These hard working cab drivers got a rude awakening the last few weeks. Let's not mention these cabbies are struggling with high gas prices for their vehicles. When they got home, it seemed worse. Water being shut off, electricity not working. Real poor living conditions.
And then, a thirty day notice to leave their home. 30 days. One asked, "How do we find a new place on such short notice? They didn't even help us find a new location." These folks didn't understand the renters laws for proper notice. Even if they did, they did not have enough money to fight being thrown out.
These cabbies had to move their stuff in their cab. As one said, "This is how they treat us poor, hard working people who come to America, what a shame!"
11 comments:
I thought the law required 120 days notice on things like this. They should have called and still could call the Illinois Tenants Organization for help.
Of course, renters should be given due notice when a lease is being canceled -- and they should be compensated if it is the landlord breaking the lease. If they are on a month to month then they should get something better than 30 days to find new digs. (Did anyone actually see a their eviction notice?)
That said, to suggest that apartment building owners be constricted from selling their property, provided it is being sold within existing zoning laws, flies in the face of freedom and liberty and all this country was built on. Mostly, it's a kick in the teeth to the concept of private property. If RP residents insist on going down a path that disrespects private property then RP will go down the tubes too because vibrant communities do not flourish under such conditions. Don't people get that has been the very problem with RP for the last several decades?
If anyone doubts this, then check out the lovely north of Howard area that has an abundance of rental housing, particularly of the Section 8 variety, where there are constraints on what the apartment building owners can and can't do. There are a lot of rentals in RP because the community and/or the Alderman's office has not fought it. You simply can't have a nice community that is mostly transient, a good portion of which is on the dole. All you do is create a bunch of little Cabrini Greens and we seem to have quite a bunch of them in the neighborhood.
Further, many of these places (not necessarily speaking of the 1400 Lunt property) aren't the greatest digs. But if you convert a whole bunch of properties to condos, flood the market with them, then the prices will be kept low, if not depressed, and folks who may not otherwise be able to afford to buy, will be able to.
Market forces, if nutured, can solve way more problems than most policies. See NYC for a great example of a city where subsidized housing and policy has created a situation where apartments cost $1 million on average. There are hardly any working stiffs left living in Manhattan at all.
tell them to contact www.cvls.org ASAP. They may also try LAF, as well. www.lafchicago.org. Both are pro bono organization that have attorneys that can sue, where violations of the Chicago Tenant Landlord Act takes place. They should not go down without getting what they are entitled to. Of course, they need to contact these offices quickly. The Heartland Alliance may also be another option. Either org can give them the number to Heartland, where either are bogged down.
Finally, John Marshall Law School has a renters advocacy foundation, where students with 711s can fight under the supervision of an attorney professor. I think that it is in 28 E. Jackson Blvd. They can ask the security guard. They can also contact JMLS at 312-427-2737 or go to www.jmls.edu
No, they don't have to give up or fear legal fees from pro bono services.
I don't see the majority of people commenting as being against development of any kind (although some are)- I just think we all want thoughtful and well-planned development.
I am doubtful that leaving things to "the market" will benefit anyone. "The Market" tends to pave paradise from what I've seen. Just because programs in another city (NY) didn't work out doesn't mean we shouldn't try here to do it better. And Rogers Park is not Manhattan- that's a very unique place and I don't think a good comparison.
We all know the demographics of the neighborhood is higher on renters and lower on individual owners. It is a good thing that this is changing as it will make a more balanced community. I am sure many people are fearful however, that the owners will "take over" and the neighborhood will become unaffordable for them. In any case, some people are bound to be displaced, which is difficult for them.
I take issue with teardowns of solid properties that with a bit of creativity and maybe making a bit less money- could be thoughtfully re-developed rather than leveled.
It seems to me that a good land lord will probably be less likely to sell their property. If the property is well maintained and the landlords don't rent to transients and drug dealers then they can collect fair rent and be profitable. There are a few buildings on my street that are in poor shape which is a real shame because you can see that they were once beautiful. They are at 1456 W Fargo and 7450 N Greenview. The yards are filled with trash and there is no grass. Plants are growing wild and unmaintained and drug dealers operate out of the buildings. They are owned by the same person and they have recently been put up for sale. I couldn't be happier. Whether they are turned into condos or simply turned into better maintained apartments, I'll be elated so long as the place is cleaned up. My question is this: How can we encourage people to come in and buy these types of properties? Is there an incentive we can give to buy the properties we want developed as opposed to properties we would like to remain intact?
These tenants should absolutely avail themselves of any pro buono legal and housing placement services that can assist them and it's great to see some resources posted. Many tenants are not as informed about their rights as they should be; many are new to the country or are vulnerable in other ways. So, it would be wonderful to see something like Michael Harrington proposed - something proactive that would hopefully dissuade bad landlords from doing business here, make the cost of doing business higher than slum lords will be willing to pay etc.
As for the "market" vs. public policy debate...the real estate market does not operate in a public policy vacuum, obviously. There are ways to incentivize developers/owners to favor rehabs and adapative reuse, provide rental housing in cities where it is scarce, create retail, etc., through tax breaks etc., but I get the feeling that many people in RP don't trust our current leadership to pass out those carrots, and I can't really say I blame them based on some of the outcomes we've seen.
