“Clearly, this doubling of the rents of most tenants would be a de facto eviction for most of the tenants”

3501 13th St, NW

“Dear PoPville,

UIP property mgt Inc. the new owner of 3501 13th St NW, which bought the building in June for $6 million, promptly filed civil suit in July to increase the rents of every tenant in the building for $991.55 (I have attached PDFs of some of the court docs). They want to add another $991.55 to the preexisting rent of every unit in the building. The attached doc that I sent was scanned from the packet the city sent. It outlines the proposed “temporary” surcharge by unit.

UIP rent increase (PDF)

UIP court doc 1 (PDF)

UIP court doc 2 (PDF)

In what would appear to be an attempt to make an end run around various DC laws regarding tenants rights, UIP justifies this “temporary” rent increase in the name of making improvements to the property. Clearly, this doubling of the rents of most tenants would be a defacto eviction for most of the tenants of this section 8 housing.

The tenants (of which I am one) were notified on the 15th of September by the DC Office of Administrative Hearings that they were required to appear in court on Oct 24 at the Office of Administrative Hearings or risk losing the case.

Now, UIP may not succeed in this opening gambit in it’s attempt to force the people who live at 3501 13th from their homes. However, the crass disrespect towards the people who live at 3501 13th is demonstrated by the fact that they filed a suit that will require working people to take a day off and go to court to head off a cynical ploy by their landlord to evict them by other means.”

117 Comment

  • sounds like a class action lawsuit is needed…

    • Great idea. What’s your cause of action? “Availing itself of the capital improvement provisions of the DC Code?” Wait, that won’t work . . .

      • Really? Use your imagination. The suit wouldn’t be to win, but to bleed the company enough to relent.

        • It doesn’t take a great deal of imagination to come up with what you concede would be frivolous claims. (This is one of the reasons people hate lawyers – abuse of process.) There is a pending administrative proceeding, and as I posted below, there appear to be some real questions about whether the increases should be permitted. Efforts would be better spent working through that process.

    • I see no problem with this and honestly support them. If they are trying to improve an artificially rent controlled building the money needs to come from somewhere. People in that building should be happy that they arent paying 2000+ like most of DC and may only need to pay for a short period of time. I am also not necessarily heart broken if a project disappears from columbia heights (there are already too many in too dense of an area)

      • UIP allegedly “improved” the building I now live in using these methods. Let’s just say there’s a mouse infestation, the elevator is often not working and does not seem up to code, and the in-unit appliances barely function. I would be pissed if I were an existing tenant and this was the end result after a years-long renovation.

        “Here’s the cheapest possible 2’x2′ slab of granite in your kitchen to make up for all your troubles during the two year reno! Enjoy it, all you crazy kids who have inhabited the building since 1979!”

        • Not clear JCo – are you an existing tenant in a UIP building? Both rodent infestations and elevators not meeting code are violations that you should seek to redress if so. You seem to allege that UIP intentionally abuses the administrative process to extort its tenants, which is a pretty serious allegation.

          • I am now a tenant in a UIP building, but I was not a tenant before their acquisition and renovation of the property.

            UIP has been responsive to the rodent infestation thus far, but it’s required pest services to come into the apartment multiple times. It seems as though they have failed to address the root cause of the issue.

            I’m not making any allegations of extortion; however, I think UIP is rather clever and creative in its adaptation of DC laws involving tenant rights as evidenced in this post.

      • UIP knowingly bought a low-income housing building. This should come at no surprise to them that they would need to make investments to improve the building and it shouldn’t be on the backs of their low-income renters to do so. If low-income housing “disappears” from Columbia Heights, where do you think those people go? They’re pushed way out of the city, usually without reliable transportation. The majority of recipients of housing subsidies are elderly and disabled, so moving them out of an area with accessible amenities is a huge burden. Additionally, the majority of non-elderly and non-disabled housing subsidy recipients are actually employed, but don’t earn enough to afford housing. They are the workers you rely on daily for basic services in the city and they deserve to be able to live in the community that they serve.

      • What is an “artificially rent controlled building”?

  • UIP tried buying our building a few years back. We formed a tenants association and stopped the sale to them. Shady SOBs. We wound up with another developer/owner, which was it’s own nightmare, but I digress. UIP owns your building so that’s that. My advice? Get a damn good lawyer.

