This is a story about a group of tenants that would not be held victim to the over-development machine. No, not Daisy Duke. This is a group of tenants that stood up for their rights despite what the developers thought they could get away with.
The current batch of workers are gutting apartments and porches without taking our health, welfare and safety as their first and foremost consideration, however 18 tenants still remain to fight them.
They are calling the department of buildings regularly (they are on speed dial), 311. They filed a class action suit in November.
Some of the basic "Hell Hole" facts.
7021-7035 North Greenview
* Back Porch work was being done with some questionable help. (See Photos) When I asked what they were doing one said "They spoke no English," then they all scurried off. Why would one person tell me they didn't know English? Yet the one spoke they said "didn't speak English" spoke English pretty darn well. I understood exactly what he said. But then, there are those who say I don't know English. So, I guess we were all equal. Confused, so am I. I never got an answer from the non-english speaking - english speaking person.
* A resident had money and stuff stole from his apartment recently. Tools were left behind. Police report was made. No confusion here.
* Someone told me Fran Tobin was doing something to help out? No conformation either way.
Blog-notes # 1 Keep track of the 24/7 Howard Watchers this weekend. Toni will be giving a more personal touch to this story. The way only Toni can tell it.
Blog-notes # 2 Daisy Duke is still living in her apartment. Her lease is up this month and is looking to re-locate. She stuck it out. She never lost heat or water this winter, all through-out the construction project. I would count that as a win for Daisy. Wouldn't you?
Blog-notes # 3 By the time you read this - I'm heading out of town for a motorcycle competition in Oklahoma this weekend. Yahoo. I hoping we can do a 'Broken Heart's version of Wikipedia on the Stelth Condo battle here. Some of my readers live or have lived in this building and can fill in their own facts. Remember, be civil. I will monitor the site a couple of times to double check. They do have internet in Oklahoma you know. Have a fun weekend, I will.
4 comments:
I am aghast to read this. This is really shameful and I hope that they are held accountable for this abusive behavior.
You make some really good points about the rental market etc... Good luck to you.
Toto sez:
Except in the downtown/goldcoast area of Chicago, there are virtually no new rental properties being built. There are a number of factors as to why this is so.
1) High cost of acquiring land.
2) Changes in zoning which limits heights and ergo number of units.
3) Change in tax law. Prior to 1986, a building owner could depreciate a residential building over a 15-18 year time span. Post 1986 the length of time went to 27.5 years.
4) Further changes in tax law limits deductible losses.
5) Even more recent changes in tax law in lowering the Capital Gains tax rates has made it financially attractive to sell the building. Capital Gains being taxed at rates below what ordinary income is taxed. Prior to the Bush tax changes Capital Gains and Ordinary Income were taxed at the same rate.
So what you have now is the perfect storm. Land is expensive to acquire, zoning limits on heights curtails the amount of new units that can be built and tax laws favor conversion verses purchase, rehab and rental.
Simple economics results in rental prices going up as the number of available units for rental goes down. As the rental prices goes up, it's harder to attract stable tenants. Landlords find accepting government subsidized tenant for the stable income stream. Other landlords find flipping the building to condos makes financial sense.
Until the government decides that making investment to build affordable mid-range rental properties a priority we will continue down this path. People who blindly support downzoning also add to the high cost of housing. When new construction cannot be built due to downzoning, eventually it will effect the older buildings by putting pressure on condo conversion market.
Paridise, you may be luck to have a landlord who has owned the building for sometime and has a good revenue stream. However, circumstances change and you may find your landlord selling the building out from under you.
There is no real easy solution to this equation.
I am sympathetic to Greenleaf Girl's plight, and am a firm believer that the building owner ought to be honoring the letter and the spirit of the law and simple common decency. If not, said owner should pay for flouting laws (and decency).
That said, none of us are immune from change -- be it of the housing variety, societal changes, any change. Things change. And when they don't change, things tend toward stagnancy -- often a worse scenario. Property owners in RP in the 1960s were not protected from the horrible depreciation that followed the downward spiral of the community. No one saved them, or kept them safe, or kept their investment safe (and many of these people were big contributors to the community, involved in the schools, and gave back far more than they ever took). Then, the 'hood stagnated. Also not good, particularly if you needed to sell.
We decide what's important in life: low housing cost, housing in a certain area, stability, etc. and then select where we live according to our wants and abilities. I may want to live in C'ouer D'Alene but if I can't afford it, or can't find a job in the area, then it won't happen. There is no law that says that my desire to live there should be made possible. This may be unfair on a certain level but the alternative will also lead to limited choices. I look at my inlaws in Holland who have low-cost stable housing; they also were limited in their ability to rise up (which accrued to my benefit when my husband left and came to the U.S.).
Today RP is in flux. But it was stuck in a rut of horrible proportions for DECADES. Those caught in the maelstrom of the flux don't like it -- and the reality is that any of us could be caught in the undertow. Rising property taxes could well force out long-time property owners, just as converstions are forcing out or limiting rental options. Would I like that? No. But I also recognize that things change. Sometimes I will benefit from change; sometimes change will hurt. But at the end of the day we mostly have a heck of a lot of choices, and more choices than most people in the world.
Noting that there are the equivalent of starving children is likely not going to make Greenleaf Girl feel better, and it's certainly not intended to minimize her plight (and she is to be applauded for fighting against abuse when it would be far easier to walk away). I am with Greenleaf Girl on getting the owner to do the right thing -- legally and ethically. But I am not with demanding that government step in and mandate certain kind of housing in certain communities because government intervention always (without fail) eventually leads to limited choices, particularly for those who may have less means than others.
> ... there are virtually no new rental properties being built. There are a number of factors as to why this is so.
Let me bottom-line this "complex" issue for you, dear readers:
MONEY $$$$$
Chicago doesn't have oil reserves or any steel mills left, our number one most lucrative industry is real estate. The real estate development industry's powerful lobby has purchased local government, controls the legislative process, and is pursuing further deregulation. Deregulation frees the industry to ignore the needs of residents and to focus on the needs of investors.
Post a Comment