The point of the condo conversion ordinance is to provide cheap condos to the market, not $400k condos, which is how much newly-constructed units cost. The current cap on condo conversions is arbitrary and unfair (it's doled out by fees to apartment developers, not in any directed manner), and excludes TIC owners from condoizing their buildings. The proposed policy would discourage conversions around the lake, encouraging them in low-income, low-homeownership areas (where non-Oakland residents are unlikely to go house-hunting).

It is ironic in the extreme for Nancy Nadel to point out that low-income homeowners have no eviction protections, when she recently attempted to impose gigantic fees on first-time homeowners to subsidize home purchases of the low-income. Allowing some buildings to convert to condos would allow people who cannot afford newly-constructed condos to enjoy some of the federally-subsidized benefits of homeownership (few of which are provided to IZ units, since the price is permanently capped). To rehash the IZ debate a little, the proponents made absurdly counter-intuitive and empirically wrong claims (that gigantic condo fees would not discourage construction or drive up prices), for which they were unwilling to do an economic impact study; this proposal is very intuitive, as it seeks to loosen our current rigid cap on conversions in order to boost the city's long-standing goal of encouraging homeownership.

The 'modifications' are just attempts to gut the ordinance (the point is that we allow lots of conversions, and do not need to replace them). If the Councilmember is concerned with the liquidity and growth of the rental market, which is the real issue of renting (ie, being able to find an apartment), rather than with rent control, she should offer incentives to build new, small-scale infill apartments. That's an opportunity to create a win-win situation for renting residents.

JB -

You assert that these condos will be "cheap," but how are you measuring that? What guarantee do you have that they will be? None. The average price estimated in the proposal is $250,000, $75,000 more than what would be considered an affordable unit for the renters in question.

Even assuming that the owners of the converted units will pay no more in mortgage payments than they currently do in rent (which is pretty dubious), I'm interested to see how you think that the "federally-subsidized benefits of homeownership " outweigh the increased costs of thousands of dollars of annual property taxes.

I am in agreement with Councilmember Nadel's suggestions as a way of studying the economic impact of the full implementation of this policy.

The very used condo for sale in the building behind my house--and a dank unit it is, too--is for sale for $350,000 with NO construction cost, as the building was converted in the 70s.

I think if this were to pass we would be guilty of a) encouraging people to buy who do not have the financial strength to risk it and b) causing a wave of foreclosures as well as the evictions which would precede them. This is a heartless attack on Oakland's population.

V - the proposal is not aimed at all 88k renting households, but at 15k of them; these condos will indeed be affordable to the above-median renter. I don't know how much property taxes will increase; renters, of course, already pay property taxes, just indirectly. The federal mortgage income-tax deduction is quite substantial, erasing about 40% of the financing cost of a home.

NS - Unfortunately, encouraging homeownership for those who cannot afford newly-built condos is inherently risky (and that is an argument against all affordable housing), but the city has prioritized homeownership for a long time. I think that a wave of foreclosures and evictions is quite hyperbolic. The current policy is rigid and flawed; the new policy will allow for conversions when there are currently virtually none, which I think we can all agree is a good thing. Is there a cap (more than 50) that would lessen the impact? What about more geographic specificity? There is demand from renters to buy low-priced (but unsubsidized) homes; we should be able to meet some of that demand without harming the rest of the rental population.

Neighborhoods like Rockridge have experienced substantial declines in rental stock over the last decade. This could be an opportunity to incentivize small-scale apartment construction. I would be excited to see Councilmember Nadel offer that idea as a way to ensure liquidity for Oakland's renters.

