which are purchased and then rented by their owners considered rental stock?

Comment by Bauhaus

Bauhaus — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:41:58 -0800

San Diego has a similar law, but condo converters get around the relocation assistance clause by announcing that the building will be demolished and condos will be built on the existing property. In truth, the building stands fenced in and boarded up sometimes for years.

The tenants, therefore, aren't notified about a conversion. They're evicted with a 60 day notice. And they don't receive a dime in relocation assistance.

Comment by happy renter

happy renter — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:43:14 -0800

I said it when this bill was originally introduced and I'll say it again: The condo conversion craze is over. This is unnecessary feel-good do-nothing legislation.

Comment by Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:02:00 -0800

That condo conversion thing is a day late and a dollar short. With the housing market sliding along with credit markets, many condo constructions are being turned into apartments, and most of the conversions happened in the last three years, very few are happening today.

Comment by tomasyalba

tomasyalba — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:24:52 -0800

Now that governments are staring down the barrel of lower fee and tax revenue flowing from their buddies the developers, legislators are starting to feel guilty and stupid over what they've let happen to their renting constituents. Time to hit 'em up for a bill.

And while it's true that only an idiot would convert nowadays, don't think there aren't a few idiot landlords still looking to do it. This bill would protect their renters, and now.

And let's acknowledge the wisdom of getting this on the books now, while we finally can, so that it will be in place if another local real estate craze hits after X years of downturn. If we wait until another boom hits, the revenue flowing in will just get legislators looking the other way once again.

Do it now. If it fails now, do it again next session.

Comment by Rich Boswell

Rich Boswell — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:36:44 -0800

Why should any land owner be restricted from making money off of their property! This is pure socialism. People can pay their own damn moving costs!

And if you can't afford to live in the city, then move or get a better job. Sheesh. The government has no business tinkering with the free market in this case. There is no overreaching public interest in denying land owners their rights to do what they please with their property.

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:43:05 -0800

Hey, Rich Boswell, I've decided to file a mining claim on your property. I'm paying 10 cents an acre and I'll be looking for diamonds.

Might have to blast my way down there.

Hope you don't mind!

Comment by Eric Arrr

Eric Arrr — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 17:02:38 -0800

What a fantastically stupid idea.

Hint #1: limiting the supply of condos makes them more expensive, not less.

Hint #2: total housing units are growing faster than local population. WAY faster. therefore, the rental stock is actually *increasing.* (no, the Canadians are not using their still-strong dollar to turn our apartments into vacation homes.)

Hint #3: the housing bubble was caused by excessive lending. if you want to legislate against a repeat of it, treat the disease, not the symptoms.

Comment by Reality Check

Reality Check — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:24:52 -0800

All the condos are scars on beautiful city blocks.

Seattle should be ashamed at what it has allowed to happen to the metro area.

Comment by Bellevue Ave

Bellevue Ave — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 22:54:22 -0800

Eric Arr, FTW!

Comment by J.R.

J.R. — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:56:26 -0800

@9: Seattle should be ashamed for letting people build housing?