Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Rental policies?

[R Philip Dowds (rpdowds]

I don't know, this all sounds pretty hopeless to me.  It reminds of historic 
controversies in my area, like the one where Cambridge tried to limit the 
number of unrelated adults living in a rental unit.  Or where Boston tried to 
force its firemen and policeman to live in Boston.  Or where the opposition 
tried to disqualify a political candidate because he did not "live" in the 
district he represented.  (The candidate counter-argued that where he "lives" 
is not necessarily defined by where he "sleeps".)

All these efforts collapsed.  Point is, it's very hard to know or prove who 
lives where with whom, and under what conditions.  And it's very hard to 
regulate or enforce living arrangements.

And, except for sound reasons of health and safety, we probably should not want 
to.

RPD

On Nov 9, 2011, at 1:44 PM, Sharon Villines wrote:

> 
> 
> On 8 Nov 2011, at 9:39 PM, Tim Pierce wrote:
> 
>> It appears that the California legislature passed SB 150 this year, a 
>> law that affects condo associations' ability to limit rentals:
>> 
>> http://www.google.com/search?q=cc%26r+rental+law+2012
> 
> I've read several websites that have reported on this bill and read the bill. 
> The websites don't seem to be accurately portraying the bill.
> 
> I'm not a lawyer, but in my English class it would be interpreted to say that 
> (1) owners have the right to rent or lease under the regulations that were in 
> place when they bought their units. The association can't _retroactively_ 
> "prohibit" renting and leasing; and (2) a seller is required to give a 
> prospective purchaser a statement describing any provisions that prohibit 
> rental or leasing before title is transferred.
> 
> Thus after 1/1/2012, any new regulations would only affect units that are 
> _purchased_ after the date of the community passes new regulations or units 
> for which a unit owner expressly gave up their rights under the rules in 
> force when they purchased their unit.
> 
> It applies to "prohibitions" not "limits." The distinctions between 
> "prohibitions" and "limits" will have to be tested in the courts but seem to 
> mean that limiting rentals to a minimum of 30 days or 6 months, to executing 
> a formal lease document, etc., is still legal.
> 
> Reading bills is really helpful, and then get legal advice if you have to 
> take a specific action. Plain English has been a huge movement in the legal 
> profession for at least 20 years. If you take it slow, they are often quite 
> clear. This bill includes the plain English version summary, in addition to 
> the lawyerese that is more technical.
> 
> This is a link to the text of the bill and I pasted in the Legislative 
> Counsel's Digest:
> 
> http://e-lobbyist.com/gaits/text/340194
> 
> THE LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
> 
> SB 150, Correa. Common interest developments.
>   Existing law, the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act,
> requires the declaration of a common interest development recorded on
> or after January 1, 1986, to contain a legal description of the
> development and the restrictions on the use or enjoyment of any
> portion of the development. Existing law also provides that the
> covenants and restrictions in the declaration of a common interest
> development shall be enforceable equitable servitudes, unless
> unreasonable.
>   This bill would prohibit the owner of a separate interest in a
> common interest development from being subject to a provision in a
> governing document, or a provision in an amendment to a governing
> document, that prohibits the rental or leasing of all or any of the
> separate interests in that common interest development to a renter,
> lessee, or tenant unless that governing document, or amendment
> thereto, was effective prior to the date the owner acquired title to
> his or her separate interest. The bill would also authorize that
> owner to expressly consent to be subject to a governing document or
> amendment thereto with that specified prohibition.
>   Existing law requires the owner of a separate interest, except as
> specified, to provide specified documents and information to a
> prospective purchaser as soon as practicable before transfer of title
> to the separate interest or execution of a real property sales
> contract therefor.
>   This bill would, in addition, require the owner of a separate
> interest to provide a statement describing any provision in the
> governing documents that prohibits the rental or leasing of any of
> the separate interests in the common interest development to a
> renter, lessee, or tenant, and its applicability, if there is such a
> provision.
>   This bill would incorporate additional changes to Civil Code
> Section 1368 proposed by AB 771 that would become operative only if
> both this bill and AB 771 are chaptered and take effect on or before
> January 1, 2012, and this bill is chaptered last.
> 
> Sharon
> ----
> Sharon Villines
> Takoma Village Cohousing, Washington DC
> http://www.takomavillage.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at: 
> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
> 
>