  • United House of Prayer…

    • What’s the UIP/UHOP connection, if any? I used to rent an apartment from UHOP (which referred to itself by the name of the church, not UIP). They were the best landlords I’ve ever had. In fact, they kept our rental price artificially low and never raised our rent once even after our neighborhood dramatically improved. We’re still friends with our contact there.

      In case you’re wondering, I’m not a member of the church or anything close to it. I just really liked my dealings with them.

      • I too am wondering if UHOP and UIP are connected — I never thought they were (not that that precludes the possibility), and a search of the City Paper article for “UIP” gets no hits.
        I know UHOP owns a lot of property, and I know UIP manages a lot of property, but are they actually connected?

    • Also want to point out that this article is 20 years old.

  • This is nuts. How long is the temporary increase supposed to last for? And the way they’ve gone about this is so shady – they’re not even prorating based on square footage. I think they’re hoping you won’t know how to fight it and will fold.

    And maybe someone can clarify, but how is this legal for Section 8 housing? And why buy a building if you clearly can’t make a profit with the way it’s operating currently.

    I’m so sorry – this sucks.

    • Well, to be fair, the previous owners couldn’t make a profit either – UIP bought the building at a bankruptcy auction.

      • Ah, great point.

        • All section 8 property is allowed to revert to market rate after a set number of year, in order to encourage investment.

          My consideration for debate though is: if you’ve lived Section 8 housing for 20+ years, why? Isn’t the intent for subsidized housing like food stamps that it’s a helping hand for those in a rough spot, not a lifetime benefit?

          • You can try living hand-to-mouth and see how easy it is to buy property & “better yourself.” Let us know how that experiment goes.

          • “You can try living hand-to-mouth and see how easy it is to buy property & “better yourself.” Let us know how that experiment goes.”

            Actually, it went really well (and is still going well) for millions of impoverished immigrants since the 18th century.

          • I don’t understand this argument. I mean I get it logically speaking, but really- who cares? Someone living in section 8 and receiving food stamps isn’t exactly living a life of luxury. Sure, it can be frustrating to see an extremely lazy person receive benefits with putting little effort into any part of life, but does it really affect you (the general you) that much? Not really. Money devoted to food stamps and section 8 is a bucket in the ocean that is the government budget. And for every lazy bum benefiting from those programs, there are many others who are able to improve and better themselves through those same programs.

          • Accountering


            That is a silly argument. Just because it is a small portion of the federal and state budget, does not mean fraud waste and abuse shouldn’t be rooted out. The families living multiple generations in this housing is a problem. I agree, these programs help tons of people, and if you can get rid of the people who are truly just taking advantage, they can help more people who actually need it. I am certain there are plenty of people on the waiting list who are much more deserving/needy than other families who have been there for decades.
            Sure, we should be cutting the defense budget, but we should also be streamlining these programs so the money we do spend (I would argue which is not enough) is spent efficiently.

  • You need a lawyer asap. Tenant petitions are complicated. Call housing counseling services, bread for the city, legal aid society, and ledc

  • UIP is very sketchy. I just signed a lease at one of their properties this past April. My one bedroom apartment was advertised for $2,150 a month. No one mentioned concessions or any other amount throughout the entire application process. As I went to sign the lease, I noticed that rent for the unit was listed as $2,760 a month. When I inquired with the property manager, they informed me that I was receiving $610 a month in concessions. Again, there was no mention of “concessions” prior to the date and time I was actually signing the lease, long after I had given notice at my old apartment, leaving me without any time to reconsider the implications. This basically gives UIP the power to raise my rent well above the maximum 10% increase that would be allowable by DC standards when the lease expires next year. At $2150, the maximum increase would be $215. UIP has the legal power to charge me up to $3,036 for my alleged $2,150 unit when my lease expires. Many congratulations to them for taking advantage of an unassuming renter at the last possible moment. At lease I now know to ask in the future.

    • A lot of buildings do this by giving you 1 or 2 months free and pro-rating it. It makes the monthly rent seem very low for the first year, but then it jumps drastically after one year. That said, you can always renegotiate at the end of your lease. If you are a good tenant and always pay on time, they may very well want to keep you so they can discount your second lease as well. It would require signing a new lease, so it takes away the option of month-to-month unless you want to pay the larger amount for that convenience.

      • I’m very familiar with concessions since I’ve lived in a number of other apartment buildings, but every other management company has notified us in advance of signing the lease (usually at a first viewing) how the prices/specials/concessions actually break down. Paradigm Mgmt, which owns many of the Meridian properties, was absolutely wonderful in terms of explaining this to prospective tenants (myself and other friends included). It seemed to me that UIP was very deliberate in never mentioning that we were receiving a deal or concessions on the place. They don’t advertise any “specials” or free months of rent.

