[Everyone] Rental Issue: Process for Deliberation

Fri Sep 16 21:58:01 UTC 2022

I am personally appreciative of this conversation and the care and thought
all are putting into it.  For my part, I have 2 really strong reactions:
First, I believe fairness requires grandfathering whatever current
arrangements exist with current owners.  Second, whether or not
grandfathering or any other process is required by current law is exactly
the sort of legal issue we should  seek advice on.  I think initially,
grandfathering is  a question of fairness.  I personally believe it's
unfair to tell current owners they are no longer permitted to do what
they've been doing for years.   If the rest of the group disagrees, then we
need to get some advice from outside counsel as to what Melanie asserts.  I
know there have been new laws passed in this area (not grandfathering, but
HOAs and rentals) and I just think we need to get legal advice on current
law.  (And  pardon me, Melanie, if you are a lawyer and this is your
specialty!!!!).  I am also very mindful of what Vincent says --  if we
think in order to be fair that we need to grandfather existing
arrangements, how can we then tell the rest of us that we cannot do the
same?  I think it's an important point and  it certainly gives me pause.  I
also think there's  a way to say no more than "x" number of rentals (or
types of rentals), but also putting in a provision which says something
lilke, "However, in the event that personal circumstances require" or
"warrant" some short term rental  of no longer than "x" period of time,
then this can be approved by the Association, based on request of owner.
Or it can be said that Association officers can act on such a request,
rather than all of us. . . . anyway, my two cents.  Thought I'd throw it in.

On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 4:15 PM melanie davenport via Everyone <
everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com> wrote:

