The State Senate Committee on Consumer Protection and Housing heard public testimony against SHB3071 yesterday:
Testimony by Lois Jones against SHB3071 (bold added):
"I’m Lois Jones, a Laurelon Terrace resident. I’m speaking today for the people at Laurelon who do not want to lose our homes
We are concerned on two levels. One personal and one looking at the long-term effects of passage of SHB 3071. This is not just about LTC. If this bill passes, all Washington state condo complexes set up before 1990 will be affected.
We who wish to remain in our quiet, safe, lovely garden community are currently protected by law against a forced sale of our homes. Some of us have lived in this complex since our association was founded in 1978. These people, most older than I, do not want to move into high rises and do not feel ready to live in retirement homes. They thought they were protected from having to move against their will.
I’ve owned at Laurelon 4 ½ yrs. As a child I moved 5 times and, since turning 17, I’ve moved another 16 times because of having to leave a rental. I looked for over a yr. before buying at Laurelon. During that time I found nothing else that met all my wants and needs. Recently I’ve driven NE Seattle neighborhoods and spent hours at Broker.com. I see nothing that appeals. No amount of money can put me in another spot where I can walk to all my activities, is within 15-20 minutes of my sister’s and daughter’s families, close to bus stops to get anywhere in Seattle. I thought I was protected against being forced to sell against my will.
Many Laurelon residents are saying they should have the right to sell to Children’s. They have that right under current law. But we also have the right not to sell if we don’t want to. If SHB 3071 passes we will lose that right.
Some people inside and outside Laurelon say it’s not fair if one person can stop the will of many. I can’t say there’s no one at Laurelon who would do that, but much as we desperately wouldn’t want to sell and much as we think it would be extremely bad policy to pass SHB 3071, if it came down to just a handful of us objecting, we agree that we could not in good conscience stand in the way of everyone else.
Which brings us to the long-term effects on the whole state of Washington. We are concerned that if this bill passes it will give developers an unfair advantage against homeowners. And we are very concerned about the loss of affordable housing. "
Additional testimony against SHB3071:
- By the city-wide Seattle Community Council Federation. Text available here.
- By the Laurelhurst Community Club. Text available here.
- By WA State House Representative Jamie Pederson, 43rd District
"The prime sponsor of the bill mistakenly stated that there was nothing in the Declarations signed by condominium property owners regarding dissolution and that the property interest outlined in the contract just refers to the state statute regulating condominiums, which can be changed. This is incorrect.
The Declarations document signed by Laurelon condominium property owners does, in fact, address dissolution and calls for agreement by ALL property owners. Section 16.3 of the document states:
“Abandonment of Condominium Status. Except when acting pursuant to the provisions of the Act involving damage, destruction, or condemnation, the Association shall not, without consent of all institutional first mortgagees and institutional first deed or trust beneficiaries of any apartment, seek to abandon the condominium status of the project.”
This provision of the contract contains no reference to the state law governing condominiums, as stated by the prime sponsor. The prime sponsor also incorrectly stated that under the agreement, the property owners collectively agreed to subject itself to the condominium law and any dissolution requirements as might be changed by the Legislature.
Condominium ownership is a valuable property right. The Declarations document signed by Laurelon property owners was signed and recorded with King County in 1978. All property owners were aware of the terms of the agreement and the requirement that everyone must agree to dissolve the condominium complex."