      • I don’t know about the legality, but it seems wrong for a building to advertise the rent as $X without the mention of concessions. I always thought you had to say the rent was the pre-concession price, but with the free month, etc. it would effectively be $X.

        • That was my understanding as well. UIP recently pulled most rents down off the property website and instead posted “Call for Details” next to each floor plan.

    • I live in an arch stone building and they did the same thing. I kept asking for the lease and they waited till a few days before the move to send it, and then sent an email out about how the com sessions would be increasing and the real rental price of the unit was also increasing, a convenient 3 days before our move. I too had everything booked (change of utilities, hired movers, prepared to change jobs) shady shady. Hoping they don’t gouge me financially at the end of the end of a year

      • Fingers crossed they’re good to you at the end of the year, as they should be if you’re a good tenant. UIP never sent my lease for my review in advance of the signing, and they didn’t get around to forwarding me a copy of it for probably 3-4 weeks after I was living there. It was ridiculous.

        It brought me great happiness to realize there was a typo in the 12 month term of my lease that actually reads “beginning on the 1st day of April 2014 and ending on the 31st day of March 2014.” I’ve wondered if this could be the best loophole ever.

        • They should be, but what makes you think they will be? If they are this shady at the initial signing, I wouldn’t put much faith in them.

        • See previous posts about landlords not being allowed to force you into a non-mtm lease after your initial term expires.

    • Hah, so we signed our lease with UIP and then a month later they were like “oh, no big deal but you need to sign this new lease” which included ridiculous concessions. Since we already had a signed lease we told them where to stick it.

    • DC rent control standards only apply to buildings built before 1970.

  • what is the most a landlord can raise rent in a year?

    • Here are the legal standards for allowable rent increases: http://ota.dc.gov/page/allowable-rent-increases

    • It can vary a little bit, but normally it’s capped around 4% unless there is a vacancy in the unit. This is obviously far outside those boundaries.

      • justinbc

        This is a bit of misinformation / misdirection, as it ignores the obvious situation here where a building has been purchased. See this part of the code:
        “A housing provider may also choose to seek a larger allowable increase under other provisions of the Act, including capital improvements, changes in services and facilities, hardship or substantial rehabilitation, or agreement with 70 percent of the tenants. The other allowable increases are not automatic. The housing provider must petition or otherwise seek the consent of the Rent Administrator, and tenants may choose to participate in the process, often at hearings before an examiner.”
        They are following the legal direction given by the District.

        • I understand that, but it’s hardly the typical case, which is why I said “normally”. I’ll try to do a better job of footnoting my comments next time, but there was no intent here to mislead or misinform, just trying to give a simple answer to a simple question.

      • DC law makes it quite clear (as JCo’s link notes): CPI plus 2% (and a max of 10%). Since inflation is often around 2%, that’s why the cap is often around 4%.

    • i thought they would be covered it they could prove it was within the average rent in the area. unethical but justifiable. IDK I could be wrong

    • One thing for everyone to keep in mind, since a lot of people don’t seem to be aware of this: the rent control laws only apply to buildings built before 1975. Older buildings can also be exempt from rent control if the owner doesn’t own more than 4 rental units in DC.
      If you live in a newer building, or are renting a flat in a 3-unit building, etc., your landlord can increase the rent as much as the market will bear.

      • Assuming the landlord has applied for and received an exemption. If the landlord does not do so, then rent control rules.

      • I believe that these buildings were built before 1970 and definitely have more than 4 units.

  • “A housing provider may also choose to seek a larger allowable increase under other provisions of the Act, including capital improvements, changes in services and facilities, hardship or substantial rehabilitation, or agreement with 70 percent of the tenants. The other allowable increases are not automatic. The housing provider must petition or otherwise seek the consent of the Rent Administrator, and tenants may choose to participate in the process, often at hearings before an examiner. Find out more by visiting Other Allowable Rent Increases.”


  • Its called the free market, get over it! If you can’t afford to live with whatever the landlord charges for rent then move to somewhere less taxing on your pockets.

    • No, actually, it’s called a rent controlled market.

    • Someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed… and life…

    • Excellent.. one building down.. about 10 more to go.

    • Are you the landlord?