I have read some of the comments on my article. In response, new condo conversions occurring in West and North Oakland are selling for $350,000 and up. These are not the new condo buildings, these are recent condo conversions of old buildings that are occurring outside the impact area where conversions are prohibited. City staff have calculated that in order to afford such a condo even with all the layered deferred payment products to lower the down payment upon entry to the market, one must make at least $80,000 to $90,000 per year. In the proposed ordinance, there is nothing to prevent a property owner from choosing to convert a building that has people in it who do not have the income to buy. While the intention might be to make it possible for middle income people to buy, the existing residents who are the most unstable economically and unable to buy, will be forced to move when their leases are up, increasing the instability of their families, having to put their kids in different schools, etc. When creating policy, it is important to note who will benefit and who might be harmed. In this case those who will be harmed are the people we should be most careful about keeping from the verge of homelessness. The people who will benefit are the property owners, the real estate agents and to some extent the city who will get new real estate transfer taxes. In a city with a growing homeless problem which we do not have the resources to address, I think this policy is seriously flawed.

Councilmember Nadel never misses an opportunity to stir the class warfare pot. In viewing the world through this narrow peephole, issues of housing always somehow revert back to renters vs everybody else. Though expertly pushing renters hot buttons does nothing to advance homeownership she doesn't seem to care about that. She wants renters to stay renters so that her politics of class warfare and politics of pushing peoples hot buttons can remain relevant. Part of why Oakland doesn't make greater progress on housing matters is because people such as Nadel have gotten so good at creating pseudo intellectualized rationales for saying "No," to any good proposal that would advance renters beyond renterhood.

Boy, Do I Have A Bridge That You Want To Buy! Once again we have another sick proposal that would evict Oakland renters under the guise of offering them housing! This is not a movement of the renters seeking to spend the rest of their lives working for low-wages in order buy some slumlords dump! This condo-conversion proposal is sponsored by the greedy realtors and landlords who will do anything to profit on the misery of others! If the profiteers and their lackys' in the Oakland City Council got what they deserved, they would all be 6 foot under! Lynda Carson

"Perfection is the enemy of success." It's easy to criticize plans and proposals that are not perfect. But why do we never see the name "Nancy Nadel" in the press attached to the promotion of something? If one always looks for an individual or group who might not be helped by a proposal, then the only thing that ever gets promoted is the status quo.

Ms. Nadel I guess you know you're pushing the right buttons when people such as Lynda Carson show up with the type of mean-spirited, angry, out-of-control diatribe posted above. Politics by pushing peoples hot buttons, helps the real issue get obscured in a putrid cloud of meanness and nastiness. Karl Rove would be proud.

Obviously, how you view this condo conversion proposal depends on your point of view. If someone does not believe that stabilizing the rental housing supply to enable low income folks to remain in Oakland is important (and many people don't for a variety of reasons, some quite good hearted, actually, including increasing the city's homeownership rate), then the highly pursuasive argument that this proposal will lead to displacement is of no concern. If you believe that there should never be any conversions, this proposal also won't satisfy you, for obvious reasons. However, if you want to encourage homeownership among Oakland tenants, which I do, then the following train of thought may help you decide whether to support this proposal. According to the staff report, there are 88,000 rental housholds in Oakland. For those households, an affordable (30% of your income or below) condo is $175,000. Over the past few years, the average price for a CONVERTED condo is between $350,000 and $400,000. A 5% discount, or even a 10% discount, is not enough to get the average tenant into a converted condo--just as simple as that. Additionally, there is nothing in this proposal that would prevent a property owner from evicting tenants using the Ellis Act to then convert an empty building. So, if what you're looking for is unbridled conversions, this proposal doesn;t work for you. If you're looking for tighter restrictions, this obviously doesn;t work for you. If you're looking for homeownership opportunities for actual Oakland tenants, this proposal also doesn;t work for you. Three strikes!

J -

You are constantly asserting that renters pay property taxes anyway, blah, blah, blah. I'm talking about actual checks one has to write. A one-bedroom apartment in the impact area of this proposal, around the lake, can easily be found for $1000/month. Now, were that apartment to turn into a condo, the owner could probably expect to pay at least a similar amount in mortgage payments, and also would be paying about $6000/year in property taxes. You still fail to demonstrate how the morgage tax deduction outweighs this new burden. Why? Oh yeah, because it doesn't.

