Laserfiche WebLink
Art Munoz, unit 21, questioned a section of the Tenant Impact Report (page 7, article 623). He <br /> stated that after he received the first letter, he responded that he would like to be on the <br /> conversion committee and to receive more information. He mentioned that two months later he <br /> received another letter that stated if he was selected to be on the committee then he would have <br /> to support and promote the conversion. He stated that his idea of being on the committee was to <br /> receive information, not to support the conversion. <br /> Mr. Munoz questioned the interpretation from the original survey. He noted that he signed the <br /> survey because he wanted to be on the committee and to get more information and feedback, not <br /> that he was in favor of the conversion. He also questioned the letter he received stating that to be <br /> on the committee meant you were a supporter. <br /> Mr. Roush clarified that the survey Mr. Munoz was referencing was not the survey sent to the <br /> residents from the City on whether there was support for the conversion of the park to residential <br /> ownership, but a survey sent by Ms. Forbath's firm about being on a committee. <br /> Ms. Forbath mentioned that there were two surveys. She noted that one was for a conversion <br /> committee signup and the other was whether you were in favor or against the park becoming <br /> resident owned. She stated that there were not many responses to the conversion committee <br /> signup. She noted that the owner decided to provide incentives to people who were interested <br /> and wanted to be involved in the conversion. She responded that every person received this <br /> information in the mail, there was no selection process. She stated that the owner wanted to <br /> provide benefits, but along with that he wanted support in return. <br /> Mr. Munoz asked how many sent in the first letter saying they wanted to be on the committee. <br /> Ms. Forbath explained that the first letter was strictly informational. <br /> Mr. Munoz stated that the second letter requested support for the conversion if residents were to <br /> be on the committee. He then asked why they did not ask for support in the first letter. <br /> Ms. Forbath explained that they wanted a group of people to be proactive and support the <br /> conversion. <br /> Mr. Munoz stated that the owner has his own agenda and that he only wanted people on the <br /> committee that would support the conversion. He stated that people who do not support the <br /> conversion should have the right to be on the committee too. <br /> Ms. Forbath explained there was no incentive for the owner to provide additional benefits for <br /> people who were going to fight the application. <br /> George Brandish, space 50, stated that he signed the first survey requesting to be on the <br /> committee. He also signed the second survey to be on the committee. He stated that he has not <br /> received anything back as yet, and does not know where he stands. He mentioned that the <br /> conversion sounds like a good concept, but it would be useful to get estimates of what other <br /> parks are paying or what they had to pay for property. He understands that different parks have <br /> different values, but examples would be helpful. He asked how much homeowner dues might be. <br /> He stated that he is being asked to do something without having much information. He noted <br /> Minutes: PMCC -2 Page 2 January 9, 2009 <br />