    • Yes, if we actually had a free market rents would be lower. DC has an absurd market that focuses on rewarding bad tenants (who take advantage of overly strong tenant protections often while not paying rent) and bad landlords (slumlords who take advantage of artificially high rents and underrepresented clients) while punishing good tenants with high rents and good landlords with an inability to get rid of bad tenants or to raise rents to market levels. The result is a restriction of the housing supply that means higher rents.

      • Boston is evidence that’s wrong. Boston eliminated rent control and rents shot up for everyone.


        It isn’t just a simple matter of supply vs. demand.

        • You’re ignoring other restrictions on building new construction that remained after the removal of rent control – it’s not as clear cut as you make it out to be.

          • As the article noted, there was a large increase in construction after rent control was removed. Most of that construction was converting houses into condos and luxury housing. Sound familiar?

            Regardless, that was my whole point: it isn’t clear cut. Even if you eliminate all construction restrictions within the District doesn’t necessarily mean rents will go down. There are many other factors in play.

          • It actually doesn’t say there was a large increase; it merely notes that more permits were issued and doesn’t compare the increase in the number of permits to the city’s population growth. Without those numbers, it’s impossible to see if the rate of new construction exceeded that of population growth.

    • Ah, the “free market,” in which the profit margin of a faceless corporation is considered more important than people who want to stay in their homes.

      The so-called “free market” is a choice we have made as a society. It is a choice we can—and should—unmake.

      • Note that you don’t see a bunch of strangers pooling their money together to build a large multifamily building. That’s because a corporation raised the millions of dollars required to build, assumed the risk of the market suddenly not supporting the number of units being built, and then allowed total strangers to live there in exchange for rent. You can blame businesses all you want, but if it weren’t for them there wouldn’t be a building in the first place.

      • What is your alternative choice?

  • This isn’t a civil suit, it’s a capitial improvement petition: http://ota.dc.gov/page/capital-improvement-petition-process. I don’t know why they think they can get 100% increases when it looks like the law only allows 20% increases for a max of 96 months.

  • If it is really Section 8 housing, wouldn’t the brunt of the increase (if not all of it) be picked up by the federal government? The amount the tenant pays is based on income and has nothing to do with the lease amount.

  • UIP took over a building I lived in at Kalorama and 20th street NW. It was infested with rats that they did not fix. The heating system was inadequate for the winter. Their so-called improvements are not worth what they claim.

    • I had a completely different experience. I lived in the same building at 20th & Kalorama for several years after the renovation. Maybe some people had rats, but I never once saw a rat/mouse or any traces of one, nor did I every hear others complaining of them. As for heating, I lived on a middle floor and my apartment would stay in the mid-60’s without ever turning on the heat (residual from hallways and lower floors I guess) in the winter. UIP wasn’t the easiest to deal with when it came to maintenance requests, but they weren’t that much different from other management companies I have dealt with in the past.

    • I lived in this building after UIP completed the reno and had the chance to speak with a few residents that lived there before and after the reno. Full disclosure, this is not my experience, rather a relay of information. My understanding is that since the building was under rent control, UIP paid tenants to terminate their lease and move. The few that chose to stay were put up in other apartments (in the same building) while their unit was under construction and then got their newly renovated unit back at the old rent-controlled price. The vacant units were then “re-set” at market rate due to the capital improvements and are now under rent control starting at the new price. I don’t see how the situation described here would be different from what the OP posted. Thoughts?

      • jim_ed

        That’s UIP’s business plan in a nutshell. The buyout is usually pretty hefty too, around $20k per unit in the last one I saw. It’s perfectly legal and allows them to buy out tenants so they can rent at market rate.

  • Call Latino Economic Development. They will stall this FOR YEARS 🙂

  • I understand that the OP is upset about this, but from a quick review of the attached pdf, a couple of things are apparent. First, this is not an “an attempt to make an end run around various DC laws regarding tenants rights” – it is a procedure expressly contemplated by the DC code. Second, “the crass disrespect towards the people who live at 3501 13th is demonstrated by the fact that they filed a suit that will require working people to take a day off and go to court to head off a cynical ploy by their landlord to evict them by other means” – they didn’t file a lawsuit, they filed a capital improvement petition per the DC code. The OAH scheduled this conference.
    All that said, the first requirement for the capital improvement plan is that it would “enhance the health, safety and security” of the tenants. Unless the existing kitchens and windows are in truly dire condition, I’m not sure how those repairs would qualify. Since that is likely a large part of the cost of renovation, the tenants may have good arguments in opposition. You do, however, need to get a lawyer immediately.

