Laserfiche WebLink
7 <br /> <br />when they are threatened by a sale followed by park closure.14 The first attempt, in 2008, to use <br />the statute led to an injunction prohibiting the park owner from closing a sale without complying, <br />but ultimately failed because of the park’s infrastructure needs. A similar effort might well now <br />succeed given public support for infrastructure needs. The second attempt, to purchase the <br />Lowry Grove Park in St. Anthony Village in 2016, failed when the offer of a preservation <br />purchase was not made until the last possible day. The owner’s failure to accept the offer led to <br />litigation which demonstrated a number of problems with the way the statute was drafted,15 as <br />well as some problems which unfortunately may be inherent in ROFR statutes.16 <br />Minnesota’s Other ROFR statute for agricultural property. Minnesota also has a <br />right of first refusal statute which applies to agricultural property.17 Aimed at farm foreclosures, <br />it requires that an owner of farm land, who acquired the property by enforcing a debt, and who <br />wishes to sell or lease the property must offer it first to the immediately preceding owner at a <br />price no higher than that offered by a third party which is acceptable to the seller. <br /> <br />Other City and County laws more generally address loss of rental housing. <br />Washington D.C. has three laws of this sort. The Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA)18 <br />provides that owners, prior to consummating the sale of rental property, must provide a tenants’ <br />organization with an offer of sale. If no contract with a third party exists, the owner and tenants <br />are to negotiate in good faith. If a contract with a third party already exists, the tenants have a <br />right of first refusal and must meet its material terms. The tenants’ opportunity may be assigned <br />to another party. The District also has an opportunity to purchase (DOPA),19 subordinate to the <br />tenants’ rights, but only if at least 25% of the units are affordable, with rents no more than 30% <br />of 50% of area median income. Finally, the District also has the same opportunity to purchase <br />rights with respect to Section 8 properties when the sale of such properties will lead to <br />discontinuation of its use as federally assisted low income housing.20 The D.C. ordinances are <br />considered quite successful, in part because the District has set aside substantial funds to aid the <br />acquisitions. <br /> <br />A number of Maryland cities and counties have ROFR laws. The Montgomery County <br />law, for instance, provides the County and tenant organizations with a ROFR, but the ROFR may <br />be avoided through an agreement that prohibits the buyer from converting to a non-residential <br />use for 5 years and limits rents for 3-5 years.21 The County may enforce through injunction, <br /> <br />14 MINN. STAT. § 327C.095 subdivs. 6-11. <br />15 Subdiv. 9 deprives residents of their ROFR right if the owner violates the statute by selling the <br />park without complying with the ROFR requirement, thus undercutting the primary goal of the <br />statute. <br />16 See discussion below. <br />17 MINN. STAT. § 500.245 <br />18 D.C. CODE, tit. 42, §§ 42-3404.01 to 24-3404.13. <br />19 D.C. CODE, tit. 42, §§ 42-3404.31 to 24-3404.37. <br />20 D.C. CODE, tit. 42, §§ 42-2851.01 to 42.2841.08. <br />21 MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MD., COUNTY CODE §§ 53A-1 to 53A-11; for a City code example, <br />see TAKOMA PARK, MD., MUNICIPAL CODE ch. 6.32.