Nancy -

It is dissapointing that you did not acknowledge or respond to J's suggestions about incentivizing apartment construction to encourage a healthier supply of rental housing stock. That would address some of my major problems with the proposal. I think you should consider it as part of a compromise effort.

Lynda -

I hardly think it is productive or appropriate to wish death on Oakland's City Council in a public forum. Nor is your comment contributing anything useful to the conversation. This sort of uninformed and unbridled anger is pointless. Whether you believe the proposal is a good idea or not (and I don't), it is not "sponsored by the greedy realtors and landlords who will do anything to profit on the misery of others!" At the planning commission hearings about the issue, many, many of the speakers present were TIC residents who have been unable to convert their own homes to condos due to the unweildy restrictions that this proposal would eliminate.

Personally, I think that the restrictions on TIC conversions are a problem that the city should be addressing, and while that would be part of this proposal, it is not targeted to them and has too many other negative aspects to earn my support. I would like to see the City Council reach some sort of compromise that would address the issues discussed here through a combination of incentivizing rental housing construction, instituting Councilmember Nadel's modifications suggested here (though perhaps with a limit somewhat higher than 50), and lifting all restrictions on TIC conversions.

There was an article in the San Jose Mercury News about Condo conversion. The city built so many condos they ran short of rental housing. If this proposal goes through, will you have enough balance between condo buyers and rental stock? That said the problem with this city is two fold. For years the city decayed and filled with tenants. When the economy picked up and people came to California, the home prices came up from below average to above average. I think this has created a huge push on lower income groups since all of the property is now more valuable to sell than to slum lord. Also Prop 13 and capital gain tax breaks make property ownership excellent investments instead of a place to live. Gains are treated to 20% tax and prop 13 controls tax increases that benefit older owners. To fix many of the affordability problems you must fix the way you treat property. All that said I hope the proposal goes through. I came from a union construction family and this means work for construction workers. Just make sure they show their union card at the job gate! Good wages for good work eh! The council members in this town and their buddies in the democratic party will always cry: But what of the poor! Their policies created much of the problem. Lack of spending on housing, liquor stores everywhere, gimmicks instead of education in school, allowing jobs to go overseas, stock markets out of control, safetey nets cut, etc. Leave class warfare at home. Help the working people by urging stronger labor unions and just wages. Pass the proposal. Build the condos!

Jim -

You don't seem to have actually read the post or the comments. This has nothing to do with building condos. Oakland is constructing lots of condos (of course, certain Councilmembers would like to see that stop, but that is a different discussion). This is about taking existing rental housing and turning it into for-sale housing. The converting owner is not even required to make improvements to the property before the conversion. This has nothing to do with jobs, and no jobs would be created from this.

Opponents of the proposal are concerned that, among other things, this would shrink the already insufficient supply of rental housing in Oakland. As for Prop 13, that is really neither here nor there. Of course it is the bane of municipalities all over the state, but Oakland's City Council can do nothing about it. It is an issue that must be addressed on a state level

Actually I read the entire thread. I am well aware that we are talking about converting rental units. Unless you plan on doing the work yourself I don't see how any jobs would not be created. Every conversion I have been in is usually gutted, upgraded, and has amenities added. There may not be as many jobs as new work, but there is still work. There will always be a shortage of rental housing in the Bay Area since you have limited supply and little space for new construction. By the way, I live across the street from an apartment unit that was half vacant for years. I am sure landlords help control supply and demand as well. Yes prop 13 is a state matter but it is very relevent to the problem whether the city has any control over it.

