i was only tangentially involved with the parkmerced project but that project involved a development agreement, which is a recognized process in the california governmental code that allows seaptionzl essentiay and the developer to negotiate a deal without necessarily having fees be justified by a nexus study. so the agreement, which it sounds like you're mentioning, is something that we could ask for as part of a negotiated contract with the developer. in this particular case, the nexus analysis only supported the base fee that we were discussing about having moneys go into one of the city's affordable housing programs. >> supervisor chiu: okay. and one final question, again probably to the author of the legislation. i think there's no one here who doesn't have sympathy for the challenging financial situation facing current t.i.c. owners. i think a concern that's been raised and one that i have, and would like to get an initial sense from supervisor farrell and others, i think even if we were to allow the current generation of t.i.c. owners to allow them to condoize, the concern is

regarding parkmerced, if people, who -- if the people who crafted the deal to make the garden apartmentsntrolled in perpetuity or at least for the duration of the current tenant had not been so worried about the illegal weaknesses of the parkmerced deal there would have been no need to create the 200 million backup fund to protect tenants in case of court challenges and i imagine that 200 fund itself is probably on legal shaky ground. that could be challenged. so if the parkmerced development is on shaky legal ground i can only imagine this legislation is on equally shaky legal ground. there needs to be affordable -- there certainly is an affordable housing crisis and i understand people want to own homes, et cetera. but condo conversions are not the answers. and somebody earlier talked about the banks. i think that's a good place to start looking. thank you. >> chair wiener: thank you very much. next speaker. >> hi. i'm here to ask you to forward this proposal to the full board of supervisors for a vote. i was unemployed for most of 2011 and part of 2012. being on unemployment the state

no guarantee that -- one of the conveniences in the past, and i'm not stating either way, with parkmerced and trinity is we dealt with one landlord, essentially one property owner. in this case we could be dealing with hundreds of property owners that may or may not sue the city and kind of test the waters on this issue. so in that sense we don't have a guarantee of how the courts would rule on these lifetime leases in those instances. >> city attorney: i think that would be correct. what the city would do, in implementing this program, if it were adopted, is we would create a -- we'd have a standardized form agreement that all the property owners would be subject to. so it wouldn't -- in some ways, we wouldn't have separate agreements that address separate issues for the different property owners. >> co-chair kim: and the enforceability of these lifetime leases would that be under the city attorney's office or under dpw? >> city attorney: it would be -- the proposal right now is to have -- rather than have these agreements come to the board of supervisors, the agreement between the prope

here it's a little different than parkmerced because we have to deal with a different provision of costa home exemption which i believe raises serious problems for lifetime leases going forward. that deserves more discussion and more work. the second thing is what kind of perspective i think you should be taking on this. i'm a tenant advocate i helped pass the original ban, i singlele handedly defeated prop r, and prop n and worked with a lot of people to defeat prop r in 2002 but you need to look at the big picture, moving beyond the interest of the tenants and t.i.c. owners and you will see two things. one, t.i.c. ownership is inferior form of ownership and they need assistance and it's probably not good for the city to have people hanging around with this cumbersome bad ownership. number two the city needs affordable rental housing, we need to maintain the existing stock. >> chair wiener: thank you. thank

agree that there are a lot less provisions for lifetime leases in this than there have been in parkmerced. mr. farrell, this does open the door to speculation. yes, there is speculation but that is why it's called speculation. and i will do everything in my power to defeat, in the next election, supervisors who vote for this law. >> chair wiener: thank you. next speaker. >> i'm here -- my name is david wallace and i'm a t.i.c. owner and i'm here to ask you to support this legislation. this legislation will have a huge impact on my future, and ability to afford my home. originally, my t.i.c. held a group loan to reform -- financial. thorn bird collapsed in 2008 and my loan was sold. it was well known that before thornberg collapsed, they allowed transfer of our group loans in the interest of thornberg and t.i.c.'s qualified buyers. after the collapse my loan was sold and no longer transferable. one of our owners was transferred out of the san francisco to san diego. she tried to sell, and at this point we all realized that we had to refinance, with a great burden to us, caused a lot of str