The Salem City Committee of the Whole on May 1 heard a presentation on a proposed condo conversion ordinance that would create a local permitting process, add tenant protections and translated notices, impose extended waiting periods for occupied units and protected tenants, and set relocation payments at $6,000 per unit ($8,000 for older adults, disabled or low-income tenants).

The proposal, presented by Laurie Stewart, Salem’s housing stability coordinator, would require an administrative conditional permit and a final conversion permit administered by the housing stability coordinator; a two-year waiting period for occupied units (two years for protected classes with up to two additional years if a tenant cannot find housing in Salem); translated tenant notices; a right of first refusal to tenants; and relocation payments to be paid within 10 days of vacating. Stewart said the ordinance is intended to “decelerate the conversion rate of naturally affordable rental housing stock into condominiums and cooperatives” and to “minimize residential displacement of renter households by strengthening tenant rights during a condo conversion.”

Why it matters: committee members and public commenters said condo conversions have reduced Salem’s supply of small multifamily rental housing and disproportionately affect people of color and low‑income renters. Committee members repeatedly cited enforcement gaps in the statewide condo conversion law and said a local ordinance with staff and an administrative process is necessary to make protections effective.

Key provisions discussed
- Administration and permitting: The housing stability coordinator (HSC) would administer a two-stage permitting process (conditional permit, then final conversion permit). The HSC would create forms and guidelines to implement the process; tenants or owners could request hearings before the municipal hearing officer if either side alleges noncompliance.
- Waiting periods and notices: The proposal would require two years’ notice for all occupied units, two years for protected classes (older adults, people with disabilities, low- or moderate-income tenants) with up to two additional years if the tenant cannot find housing in Salem. For vacant units, owners must notify the HSC one year in advance; the ordinance includes exemptions such as owner-occupancy for the prior 12 months and sales to family members as described in the draft.
- Relocation payments and right of first refusal: The draft sets relocation payments at $6,000 per unit and $8,000 per unit for protected tenants; Stewart said the amounts were calculated from local rent estimates and typical moving and deposit costs. State law currently sets relocation payments at $750 and $1,000 for protected classes, the presenter noted. Tenants would have a right of first refusal (120 days, or 180 days for protected classes) and must be offered the same or more favorable terms than outside buyers, subject to fair market value in as‑is condition.
- Fees and enforcement: The draft sets a nonrefundable application fee of $600 (refundable only if the applicant withdraws before processing begins) intended to cover staff time, municipal hearing officer time, and administrative costs. Permits can be denied or revoked for false statements or for attempts to circumvent state or local law (for example, unreasonable rent increases or reductions in services).

Council discussion and public comment
The committee asked staff for clarification on multiple points, including how the $6,000 figure was calculated, why a one‑year waiting period is required for vacant units, and how the ordinance would interact with existing leases and future evictions. Stewart said the $6,000 figure was based on local average rents (one-bedroom rent estimates presented by staff ranged roughly from $2,000 to $2,800) and typical tenant moving costs, and that a one‑year waiting period for vacant units was adopted after consultation with Somerville staff to avoid landlords artificially creating vacancies to avoid the ordinance.

Councilor Merkel said she appreciated the focus on enforcement and the effort behind the draft. Councilor Cohen emphasized tenant protections and said the ordinance should still allow paths for owner use of property but must guard against displacement. Council discussion repeatedly returned to a single technical concern: language intended to prevent a landlord from converting units, keeping tenants in place during conversion, and then displacing them later without paying relocation; staff and the solicitor said that “look forward” protections and additional drafting were under consideration but needed more study.

Public commenters urged adoption and data transparency. Steve Kapanes (resident) recommended the committee analyze conversion rates (percent of housing stock converted) rather than raw counts and asked the committee to meet with landlords and realtors to understand impacts. Felipe (resident and Affordable Housing Trust Fund board member) reviewed the ordinance’s multi-year development, the home‑rule petition process, and outreach with stakeholders, and urged the committee to move the ordinance forward. Caitlin Halapa (resident) described recent rent increases in Salem and asked how tenants who are offered to stay can still obtain relocation assistance if the owner later changes course.

Formal actions taken
- Councilor Burrell moved to accept the redline amendment to the draft ordinance; Councilor Cohen seconded and the committee voted in favor on that motion during the meeting record. Later, after extended discussion, a subsequent motion was made to keep the item in committee for further study; the committee voted to leave the ordinance in committee and return with additional data and revised language.

What’s next
Committee members asked staff to provide comparative data (Somerville and Boston conversion outcomes and rates, Somerville conversion counts by year, and a grid comparing other municipalities’ ordinances), more detail from the solicitor on the suggested “look forward” language, and the administrative memo supporting the $600 application fee. The committee left the ordinance in committee and requested a follow‑up meeting in the coming weeks to resolve the remaining drafting and implementation questions.

Ending: The meeting concluded with the committee scheduling additional time to review redlines and data; a date for the next discussion was not specified in the transcript.