Yesterday I looked at the 2005 American housing statistics report from Bureau of the Census. It reveals that the ownership rates in urban areas are generally lower than stated in the staff report, which seems to use overall numbers that include suburban and rural areas. It helps to make the argument, but it is inappropriate for a 400,000-person city. Even though I had a profession and a college degree and an income and was not an oppressed person when I was condoed out of an apartment it took years to recoup from the upheavals and moving costs plus save up enough for a down payment. I would be embarrassed to say what my house cost, but it was a tiny pittance compared to current prices, even taking inflation into account. I had no kids, I had little debt. It was still really difficult. The provisions of this proposal would not have made it much more affordable. This is a cynical and greedy attack on renters, the vast majority of whom are solid contributing citizens of our city, and who represent a lot of its wealth of diversity, ideas and innovation. The surpassing greed represented by putting this forward while killing the inclusionary housing idea makes me incredibly angry. Even more than an attack on the poor, I see this as an attack on the young people of our city, my own daughters included. If we want to make it easy for small owners to sell off units, let us take a step back and come up with something that directly addresses their problems without harming our much vaunted demographics.

Jim -

You still don't seem to understand what's going on here. The entire point of this proposal is that the existing units would be sold cheaply to people who couldn't normally afford a condo. That's why no improvements are required for conversion, and few to no jobs will be created. The concept is that people simply buy the apartment they are already living in without modifications.

Naomi -

You're referring to the 2005 American Housing Survey? Because in Table 1B-1 "All Housing Units-Central Cities," it notes a homeownership rate of about 55%. So yes, it seems that urban areas do have a lower homeownership rate than the 60% average for the country and state as a whole, but the average urban ownership rate is still far higher than Oakland's current 40% or even Oakland's long-term goal of 50%.

I also don't understand why you are characterizing the proposal as a "greedy attack on renters." I also think that it should be modified with more targeting, but I also know that the Councilmembers who introduced the legislation were well intentioned. And there will be many people who benefit from easing restrictions as well. Weren't you at the Planning Commission hearing about this? Didn't you listen to the parade of TIC-ers begging to be allowed to convert their own homes? The proposal needs to be modified, certainly, but it is hardly a "greedy attack." It is something that many people who desperately want to own their own homes that they're already living in have been pleading for.

Reasons I worry about condo conversion: 1) It is a way to offload deferred maintenance cost onto future owners, sometimes a rather large burden. 2) Offers an opportunity for predatory lending leading to foreclosures. 3) Will cause further decline in school district enrollments. 4) Does not take into account the rather large number of condos now or soon to be on the market. 5) Does not take into account the fact that for many people renting is a much more sensible financial arrangement than carrying a mortgage. This is particularly true in cases where employment income is uncertain or in the many situations where sharing rent is feasible but sharing a large longterm purchase is not.

This change is not pleasing anybody, renters or "developers". This ordinance will NOT help homeownership for one reason: people will not convert multi units to condos anymore. Today, the 10 cheapest 2 bedroom units on the market are all from condo conversions.... All for under 320K. If the new ordinance is approved, the bottom of the market will go back to 350K+. With all these conversion, one can buy a condo for 250K. There is so much misinformation in this debate. People make up their minds based on the marketing of the ordinance, and not on the ordinance. It's really sad. There were people trying to sell one-bedroom condo (from conversion) in Rockridge for 340K, and didn't find a buyer. They will lower the price. Who would ever imagine that you could buy a condo in rockridge for 300K? This will be a short reality in the beginning of 2007. After that, things will go back to the old Bay Area prices.

i agree wholeheartedly with Lynda Carson's comments. This proposal is nothing more than a greedy attempt to evict renters and make a buck. It wouldn't surprise me if it passes though. Because, especially in the Bay Area, isn't that what it's all about. Where are the democrats when you need them? It appears they, like all "good" republicans, are in the pockets of the slum-lords and developers as well.

To Eric Mullen, Lynda Carson mentioned quite a bit more than you refer to here. Wishing death on public officials (to which you agree wholeheartedly)in a public forum shows just how mentally unstable some of Oakland's perpetual naysayers are. There is no excuse for this type of thing.