> Yes, that's true Sara, you are grandfathered, and similarly, I believe any
> proposed changes to bylaws would also not impact current owners.  In
> addition to the general application of grandfathering, there is a specific
> item in the code that says if a community amends its covenants in order
> to restrict leasing, and if a house in the community is *already* being
> leased at the time the amendment is recorded, the owner of that house can
> continue to lease the house until ownership of the house is transferred to
> a new owner.  (Georgia Property Owners’ Association Act,  Code Section
> 44-3-226)
>
> I absolutely agree, Nobody wants a party house next door, and though it's
> unlikely any current owner wants their own property values diminished by
> renting it to people who disrespect their property, there is no guarantee
> that future owners, particularly corporate investor types, would share that
> sentiment...  I understand the desire to preempt any possibility of that
> happening, and wonder if there is any other way to specifically bar the
> type of investment buyers that are ruining the housing markets across the
> country?
>
> I would like to suggest that in this conversation, Chelsea Place owners
> should also consider the possible negative outcomes that could arise at
> some point in future from a strict rental restriction policy.  For example,
> we know that life can bring unexpected challenges; at some point, someone
> may need to live abroad for work or move back home to care for a parent,
> with plans to someday return to their beloved townhome.  If this happens to
> more than one neighbor at the same time, and if a 10% limit has been
> added to the covenants, who is going to make the judgement on which
> neighbor is and which neighbor is not allowed to rent their unit?
>
> Just weighing in,
> best,
> mel
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 2:38 PM Sara Crews via Everyone <
> everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com> wrote:
>
>> When I first began renting out my downstairs in 1993, I'm fairly certain
>> that Georgia had on its books a grandfather clause.  It may still be in
>> effect; and if so, aren't we wasting  a lot of time discussing my property?
>>
>> Sara
>>
>> On 09/16/2022 10:59 AM Vincent Wimbush <vlwimbush at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I am pleased we are having respectful discussion about some of the
>> issues. Again, it is important for all or as many as are able to weigh in.
>> (I generally prefer to discuss situations and issues apart from
>> referencing individuals, but it seems this may not always work.)
>>
>> A few more thoughts:
>>
>> I do not recall that it was decided that Sara's rental situation was off
>> the table for discussion--in re: rental issues. It seems to me that that
>> situation must not be automatically set aside or taken off the table for
>> discussion because it is different from Unit 412 (Mel's owner-absentee
>> rental). It is the case that what is involved with Sara is a contractual
>> rental situation with someone. If we collectively decide that this
>> arrangement is fine it needs to be stated as such. And further it needs to
>> be stated that until or unless we clearly add agreed upon restrictions
>> (with respect to both arrangements) *all other owners should have the
>> same opportunity or right to engage in the same kind of contract*. Is
>> this what we want?
>>
>> I am wanting to make it clear that I have super sensitivity to the matter
>> of fairness. So unless we state that a particular arrangement is unusual
>> and is not to be repeated or is to be henceforth restricted in some
>> respect(s), we have to face the reality (of the potential) that any (even
>> all) current or future owners can do the same (as what obtains with Mel and
>> Sara). I find it very problematic to support the current arrangements
>> without making it clear that any and all current and future owners can do
>> the same. Is this what we want?
>>
>> Re: suggested percentage--assuming we do little beyond agreeing to a
>> particular percentage of rentals, I ask, by whose authority? By what or
>> whose wisdom of experience? Is this what other townhomes/condos are
>> allowing? With what success? With what lingering problems or issues? Do we
>> think we need not do anything now because there are no serious problems?
>> The problem is precisely that we have no clear statement of agreement
>> around these matters.
>>
>> I think it is assumed by some that owner-occupied rental is without
>> problems. Or issues. I do not know. Maybe. But again, perhaps we've simply
>> been lucky to date. It is not hard to imagine a different situation with
>> different parties involved.  We ought to think hard about what such a
>> situation might mean beyond the one instance we know about.
>>
>> vlw
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Vincent L. Wimbush, Ph.D.
>> Director
>> Institute for Signifying Scriptures
>> signifyingscriptures.org
>> vincentwimbush.com
>> 626-864-1357
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 10:10 AM Sara Crews <sara408 at comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> Good morning, Vincent.  I think it would be a rare situation for a
>> roommate to live in a residence or apartment without paying something
>> toward household expenses, i.e. my grandson has two roommates in his home,
>> and they equally share in costs of utilities and a portion of the
>> mortgage.
>>
>> Sara
>>
>> On 09/15/2022 6:08 PM Vincent Wimbush via Everyone <
>> everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand the mystery about what a "rental" is. If an
>> owner--either living in-house or in absentia--asks another or other persons
>> (even a family) to pay a specified amount on a regular basis for staying in
>> part of a unit or in the entirety of one of the units, this is a rental
>> situation. (I do not understand the concept of "roommate" in this context
>> of discussion.)
>>
>> One may want to support the case of a live-in owner renting part of the
>> unit. But we should not kid ourselves that in this situation--or one in
>> which it can be imagined in the future that several persons may be
>> contracted to rent space in one unit--that there are not important quality
>> of life and related issues or challenges to be considered--by all of us.
>> Among them--increase in noise, foot and automobile traffic. And of course
>> there are other challenges and issues that can and ought to be named.
>>
>> Allowing/restricting a number of possible rental arrangements should be
>> debated and considered. But no number or arrangement should be
>> automatically accepted. Also, we should all of us have some sense of the
>> terms on which rentals are arranged. One immediate reaction among us today
>> might be indifference, that such arrangements are nobody else's business
>> beyond the particular owner. We are in discussion about the issues at this
>> time because we have gone through some changes lately that threatened
>> another rental situation; and we may face more threats in the near future
>> if we do not come to some agreement. In addition, some of us
>> think sensitivity to the quality of life here for the rest of us is
>> appropriate with any possible arrangements allowed. How best to translate
>> that sensitivity into agreement is what is before us.
>>
>> We currently have among us two rental arrangements. Perhaps, we have so
>> far simply been lucky. Apart from occasional issues having to do with trash
>> and trash bins left on the sidewalk, unattractive street view (of front
>> window), and so forth, there have not been (to my knowledge) major
>> persistent issues with major impact on the rest of us. Should we assume
>> that without the clearest agreed upon statement we shall always be lucky?
>>
>> vlw
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 4:54 PM Kathleen M. Baggett via Everyone <
>> everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Sara. I would like us to define “rental”. Does this include
>> roommates who are paying rent? To me this is quite different from an
>> absentee owner who is renting. I am not at all a fan of commercial buyers
>> who then rent.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Kathleen M. Baggett*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Everyone <everyone-bounces at chelseaplacedecatur.com> on behalf of
>> Sara Crews via Everyone <everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com>
>> *Date: *Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 2:06 PM
>> *To: *Residents <everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com>
>> *Cc: *Sara Crews <sara408 at comcast.net>
