By Daily Press staff
Measure II was soundly defeated, with 35 percent voting for the proposal and 64 percent voting against it with 46 percent of the vote counted.
The measure would have allowed a landlord to convert an apartment complex into condominiums if two-thirds of the tenants voted to buy their units for a pre-negotiated price. Any residents that don’t want to buy, would have been given a 99-year lease with full rent control protections.
The measure — also known as the Santa Monica Resident Protection and Home ownership Charter Amendment — would also have guaranteed that homeowners could fully rebuild their homes after a disaster such as a fire, flood or earthquake, regardless of recent zoning code changes that might prohibit such structures.
SMRPH supporters said their measure would help re-enforce the sense of community in Santa Monica, where the majority of residents are tenants who on average stay for only two years.
“This measure provides the opportunity for our middle income tenants to receive all the benefits of home ownership...” supporters wrote in the city’s voter information pamphlet. “Even those tenants choosing not to purchase will benefit from this measure.”
Critics, however, called the proposal “a one-sided measure, written by real estate attorneys, to make condo conversion easy at the expense of existing renters and potential purchasers,” according to the same voter guide.
In addition, the guarantee offered by the measure to rebuild after natural disasters is “simply a cynical ploy to trick homeowners into voting for this one-sided condo conversion scheme.”
Santa Monica adopted a program in 1984 called the Tenant Ownership Rights Charter Amendment — also known as TORCA — which allowed landlords to sell their properties to tenant groups. Occupants of the apartments were given priority in whether they wanted to buy their unit or remain a renter.
But some elected officials found the program fraught with abuses. They said many tenants were kicked out of their apartments, which were then sold off at a huge profit by their landlords. The program was ended in 1996.
Under SMRPH, the main difference is that tenants would have been able to begin negotiations for the property, unlike TORCA, which only allowed the owner to begin negotiations, DeSantis said.
“Under TORCA, it was extremely difficult for tenants to buy their building because many owners wouldn’t sign the TORCA application,” said Paul DeSantis, a local real estate attorney who helped write the referendum. “Under SMRPH, the tenants, if they are in a binding contract to buy the building, can proceed without the owner’s signatures.”
But Santa Monica City Councilman Ken Genser said SMRPH stacks negotiating power in the corner of landlords, who can fill units with their friends to ensure a building is converted, or leave units empty to make it easier to achieve a two-thirds vote.
“Under TORCA, tenants had leverage to negotiate a deal that was fair,” Genser said. “In this there is no way for tenants to negotiate a fair deal.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on November 6, 2002. Read the original PDF.