Susan Bergman writes: "... It's easy to criticize plans and proposals that are not perfect. But why do we never see the name "Nancy Nadel" in the press attached to the promotion of something? " Well, Susan, could it be that you have been misinformed by.....the Grand Lake Guardian --- dare I say it -- Spin Machine? Nancy Nadel, not Pat Kernighan brought us the Farmer's Market (a fact which has been pointed out several times by quite a few writers to the Guardian) Pat K's campaign material and signs at the Farmers Market created a completely different scenario. And the Cleveland Cascade? The first sizable chunk of city money, and the first official recognition of Cleveland Cascades as a project worthy of restoration was arranged by Nancy Nadel. Nadel received a lot of flak for allocating DD money for a non-DD identified project, but reading the Guardian, you wouldn’t have thought she had any involvement. Period.

Thank you, Patrick. Nancy is a very hands-on councilperson, and I speak from experience. I don't know what press you are reading, but if it doesn't report her as an honest and proactive representative, the problem may be with the news medium rather than Ms. Nadel. She has helped our District 2 neighborhoods with innumerable issues, including crime, traffic, getting things through at city hall, the intractable difficulties with developing the Cox Cadillac site, and all kinds of downtown challenges such as development pressure at Northgate. She is quite accessible and has been notable for her integrity and broad outreach to her constituents.

In re: spin/shill machine: Today, there are two self-congratulatory articles re: Cleveland Cascades in the Guardian. The opportunity to thank or acknowledge Nadel, the first City guardian angel of the Cascades, was not seized in either case. Yes, the Cascades huge volunteer effort -- major high five to all -- but not to give a nod to Nadel and post it on the Kernighan Spin Zone is, at the very least bordering on tacky.

To Scott: oh get over yourself. no one is advocating the demise of anyone. you can take your literal interpretation of what i consider hyperbole and your characterization of people you probably haven't met and sit on 'em. i am vehemently against this proposal because i feel that many renters have neither the desire nor the means to purchase their apartment. should they be forced to move as a result? i don't think so. although i must say with a 3-0 vote in the committee it looks like i'll be on the losing side of this issue. oh well, c'est la vie. greed never goes out of style.

Eric, You probably would not consider such language as hyperbole if it were to be directed at you. Such meanness does nothing to advance acceptance of the position put forth and there is no excusing it. On the other hand it's somewhat typical of the extreme rent control advocate which she apparently is. Her attitude is the end product of Nadel's politics of pushing hot buttons. Leslie: Karl Rove wouldn't be proud, he'd be envious. SD

Re-focussing the discussion a bit, away from bloggish insults and bickering: How about an impartial economic and demographic study of whether and how to alter the condo conversion ordinance? Include factors such as impact upon age distribution, ethnic distribution, school attendance, and affordability. Look at issues of whether deferred maintenance would be passed on to condo associations, and whether they can be indemnified against sudden large repair costs, current tenant management difficulties faced by landlords, and tenants-in-common ownership problems. Reviewing the proposal one can see that this work has not been done. There is no hurry: several thousand condo units are becoming available within the next year or two. The apparent urgency springs from political influence, not actual housing ownership issues.

To Naomi schiff, it really takes a certain comfortable, middle-class, liberalism-induced gall, to seriously suggest a study of how condo conversion will effect, among other things, "ethnic distribution." Is there a proper "ethnic distribution" that the city should be trying to force?The concept sounds a little sinister and Jim Crowish. In particular since Oakland housing policies as they currently are seem to be melting the African American population away rather rapidly. Yes let's study "ethnic distribution" but not only of the effect of condo conversion but of rent control, just cause, redevelopment, and all other local housing policies that seem to be ripping the life out of African American communities.

David D., I am uninterested in name-calling, and will not label you, and wonder how you can know whether I am comfortable or not. I would like to discuss ideas and options and thoughtful comments, but not vituperation. Are you certain you know what other people think? You might be surprised! I too have questions about redevelopment policy, for example. Toward the discourse; avoiding ad hominem remarks.