  • There are a few lawyers that specialize in tenants rights and might do so pro bono or something like that. Blake Biles who just recently retired from Arnold & Porter is one I know of.

  • Agree with dcd. And feel for the tenants if they truly can’t afford a temporary increase for the capital improvements. From the filings, sounds like the improvements are more than just cosmetic and would lead to long term quality of life and economic benefits (i.e., lower utility bills) for the tenants. If I were a tenant, I’d weigh all of that against the legal costs (and other costs) of fighting the new owner over this in court.

    • UIP’s renovation of our building, for which they used the same process and justification, resulted in basically nothing more than cosmetic fixes…

    • It wouldn’t surprise me if this is a wink-wink-nudge-nudge situation. While it sounds like improvements do need to be done and raising rents temporarily (within certain parameters) is legal, it doesn’t mean that UIP isn’t trying to get around laws/regs on moving those they don’t want out. They are just trying to move out those that can’t afford the rent they want to charge but doing it a way that is not in technical violation of the law/regs.

  • Part of me feels bad that rents are set to increase so drastically for the tenants, since that’s not something you can really plan for. Another part doesn’t feel as bad because $1000 is an incredibly low rent, and expecting to pay so little doesn’t seem super reasonable when there’s such a huge demand for housing in the city.

    What is probably best for this building (other than tearing it down and increasing density) would be to let some of the units be market rate and some others be more controlled. This way people with larger units paying more market-based rents would pay for more upkeep, while those who are less able to afford a higher rent can still contribute to the local economy. What doesn’t work is an entire building of low income earners.

    • I believe that has always been the case with this building because I know people (yuppies even) who lived there and paid market rates.

      • Yeah. My building has a mix of tenants who pay around market rate and those who pay much less (and people like me who have been there 5 years and now pay somewhat less than market rate). It’s worked out ok for the owner of my building because it has a big amount of turnover, so there are a lot more market rate tenants now than those getting a great deal. I doubt that will change too because the new renters are generally yuppies in their 20s (and therefore likely to not live there long).

        • That’s the point, the landlord has a right to re-adjust the rent upwards when a tenant moves out. Rent control is only applied to a current tenant, and even then the building has to be built before 1970.

    • There are plenty of people in rent controlled housing which pay around this rate, largely because they have lived here since it was a much cheaper city to live in.

  • I don’t see what’s so bad about this. They’re essentially making the rents market rate. I don’t see why that’s so bad.

    • It violates DC’s rent control law for older buildings. We have more than enough market rate housing, and the owner can have the rents be market rate for new tenants. This is so tenants can stick around and actually be a part of the community. Unlike Public Housing where there is no social or societal benefit and largely results in crime incubators, with rent control there is. However, the entire purpose of rent control is so existing tenants can stay in their apartments without rents that do not “shock the conscious”. Such as rents being doubled arbitrarily. As much as repairs are being used as an excuse, this is exactly what is happening. Rent control also encourages middle class people to move into areas they may not have wanted to and stay to stabalize their costs.

  • Ignoring UIP’s seemingly spotty reputation, I dont believe the reaction would be any different with a different landlord. In general, where is the money supposed to come from to renovate the building? This is a legitimate question. Is the landlord supposed to dump capital into a project to make little to no ROI? If low-income housing stock is a public policy priority, the only developer equipped and interested in operating at a loss is the government, either city or federal. No one else will invest in a guaranteed losing proposition. Since the original owner was in bankruptcy and this was part of asset liquidation, things didnt go very well with the value proposition before. Higher income renters wouldnt move in and lower income renters werent keeping the building in the black.

    BUT, if government housing is the only real option to provide below market rental rates, we have a problem, dont we? Because the world, including most people on this blog, have zero interest in public housing (even public housing that predates them) being built next to their proudly middle and upper middle class dwellings because that’s difficult to explain away to the next middle class buyer with aspirational tastes. The greatest threat to the livelihood of the poor isnt from the modern day robber barons and the multi millonaires, its from the middle classes that have champagne tastes and an interest to disassociate themselves with anyone beneath them on the socioeconomic ladder.

    The poor have to live somewhere and neither rent control schemes/regulation nor a private sector driven free market are really equipped to provide stable, long-term solutions that will help poor people accumulate wealth and stay in jobs (i.e. providing proximity to employment and low enough costs to be able to save for the inevitable end of working life). Government led housing development is unpopular and difficult to implement.