>> *Subject: *Re: [Everyone] Rental Issue: Process for Deliberation
>>
>> Good afternoon, Vincent.  I just re-read my earlier response to your
>> first email concerning rental issues and found a typo.  Rather than 1%, it
>> should have read 10%.
>>
>>
>>
>> FYI - I spoke with my daughter, Sabra, who has been a realtor for many
>> years, about your email to see if she might shed some light on rental
>> issues for townhomes.  Sabra was unaware of townhome rental issues;
>> however, she has sold a number of condominiums, and the bylaws cap rental
>> properties at 10%.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sara
>>
>> On 09/14/2022 4:58 PM Vincent Wimbush via Everyone <
>> everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Greetings to all.
>>
>>
>>
>> I send here a reminder re: open forum on CP rental issue. All have
>> opportunity and safe space to weigh in. Weighing in is important so that
>> there is as much clarity as possible about where things stand among us.
>>
>>
>>
>> I do not want to put too heavily my fingers on the scale; I really want
>> to facilitate conversation. Position on the issue need not be considered a
>> matter of personal attack or support. Focus on the issue and what it means
>> for our shared interests is important.
>>
>>
>>
>> Allow me to try one approach that may help some think more and weigh on
>> the matter. It's a risky comparison, but here goes:
>>
>>
>>
>> Our national political trauma being played out shows us that no set of
>> written laws/agreements can ever cover all contingencies or
>> situations, anticipate all types of psychoses on the part of leaders....
>> Without a broadly-shared collective sense among individuals thinking
>> themselves bound to one another, in a sense, owing certain things to one
>> another--without that sense no rules or law-writers' work will ever cover
>> everything to insure collective well-being.
>>
>>
>>
>> Now to CP, one way we might think of the rental issue--and frankly,
>> almost all issues we may confront, from upkeep of properties, sensitivity
>> to noises made, the way one property presents itself to the outside, and so
>> forth--is to think in terms of what we owe each other. (Peace? Being left
>> alone? Assurance of a pleasant, beautiful environment? Doing one's part to
>> keep values rising?)
>>
>>
>>
>> Is rental of one's property relevant to this way of thinking? How might
>> one rental or proliferation of rentals affect the other(s)? Absentee
>> ownership presents some obvious challenges. What are some of these
>> challenges? Is the owner-absentee rental situation the only rental issue
>> that affects the rest of us? What might an increase in either type of
>> rental situation mean for the rest of us?
>>
>>
>>
>> Again, some rules may be written to cover most of what may make us
>> anxious today. But they will not cover all types of situations or
>> ideas....(I am not sure I would be as attracted to CP if I had discovered
>> at the beginning that there were several rental situations here...)
>>
>>
>>
>> So I do want to raise again as a framing or guiding question--what do we
>> assume we owe one another? How  does this assumption get translated in the
>> way we comport ourselves in all respects and situations, the way we live so
>> interconnected with one another?
>>
>>
>>
>> What might this mean for the issue on  the floor for discussion and
>> consideration?
>>
>>
>>
>> vlw
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 11:06 AM Sara Crews <sara408 at comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you,  Vincent.   I totally agree with this approach.
>>
>>
>>
>> From my perspective,  the number of rentals within our small complex
>> should be limited to 1%.  Since I reside in my home,  it should not be
>> counted as a rental but as a roommate situation - just my opinion,  but
>> certainly am open to everyone's thoughts.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sara
>>
>> On 09/01/2022 10:30 AM Vincent Wimbush via Everyone <
>> everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Greetings to all.
>>
>>
>>
>> You may recall that at our last meeting we briefly discussed the matter
>> of rental of units. (Reference last posted minutes.) We established a
>> committee to look into the matter. The committee has researched HOA
>> documents in order to help us find clarity regarding the situation. The
>> documents available have not resulted in clarifying matters. The committee
>> agreed that consultation with legal professionals who work with HOAs is
>> needed in order to help us clarify for our times CP HOA position on the
>> issue.
>>
>>
>>
>> But before consultation with legal professionals is pursued we want to
>> make sure there is a clear sense of the current owners about matters. So we
>> propose the following process for consideration:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1/ Open Online Discussion--for a period of 21 days (beginning September
>> 1, 2022). All are welcome and encouraged to share--on multiple occasions,
>> if you like; on a range of issues/questions of importance--views in re:
>> matters having to do with rental of CP TownHomes. Courtesy and respect are
>> expected.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2/ At or near the end of the Open Discussion and based on issues raised
>> the committee will devise a simple poll to which all will be asked to
>> respond. This poll will allow us to make the collective position more
>> pointed or specific.
>>
>>
>>
>> 3/ Based on the responses to the poll a statement will be composed that
>> will seek to reflect the views of the majority, if not all, of the owners.
>> As owners--one per unit--we will have the opportunity to vote yes or no in
>> re: proposed statement.
>>
>>
>>
>> The deliberation and making of statement of agreement process will end as
>> soon as is reasonable for all.
>>
>>
>>
>> I hope all of you will accept this proposal and its protocols and will be
>> willing to weigh in and participate in the deliberations during the
>> proposed period.
>>
>>
>>
>> This is an important matter that goes to the heart of assumptions about
>> what we are.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for your cooperation and participation.
>>
>>
>>
>> With receipt of this message, the floor is open to the sharing of views
>> and opinions in re: Rental of Units at CP.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Vincent L. Wimbush
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Everyone mailing list
>> Everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com
>> https://chelseaplacedecatur.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/everyone
>> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fchelseaplacedecatur.com%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Feveryone&data=05%7C01%7Ckbaggett%40gsu.edu%7Ca7eba4342a6f4b54182608da9744f7a8%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C637988619732964220%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=62ZtqwnK%2BHN56dSOj5RaSM14BpXiEbI6k7cgSXZ9gMY%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Everyone mailing list
>> Everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com
>> https://chelseaplacedecatur.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/everyone
>>
>> CAUTION: This email was sent from someone outside of the university. Do
>> not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and
>> know the content is safe.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Everyone mailing list
>> Everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com
>> https://chelseaplacedecatur.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/everyone
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Everyone mailing list
>> Everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com
>> https://chelseaplacedecatur.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/everyone
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Everyone mailing list
>> Everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com
>> https://chelseaplacedecatur.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/everyone
>>
>
>
> --
> Melanie G. Davenport, PhD
> Associate Professor of Art Education
> Georgia State University
> meldavenport at gmail.com
> 404-413-5260
> _______________________________________________
> Everyone mailing list
> Everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com
> https://chelseaplacedecatur.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/everyone
>

-- 
Lauren Rich
Atlanta, GA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://chelseaplacedecatur.com/pipermail/everyone/attachments/20220916/1484e33a/attachment-0001.htm>