Thank you, David. I agree that more than condo conversion needs to be studied. We really haven't seen a comprehensive discussion of all the elements, rather just fighting over individual bits, serially. For instance, some people are saying, there should be no condo conversion changes without some progress on the inclusionary housing proposal. Surely it would make sense to study the relationships between the two, and any other housing ordinance adjustments, plus overall effects of the redevelopment situation. It is a sign of a naked political power struggle that the inclusionary proposal was shot down with a veto, while this condo proposal is being pushed to go through in a big hurry. Seems transparently not about well-studied housing or ownership needs, but rather about clashing lobbyists, while the citizens stand by and watch.

Naomi schiff, Fair enough, So to address "ethnic distribution," is there some sort of ethnic distribution that the city should be involved in accomplishing? Certainly there is something sucking the demographic life out of Oakland's African American communities and it is obviously not the condo conversion proposal which hasn't even happened yet. I agree with you, there should be a study of the distributional effects of housing policy, but not just of the proposed policy (that one hasn't happened yet and can't be blamed for anything) but also of existing housing policy as well. There may be something in existing policy that is skewing the "ethnic distribution" of our housing market.

And relating that to "ethnic distribution?" Under existing housing policy something is sucking the demographic life out of Oakland's African American communities. But apparently it must be a lot easier to talk about studying the "ethnic distribution" effect of policies that don't yet exist as opposed to those that do. We have plenty of policies that are already effecting the "ethnic distribution" of homes and apartments in Oakland, and it seems that that's where the focus of study should be. But that's only if our interest in this travesty is genuine rather than patronizing.

Of course, you have to study the current situation too because these proposals purport to remedy some current problem. One odd aspect of the condo conversion thing is that the strongest argument I have heard in its favor has to do with difficulties of tenants-in-common who want to condoize. But this does not look like the main target of the proposal. It's using a shotgun instead of a scalpel, if that is the problem we are trying to solve. I have heard that it is a particular group of apartment owners who want this change, that it is not really an overall solution to an overall problem. If true, that might not be a good basis for such a sweeping piece of legislation. The proposal suggests a rate of condo conversion that is extremely high. And yet, we have a population that includes a lot of people who depend upon rentals, and thousands of new condos coming on line within the next 18 months. Renting is sometimes a financially sensible way to go. With housing prices so high, it can be quite risky to tie up a huge percentage of one's income, even for people who make decent salaries. And what about the danger of foreclosures, which are up so sharply this year?

Your discussion is a pure dodge of the issue. Vacuous, empty, space filling blather, the type of which has become so common in Oakland when discussing housing shortcomings caused by current city policy. But thank you. You've helped me to understand the process a little better. The trick is to bring up the concept of the need to study "ethnic distribution" when it suits an effort to delay new housing policy (condo conversion for instance) but avoid it like the plague if it references the disfunction caused to African American communities by existing policy. Our city faces difficult challenges and discussions of the real issues may be difficult also. But it's pointless to continue reponding to formulaic, empty, blather.

Again with the insults. David, you are the one who said you want to study existing policies. Can you describe exactly what you conjecture the problem is with existing policy, why you particularly focus on African-American communities (not Asian-Americans? not Latino-Americans? not college students and young people of all background? not young families?) and how it might be fixed with this or some other condo conversion ordinance revision? I am trying to be specific, and again, I eschew insults and hope you will do the same. It does not help the discussion any.

This proposal will convert only 9% of the rental stock over ten years. It will have yearly review by the Council. It's not that big of a deal, and if it goes badly, it can be modified or repealed. Hysteria and allegations of "greedy speculation" are not ways to shape public policy. And Ms. Schiff and others (such as Ms. Carson), it is true that your concern for the well-being of renters and the low-income is rather unpersuasive, given your opposition to expanding the rental housing supply via Oak-to-Ninth, Forest City, and the Essex.