    So, to everyone who moved into a historically disadvantaged area and now resent the poor people, what is your solution? Move them somewhere that those residents have less money and power than you do, and then that population will foist them onto a group that has less than they do, and so forth until you realize that despite the best intentions of policymakers we’re still warehousing the poor through nimbyism and regulation?


    • Awesome post!

    • + 1 – Nailed it…

      • The poor have a right to live on Park Avenue, Georgetown, etc.?

        We surely don’t want families on the street but if the reward for a landlord isn’t there, they will be. As people are moving back to cities, especially in DC, these rent-controlled/subsidized renters ARE getting a windfall.

        • Windfall? They’re land rich with land they don’t own. Look, if they’re getting Section 8 vouchers then they’re probably not making that much money. It would be different if these renters were IT consultants getting cheap rent and rubbing their hands together waiting for the small plates revolution to come. My guess is that the folks getting the voucher will find them priced out of the neighborhood in more than just housing dollars.

    • The city should not promote the construction of any more public housing. Public housing doesn’t work. If you want to bring poor people into the fold you should encourage the construction of mixed income housing, and use vouchers to allow them to live where they can afford instead of cramming low income families in one location.

      How long is the average person on housing assistance? Months? Years? Decades? I believe that, as a society, we should seek to help out others in need, but at some point you should expect those receiving assistance to be able to function without it. You can come up with a laundry list of reasons why they need the assistance today – race, education, language, country of origin – but if they are comfortable having others pay for them we’ve got a huge problem.

    • But what if the apartments are not in dire need of renovation? You know, there are some folks who would choose to do without stainless steel, granite, hardwood floors in their units in favor of having affordable rent. Not every single building in DC needs to be a yuppie palace with gleaming fixtures and unnecessary amenities.

    • Public housing was not just unpopular, it was an absolute failure leading to blight and very high crime. We should end the program in general and tear down all existing public housing, especially in the district. I don’t care if the residents are displaced. The reality is we should not be warehousing poor people in an area which has low demand for low skilled workers like DC, or inside high COL cities in general. In fact the fact we do often distorts local labor economies and drives up crime rates. Instead of thinking displacement is a problem, we need to seriously ask a very reasonable question if the residents even fit the local economy well, and in many cases the answer is no.

      • So, how far away from their jobs should they live? Its not like further out suburbs want them anymore than the city does. I assume you think you’re not paying enough for the product of unskilled labor, since you do not care how much their cost of living is.

        How much more do you want to pay your housekeeper, your waiter, trash collectors, landscapers, roofers? How much less do you want to be paid because your office has to pay more for painters, cleaners, etc?

      • DC has low demand for low skilled workers? This is not intended in any way to undervalue this type of work, but who do think cleans all these office buildings, hotels, picks up the trash from all the new condos, etc.?

      • If by “low skilled” jobs you mean jobs that don’t require a college degree and are typically service oriented jobs. I don’t know who is making your lattes at Starbucks and your burritos at Chipotle?

  • This looks like an older building, so it falls under rent control. As much as the building owner may want to raise the rents that much, they legally cannot do so. They are left with two options, one is to convert to condos. The other is to make life so miserable for tenents they begin to move out anyway making the units they moved out of market rate. The entire purpose of rent control is to prevent sudden spikes such as this one.

  • Contact the Howard University School of Law Fair Housing Clinic at 202-806-8119 2900 Ban Ness St NW. They are currently representing my building in Brightwood against a similar issue; however, our new building owner filed a hardship petition that states that they are not making enough of a return on their investment. But a bunch of the documents they submitted are not accurate and there are a bunch of chronic problems with the building that have not been fixed so we are fighting it.

  • I live in said building. The people here work hard and pay rent just like everybody else in this city. The fact that you say they don’t work and drive nice cars belies the fact that said commenter is full of BS. I have lived here for over half a decade and I have no idea my kind of car most of my neighbors drive (if they have one at all). So, I will take your comment as that of a right wing, Ayn Rand worshiping nut job or that of a shill for UIP.

    • Accountering

      Oh that’s interesting, so anyone who disagrees with you when it comes to affordable housing is right-wing, Ayn Rand worshipping nut job?
      Couldn’t they just be a NIMBY? The hysterics on your part wind up just making you look ridiculous.

Comments are closed.