The Community Opportunity to Purchase Act (COPA), currently being reviewed by the City Council, seems to be a solution in search of a problem. It could impose unnecessary hurdles for the new mayoral administration as it aims to advance its own plans for affordable housing.

Under COPA, nonprofits would have the first chance to bid on apartment buildings when owners decide to sell. While nonprofit ownership is commendable, it doesn’t automatically result in affordable housing. Such housing is typically created through a mix of regulatory agreements, rent caps, income criteria, compliance rules, and oversight—all of which apply to nonprofits as well.

COPA misidentifies the issue, proposing a mechanism that could introduce delays, discourage investment, and slow down housing production at a time when the city needs rapid development. The legislation mistakenly targets distressed buildings at risk of tenant displacement but is actually broad enough to impact various types of housing, from struggling walk-ups to stable mixed-income projects and luxury rentals.

According to COPA, “covered properties” are defined using criteria that apply to a wide array of housing. For example, having just one open hazardous or immediately hazardous violation per unit, or owing $1,500 in municipal arrears per unit, can trigger COPA. Such conditions are often temporary and can occur in private buildings, new leases, or properties undergoing standard repairs. This implies that owners of fully compliant buildings would have to deal with COPA regulations for months before they can sell or market their properties.

The requirements and lengthy procedures of COPA would also affect lenders selling properties obtained through deed-in-lieu, properties acquired due to foreclosure, and lender-approved short sales from distressed owners. Unfortunately, the extended timelines and uncertainties of the COPA process decrease the liquidity of these assets and diminish their value, posing challenges for lenders whose loans are secured by these properties.

Overall, the current form of COPA would limit the pool of potential buyers and lenders, complicating efforts to revitalize aging buildings or refinance loans. As the housing supply crisis deepens, the constraints imposed by this bill would further limit development and worsen the situation.

The bill would require the city Department of Housing Preservation and Development to create a new division that tracks, enforces, and manages the process. Among other functions, this division would certify and recertify qualified buyers, track every notice of intent to sell or market a property, collect and audit expense reports, manage a citywide posting and notification platform, adjudicate disputes, enforce penalties, and coordinate interagency data sharing.

COPA should be adjusted to make it more efficient and effective.

The Council should start with the overly broad definition by targeting only properties already in one of the city’s distressed buildings programs, buildings with an HPD vacate order, and those with expiring affordability agreements. This would reach the most impactful purchase opportunities where both preserving affordability and protecting tenants is critical. Focusing on properties already in the city’s system would help expedite the program’s administration.

Additionally, to ensure purchasers have the capacity and ability to buy, renovate, and manage a property, the bill should consider defining a group of pre-qualified community preservation buyers through the qualified buyers list and requiring an eligible COPA partnership to include a nonprofit and a developer from that list.

Finally, establishing clear timelines for community buyers to declare intent and then make an offer, limiting negotiations for a given sale to the first qualified COPA buyer that makes an offer, and shortening the timeline for the opt-in period to five days would help ensure the preservation of these properties happens as quickly as possible and is not an open-ended process.

The Council has an opportunity to make meaningful amendments to focus on truly distressed properties and better harness our city’s resources to serve the housing needs of our most vulnerable communities and tenants — an opportunity we can’t afford to miss.

Cestero is president and CEO of The Community Preservation Corp. Goodrich is president of Monadnock Development.