I do support height limits to buildings adjoining Lake Merritt, and thus opposed the design of the Essex, which was first approved as rental but immediately turned into condos. OHA never opposed Forest City, except to hope for HIGHER density and the preservation of some historic buildings on a minimal portion of the site. On Oak to Ninth, OHA has consistently supported the affordable housing component. We question the open space provisions. the treatment of the Ninth Avenue Terminal, and some access and safety aspects. (Under state law, no housing can be built on the terminal site anyhow.) I won't misrepresent your position. Please do not misrepresent mine or OHA's. I don't see how you get the 9 percent figure, would be interested to see the calculation, together with the actual numbers. Is it true that 9 percent is more than two thousand units? That seems it would have a major impact on number of overall available rentals.

Ms. Schiff, I understand that your organization has those positions (and your Lake Merritt height limit would mean a massive decrease in future housing construction). But other groups opposing conversions, such as Just Cause, have consistently opposed increases in the rental housing stock on principle ("gentrification"), and the for-rent affordable housing component was part and parcel of the entire Oak-to-Ninth project. It is difficult to believe that people who act to limit rental stock increase have renters' best interests in mind. After all, availability is a paramount concern, and I still am not hearing Ms. Nadel or anyone else suggest that the city incentivize apartment construction.

The proposal will convert 800 units a year, or 8000 over 10 years. Oakland has about 88k apartments (according to Ms. Nadel above). That means 9.1% of the rental stock will be converted over a decade, or less than 1% a year. The idea is that the vast majority of the condo buyers will be former Oakland renters, so the loss of rental units is mitigated by decreased rental demand. Furthermore, the city expects continued apartment construction (a large new JLS building is rental), and has apparently approved 500 conversions this year, so the impact of the policy is actually fairly minimal. However, conversions will be doled out rationally (rather than by pay-offs to developers), and affordable housing funds will triple. The council's yearly review ensures that unforeseen problems can be addressed promptly. 9% of our stock converting over a decade (versus 5.7% under current policy) is not the end of the world for renters.

Incentives for apartment construction might be a good idea. The current proposal is an incentive to condo conversion, isn't it? I understand the theory that renters will become condo buyers, but the income analyses don't support it. The affordable housing contributions do not seem to be enough to offset the losses in apartment numbers. Rather than a yearly review, if this were to go forward it should be as a limited pilot program. It isn't "the end of the world" for renters to move to Tracy, increasing sprawl effects and emptying out the Bay Area of moderate income working families, but the destabilization and skewing of our much vaunted diversity as a result of a wave of evictions would not be a good thing for Oakland.

Actually, the proposal is a disincentive to condo conversion. Under existing law, any building of four units or less can be converted, no questions asked. Larger buildings can acquire permission from developers of apartments (30% of the 10k plan is rental) to convert. The proposal would impose a fee of about $30k/unit, where there has been no fee before.

People move to Tracy to buy homes, not rent them. This will allow first-time homeowners to stay in Oakland. Your idea to ban lakeside development would also encourage people to move to Tracy.

Even given HUD's ridiculous numbers as quoted by the anti-condo crowd (according to HUD, nobody can afford to live anywhere), 10% of renters can afford to buy. This proposal converts 9.1% of apartments.

The current system is flawed and arbitrary. The proposal is flexible, well-targeted, and will triple our affordable housing funds. My hat is off to Councilmember Brooks for proposing this innovative way to simultaneously create a market of lower-cost condos will dramatically increasing the city's housing budget. What a win-win!

