Posted on 04/18/2021 1:40:09 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
So, you and your spouse are living in a medium-sized middle American community and after coming into a little extra money you decided you want to do some planning for your retirement. You come across an investment opportunity in a cosmopolitan city in another state — a six-unit apartment building where you can purchase a co-ownership interest with a plan to move into that building when you retire. The purchase agreement includes a provision that the co-owners will convert the six-unit building into separately owned condominium units by a specified date, and you and your spouse will obtain the right to own and occupy one of those condominium units.
At the time you invest you are still living and working in a different city and state, and the unit that will eventually be yours to occupy is rented to a tenant.
After purchasing your interest, but before the date comes for the condominium conversion, the City Council in this cosmopolitan city amends its condo conversion ordinance, and now requires that a property owner converting a rental apartment to a condominium must offer a lifetime lease to the current resident of the unit being converted.
Just like that, the renter of your soon-to-be-condo has a legal right to live in your retirement home for the duration of his life which might be longer than your lifetime.
If this happened to you, your last name is probably Pakdel and you purchased a condo for your retirement in the City of San Francisco.
I read about this story at the Cato Institute website.
Pakdel sued San Francisco, claiming the amendment to the ordinance violated the Fifth Amendment’s “Takings Clause” which prohibits the taking of private property for public use without just compensation.
Pakdel lost in both the district court and the appeals court, and the proceedings at the administrative level in the City and County of San Francisco are more complicated than the simplified description I have set forth above.
The City and County defended against Pakdel’s complaint in federal court by pointing to various agreements made by Pakdel, and failures by Pakdel to assert certain claims as part of the conversion process on a timely basis. Thus, Pakdel’s hands are not completely “clean” with respect to the way he went about seeking to vindicate his rights as the property owner.
In the federal courts, the question of whether this amounted to an unconstitutional “takings” was never actually considered. Pakdel lost in the district court based on that court’s determination that his “takings” claim wasn’t yet “ripe” — that at the time he filed his lawsuit the decision by San Francisco with regard to enforcement of the ordinance wasn’t yet final, and there was still the possibility that Pakdel could obtain a waiver of the ordinance’s tenant lease requirement.
The Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s dismissal of the action but then went further by making it a matter of the record that Pakdel had, in fact, waived many of his rights to contest the requirements of the ordinance by failing to follow the time deadlines in the ordinance for filing applications for variances, and taking advantage of other provisions that might have exempted him from the lifetime lease offer requirement.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, and it appears that all the merits briefs have been filed. Here is the brief filed on behalf of Pakdel and his wife. The issues raised are pretty far afield from my practice area, and it’s a little bit late in the evening for me to try to break down the legal arguments set forth. I’m going to opt for watching the new season of Top Chef instead.
But, one lesson you might take from this is that if you are living in Dayton, Ohio, look for someplace other than San Francisco to invest in a retirement condo — that is if you want to actually live in your retirement condo.
“Why would anyone want to retire in San Francisco?”
I liked San Francisco when I was last there about ten years ago.
I didn’t notice a big homeless problem back then.
The motel I stayed in in Newark, CA (far away) was about $50/night.
I have a female cousin that moved to SF in the mid 80’s. VERY liberal and condecending toward non SF types. She was always upbeat and had a great life.
Now her voice is flat and very depressed. But she won’t leave. Stuff happens.
“Who would want to retire in San Francisco anyway? It’s a lost city.”
And give up Pride Week? s/
Article I, Section 10
“No state shall...pass any...ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts...”
In most states if a landlord sells the property, the rights of the tenant continue to the new owner.
Mitch sabotaged the Trump Presidency, may he burn in Hell.
This is a baby step toward a Communist ideal where the state owns all and, ultimately, everyone in the State.
He is, and we do know about it.
How do we know? If it looks like duck crap, and it smells like duck crap, and you watched to come out of a duck's butt, it ain't a Tootsie Roll.
This will not have the effect they want it to have.
Too Bad Roberts doesn’t have a bit of Rehnquist in him.
“e. The City imposes this lifetime lease requirement on all property owners seeking to change the form of ownership from a tenancy-incommon interest to a condominium interest. Moreover, the ordinance contains a poison pill: if any owner sues to challenge the constitutionality of this requirement, the City suspends the condo conversion program entirely as to properties with even one tenant.”
“All non-owning tenants, regardless of need or income, are eligible for an offer of a lifetime lease under the ECP and have two years to decide whether to accept it. App. F-8, § 1396.4.5 So long as the tenant remains in the apartment, the City will not accept any waiver of the lifetime lease. App. F-20, § 1396.4(g)(3). Both the offer of a lifetime lease, and the lease itself, are recorded against title to the property, together with a separate binding agreement between the City and the property owners. Id. Moreover, existing tenants may invite family to move into their units, establishing “co-tenant” status and thus becoming eligible for the lifetime lease. App. F-17. The expedited conversion program also contains a program-wide poison pill: any legal challenge from a single property owner suspends the program for all buildings containing even one tenant.”
besides taking by unconstititional ordinance, the below would seem to be the red meat of the story:
“After the Pakdels filed suit on June 26, 2017, the City sent a letter to all owners citywide informing them of the Pakdels’ identity and street address and that, as a result of their legal challenge, there is now a moratorium on all new condominium conversions in San Francisco.”
Roberts does not believe in the Constitution as a restraint on government force. He has shown his tendency towards “Democracy “ or mob rule. People get what they voted for, may it be “Good and Hard”.
if you are living in Dayton, Ohio, look for someplace other than San Francisco
Nan Whaley does no good for Dayton, Ohio either.
Home owners don’t become home owners by being stupid.
Apparently you can be stupid and be a San Francisco city planner
The city intends to become the owner of these buildings. They’ll hire friends and family to manage them at exorbitant rates, with the occupants and managers all billing the taxpayers. Since San Francisco is in the red, that means taxpayers in other jurisdictions like you and I will pay for this.
Mercat wrote:
“In most states if a landlord sells the property, the rights of the tenant continue to the new owner.”
Then how does one account for the cases where the tenant says “I need to move, the landlord sold the place I’m renting”?
Landlord could claim he’s moving in, and then later on, circumstances change and he ends up not moving in.
And give up Pride Week? s/
___________
LOL. YES!!
The tenant might be lying or the tenant was month to month, no rights beyond 30 days, or the tenant is bought out of his/her rights.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.