That disclosure and that specific language is required by statute, the Map Act, (Gov Code Section 66428.1) and it actually contemplates a different situation than what is going on here.
The “protections” under the Map Act that the disclosure is aimed at are certain procedures that are intended to help avoid economic displacement of residents in the event that the park converts and, for example, where spaces are sold to get around any rent control restrictions or where the property converts to condos and become unaffordable.
Here, that’s not an issue because no one is being displaced and all residents can become members. All cooperative members have a say in the subsequent operation of the park.
The Map Act is designed to protect local control, design, and improvement of property and to protect the public, residents, and purchasers from prevent fraud and exploitation.
Here, the process is necessarily inclusive and open to all residents who choose to participate and, if the park converts and a resident decides not to join the cooperative, that resident remains in their space as a tenant paying rent to the cooperative; no one will have to move.
In short, the disclosure is problematic and isn’t really helpful or applicable here. But it’s required by statute. The residents are actually gaining protections rather than losing them.