---Losers & Winners--- To the losers and the condo-conversion proponents... Let history show that justice and fairness still outshine greed and profiteering... Read it and weap... And by the way, I did not advocate violence above, but merely pointed out that if the greedy bastards of Oakland and their lackys in the city council got what they deserved, they would all be 6 foot under... -lynda Task force calls for housing set-asides Dellums' group recommends requiring developers include share of affordable housing in new complexes By Heather MacDonald, STAFF WRITER Article Last Updated: 03/02/2007 05:00:58 AM PST OAKLAND — Developers should be required to set aside a portion of their new projects for the poorest Oaklanders, according to one of the largest task forces formed by Mayor Ron Dellums to set his administration's agenda. In addition, the task force recommended tightening restrictions on the conversion of rental units to condominiums and urged the mayor to protect the existing stock of affordable apartments for Oakland's working class. In its conclusion, the task force advised the mayor to shift the city's current "speculative" housing policy to a "people-oriented and sustainable development" plan that creates economically integrated communities. The task force, which included more than 50 people and met six times over eight weeks last fall, unanimously endorsed an inclusionary zoning measure. Karen Stevenson, the mayor's spokeswoman, said Dellums is still reviewing the recommendations, submitted Thursday night to the Blue Ribbon Commission created by the Oakland City Council to craft a new condo conversion policy and an inclusionary zoning measure. Ray Carlisle, a co-convener of the task force who was also appointed to the Blue Ribbon Commission by the mayor, said the members overcame their political differences to talk openly with one another. "People are very passionate about housing issues, because it is about quality of life," Carlisle said. However, the task force was not united on the city's condo conversion policy, a contentious Advertisement issue during its meetings. The task force's minority report, which covered a number of issues, touted condo conversions as a way, when used responsibly, to increase the level of home ownership in Oakland and improve communities. Other recommendations counseled the mayor to concentrate his efforts, and the city's limited resources, on helping to find affordable housing for the poorest Oaklanders, those earning less than $25,000 a year for a family of four. However, the minority report said that was a bad idea and urged the mayor to address poverty not only through housing programs but with a host of social services. "Moderate-income Oaklanders are in danger of being left behind, as the market builds dwellings that are out of reach for all but those of the highest incomes," the report stated. In October the council deadlocked over whether to approve an inclusionary zoning measure that would have required developers to set aside 15 percent of their new projects for low-income Oaklanders. Aime Fishman, an affordable housing advocate, said it was critical that the mayor act quickly to get an inclusionary zoning measure on the books by May 1. Fishman said the ordinance that failed to pass the council, which required 15 percent of developments of 20 or more units be set aside for low-income residents, was a good starting point that could be amended to include incentives to create housing for the poorest Oaklanders. Although she said the process was messy and frustrating at times, Fishman said it was a very valuable example of participatory democracy. "It elevated the level of discourse," Fishman said. A few months after the inclusionary zoning measure was defeated, a proposal that would have allowed developers to pay the city a fee and convert apartments into condos in an effort to boost home ownership failed to win enough votes for passage. Saying Oakland is primarily a working class city where 60 percent of residents are renters, the task force concluded, "It is immediately clear that converted condominiums are not a viable housing option for the vast majority of Oakland households." The proposal considered by the council sought to end Oakland's long-standing policy of requiring each unit converted into a for-sale home to be replaced by a new apartment. That restriction should be retained, and the number of conversions capped at 100 per year, according to the task force. The task force also advised the mayor to limit the transformation of industrial land into new residential neighborhoods, saying that good-paying jobs must be preserved for residents. Twenty-five percent of any housing units built on former industrial land should be set aside for low-income residents and city rules should allow for light industry that does not pollute the area, according to the task force. Another recommendation offered a plan to reorganize the Community and Economic Development Agency by creating an independent Housing and Community Development Department to "elevate housing as a city priority." The minority report disagreed with that recommendation, saying it would do nothing but create another layer of bureaucracy that would waste taxpayers' money. Other recommendations include a plan to strengthen the city's rent control ordinance and to address homelessness by collaborating with Alameda County and protecting the single-room occupancy hotels in downtown Oakland. The task force also recommended strengthening the city's relationship with the Oakland Housing Authority. Earlier this month, City Attorney John Russo sued the housing authority, accusing it of allowing its properties to become a source of blight in Oakland's neighborhoods. In all, 800 Oaklanders served between September and December on 41 task forces that considered a variety of issues facing the city.

I want to email Nancy Nadel, but I can't seem to find her email address anywhere - including on her website or newsletter. Could you please forward it to me? Thanks much, Jonathan Toste