Pamela is right though, public tinkering with residential real estate markets has led to some Frankensteins - not just in NYC, but in other cities around the country as well. I think what Pamela is mainly referring to is rent control. I've lived in NYC, Santa Monica, CA, Berkeley, CA and San Jose, CA (all subject to various forms of strict rent control) and I have experienced first hand that rent control is a well intentioned policy that just doesn't work for most people (the clearest benefit is for elderly retired people who no longer need to move for employment purposes). The basic idea behind it is to reserve some, or most, rental housing at below market to protect renters, or in a variation, limit the amount that rent can increase with each new tenant; historically, it has often been spurred by fears of inflation. It's not section 8 or anything like it - it isn't even income based. It's based on who got there first and whether you qualify for various complicated (and often poorly enforced) granfathering schemes. Does it protect affordable housing for some? Yes. (But not necessarily for low income people - see the San Francisco example below) Does it cause rents everywhere else to go up? Yes. Do people fiddle the system, and is that part of the problem? Yes. Does it dis-incent landlords to maintain buildings, dis-incent creation of new rental housing, create non-existant vacancy rates, and erode the local tax base? Probably.
For a brief introduction to the history of rent control in the U.S. and various kinds of rent control around the country visit:
http://apartments.about.com/cs/landlordtenant/a/rentcontrol_5.htm
A story about the perverse effects of rent control in NYC:
http://www.city-journal.org/article01.php?aid=1616
For a pro/con discussion of rent control in San Francisco visit:
http://www.huduser.org/rbc/search/rbcdetails.asp?DocId=711
Follow the weblink on this page to get to the pro/con article.
FOr a discussion of the relationship of rent control and duration of unemployment in a European context - Denmark - visit:
http://ideas.repec.org/p/aah/aarhec/2003-11.html
For discussions of the down side of rent control in the U.S., visit:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-274es.html
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_nypost-rent_controls.htm
(Beware short-tempered socialists - these down side reports were prepared by pro free market analysts; however, they do cite economists from the left that also agree with their assessment. These analyses also jive with my personal experience.)
Sorry if this post is redundant with any that have been posted in the mean time - I had to write this in several chucks throughout the day.
Perhaps I made a bad assumption that Pamela was talking about rent control; that was based on her NYC example. Rent control has had a much more detrimental effect on rental prices in NYC than low income set asides have had. Forgive me if I misunderstood.
On the other hand, since Chicago has never had rent control, and many of the readers of this site are Chicago natives, I encourage you to read these links if you have ever been curious about whether rent control would be a good idea for Chicago.
RP doesn't strike me as being at a loss for rentals, or in danger of having a rental shortage anytime very soon. In general, Chicago has a pretty good vacancy level of rentals, compared to other major cities. I understand that some RP renters have been upset to see their rents go up lately, perhaps more than in the past, however, in many parts of the city rents have been stagnant for some time because of people buying, and I would be surprised if that were not also true in RP (at least in the aggregate). I also understand that some tenants have been displaced when their buildings go condo, but given that RP is apparently 80% rental(!), more ownership is probably not such a bad thing, but it is terrible when tenants don't even get the amount of notice that they are entitled to. And I agree that some of the recent condos will become rentals - you see this already happening.
As for section 8 and NOH - can anybody give those of us who are new to RP the history in a nutshell of section 8 and it's impact on NOH? Thanks.
Here is a link to an interesting report about section 8 housing:
http://www.urban.org/Template.cfm?NavMenuID=24&template=/TaggedContent/ViewPublication.cfm&PublicationID=7373
I know that the opinions of many of the people in the program seem extreme but their perception of being forced out of the city is not all that far off the mark.
It is very interesting to see what section 8 dwellers would like to see and also why in some cases they are so reluctant to move even though they are not happy with their current living conditions.
Thanks, James and Michael K, for those helpful comments and resources.
I have to agree with James. Any good citizen should feel obligated to set a good example for these families. I hold the door open for people, I say hello to people on the street, I bless people when they sneeze and little things like that. Sometimes people look at me lioke I have 2 heads or expect me to start preaching to them or smomething but I'd rather have that. I think it sets a good example. Also, it helps to ease tensions across racial lines. many people are taught to be distrustful of other races on both sides of the color line and any little gesture can help to break down those myths. There are some really great kids in this neighborhood who might not have a positive role model in the home. That makes it doubly important that they have one outside.
Pamela, you said:
"Market forces, if nutured, can solve way more problems than most policies. See NYC for a great example of a city where subsidized housing and policy has created a situation where apartments cost $1 million on average. There are hardly any working stiffs left living in Manhattan at all."
Um, sorry, that's a myth perpetuated by greedy landlords. The only working stiffs left living in Manhattan are the ones living in rent stabilized or subsidized housing. The reason why rents are so high in NY is every millionaire in the world wants an apartment here, and are willing to pay whatever it takes to get one. That and the outrageous amounts of money people make here on wall street, the entertainment industry, and in all the corporate board rooms.
Take it from me, I'm a working stiff living in NY now, in rent stabilized housing. I've been here for more than 10 years. I moved into an affordable neighborhood 9 years ago that has been rapidly gentrified the past few years. The only thing preserving a sense of community here are the families that can afford to remain here because they live in rent stabilized housing. I myself, couldn't still live here without it.
BTW, don't believe the oil companies when they say there is no such thing as global warming either. And the tobacco companies were lying when they said smoking won't kill you.... :)
Post a Comment