Thanks to the well over 100 citizens who emailed and faxed communications to City Council (several old-timers tell us that this Council has NEVER received this many written comments on pending legislation ) and to those who packed council chambers on Monday night.

In order to quickly patch some vacuous and embarrassing holes in the existing condo/townhouse redevelopment regulation , City Council passed Ordinance 22, but with the commitment to immediately re-visit the entire policy and strategy, acknowledging many of the discrepancies and potential unintended consequences and concerns we had commented on:

* This regulation likely will have a perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements.

* Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues.

* Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable.


While we would have preferred that Council defer their decision until the widely-acknowledged messy, vague and flawed law be re-evaluated with public input, they moved to fill an embarrassing gap addressing demolitions due to fire, and other such acts, while leaving an acknowledged mess of unintended consequences to be dealt with "soon" in a promised work session.

When is "soon?"

No specific date was set, but given that it's seasonal rental time, what local landlord would rent to a worker now? And isn't it eviction season too? Time to "lose" those rental contracts to "local workers" who've lived in your unit in the past, in hopes that Option 2 will be adopted, and that in 10 years your unit will be expunged from the "local worker taint" the city is imposing.

Dazed and Confused

The Mayor and Council seemed terribly confused about Ordinance 22, continually claiming that Ordinance 22 has been on the books for years. Ordinance 22 is a 2008proposed ordinance that was proposed August 11, 2008. We acknowledge that 2008 is flying by, but is there a short term memory problem here??

The underlying law does go back years, having been significantly amended 5 times in 20 years. But with changes and mistakes in recasting the land use code, the law has become something of a real surprise to condo owners and real estate professionals.

Ant Attack
The Red Ant's facts and concerns were attacked throughout the meeting, but at no point was Council able to accurately refute or address them. This includes The Red Ant's assertion that Ordinance 22 proposed amending a law that has been on the books for some time (1988, actually). As we've said all along, Ordinance 22 was proposed to "update an old law."


"Highlights" of the meeting will follow in the next Red Ant. (What?? Do you think WE look forward to reviewing the tape of tonight's comedy of errors? We'll get it to you soon!! ) That along with our suggestions for next steps.