[Everyone] Rental Issue: Process for Deliberation

Fri Sep 23 14:25:33 UTC 2022

Thanks to all for participating in the announced open discussion in re:
Rental Issue. The committee of three will take the discussion into
consideration for helping us through the next step--likely some mechanism
for our registering more clearly and pointedly the majority if not
unanimous views. The latter will then be the basis for approaching a legal
professional for assistance.

Vincent

On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 8:42 AM Lauren Rich via Everyone <
everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com> wrote:

> just an observation:  I believe it's possible to restrict owners in terms
> of whether and for how long and on what terms we rent.  I think it's far
> more difficult to restrict to whom selling rights.  And I believe that's
> the only way to limit commercial investors.  Also, it's a much more onerous
> limitation on ownership rights to restrict selling rights, as opposed to
> restrict rental rights.
>
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 9:01 PM Jordan Sharon via Everyone <
> everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com> wrote:
>
>> I’m on the same page with Maryann as I also don’t have enough experience
>> surrounding these matters to add anything new. I also agree with many of
>> the points made by Melanie, Kathleen/Ron and Molly. It seems the common
>> thread here is we all want to protect CP from commercial investors that
>> could have a negative impact on our community and agree that should be the
>> primary focus. I tend to disagree on placing a cap on private owners
>> renting, especially in a roommate type situation. However I am willing to
>> hear the pros and cons on both sides of the matter so as to make a more
>> educated decision.
>>
>> - Jordan
>>
>>
>> On Sep 19, 2022, at 8:13 PM, Maryann Dabkowski via Everyone <
>> everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all-
>>
>> I've been hanging back on commenting because I felt some ignorance around
>> the issue and didn't want to add an uneducated opinion. I've been listening
>> and reading all week, and don't really have much to add at this point that
>> hasn't already been said. I do think it's important to be an active
>> participant in the community, so I wanted to express my agreement with some
>> points made by Melanie, Molly, and others. I tend to agree on exploring
>> some guardrails for renting and determining if there is a way to prevent
>> commercial investors.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2022 at 1:14 PM Molly Pastin via Everyone <
>> everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I’ve not had the time this week to jot down cohesive thoughts here but
>>> Ron has summarized mine quite well. Some additional food for thought:
>>>
>>> - while I disagree with placing a cap, there are creative ways to
>>> integrate elements to reduce risk of negative impact of rentals (fees for
>>> owners in reasonable circumstances, caps on rental years, min time an owner
>>> must live in home before renting)
>>> - what I think every person on this chain has in common: lack of desire
>>> to have commercial investors come in - that is the root I’m deducing we can
>>> easily come together to tackle
>>> - if there is no issue today, why make this devise topic front and
>>> center when we can address the more common concern around commercial
>>> investors?
>>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2022 at 11:08 AM Sara Crews via Everyone <
>>> everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The only problem our HOA ever experienced with tenants was in the late
>>>> 80s when the owners of #402 divorced,  both moved to different states,  and
>>>> they rented it to 5 college students.
>>>> Sara
>>>>
>>>> On 09/16/2022 6:47 PM Ronald Baggett via Everyone <
>>>> everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you Melanie!  I think you summed up my thoughts on this issue as
>>>> well.  One of the most disturbing aspects of American life today is the
>>>> housing inequities that have taken safe affordable housing away from so
>>>> many in our communities. I would like to see what if anything we can do to
>>>> prevent corporate ownership of Chelsea Place homes for investment rentals.
>>>> At the same time I would like owners to have the availability to offer an
>>>> affordable rental space in our community. Be that as a border using a room
>>>> or renting a unit.
>>>> In my experience what makes a good neighbor has little to do with if
>>>> they own or rent.  I would be more open to adopting a code of expectations
>>>> for owners to maintain if they do rent. I believe most renters agree to
>>>> terms of behavior when they sign a contract. It would be the owners
>>>> responsibility to enforce compliance.
>>>> I can not see myself agreeing to limit rental options of private owners
>>>> during the present housing crisis our community is experiencing. I would be
>>>> interested if there is a way to legally keep corporate investors from
>>>> buying our properties to exploit the housing crisis.
>>>> Would it be of benefit to create a list of expectations and
>>>> responsibilities of renters to be included in all rental contracts used by
>>>> Chelsea Place owners who do rent? We could also make a document that
>>>> clarifies the expectations and responsibilities of owners when renting.
>>>> This would address the issues of retaining the physical upkeep and
>>>> presentation of our properties while preserving the ability of owners to
>>>> offer affordable safe housing to those who need it.
>>>> Ron
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 16, 2022, at 14:15, 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
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
> --
> Lauren Rich
> Atlanta, GA
>
> _______________________________________________
> Everyone mailing list
> Everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com
> https://chelseaplacedecatur.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/everyone
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://chelseaplacedecatur.com/pipermail/everyone/attachments/20220923/d627ecfb/attachment-0001.htm>