[BCN] Time Sensative- Proposed State Legislation effecting some Coops

[Micha Josephy]

Hi folks. I received the message pasted below and wanted to pass it on
regarding proposed legislative changes to laws effecting some housing
coops. As far as I know I don't think this will effect our type of housing
coop (collective houses) because I believe you're allowed to choose your
housemates (which our members are, but apartment style coop members
aren't). If you believe otherwise (or you do support the proposed
legislation), I'd love to know, off-list.

That said, chances to help other coops are important, so please consider
making a call or two and passing this on. It looks like the legislature
will take this up on Thursday, Jan 3rd, so it's time sensative.

In Cooperation,
Micha


From: Kathy Holmes & Sarah Lee [mailto:kathyandsarah at verizon.net]
Sent: Mon 12/31/2007 12:49 PM
Subject: [BULK] Please help us ASAP

Dear Friends:

We desperately need your help on a political issue that could have a huge
impact on our life at Common Place and that of other housing co-ops in
Massachusetts.

We are working with our legislators on new legislation which has already
been passed, amended by the Governor, and sent back to the legislature for
more work. The Governor's amendment does not take into account any of the
issues which would affect co-ops such as the one we live in.

The proposed amendment and our position are detailed below.  Basically,
the new amendment would forbid us to choose future members based on shared
values and interests.

It looks like the vote on the amendment in the State legislature will be
on Thursday, January 3.  We are asking that you contact your legislator
immediately indicating that the Governor's amendment does not fully deal
with the issues of co-ops in this state.

Below is the Governor's proposed legislation and our position on the
amendment.

Thank you so much for your help.

Sarah and Kathy



Here is the text of the Governor's proposed legislation, which does not
address any of the needs of non-elderly co-ops:

Section 10 of chapter 157B of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2006
Official Edition, is hereby amended by striking out clause (g) and
inserting in place thereof the following clause:-

            (g) standards for eligibility to become a stockholder,
provided that such standards reasonably relate to: (i) the capacity to
satisfy the stockholder's financial and maintenance obligations with
respect to the property; and/or (ii) eligibility requirements for
financial subsidy programs; and/or (iii) requirements with respect to
elderly living communities; and provided further, that such standards
shall not be discriminatory in intent or application and shall comply with
section 4 of chapter 151B.  Notwithstanding any general or special law to
the contrary including section 2, this subsection shall govern all
cooperative housing arrangements formed pursuant to this chapter or
otherwise.


Here is our position:

I believe the essential right that we and many other cooperatives would
like to maintain is the right to establish "community of interest"
criteria that do not discriminate against any of the protected classes.
That is, a coop should have the right to set itself up as an
environmentally sensitive community where members agree to recycle,
compost, use solar panels for hot water heating and use Zipcars.  They
should have the right to exclude anybody who does not want to be a part of
such a community, since "environmentally insensitive people" are not a
protected class.  Similarly, a group should be able to form a coop where
everybody agrees to be a part of a weekly book club and use much of their
spare time to read books agreed to by the group.  Again, "non-readers" is
not a protected class.  In neither of these examples would a cooperative
be allowed to exclude black people or Jewish people, or disabled people or
gay people or people of Hungarian descent who were prepared to agree to
all the other principles of the community.  No coop has ever been able to
do that legally in this state.

            Further, from the point of view of larger, more commercial
cooperatives, property management companies are concerned about the
ability to exclude people who have bad records as tenants.  In this sense,
cooperators are more like renters than owners.  Any coop should be able to
exclude people who have a record of not paying their rent, or selling
drugs from their apartments or beating up their neighbors.  Under the
proposed legislation, such standards would not be allowed.  That would
create havoc in larger cooperatives.

            Finally, limited equity co-ops such as Commonplace would be
thrown into limbo.  There is a commitment within the co-op to maintain
affordable housing, so a maximum sale price has been set.  However, if the
only criteria that can be used for sale are financial, that puts the co-op
in a position of selling to the highest bidder.  These two aims are
antithetical, and the legislation needs to recognize that federally
subsidized housing is not the only type of affordable housing.

            So, we would like the language that Alice Wolf originally
suggested about allowing groups to establish "community of interest
criteria for admission as long as such criteria do not violate any of the
fair housing laws of the Commonwealth" or something to that effect and I
think we should support the right of cooperatives to establish reasonable
behavior standards for admission.  The normal language of a reasonable
tenant selection criteria would be something like " A person may be
excluded from admission if they have, in the recent past, exhibited
behavior which, if repeated at this property, constitute a lease
violation".

Thank you so much for helping us to get this legislation amended so that
co-ops can continue to be the rich and exciting housing environments that
they have been in this state.

Sarah Lee and Kathy Holmes

Shareholders, Common Place, Inc.

141 Oxford Street, # 9

Cambridge, MA 02140

Phone: 617-547-0608