By Danielle M. Leidner-Peretz, Founder of DLP Government Relations, LLC

Finding a problem is easy. Identifying a workable, targeted solution that meaningfully addresses the problem without creating new concerns is where the story unfolds.

This is a tale of two California jurisdictions, each grappling with similar housing challenges, following comparable policy development roadmaps and discovering that creating an opportunity to purchase program is considerably more complex than merely establishing a legal right; it requires an extensive infrastructure to be fully actualized.

A Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Program (TOPA) or a Community Opportunity to Purchase Program (COPA) generally gives qualified purchasers, whether tenants or mission-driven non-profit organizations, certain rights to purchase eligible properties; a first bite of the proverbial apple. These programs rely on two distinct rights: a right of first offer requiring sellers to notify qualified purchasers and offer them the first opportunity to buy, and a right of first refusal, allowing a qualified purchaser to match a competing offer before the seller can accept it. As an owner, these rights do not simply expand purchasing opportunities; they impose mandates governing how eligible properties can be marketed and sold.

From a programmatic perspective, granting a right and having the ability to exercise that right is where the tension lies. From an owner’s perspective, establishing these rights alters a fundamental aspect of ownership, the ability to engage in a legal sales transaction free of additional government-imposed encumbrances.

The opportunity to purchase concept has existed for decades, with Washington, D.C.’s TOPA established in 1980 and renewed momentum in recent years. In 2020, the City of San Jose and a year later, Los Angeles County, each embarked on extensive evaluations of opportunity to purchase policies. Their independent analyses identified similar housing dynamics and implementation considerations.

While San Jose staff recommended adopting a COPA policy, the City Council rejected that recommendation in favor of exploring alternative strategies. Los Angeles County’s original TOPA destination has been re-routed to COPA with TOPA deferred for later. Both jurisdictions started from a similar vantage point which evolved as they examined what it would take to transform a policy concept into a functional program. Their divergent paths reveal how policymaking hinges on how government weighs mechanism against implementation realities.

These programs are often framed as leveling the playing field, an important tool in preserving housing, preventing displacement and opening a pathway to homeownership. Whether those outcomes stem from the right itself or the extensive infrastructure required to make that right meaningful is the key distinction. Policy objectives are only one side of the equation; how these transactional requirements operate in practice directly affect sellers.

San Jose’s consideration of COPA unfolded over several years of policy review, stakeholder engagement and policy design. The stated concern was that residential displacement was harming San Jose residents. With the problem established, the question posed was not whether COPA would help address it, but why it would do so. COPA was positioned on the premise that preserving an existing building is more cost effective and timely than building new housing and that it would address barriers nonprofit housing providers face in competing against traditional investors. Staff went so far as to state that not adopting a COPA policy could mean missed external funding opportunities for affordable housing.

San Jose’s staff and consultant analysis exposed the underpinnings of opportunity to purchase policies through their review of D.C.’s and San Francisco’s programs: the real leverage was not from the legal right itself; but the significant funding and infrastructure required to transform that right into an actionable program. When the City Council was presented with the final COPA proposal, their rejection wasn’t a judgment on the value of solving the problem, it was a judgment on the fiscal practicalities of the mechanism proposed to solve it.

Los Angeles County remains an open question. They conducted comprehensive research three years ago, reopening the matter in 2026 and directing staff to draft a COPA program ordinance, an education and outreach plan and conduct a reassessment of the prior TOPA consultant’s report, alongside a separate report on potential funding sources.

The July Board meeting discussion echoed core themes: COPA is a preservation tool in the toolbox, a means of leveling the playing field against corporate buyers and assurances that the program doesn’t dictate whether an owner sells or at what price. A regulatory right that inserts timelines and specific prospective purchasers into a transaction changes its dynamics regardless. For sellers, the concerns extend beyond price to certainty and timing, both of which shape how a property is marketed and sold.

One supporting proposition I found particularly perplexing: the notion that COPA creates a meaningful benefit to “mom and pop” owners who might prefer selling to a non-profit over a corporate buyer; a choice owners already have, with or without a regulatory purchase right. There was an acknowledgement that these programs necessitate a robust ecosystem and mission-driven purchasers with competence, financial capacity and staffing to complete transactions. What was absent from the discussion was whether that same funding could meet the stated objectives without building an entirely new regulatory framework.

Staff will return in the coming months with a COPA framework and draft ordinance that includes consideration of two further design options: allowing sellers to co-list a property while simultaneously notifying qualified purchasers and whether the County itself should be designated a qualified purchaser. The reassessment has only just begun but the direction is already clear: COPA first, TOPA later.

Solving societal challenges of housing affordability and displacement while creating pathways to homeownership is indisputably important. The methods used to get there, particularly when they demand significant public investment and alter private transactions, must be more than another “tool in the toolbox”.

Washington, D.C. is the cautionary tale. Its TOPA program spans decades, and its evolution demonstrates an inherent tension in creating a regulatory right: the same process that created opportunities for housing preservation also complicated the broader market through lengthy transaction delays, uncertainty and legal challenges that affected investment and housing production. In 2025, D.C. scaled back aspects of its program. D.C. stands as a clear example of what happens when purchase rights collide with the realities of ownership, investment and the housing market.